Washington Gov. Jay Inslee gets into an SUV after speaking March 6 on a nonpartisan panel discussion titled “Foreign Affairs and National Security in the Age of Climate Change” hosted by the University of Washington Jackson School and the American Security Project on the UW campus in Seattle. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, file)

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee gets into an SUV after speaking March 6 on a nonpartisan panel discussion titled “Foreign Affairs and National Security in the Age of Climate Change” hosted by the University of Washington Jackson School and the American Security Project on the UW campus in Seattle. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, file)

Showdown on Inslee’s clean air rule reaches Supreme Court

Justices will consider whether Inslee had authority to impose regulations. A lower court said no.

OLYMPIA — In 2015, after another session without procuring a key weapon in his climate change fighting strategy, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee decided to get it done on his own.

He had pledged to combat a looming environmental cataclysm and was tired of lawmakers thwarting attempts to engage in the battle in a meaningful way.

Tapping into his executive powers, Inslee directed the state Department of Ecology to design a means of capping and, over time, reducing emissions of pollution-abetting carbon.

A sweeping rewrite of the state’s clean air rules emerged. A legal challenge from a few of those in the crosshairs of the new regulations ensued. And in December 2017 a Thurston County judge found the gubernator’s decree went too far and blocked the rule from taking effect.

On March 19, the content of the rule and the breadth of Inslee’s executive authority will be considered by the state Supreme Court.

Ironically, such flexing of executive muscle on behalf of one’s political agenda is what we’ve come to expect from President Donald Trump, the man whose job Inslee is seeking. It’s been Trump’s go-to exercise when stymied by Congress from keeping his political promises.

Trump has pretty much lost every courtroom encounter. It’ll be a few months before the fate of Inslee’s endeavor is known.

The rule crafted by the governor’s ecology agency set emission standards for both stationary sources of pollutants and purveyors of fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases when burned.

It targeted the state’s largest emitters such as natural gas distributors, petroleum product producers and importers, power plants, metal manufacturers and landfill operators. Large manufacturing operations, such as the Boeing Co. plant in Everett, also made the list of those expected to be affected at some point.

Inslee wanted to require each of the 68 outfits on the list to reduce carbon emissions by an average of 1.7 percent annually. Initially, the rule would apply to those that release at least 100,000 metric tons of carbon a year. Every three years the threshold would drop and as a result more companies would be subject to the requirements.

In the legal challenge, natural gas providers argue the rule should not apply to them as they do not generate emissions which they can reduce. The Association of Washington Business contends the approach is a flat-out overreach from the executive branch.

AWB lawyers argue in their brief that Inslee had become “fed up” with the Legislature when it didn’t act in 2015 and ordered the agency to come up with the rule.

“As Ecology conceded in an internal memorandum: ‘Alternatives were not considered because the Department of Ecology was directed by Governor Inslee to develop and adopt a rule,’” they wrote.

State attorneys counter the department has “broad authority” to set emission standards and the rule “should be upheld in its entirety.”

But each provision can be dealt with separately, they contend. If one is found invalid, the rest “can remain in place and perform the important task of reducing Washington State’s greenhouse gas emissions,” they wrote.

The Supreme Court hearing comes as Democratic lawmakers are on course to enact several bills — such as a low-carbon fuel standard and providing electricity from non fossil fuel sources — which are projected to reduce carbon emissions on a par with what the Clean Air Rule originally sought to accomplish.

Inslee still wants the rule. If restored by the court, it would further embolden the governor and presidential candidate on his self-proclaimed mission to save the world for future generations from the devastation of climate change.

“I filed an executive order that I believe is totally within my executive authority to do,” Inslee told a crowd of mostly students at a University of Washington forum earlier this month. “ There’s some dispute about that and the Supreme Court is going to decide. I hope they decide it in favor of all of our grandchildren.”

Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623; jcornfield@herald net.com. Twitter: @dospueblos.

More in News & Comment

State high court upholds $1,000 fines on ‘faithless electors’

They signed pledges to back their party’s nominee, Clinton, in 2016, but then voted for Colin Powell.

Pow! Bam! Inslee delivers a one-two punch of executive power

Governor shifted $175M to culverts and vetoed a sentence he said threatened funding for transit.

Self-driving cars: Heaven or hell?

Depending on factors, traffic and environmental impacts could become better or worse.

King County’s $5 million derelict boat problem

When a boat sinks, it costs a lot to bring it up, with millions being spent since 2003 on removals.

Ashley Hiruko/illustration
Susan’s quest for ‘justice’ and the civil legal system dilemma

While citizens have the right to an attorney in criminal cases, they’re not afforded the same rights in civil litigation.

Upon further review, EPA wants to redo water quality rules

Feds say they’ll use what the state submitted in 2016 even though they’re no longer the state’s faves.

King County Councilman Reagan Dunn sent a letter to the FBI asking for them to help investigate Allan Thomas (pictured), who is under investigation for stealing more than $400,000 of public funds and skirting election laws in an Enumclaw drainage district. Screenshot from King 5 report
King County Council requests report on special districts in wake of fraud allegations

Small, local special districts will face more scrutiny following Enumclaw drainage district case.

The Marquee on Meeker Apartments, 2030 W. Meeker St. in Kent, will feature 492 apartments and 12,000 square feet of retail. The first phase of 288 apartments is expected to be completed in early 2020. Developers are targeting people in their 20s and 30s to rent their high-end, urban-style apartments. Steve Hunter/staff photo
Housing study pokes holes in conventional wisdom

High construction and land costs will incentivize developers to build luxury units.

File photo
Eviction reform passed by state Legislature

Tenant protections included longer notices and more judicial discretion.

Most Read