OP-ED by Rep. Shelly Short

Washington citizens are proud of our state’s tremendous natural resources, abundance of clean, renewable energy and rich history of environmental stewardship. As one of the globe’s cleanest states, emitting less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the world’s carbon, we have a lot to brag about. But, you wouldn’t know it by listening to our governor and congressional delegation as they advocate for a national energy tax, also called "cap and trade.”

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly adopted H.R. 2454, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The 1,428-page measure outlines a massive and costly energy and climate change tax structure that aims to reduce carbon emissions 17 percent by 2020 through an energy-tax system of cap-and-trade.

Under cap-and-trade the government would require companies emitting greenhouse gases to purchase permits for each ton they emit. The government would annually reduce the number of permits available for emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which would increase permit prices and ration carbon credits.

I opposed this same tax scheme the governor and the majority party in our state advocated for this year. At a time when employers are shedding jobs and citizens are losing their homes and retirement savings, now is not the time to saddle families with new and higher taxes.

Much has been made about the creation of new "green jobs" the cap-and-tax scheme will generate. Proponents say so-called “green jobs” would make up for job losses in the “transition to a green economy.” I disagree.

The governor recently boasted about the creation of 47,000 new “green jobs” under her watch before Congress. On the surface, that sounds great, right? But, the facts might surprise you because her testimony tells us another story. As she stated, “…We learned ‘green jobs’ are not necessarily some brand new type of job – they are often jobs we all know only now they include new skills.” Both Congress and the majority party in Olympia have admitted there will be job losses as a result of cap-and-trade or any other carbon reduction policy.

According to the governor, the definition of a “green job” in our state is anything she wants it to be. This year, the Legislature was given many different green job descriptions: Chief executives, financial analysts, venture capitalists, loan officers, tour guides, escorts, explosives workers and truck drivers. The list goes on and on. As a person who expected to see jobs such as wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers, I was stunned to see these jobs being considered "green."

The American people deserve nothing less than honest answers to the critical questions still up for debate. Currently, 330,000 people are unemployed in our state. Our leaders in Congress and Olympia must make sure their actions will produce the outcomes we want without sacrificing working-family jobs.

It is our obligation to taxpayers to examine the financial impact of a national energy tax. We know higher business costs, including increased taxes, will be passed on to consumers. The Heritage Foundation figured the cap-and-trade bill would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As more restrictions kick in, that number increases to $6,800 per family of four by 2035. This punitive tax structure will move jobs to countries that do not have an energy tax, thereby increasing unemployment in the United States.

Eliminating jobs, hurting families and further eroding our economic base are not good for Americans. Let’s put the brakes on big-government tax-and-trade schemes and, instead, lower the burden on employers to ensure they have the resources to innovate and create the clean technologies of tomorrow, and the jobs that come with them.

# # #

Legislation to adopt a cap and trade program for emissions by employers failed to pass the Legislature this year.  Even so, Gov. Gregoire continues to spend scarce taxpayer dollars on a regional cap and trade program despite the fact that a national cap and trade program appears inevitable.

Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy and ranking Republican on the House Ecology and Parks Committee, said she was disappointed with the governor’s continued direction but will work to make sure jobs, families and the economy are not devastated by a regional cap and trade program.

"We just got a revenue forecast that says we’re continuing to see less money come into the state because people are buying less," Short said.  "Our economy continues to struggle and our folks are having trouble finding and keeping jobs.  Whatever the governor and the state do in terms of cap and trade, we cannot allow it to harm our families and our employers."

Short recently submitted a letter to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) partner jurisdictions regarding competitiveness issues of a regional cap and trade system.  The WCI is taking input from stakeholders and the general public to see what should be a part of its cap and trade program.

"Washington is a very unique place in terms of our hydro power, our industry sectors, our dependence upon trade, and our agriculture base," Short said.  "My fear is that without a concentrated and conscious effort to keep our state’s competitiveness intact, our jobs are going to be lost to non-WCI states and nations.

