Mike Bridges
As a proud member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 48, I’ve spent years advocating for working people in our region. Our organization remains committed to advancing policies that are good for Washington’s working families and good for family-wage jobs. Initiative 1631 — the energy tax on the November ballot — falls short on both counts, and that is why I am voting no.
I-1631 would impose a $15 per ton fee on certain carbon emissions beginning in 2020. The fee would increase by $2 each year plus inflation, quadrupling within 15 years, with no limit on how high it could go.
Contrary to what proponents of the measure are saying, it won’t be the large polluters who are hurt the most; it will force small businesses, working families and consumers to pay more for heating, transportation fuels, clothing, and food.
Also concerning: I-1631 creates a 15-member board of unelected political appointees representing special interest groups, who are allowed to spend the taxes generated by this measure any way they wish. There is no specific spending plan articulated in the ballot measure — it is up to the board how they choose to spend the revenue generated under I-1631.
This is all created to help the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years. If it fails to meet those goals, there is no penalty, and the taxes continue on, indefinitely. It’s all right there in the initiative language for I-1631.
But the research on I-1631 gives us a better look at what 1631 would — and would not — do.
A state analysis shows that 1631 would increase energy taxes by $2.3 billion in the first five years alone. In addition, I-1631 would add hundreds of millions of dollars to ratepayers’ energy bills for higher costs for utilities. And I-1631’s taxes would continue to automatically increase every year — indefinitely, with no set cap.
Independent studies have estimated that I-1631 would increase the cost of gasoline by 13 cents per gallon in the first year alone, increasing annually with no cap. And a new independent study by NERA Economic Consulting says the total net cost per household is projected to be $440 in 2020, the first year under I-1631, and increases to nearly $1,000 per household by 2035. This reflects the increased costs for all goods and services resulting from I-1631.
NERA researchers also say these additional costs will have economic consequences. The study anticipates a loss of income to workers equivalent to 9,000 jobs in 2020, rising to 21,000 jobs in 2035. 80 percent of these jobs would come from the sectors not exempted under the measure. This includes jobs in the hospitality, healthcare, retail, and service industries. And these figures already factor in any green jobs the initiative would create in the clean energy sector.
I have always sought to do what’s best for working people and their families. Initiative 1631 would be a step in the wrong direction because of the squeeze it would put on their household budgets and the significant job losses resulting from its passage.
I-1631 wouldn’t move the needle on emissions. But it would cost working families, small businesses, farmers and consumer billions of dollars and won’t actually address climate change.
We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to leave this world a little better than we found it. I do believe we can find a better solution, one that protects jobs and the environment. Unfortunately, Initiative 1631 is just bad policy and fails to help the climate it claims to protect.
I urge a no vote on Initiative 1631.
As a business representative for IBEW Local 48, Mike Bridges works throughout Clark, Skamania, Wahkiakum, and Cowlitz counties, and with the Port of Vancouver, Cascade General, United Grain, Kraft and Port of Portland. He is also president of the Longview/Kelso Building and Construction Trades Council.
