OLYMPIA, Wash.— Democrats on Monday unveiled a new carbon-reduction bill designed to be more palatable to food manufacturers, but the processors aren’t swallowing it.
Gov. Jay Inslee’s cap-and-trade proposal—the centerpiece of his climate-change agenda—has not only failed to gain traction in the Republican-led Senate, it hasn’t passed the Democratic-controlled House. Three weeks ago on Earth Day, Inslee said lawmakers did nothing for the environment, but could redeem themselves during the special session.
To broaden support, the reworked bill includes tax breaks and credits for the wood-products industry and agribusiness.
“This new draft proposal advances our goal to reduce carbon emissions so we can have a safe environment while at the same time addressing the major concerns raised by impacted businesses,” said House Environment Committee Chairman Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle.
Like Inslee’s proposal, the new version would require manufacturers to bid for a limited number of credits to emit greenhouse gases.
The difference is that food processors and other industries that compete globally would be eligible for tax rebates covering 100 percent of their compliance costs until 2020 and 80 percent until 2026.
Northwest Food Processors Association lobbyist Ian Tolleson said the group still opposes the bill because it would eventually raise expenses.
“What happens when that credit goes away? It’s just kicking the can down the road,” he said.
Tolleson said food processors have been working with each other since 2009 to cut electricity consumption and shave emissions.
“We really are doing what we can to reduce emissions,” he said. “What we don’t want is someone telling us how to do it.”
The bill also offers a tax credit of 3 cents per gallon of fuel for transporters of agricultural bulk products. The credit would reduce taxes transportation companies pay on their gross income.
A lobbyist for regional rail lines, Patrick Boss, said Tuesday he was gathering reaction to the bill and weighing its potential impacts.
“The previous bill didn’t speak to the benefits or issue of railroads,” he said. “This one may have one good piece for agricultural, but it may have other bad pieces.”
Source: www.capitalpress.com