By Cooper Inveen

WNPA Olympia News Bureau
OLYMPIA—The Senate’s new transportation package is being hailed for its bipartisan support, while some critics find aspects of it troubling.

The proposals were revealed on Feb. 12 after 22 months of negotiations, and would mostly fund various highway projects in the state’s more congested areas. The package would raise $15 billion over a 16-year period mostly through an 11.7 cents-per-gallon gas tax implemented over the next three years.

Washington’s current 35.7 cents-per-gallon gas tax would increase by five cents in July, 4.2 cents in July 2016 and another 2.5 cents in July 2017. That would bring Washington’s combined state and federal gas tax to 67.6 cents-per-gallon, second highest in the nation behind Pennsylvania.

The proposals’ prime sponsors, Republican Sens. Curtis King of Yakima and Joe Fain of Auburn, and Democratic Sens. Steve Hobbs of Lake Stevens and Marko Liias of Mukilteo, say they are confident that they can muster the votes needed for bipartisan approval in both houses.

They also admit they see plenty of negotiating left to do.

The 11 bills that make up the package were the focus of testimony from a variety of groups Feb. 17 and 18 in the Senate Transportation Committee. By the second day the crowd grew so large that overflow rooms were needed.

Those representing the state’s business, commerce and agricultural sectors were united in approval of the package, calling it both a bipartisan victory and a necessary infusion of revenue to repair and expand the state’s aging highway system.

Local government representatives, including the mayors of 15 Washington cities, also voiced support for the package, mainly for the projects it would fund in their areas and the construction jobs they would create.

No members of the general public spoke at either hearing.

Proponents of the package spoke generally and with little detail when expressing support, and all but one didn’t mention the 11.7-cent gas tax.

Those who oppose the proposal—representatives of education, labor and environmental groups—directed their concerns not at the package as whole, but at particular bills within it. One of the package’s more controversial aspects is a provision in the revenue bill, SB 5987, that would move transit, highway safety, bike path and pedestrian walkway funding to highway projects if the governor implements any fuel standard, or sets carbon reduction requirements based on “carbon intensity of the fuel or greenhouse gas emissions.”

This provision would be in effect for the entire 16-years of the package, meaning that Gov. Jay Inslee or his successor likely would not be able to implement a carbon-reduction policy without cutting transportation funds or seeking additional transportation revenue.

Fain said later in an interview that the provision is intended to bar Inslee from using an executive order to implement a low-carbon fuel standard. Committee staff said during the second hearing that the language could possibly be interpreted to include any carbon emission reduction plan, including Inslee’s signature Carbon Pollution Accountability Act, which would set a statewide cap on carbon emissions and require companies to buy credits in order to continue polluting over the limit.

Sens. Pramila Jayapal, D-Seattle, Cyrus Habib, D-Kirkland, and Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, have all said they would not support the package unless the provision is removed, frequently referring to it as a “poison pill” both in committee and in a public statement released last week.

Shawn Lewis of the Washington Education Association and Nick Federici of Washington United for Fair Revenue spoke in opposition to SB 5990, a part of the package that would move all revenue generated from sales taxes on transportation projects out of the state’s general fund and into the transportation fund. Education is largely financed through the general fund and the Legislature is already struggling to meet education obligations outlined in the state Supreme Court’s McCleary decision.

“We understand this approach and the reasons behind it, but this shift changes the operating budget and creates an even bigger under-funding position for us,” Lewis said.