Risk of Repeal:

Mapping Washington’s Climate Commitments

Explore the Map

Background and Details

August map and data refresh |
State Budget Resources |
Dataset Descriptions |
Investment Categories |
Investment Risk Level Bins |
“Tribal-Led” and “Overburdened Communities” Investments |

August map and data refresh

With this update to map version RoR-08-24, we invite you to explore over 500 new investment locations and $450M in additional, location-specific investments moving from unmapped programs onto the map.  Some additional changes accompany this update to this map version (RoR-08-24).

  • There is now direct hyperlink to the map widget, accesible from the title bar at the top of all pages on the website.
  • Data columns have been re-ordered to improve the flow of information.  This applies to both the map data table and the downloadable dataset.  
  • For ease of navigation, when an icon is selected in the map, the pop-up table has been trimmed to select rows of data.  The additional data and information for any investment can be seen in the full table.
  • When applying filters on the map widget, all filters can be reset simultaneously using the circular arrow icon below the final filter.
  • One-pager content will continue to be expanded and updated, keep checking back for updates!  We will be updating county one-pagers throughout August.

State Budget Resources

Our database and map are built on a variety of budget information.  The state splits spending into three budgets: Capital Construction (or Capital), Omnibus Operating (or Operating), and Transportation.  Both the Capital and Transportation Budgets provide detailed project information from their Interactive Data Reports home page that can be filtered by project name and/or agency for each budget cycle.  The Operating Budget does not provide a Project Detail option on the Interactive Data Reports page, requiring a greater reliance on budget text itself.   Below are key reference materials that were essential to constructing the Risk of Repeal tool.

  • Landing page, Senate, 2023 Budget
    • Includes session law (bills), LEAP documents for specific programmatic spending details that are referenced but not directly reported in the Budget Bill below, and other Project lists that summarize certain Budget program spending allocations.
  • Final Version of Budget Bill 5200, 2023 Budget
  • Interactive Project Detail Report, 2023 Budget  – Sort by session (2023-25 Capital Budget), Version (Enacted), Agency, and Project Name.  New Appropriation totals are treated as “Authorized”, while the “Total” funding is shown separately and includes all funding, including the New Appropriation.

  • Landing page, Senate, 2024 Supplemental Budget
    • Includes session law (bills), LEAP documents for specific programmatic spending details that are referenced but not directly reported in the Budget Bill below, and other Project lists that summarize certain Budget program spending allocations.
  • Final Version of Budget Bill 5949, 2024 Supplemental
  • Interactive Project Detail Report, 2024 Supplemental
    • Sort by Version (Enacted), Agency, and Project Name.  New Appropriation totals are treated as “Authorized”, while the “Total” funding is shown separately and includes all funding, including the New Appropriation. 
    • Projects with update funding are shown in database as 2024 Supplemental (Updated) whereas new funding is shown as 2024 Supplemental.

Interactive Project Detail Report, 2024 Supplemental – Sort by Version (Enacted), and Project Name.  Funding totals reported under Authorized and Total are used for the Risk of Repeal tool, including updates to investments from prior sessions budgeting.

Dataset Descriptions

The following information is shown for both individual projects selected on the map (as rows) and within the data tables (as columns) for each of the “Mapped Investment” and “Unmapped Investments” tables.

