Key Findings
1. House Bill 2251 significantly restructures the funding accounts in the Climate Commitment Act, aligning them more closely with state budgeting.
2. The bill expands how CCA funds can be spent, making it more political and less focused on measurable results.
3. It cuts funding for air quality projects for overburdened communities by at least half compared to the existing CCA intent.
4. The legislation breaks a key promise that agricultural fuel would be exempted from the CO2 tax.
5. Reports showing how CCA funding is spent will be less frequent, requiring a report every other year instead of annually.
6. Funds in the CCA Operating Account are required to “maximize access to economic benefits from such projects for local workers and diverse businesses,” reducing the effectiveness of projects at meeting environmental goals.
7. HB 2251 is a step in the wrong direction for the CCA which already has a poor record of delivering effective results for the environment and overspends on bureaucracy and political agendas.
Introduction
When the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) was adopted in 2021, it was promised that the revenue generated by the law would be spent on reducing CO2 emissions and the impacts of climate change. More than $1.5 billion of CCA revenue has been spent and the results thus far have been poor.
So far, CCA-funded projects are projected to reduce just 308,000 metric tons of CO2 over their lifetime, equivalent to 0.3 percent of the state’s annual emissions. Additionally, a significant portion of CCA spending in the state operating budget goes to expanding government bureaucracy rather than actual programs.
Now, House Bill 2251 (HB 2251) proposes making significant changes to how that revenue is used. Some of the changes would simply align spending with existing state operating and capital budgets. Other changes would broaden the scope of what can be funded, reduce oversight of the spending and break a key promise to farmers about the impact of the CCA on fuel costs. The result is that the spending would be based more on politics and less on effectiveness and measurable results.
This legislation is a move in the wrong direction, further detaching the billions in CCA revenue from real-world environmental benefits. Some alignment between CCA accounts and state budgets may be appropriate. However, the bill includes several elements that betray the promise that the law would address the risks from climate change.
READ THE FULL LEGISLATIVE MEMO HERE