"Our small businesses, like those that support Boeing, pulp and paper industry, agriculture industry, and manufacturing jobs could all be put in serious jeopardy by any cap and trade program unless we step up to the plate now," Short said.

"Are the policies being put in place going to hurt hard-working families and make consumers less safe?  Are these policies just shifting emissions from WCI partners to non-WCI partners because jobs will go elsewhere?  Are the costs – both in terms of current job losses and future job opportunities wasted – associated with a cap and trade system reasonable when Washington is only responsible for a mere three-tenths of one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions?  These are all questions that need to be brought to the table," Short said.

Short’s letter to the WCI partners comes at the end of their June 19 deadline for public comment on competitiveness issues.  However, Short urges people to continue contacting the WCI’s state contact person if they have concerns.

Washington state’s WCI contact person is Janice Adair at the state Department of Ecology.  She can be reached at (360) 407-0291, or jada461@ecy.wa.gov.

                                                                                                 # # #

For more information, contact: Brendon Wold, Senior Information Officer: (509) 921-2356

Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, and ranking Republican on the House Ecology and Parks Committee, testified before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday regarding the federal government’s plans to regulate greenhouse gasses. The EPA hearing in Seattle was the second of only two opportunities for public input.

"For the record, my name is Shelly Short and I am a member of the Washington State House representing the 7th Legislative District.  Thank you for holding this hearing to gather the public’s input.

"You are holding this hearing in a state that is very unique from many states in the nation, blessed with tremendous natural resources in our rivers, our forests and agriculture, our ability to feed the world and our ability to produce an abundant supply of clean, renewable, affordable energy in our hydropower production.

"Renewable energy such as wind, solar, biomass and waste-to-energy is becoming part of this state’s energy mix as well.  And this state’s global carbon footprint amounts to 3/10ths of 1%.

"Our state’s unemployment has risen to an all-time high of 9 percent and thousands of jobs have been lost during this recession.  Three counties in my legislative district, Ferry, Pend Oreille and Stevens, have the unfortunate distinction of having the highest unemployment in this state at 16% and 17%.  The state of the economy cannot be ignored in this process.

"EPA’s decision to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the United States, including small business and small communities.

"While I believe that the actions you are taking are best suited to be addressed by policymakers in Congress, and not by a regulatory entity, your decisions to regulate CO2 cannot be made in a vacuum without regard for the physical, mental and economic health and welfare of families and the jobs they depend upon.  You can show the American people that their jobs and livelihoods are just as important as addressing the cyclical effects of climate change in this country.

"My testimony will focus on four areas that I believe are necessary for EPA to incorporate into its draft finding, or in the alternative for Congress to address:

1. EPA needs to fully explain in its draft finding why its existing authority to regulate under the Clean Air Act is not enough to adequately protect public health from alleged ozone impacts of climate change, given that it already has the authority to regulate the tropospheric ozone.

2. Given the ramifications this action will have on the economy of the country, a country that I might remind you is in a severe recession, it is imperative that EPA undertake a systematic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis that includes the following: a) the cumulative "human health effects" of this finding on American families and their jobs and livelihoods, homes, and health insurance; and b) the cumulative effects of increased importation of products and goods and services from foreign countries, increased transportation, which will most likely result in marked increases in global greenhouse gas emissions, environmental degradation and the erosion of product safety protections.  One need only remember the toxic pet food, toys and wallboard supplies from China that have endangered the health and welfare of our families, children and pets.

3. EPA needs to integrate into its finding an acknowledgement and discussion that the climate change science you are relying on for this finding is far from settled and agreed upon.  Thousands of scientists, including some that originally worked within the IPCC, question many aspects of climate change theory as compiled by the IPCC.  The models that make up the work of the IPCC do not include important factors such as solar activity to name a few.  Natural climate variability needs to be discussed more thoroughly and added into the mix as does the fact that water vapor is the largest component of greenhouse gas.

