Committee on Transportation and the Environment
On Tuesday, CCAN Carbon Pricing Campaign Director Camila Thorndike represented nearly 70 organizations when speaking to the D.C. Council about the necessity of a carbon price at the DOEE Budget Oversight Hearing.
Mayor Bowser and the D.C. council plan for D.C. to be carbon neutral by 2050. Camila reminded the council that “the least expensive fuel will win”, emphasizing how important a carbon price is as we move away from fossil fuels. DC needs substantive policy interjections if we want to have any hope of reaching our carbon neutral goal.
WATCH the amazing Camila give her testimony — or, read a script below.
Thank you to Committee Chair Cheh for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. My name is Camila Thorndike, and I am here representing nearly 70 organizations and thousands of voters behind the growing campaign to Put a Price on It D.C. We are proud to work with your office, with Director Wells, and the rest of the Council to advance comprehensive climate policy.
First, we applaud Director Wells and the Bowser administration for setting ambitious goals.
Last year, Mayor Bowser told the world “We’re Still In” the Paris Climate Accord. The Sustainable DC Plan establishes commitments for the District to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 2006 levels by 2032 and 80% by 2050, which the Administration again affirmed as a member of the C40 cities.
At the North American Climate Summit last December, Mayor Bowser pushed expectations even higher by pledging to make the District carbon-neutral by 2050. She said: “we will not let federal inaction hinder our progress.”
We are now over a year into Trump’s presidency. States and cities that have declared themselves leaders in the resistance now need to deliver results. So, what has been achieved so far?
The 2017 Sustainable DC Progress Report cites a 24% reduction from 2006 emission levels. Unfortunately, the lion’s share of this progress can be attributed not to local leadership, but to fuel switching at the grid level.
According to the PSC, the share of electricity provided by natural gas grew by 62 percent from 2013 to 2016. This was driven by the economics of cheap natural gas, demonstrating the power of a simple price signal: the least expensive fuel will win. (Indeed, we need look no farther to understand why carbon pricing is the most effective of climate policies.)
Unfortunately, even D.C.’s methane-driven emission reduction claims should be viewed with skepticism. In February, Environmental Defense Fund reported that emissions of natural gas, or methane — which is upwards of 86 times stronger a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide — are dramatically higher than official state accounts. In Pennsylvania, which is within the PJM grid that powers D.C., wasted gas causes “the same near-term climate pollution as 11 coal-fired power plants.”
Even if the accounting behind D.C.’s climate progress were trustworthy, it is highly unlikely that the rapid decline in emissions will continue without substantive new policy interjections.
So, in what kind of policy should D.C. taxpayers and voters place their trust for a livable future?
First, let us acknowledge that managing the entire energy transition through agency programs is an overwhelming and unreasonable demand. What is needed is a fundamental shift. The fastest way to catalyze a comprehensive, cost-effective and lasting transition to a carbon-free D.C. is a strong and equitable price on carbon.
Councilmembers and Director Wells: providing genuine climate leadership to the nation is a tough job. The market should be working for you, not against you.
With an economy-wide fee on carbon pollution, DOEE’s existing work will be supercharged. Just imagine: when the true cost of fossil fuels is appropriately accounted for, lines will form around the block for programs like Solar for All!
And while there is much to like in the DOEE budget, I want to end with a note on equity, because we are concerned about the budget’s $90,000 cut to Environmental Justice.
Any change in energy policy and programs has a price effect. In other words, nearly every single choice you make redistributes income. In the era of the radical GOP tax overhaul and significant budget surplus in D.C., there is no excuse not to ensure equitable outcomes in climate and energy policy.
This means increasing funding for Environmental Justice. It means supporting not only a carbon fee, but a carbon rebate — especially for families being punished in the current economy.
The Carbon Fee-and-Rebate creates a sustainable long-term strategy for reducing CO2 emissions, because citizens are highly likely to support a policy that will help them cope with higher energy prices during the economy’s transition to clean, renewable energy.
We are running out of time to stabilize our climate. 2017 gave us a world where truly extreme weather events appear to be the new normal – wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, a “bomb cyclone” snow storm, and 82 degree days in February.
Putting a price on every ton of carbon pollution is one of the most effective ways to equitably reduce pollution and increase prosperity. The Carbon Fee-and-Rebate would ensure we are “backing up our DC values with action,” as Mayor Bowser pledged in Chicago.
We look forward to working with you to ensure this bedrock policy is finally put into place.
What can we do? A carbon fee and dividend will both effectively lower carbon emissions and give residents relief from our ongoing crisis of displacement by gentrification. Making polluters pay will push the city towards clean energy, but it’ll also put money in the pocketsof residents working to keep up with surging rents.
How can one measure it? The past practice of the Council under the current Chair is to
I have supported the DC Carbon Fee Rebate proposal because it is an opportunity to promote environmental, economic and racial justice at the same time. In the absence of federal action on global climate change, states and cities should step in to make a difference. The proposal to put a fee-per-ton on carbon and rebating the proceeds to residents is supported by prominent economists, both liberal and conservative, and environmental experts, as a market-driven way to reduce carbon consumption by encouraging energy conservation and use of renewable energy sources. The Carbon Fee Rebate proposal would rebate the proceeds of the carbon fee to DC residents on a per-capita basis. Analysis shows that for the vast majority of lower income families, the rebate will be larger than their increased energy costs. This means the proposal not only ensures that families with low incomes are not burdened by a carbon fee, but in fact will provide an income boost to these families and reduce income inequality. This proposal is an important way to promote environmental and economic justice at the same time.
