Sue Lani Madsen: On I-2117, it’s not a fair fight

Brian Heywood is feeling a bit like David standing up to Goliath, or maybe that’s two Goliaths. Let’s Go Washington is facing not only a No on 2117 campaign funded by left-wing billionaires, but a grant program from the state of Washington using taxpayer dollars.

It became clear in December that I-2117 rolling back the revenue-generating carbon market system known as the Climate Commitment Act was going to make the November ballot. Gov. Jay Inslee sprang into action to protect his legacy project. He announced a one-time grant program to send $200 each to lower- and middle-income households across Washington. The $150 million program is being administered through the Department of Commerce.

In an email exchange on Wednesday, Mike Faulk on behalf Gov. Inslee called the program “one result of many conversations our office had with environmental justice and housing advocates about how CCA can support low-income households in the energy transition.”

To comply with the legislation signed by Inslee on March 29, the “funds must be deposited into eligible customers accounts on or before Sept. 15th, before the state votes on the initiative” according to an April 8 email from Cheryl Chan Hardee, deputy assistant director of the Energy Division for the Washington State Department of Commerce.

Commerce can apparently move fast when it wants to, and it apparently wants to defeat Initiative 2117 more than it wants to get assistance out to victims of the Gray and Oregon Road fires. Commerce is also responsible to implement HB 1899 to provide emergency relief for energy-related costs to households rebuilding housing. That small rebate program isn’t expected to get money distributed to anyone, no matter how eligible or how desperate they are as they transition, until sometime in 2025.

Let’s Go Washington has been hosting “Rollback the Price” events around the state to highlight the estimated impact of the Climate Commitment Act on energy costs at the gas pump, to raise awareness of the initiative, and to support a get-out-the-vote campaign. Left-wing backers of No on 2117 have called that paying for votes, even though the discounts are available to anyone whether they pledge to vote yes on the initiatives or not.

A rollback event was held Saturday in Colfax before the Washington State football home game. State Rep. Mary Dye, R-Pomeroy, had the local equipment dealer bring in a new, bright red Case Steiger 715 tractor with a 520-gallon fuel tank to highlight the compounding impacts of the price of fuel. Food takes fuel to produce, fuel to transport for processing, and fuel to deliver to the local market.

On her family farm, a typical day’s field work would require approximately 400 gallons of diesel per tractor, and the tank would be topped off at the end of each day.

“Farmers get paid pennies on a bushel of wheat, so saving even pennies on a gallon of fuel makes a difference,” Dye said.

As she enjoyed the “new car” smell in the cab, the salesman from the dealership joked maybe if fuel prices were lower the Dye farm could afford to buy one.

For most of those pulling up at the pump in Colfax, topping off a fuel tank was a savings of less than $20 and cost them a few minutes of voter education from a polite young person. It was a voluntary interaction. No pressure, unlike the interaction between officials at Commerce and utility companies around the state.

Utility companies were originally told incorrectly that the Legislature “has required that all utilities participate,” in Hardee’s April email. Only later did Commerce clarify that participation was not mandatory, but real pressure to send a favorable message on the CCA came with the money.

Contracts issued with the grant program required utilities to use the CCA logo and the following statement on all related communications: “The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving public health.”

Heywood is not buying it.

“This disproportionately impacts people in the low-income scale and the Inslee administration knows it … and they built into this thing a $200 bribe to 675,000 households saying we’re going to send you $200 right before you vote,” Heywood said.

The contract for the grant program also states, “No funds may be used for working for or against ballot measures or for or against the candidacy of any person for public office,” but it looks an awful lot like election interference from the state with the emphatic emphasis on getting it done “before the state votes on the initiative.”

Has anyone ever filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission on the state Legislature or a state agency? It makes the millions raised from the billionaire backers of the No on 2117 campaign look mighty puny.

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.