Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to WA’s landmark Climate Commitment Act

Reporting by The Center Square has uncovered questionable spending of CCA funds that appears to yield little to no benefit in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Brett Davis
The Center Square Washington

Washington state’s Climate Commitment Act has successfully weathered another round of legal scrutiny.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a major challenge to the state’s Climate Commitment Act, effectively upholding the law. The justices did not publish any written justification for their decision. The decision from the nation’s highest court came after the landmark legislation had already survived numerous other legal and political challenges.

The CCA, approved by the Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Jay Inslee in 2021, is a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a declining cap on the state’s largest polluters and using revenue from allowances to fund climate resilience and clean energy projects.

The program has generated nearly $3.5 billion in revenue from its carbon market auctions since its launch in January 2023. 

Washington State Department of Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller is pleased with the decision.

“Washington’s Climate Commitment Act is a policy designed to reduce carbon pollution from the largest sources of emissions within our state,” he said in a statement emailed to The Center Square by the department. “Every court that has been called upon to evaluate any aspect of the CCA – at least two dozen cases and counting – has ruled in favor of the state, including decisions affirming Washington’s ability to take action on climate change. This should send a strong message to other states considering similar policies. State leadership on climate has never been more important, and Washington is committed to continuing our progress in reducing carbon pollution.”

The case the Supreme Court refused to hear was based on a lawsuit initiated by a Chicago-based energy company, Invenergy, in late 2022. The company argued that the CCA’s cap-and-trade program was unconstitutional in that it unfairly discriminated against private operators, such as its natural gas plant in Grays Harbor County, Wash., because it gives free carbon allowances to public utilities.

A U.S. District Court judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously affirmed the law’s validity. 

In November 2024, Washington voters rejected Initiative 2117, a ballot measure that would have repealed the CCA.

The cap-and-trade program is currently facing a lawsuit filed earlier this month by lawmakers and the Washington Policy Center against the Department of Ecology and the Department of Commerce for failing to release timely data on greenhouse gas emissions.

Todd Myers, WPC vice president for research, expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The decision by the court means that Washington’s failure to meet its own climate goals rests entirely on the shoulders of the governor and Legislature,” he said. “To meet the 2030 goal set by the Legislature – which it claims is based in science – Washington will have to reduce emissions by the equivalent of three COVID-level reductions cumulatively. Meeting that goal will be extremely expensive, and thus far the Legislature has wasted billions on projects that do little or nothing to reduce emissions. If we miss it, or costs skyrocket, the blame is entirely on those who wasted money and time on bureaucratic solutions that are more about politics than the planet.”

Reporting by The Center Square – available here and here – has uncovered questionable spending of CCA funds that appears to yield little to no benefit in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This report was first reported by The Center Square Washington.