This explainer presents both sides based on the measure's text. It does not recommend a vote.
Plain English Summary
Initiative 2117 would eliminate Washington's Climate Commitment Act, which requires companies to pay for carbon pollution through a cap-and-invest system. This would end the state's carbon market and the associated fees that businesses pay for their emissions.
If YES
Businesses would no longer pay carbon fees, potentially reducing costs for fuel, utilities, and other goods
confidence: high
State funding from carbon auction revenues for environmental and transportation projects would end
confidence: high
Washington would no longer have a cap on total carbon emissions from major polluters
confidence: high
Existing climate programs funded by carbon revenue would lose their primary funding source
confidence: high
If NO
The Climate Commitment Act would remain in effect with its carbon pricing system
confidence: high
Continued funding for environmental and clean energy projects from carbon auction revenue
confidence: high
Carbon emissions from covered industries would remain capped with limits decreasing over time
confidence: high
Businesses would continue paying carbon fees that may be passed on to consumers
confidence: high
Financial impact
Repealing the carbon tax would eliminate a revenue source for the state while potentially reducing costs for businesses and consumers. The exact fiscal impact depends on future carbon auction prices and program spending.
TL;DR
This measure would eliminate Washington's carbon pricing system that charges businesses for pollution.
Limitations
Based on measure title only — full text analysis may reveal additional details
Arguments For and Against
Arguments For
Supporters argue the Climate Commitment Act functions as a hidden gas tax that raises energy costs for families and businesses without meaningfully reducing global emissions.— Let's Go Washington
Arguments Against
Opponents argue repealing the act would eliminate billions in funding for clean air, clean water, wildfire prevention, and salmon recovery programs.— No on 2117 Coalition
Critics contend that Washington's cap-and-invest program is already generating results and that repeal would make the state unable to meet its statutory climate goals.— Washington Department of Ecology