It’s been five years since the Climate Commitment Act became law in Washington State. Since that time, we’ve been intimately involved in how the law is being carried out—whether it’s calling for budget writers to meet the law’s obligations to frontline communities, opposing a potential repeal of the law, or redirecting funds generated by the law to those hit first and worst by climate change impacts.
But what is the Climate Commitment Act? Why do we involve ourselves with a law that, before its passage, we actually opposed? Let’s talk about it.
What are the Climate Commitment Act’s inherent flaws?
Washington’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA) is complicated and controversial, and frontline communities have every reason to side-eye it. It established a false solution: a market-based cap-and-trade program that lets major polluters buy the right to emit greenhouse gases and even gives some of them free passes to pollute. It adds costs that get passed down to consumers. Our analysis prior to the bill’s passage and signing—which indicated that the CCA would ultimately do little to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions—has unfortunately been proven correct. And for communities already living with toxic air, the prospect of “pay to pollute” sounds a lot like the same environmental racism that created hotspots in the first place.
At its heart, the Climate Commitment Act prioritizes economic flexibility for greenhouse gas emitters over mandatory, source-specific pollution reduction. It relies on state agencies to allocate billions of dollars in cap-and-trade revenue without always providing clear, enforceable budget language. And it leaves too much discretion in the hands of agencies instead of the communities most impacted by environmental harm.
Ultimately, the law’s failure to meet key environmental justice principles is exactly in line with what frontline communities have been denouncing for decades. But that’s exactly why we continue to engage with the law—especially since there are multiple opportunities for frontline communities to benefit from what the CCA offers.
What does the Climate Commitment Act get right?
The Climate Commitment Act has advanced environmental justice (EJ) in ways and at a scale no previous statewide climate policy has done, in large part thanks to the fact that the cap-and-trade program is generating a lot of revenue—more than $4.3 billion since 2021. That’s because the CCA uses the same investment framework that we advocated for when we drafted the language and campaigned for Initiative 1631 in 2018:
The Climate Commitment Act states that a large portion of the revenue generated by the cap-and-trade program is legally required to benefit frontline communities. Specifically, at least 35% of all investments, with a target of 40%, must “benefit overburdened communities,” and at least another 10% must support Tribal projects. These communities are defined using the Environmental Health Disparities Map, which identifies the neighborhoods most harmed by pollution and health inequities.
Unfortunately, our past budget analyses (2023, 2024, and 2025) have shown that the state has never fully met the Climate Commitment Act’s mandated funding target of 35%. Yet in spite of that obligation not being fulfilled, frontline communities have done so much with the resources they did end up receiving. For example, the CCA has directly funded HEAL capacity grants, community assemblies, community-led transportation justice initiatives, community air quality monitoring, and port electrification.
Despite its flaws, the Climate Commitment Act does hardwire some EJ into state law. Specifically, the CCA requires targeted air quality improvements in 16 highly impacted communities, and the state’s Department of Ecology is required to develop plans to reduce criteria pollutants—not just carbon emissions—in these exact neighborhoods. This is a direct response to the hotspot problem, where pollution remains concentrated in certain communities even as statewide emissions are reduced. Because companies can comply with the CCA by purchasing allowances instead of reducing emissions at their facilities, harmful co-pollutants can persist locally. This creates a disconnect between overall climate progress and the lived experience of air quality in frontline communities.
The Climate Commitment Act is also tied into the Healthy Environmental for All (HEAL) Act, which we helped shape, write, and ultimately pass into law in 2021. The HEAL Act created the Environmental Justice Council, which is composed of community members and EJ advocates. Councilmembers review investments and make recommendations on the state budget (which can include allocation of CCA revenue). They also make recommendations to agencies and demand accountability, providing a level of oversight that frontline communities have been asking for for decades. Beyond oversight, the CCA funds are producing immediate, tangible benefits. Funding for projects that reduce toxic exposure, lower energy burdens, and shift power to community organizations have been made possible thanks to the CCA.
Even considering the Climate Commitment Act’s flaws, the language of the law contains enforceable targets, community oversight, and legally-mandated EJ investments. It creates measurable obligations: reduced air pollution in specific neighborhoods, public reporting, transparent investments, and funding streams that continue year after year.
Here’s the bottom line:
The Climate Commitment Act is flawed, and it’s one of the strongest environmental justice policy tools we have. Is it messy? Yes. Is it market-based? Yes. Does it allow industry too much flexibility? Absolutely. But the funding it generates—funding dedicated to frontline communities—is real, and without the CCA there is no comparable revenue source for this scale of EJ programming in Washington State. Without it, programs we care about simply would not exist. That’s why we stay at the table: because there are opportunities for environmental justice that we can’t ignore.
So what’s next for frontline communities?
Since the Climate Commitment Act became law, we have worked to ensure that it is being implemented in a way that addresses the climate crisis while also promoting justice. We have advocated for budget writers to direct CCA revenue to frontline communities and for decision-making regarding said revenue to involve frontline communities. We have pushed for accountability in implementation by creating mechanisms to track how funds are spent and see whether or not intended goals are being achieved.
A lot of attention is paid to how CCA dollars are spent, but there is far less scrutiny about whether or not the required 35% is actually reaching frontline communities in a meaningful way. Washingtonians on the frontlines of climate change are continuing to stretch what limited funding they did receive to deliver real impact, but imagine how much more communities could achieve and how much more the state could help advance climate resilience for people all across the state if it actually properly honored the 35% funding obligation.
We are currently focused on understanding and building these aforementioned possibilities, as well as holding the state accountable to the intent of the law, and we will share a more detailed budget analysis soon. And as always, we will continue to ensure that frontline communities are not left behind—that they keep playing an active role in shaping and benefitting from the policies that are being put in place to tackle the problems that impact them first and worst.
Stay tuned: we will be sharing more soon in our upcoming blog posts on linking Washington’s carbon market to California and Québec’s markets, opportunities to advocate for clean air, and other ways connected to the Climate Commitment Act for Washingtonians to engage and make your voice heard!