I support the proposal that a fee be imposed per ton of carbon emissions to incentivize use of renewable energy sources. In that regard, I was the author of legislation that established a renewable energy portfolio standard for electric generation — that was our first effort at promoting renewables (which are carbon free). I have given advice to the advocates for the carbon bill on how I think they can get a carbon tax adopted as law.
I fully support the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act. The proposal requires fossil fuel companies doing business in the District to pay a fee for every ton of carbon dioxide they put into the atmosphere. The policy would then rebate the overwhelming share of the collected revenue to D.C. households and small businesses such as those in Ward 1. As the Ward 1 Council member, one of the things I would look for in any legislation is how it impacts and benefits residents and businesses in my community. I am impressed by the thoughtfulness of the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act. What is compelling to me is that Ward 1 businesses such as Cork and Pleasant Pops are behind this bill – great local businesses with engaged owners who understand what it takes to thrive in D.C. while serving as a community partner.
I support this proposal and have been eagerly awaiting a draft bill to which I will proudly add my name. I’ve been talking with advocates about this idea for the past several years and I’m eager to moving it forward. I served as the chair of the Local Government Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Bay Council as well as chair of the Metro Washington Air Quality board to COG. I do this work because climate change is already impacting our world and we have a responsibility to do all we can to impact the behavior of our residents to help protect our environment.
I support the Carbon Fee and Rebate proposal.
I am definitely in support of carbon fee rebates. For the last five years, I have been a student at the Harvard University Extension School working towards a masters in Sustainability and Environmental Management. I understand, probably better than anyone currently serving on the Council, that we must take dramatic and comprehensive action to reduce greenhouse gases or we are going to literally cook the planet. Some years ago, an organization was formed taking the name 350.org. The name was chosen based of studies that indicated that the maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere would be 350 parts per million (ppm). In a few short years, we passed right through that level. Today, in February 2018, it is estimated that we have reached a CO2 level of 408 ppm. What does that mean in terms of climate change? Think about this: Globally, seventeen of the eighteen hottest years on record have occurred in this century, those years being 2001 through 2017. The other hottest year on record was 1998.
I was one of the earliest supporters of the Put A Price On It campaign to place a fee on carbon producers, which would also provide a rebate to vulnerable residents. This campaign is part of creating a more sustainable DC. In addition to this effort, I authored the legislation creating the District’s first Climate Change and Resiliency Commission; I led the fight to have the District’s retirement and pension funds divest from carbon and fossil fuel investment holdings; I wrote several bills to expand opportunities for solar installation; and I led the effort to name 2018 as the Year of the Anacostia River to celebrate and bring attention to the river on the eastern half of our city.
I support this proposal. I am very familiar with policies related to carbon taxes and rebates, having worked on Capitol Hill during the congressional debate of similar federal policy almost a decade ago. Policies that incentivize a shift to green energy and reduce our city’s emissions are becoming increasingly important, and policies that incentivize change by investing funds in our own communities are the optimal way to produce these results. It is also important that we pursue clean energy policy without unduly burdening low income residents who cannot afford to upgrade their homes or modify their energy source with efficiency in mind. To that end, as fees on distribution companies are increased and those costs are passed onto consumers, I would seek to revisit the percentage of carbon rebates going to our low-income residents, currently set at 15 percent. This policy is estimated to increase residential power bills by an average of $9/ month, and while that should be offset by rebates, it is an increase that could be debilitating for families who struggle to pay their bills on a month-to-month basis. We need to make sure the rebate system is designed in such a way that we are proactively insulating low-income residents from price spikes they cannot afford, particularly since they may experience these financial pressures prior to receiving rebates. I would also revise the eligibility requirements for low-income residents. I am not comfortable with requiring residents to have a photo ID or driver’s license in order to be eligible for rebates, since these requirements would inherently exclude the most vulnerable populations in our city who will depend on access to these rebates most. Presumptive eligibility would protect low-income residents from being excluded from this rebate program.
In principle, I support putting a price on carbon emissions, and privatizing that cost to encourage the use of greener energy sources and to generally lower our collective energy consumption. This is important not only because it is good for the environment, but because it makes the District the kind of ethical place where people will want to live and raise a family as the Earth’s environmental crisis reaches a critical point.
The Carbon Fee Rebate proposal is a brilliant way to ensure that we are good stewards of our environment and that’s both cost effective and practical. My father has been an environmental scientist focused on our water-ways for the past 30 years. We are sufferers of a large carbon footprint because of our high proportion of out of town commuters. I would take it a step further and seek ways to tax vehicle commuters from Maryland and Virginia for their carbon impacts on our city.
I support market driven solutions to deal with rising environmental concerns. The proposed rebate incentivizes more sustainable options while relieving economic pressure on thousands of residents who are struggling to make ends meet.
I support and campaigned for it. Down the road we should look-into using a percentage of the money to create a public utility system run on 100 percent clean energy. Putting a fee on the carbon is good, but we must now look to transitioning to a new system.
environmental policy, I knew that working on a smaller scale would be the only way the fight against climate change would continue in the US.