Washington

Rising summer temperatures and energy bills are putting increased pressure on low-income households in Oregon and Washington, despite the region’s relatively low electricity rates. At the same time, federal energy assistance, efficiency programs, and climate protections are being rolled back—shifting costs and responsibilities to state and local governments. The report urges states to take immediate action through planning, budgeting, and innovation to protect the health and well-being of vulnerable communities.

This report shares findings from a joint study of community benefit plans (CBPs) made by utilities and developers. RMI and the University of Minnesota (UMN) Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (CSTEP) collaborated on the research and analysis.

Just a few years after multiple climate policy failures, Washington State enacted what some have termed the nation’s most ambitious carbon pricing law. Federal Democrats should learn a few lessons from Washington State’s experience. First, businesses are supporting market-based climate policies: A key piece of the Washington story was business support for the cap-and-invest program. Second, legislators can legislate: Another feature of Washington’s experience was the success of legislative leadership. Third, a climate bill can solve longstanding needs: For climate hawks, a carbon price is all about climate, but a bill could be about much more. Fourth, focus on the investments, not the price: The upfront costs associated with a cap-and-invest bill can strike fear into constituents’ hearts, and often toll the death knell for such legislation. Fifth, Republicans might come to the table for the chance to “pay for” their priorities. Sixth, build momentum first. An economy-wide carbon price is a big lift. Legislators must first warm up by tackling particular sectors as they did in Washington.

73% of initially planned oil, gas, and coal export projects in the region have been cancelled since 2012. Fossil fuel executives from dozens of companies once seemed to be salivating over the idea of exporting massive quantities of gas, oil, and coal from the Cascadia coast—but local communities, Tribes, environmentalists, and local governments rejected calls to turn Cascadia into a fossil fuel export terminal. They protested projects’ abrogation of Indigenous sovereignty, the risk of oil spills and damage to sensitive ecosystems, the pollution spewing from coal trains, the climate harms of extracting, transporting, and burning hydrocarbons, and the safety hazards of transporting flammable fuels through populated areas—and for the most part, they’ve won. Since 2012, fossil fuel interests have schemed more than 50 large projects to export coal, oil, gas, or their derivatives from Cascadia’s coast in British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington, and today, 40 of those—a whopping 73%—have been canceled by project backers who faced local opposition, see-sawing energy prices, and regulatory hurdles.

This series chronicles the Fight for 15 organizing campaigns in various U.S. cities and states over the past few decades. Examples include Detroit, Chicago, and Seattle. Various articles and interviews—written by different authors—describe the history of organizing efforts, policy goals, and organizing strategies behind both victories and losses. Multiple articles focus on the successful Florida 2020 minimum wage ballot question campaign—particularly the role of workers on the campaign, digital and communications GOTV tactics, and what overall lessons leftists and progressives can take away.