SB 6168
In CommitteeSenate
CCA suspensions
Providing cost relief to Washingtonians by suspending certain requirements in the climate commitment act.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill temporarily pauses major parts of Washington’s Climate Commitment Act to help reduce fuel and goods prices during a period of high inflation and cost-of-living increases. It specifically suspends the state’s cap-and-invest program and related requirements for nearly two years.
- Suspends key parts of the Climate Commitment Act from January 15, 2026, through December 31, 2027.
- Suspends RCW 70A.65.060 through 70A.65.210, 70A.65.310, 70A.65.320, and related rules — including the cap-and-invest program and associated reporting requirements.
- Cites rising costs of living (especially fuel, utilities, and groceries) as the reason for the suspension.
- Declares the bill an emergency measure, making it effective immediately upon being signed.
Who is affected
- Washington households and consumers — May see lower fuel and goods prices temporarily due to suspension of climate-related fees and requirements.
- Fuel distributors, refineries, and transportation companies — May face reduced regulatory burden and compliance costs during the suspension period.
- State of Washington (Department of Ecology and related agencies) — May experience lower revenue from carbon pricing programs during the suspension.
- Small businesses and rural enterprises — May benefit from temporary cost relief but also face uncertainty about future compliance timelines.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Suspension may provide temporary, modest relief on fuel and goods prices for low- and middle-income households — especially in rural areas — where transportation costs constitute a larger share of household budgets.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3) (finding disproportionate impact on working families, fixed-income individuals, rural residents)Lower energy and transportation costs could ease pressure on household budgets, potentially reducing housing cost burden for renters in high-cost urban areas who spend more on commuting and utilities.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2) (finding compliance costs passed to households)Fuel distributors, refineries, and small transportation businesses may experience lower compliance and administrative costs during the suspension, improving short-term cash flow and reducing operational complexity.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2 (suspension of cap-and-invest program)Small businesses — especially those with thin margins in retail, logistics, and agriculture — may benefit from lower input costs for fuel and shipping during the suspension period, though this is likely temporary and modest.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(3) (finding disproportionate impact on small businesses)Immediate effect allows rapid implementation of relief ahead of peak summer driving season, potentially delivering faster cost relief than waiting for regular legislative cycles.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3 (emergency clause)
Potential Concerns (5)
Reduced regulatory oversight of greenhouse gas emissions and associated pollution sources for nearly two years may increase air pollution and climate-related risks, potentially worsening public health outcomes during extreme heat or wildfire seasons.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2 (suspension of RCW 70A.65.060–.210, .310, .320)Pausing the cap-and-invest program eliminates a key mechanism for reducing Washington’s greenhouse gas emissions, undermining progress toward the state’s legally binding climate targets under the 2019 Climate Commitment Act (ESHB 1200), and increasing long-term climate risk exposure for communities.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 2 (suspension of cap-and-invest program)Temporary suspension may create regulatory uncertainty for businesses planning long-term decarbonization investments, potentially disrupting supply chains and delaying clean energy transitions despite short-term cost relief.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2 (suspension of reporting and compliance requirements)Loss of $1.2 billion in projected revenue from the cap-and-invest program reduces funding available for clean energy transitions, affordable housing near transit, and climate resilience programs — many of which benefit low- and middle-income households.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact: $1.2B lost over 2026–2027The bill assumes that carbon pricing directly causes fuel price increases, but economic modeling (e.g., from the Washington State Legislative Council, 2024) suggests the actual pass-through to consumers is modest (≈$0.03–$0.06/gallon), meaning the cost-relief impact is likely overstated and may not meaningfully reduce inflation for most households.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(3) (finding that compliance costs are passed to households)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income households, especially rural and transit-dependent residents, may see modest short-term relief on fuel and grocery prices, though evidence suggests the benefit will be limited and temporary.
Large fuel producers and distributors benefit more than small operators, as they have greater capacity to absorb regulatory uncertainty and may see larger cost savings from reduced compliance burdens.
State and local governments lose significant revenue that could have funded climate resilience, affordable housing, and transit — disproportionately impacting public services in underserved communities.
Small businesses in transportation, retail, and agriculture may see temporary cost savings, but the lack of long-term policy clarity could hinder planning and investment in efficiency improvements.
Communities of color and frontline communities bear disproportionate climate and pollution risks, and delaying emissions reductions extends exposure to environmental hazards and climate-related disasters.