fbpx
Donate Newsletters
Home » Housing + Cities » Transportation + Transit » Washington Can Make Polluters Pay without Boosting Highway Construction

Washington Can Make Polluters Pay without Boosting Highway Construction

SwatchJunkies

Welcome to Sightline Institute’s redesigned website!

You’ll find our same top-notch solutions research, just with a fresh new look. Learn more here about new features, or simply browse as usual. 

After last week’s article, readers may be worried that Washington’s Constitution, like Oregon’s, protects all revenue from taxes and fees on gasoline for the State Highway Fund.

Washington’s State Constitution, like Oregon’s, does dedicate revenue from taxes and fees on motor vehicle fuels to highways, roads, and bridges. But unlike Oregon’s, Washington’s constitutional provision is narrow. Wisely, the Evergreen State constitution’s 18th Amendment requires revenue from fees “intended to be used for highway purposes” (emphasis added) to be used for such, but makes clear that taxes and fees that were “not levied primarily for highway purposes” (emphasis added) do not have to be used for such. That makes sense.

Because the primary purpose of a carbon tax or fee is to hold polluters accountable for their pollution, not to raise money for highways, the Washington Constitution does not require the state to spend pollution revenue on highways. Washington groups fighting for a pollution fee or tax may legally earmark the revenue to tax breaks or investments in energy efficiency, electric cars, and forests.

In 2012, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously held that a fee levied on motor vehicle fuels for the purpose of cleaning up hazardous waste did not have to be used for highways because the revenue was “never intended to be used for highway purposes” and was always intended to be used for hazardous waste cleanup. The Court specifically pointed out that Oregon’s constitutional “language is much different from” Washington’s. It is clear beyond a doubt that “article II, section 40 does not bar the implementation of a new tax for the purpose of cleaning up hazardous substances,” so it should be a slam dunk that Washington voters can approve a new tax or fee for the purpose of preventing and cleaning up climate change pollution, and the money need not flow to the Highway Fund.

That’s one hurdle cleared away from Washington’s efforts to put a price on carbon pollution and put the revenue to good use for everyday Washingtonians.

[button link='{“url”:”http://www.sightline.org/2015/10/30/governor-inslees-executive-carbon-pollution-cap-explained/”,”title”:”Interested in more on Washington|apos;s climate action? Read all about Governor Inslee|apos;s carbon pollution cap here.”}’ color=”green”]

Talk to the Author

SwatchJunkies

Talk to the Author

Kristin Eberhard

Kristin Eberhard is a fellow with Sightline Institute and Senior Director of State & Local Policy for Rewiring America, following work as Director of Climate Policy at the Niskanen Center.

About Sightline

Sightline Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank providing leading original analysis of democracy, forests, energy, and housing policy in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, British Columbia, and beyond.

Comments are closed.

For press inquiries and interview requests, please contact Martina Pansze.

Sightline Institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization and does not support, endorse, or oppose any candidate or political party.

You can power us forward on sustainable solutions.

See an error? Have a question?

Find the author's contact information on our staff page to reach out to them, or send a message to editor@sightline.org.