"It became clear to me during my work as ranking member on the Ecology and Parks committee and the hours of testimony, articles and reports show that the climate change science you are relying upon is far from settled and agreed upon.  In fact, this committee received testimony under the guise of addressing climate change discussing the need to "legislatively level the playing field" so renewable energy could compete with low-cost hydropower.

"Another piece of testimony came during our debate on cap and trade legislation where it was acknowledged quite openly that this legislation would be a tool for redistribution of wealth and to give broad authority to unelected, regulatory agencies to determine the winners and losers in our state’s economy.  So I have to wonder whether in fact EPA’s finding creates the mechanism for doing the same on a national scale?

4. EPA needs to recognize a very critical component of dealing with cyclical effects of climate change – that being adaptation.  EPA should analyze the adaptive tools we currently have in developing flood control, forest management and water storage to name a few.  EPA should further analyze the impediments to utilizing those tools and report that information to Congress and to the States.  We have the ability to help the American people adapt to climate change, encourage energy efficiency and support the innovative advances that are being made in renewable energy and alternative fuels, while keeping a strong and vibrant economy.

"In conclusion, I urge you to recognize that climate change science is in dispute; that EPA forcing emission reductions in the United States will just shift emissions to elsewhere in the world while wreaking continued havoc on an economy that is in recession.

"Poverty is the biggest polluter.  Even the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recognized in part that: ‘….any policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.  To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio/economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors.’

"Congress and the EPA should both heed this advice."

# # #

Contact: Brendon Wold, Senior Information Officer, (360) 786-7698

Governor Christine Gregoire issued an executive order on climate change today which contains several directives and policy points found in her cap and trade legislation that failed to pass the Legislature.

Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, and ranking Republican on the House Ecology and Parks Committee, released the following statement today regarding the governor’s executive order:

"I would have preferred her to allow the legislative process take its course so that an agreement could be reached within the structure of the Legislature.  Regardless, I, and my House Republican colleagues, will continue to work with her to ensure that climate change policies take into account our families, our jobs and our state’s economy."

# # #

Contact: Brendon Wold, Senior Information Officer, (360) 786-7698

Amendment to Senate measure affirms ‘green credentials’ of Washington’s
top power source

In an unexpected turn of events Friday, Senate Bill 5840 was amended to include hydropower as part of Washington’s green energy portfolio. Opposition to the change cite Initiative 937, which excluded hydropower as a green, renewable energy source.

Reps. Joel Kretz and Shelly Short supported the bill as amended and are pleased some of their Democrat colleagues supported the House Republican proposal and voted in favor of the amendment adding Washington’s top power source to the list of "green" energy sources.

"We enjoy fairly inexpensive energy in our state, compared to locations that do not have the innovative approach to generating power through water," said Kretz, R-Wauconda. "It’s a victory for our state to show the nation that not only are we looking for new and clean energy sources, but we are ahead of the pack when it comes to low-carbon energy generation."

"This is a huge win for our state, our energy producers, our rate payers, and future job creation," said Short, R-Addy. "This is going to help keep utility rates down at a time when hard-working families need every penny of savings they can get.  This also places our renewable energy goals for the next decade within reasonable reach."

Initiative 937, passed by voters in 2006, imposed new restrictions on Washington’s utilities in an effort to reach targets of specifically selected energy types. Using a series of incremental steps, Initiative 937 would require that 15 percent of Washington’s energy meet its definition of “renewable” by 2020. Hydropower was not included in the initiative’s definition of an "eligible renewable resource."

However, Senate Bill 5840, as amended by the House, would require hydropower be included in the list of eligible renewable resources alongside wind and solar.

The bill will now be sent back to the Senate for concurrence with the amendment.

# # #

For more information, contact: Bobbi Cussins, Public Information Officer: (360) 786-7252