State slowly setting its own emissions goals
Seattle Post-Intelligencer|April 3, 2007
As the U.S. Supreme Court took decisive action Monday on the matter of planet-warming emissions, a proposed law in Washington to reduce carbon dioxide pollution continued to creep along, scarred and slightly mangled from multiple revisions. In its original form, the bill would have set state goals for cutting greenhouse gases, created limits for how much carbon dioxide new power plants could release, created a state climate office and required other actions to reduce pollution that's contributing to climate change. Since then, the legislation has morphed into a Franken-bill with new rules tacked onto it and major rewrites. It was then patched together into something approximating its original form and on Monday, it was tacked onto another piece of legislation to help ensure its survival. "Trying to figure out how to stop global warming is complex," said Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish. "We know it's a problem. How do we deal with it? There are various schools of thought."
As the U.S. Supreme Court took decisive action Monday on the matter of planet-warming emissions, a proposed law in Washington to reduce carbon dioxide pollution continued to creep along, scarred and slightly mangled from multiple revisions. In its original form, the bill would have set state goals for cutting greenhouse gases, created limits for how much carbon dioxide new power plants could release, created a state climate office and required other actions to reduce pollution that's contributing to climate change. Since then, the legislation has morphed into a Franken-bill with new rules tacked onto it and major rewrites. It was then patched together into something approximating its original form and on Monday, it was tacked onto another piece of legislation to help ensure its survival. "Trying to figure out how to stop global warming is complex," said Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish. "We know it's a problem. How do we deal with it? There are various schools of thought."
As the U.S. Supreme Court took decisive action Monday on the matter of planet-warming emissions, a proposed law in Washington to reduce carbon dioxide pollution continued to creep along, scarred and slightly mangled from multiple revisions.
In its original form, the bill would have set state goals for cutting greenhouse gases, created limits for how much carbon dioxide new power plants could release, created a state climate office and required other actions to reduce pollution that's contributing to climate change.
Since then, the legislation has morphed into a Franken-bill with new rules tacked onto it and major rewrites. It was then patched together into something approximating its original form and on Monday, it was tacked onto …
... more [truncated due to possible copyright]As the U.S. Supreme Court took decisive action Monday on the matter of planet-warming emissions, a proposed law in Washington to reduce carbon dioxide pollution continued to creep along, scarred and slightly mangled from multiple revisions.
In its original form, the bill would have set state goals for cutting greenhouse gases, created limits for how much carbon dioxide new power plants could release, created a state climate office and required other actions to reduce pollution that's contributing to climate change.
Since then, the legislation has morphed into a Franken-bill with new rules tacked onto it and major rewrites. It was then patched together into something approximating its original form and on Monday, it was tacked onto another piece of legislation to help ensure its survival.
"Trying to figure out how to stop global warming is complex," said Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish. "We know it's a problem. How do we deal with it? There are various schools of thought."
Lawmakers are scheduled to wind up business by April 22.
"Right now it appears that responsible public policy is going to win the day, but we'll need to stay vigilant until the bill is safely in the governor's hands," said Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver, and sponsor of the original Senate bill.
In February, Gov. Chris Gregoire joined governors from Oregon, California, Arizona and New Mexico to create a pact with the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. She released a set of goals for cutting Washington's carbon dioxide emissions over time, goals that the legislation would make law.
One of the most contentious issues has been whether new power plants must meet strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions -- a rule already in place in California -- or if the facilities could release the pollution and pay for carbon dioxide-cutting efforts elsewhere.
The rule could affect the construction of fossil fuel-powered plants, such as the one proposed by Energy Northwest. The Richland-based, non-profit power producer wants to start building an energy facility in Southwest Washington next year. It would be powered by petroleum coke -- a waste byproduct created when oil is refined into gasoline. The petroleum coke would be turned into a cleaner-burning gas that then is converted into energy.
The trouble is, the plant would produce more carbon dioxide than a natural gas facility, and much, much more than wind turbines or solar power. So the plan is to trap a portion of the carbon dioxide in rocks. Lab tests have shown this can work and a real-world trial is scheduled for this fall, said Brad Peck, spokesman for Energy Northwest.
Peck supports the version of the legislation that includes an option for paying for emissions, though it appears to be the underdog.
"Clearly for us some degree of flexibility in addressing (carbon dioxide) is important to being able to finance a project," he said.