  • Investment Name:Name of the investment aligned as closely as possible to budget documents for ease of reference.  In some cases there may be partial allocations made from an investment program to individual project investments.  In these cases investment names may receive additional text to distinguish between similar investments.  One example is the use of the suffix “Multi-site” to indicate an awarded funding that covers more than one location and the funding amounts cannot be individually broken down.
  • Investment Category: One of twelve designated categories chosen to be more specific and illustrative than the seven funding accounts from which the investments are made.  We provide more detail about these categories and their corresponding icons on the home page and further down on this background page.  These categories were chosen after the initial compilation of all program accounts with the intent that each category substantially funded and generally distinct from other categories, although some investments may fit in more than one category.  Tribal-Led projects take precedence over other investment categories while public transit investment take precedence over electric transportation even for electric buses.
  • Authorized Funding, CCA: The dollar amount of authorized funding from Climate Commitment Act funding accounts.  This value is summed across all selected investments in the mapping tool.
  • Total Funding, CCA: The dollar amount of total funding (including authorized) from Climate Commitment Act funding accounts.This value is summed across all selected investments in the mapping tool.
  • Authorized funding %, CCA: The percentage from the authorized funding amount that is from Climate Commitment Act funding accounts.
  • Total Funding %, CCA: The percentage of the total funding that comes from Climate Commitment Act funding accounts.
  • Investment Risk Level: Indicates the relative level of funding risk if Climate Commitment Act funding disappears before the end of 2024.  Four risk categories are included, each of which is explained in more detail in the “Investment Risk Levels Bins” description below.  Risk Levels are based on Clean and Prosperous Institute research and assessment, and a description of Investment Risk is provided.
  • Investment Risk Description: Supporting information for the choice of Investment Risk Level.  Budget language is included where it provides important context or description.
  • Overburdened Community Investments, Not Tribal-Led: If the investment contains at least partial prioritization for Overburdened communities.  These investments are distinct from Tribal-Led funding allocations although both count towards the 35% minimum and 40% target allocation.  Yes indicates that at least some of the funding is intended to meet the definition of “direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities identified under chapter 70A.02 RCW.”
  • Tribal-Led Investments: If the investment contains at least partial prioritization for Tribal-Led funding.  Yes indicates that at least some of the funding is intended to be allocated via Tribal lead or supporting recipients.  It is anticipated, but not guaranteed, that most of these investments would meet the definition of “for programs, activities, or projects formally supported by a resolution of an Indian tribe, with priority given to otherwise qualifying projects directly administered or proposed by an Indian tribe.”
  • County: The location of the project, some of which span multiple counties.  Programs that have not been announced down to specific recipients are classified as Statewide for lack of additional information.
  • Funding Status: A brief description of the intended funding timeline to help categorize the degree to which an investment is underway, authorized for the near-term, planned for the longer-term, or, potentially, already completed.
  • About Investment: A description of the investment that relies primarily on State Budget Resources listed about.
  • Project or Program Link: Where relevant state or local agency information is available about the project or program, it is provided as a hyperlink here.  In general, news articles or other non-government resources are not included here for consistency.
  • City: When projects or programs are located within a specific city or cities, they are listed here.  Some city designations are retrieved along with other data collection but may be in a nearby unincorporated area, depending on the source.
  • Legislative District: When investments are located with a specific state Legislative District or Districts, they are listed here by district number.  These are current Legislative Districts and not the ones due to take effect in August 2024.  Investments that will be distributed but with limited geographic certainty are listed as “Statewide”.
  • Funding Account: The specific Climate Commitment Act Account (there are seven funding accounts established in the Climate Commitment Act) if one is funding the program.  If funded by Move Ahead Washington but no Climate Commitment Act accounts, that would be indicated here.
  • Funding Agency: The agency allocated the funding either for direct use or grant/award responsibility to final recipients.
  • Funding Budget: Which of the three budgets the investment is appropriated in.
  • Funding Budget Cycle: For all budgets, when funding was allocated during the 2023 session it is indicated as “2023-25 Biennium.  When funding was allocated only in the supplemental it is indicated as “2024 Supplemental”.  When funding was first allocated in 2023 but updated through supplemental budgeting, it is indicated as “2024 Supplemental (updated)”.
  • Authorized Funding, MAW: The dollar amount of authorized funding from Move Ahead Washington funding accounts.
  • Total Funding, MAW: The dollar amount of total funding (including authorized) from Move Ahead Washington funding accounts.
  • Authorized funding %, MAW: The percentage from the authorized funding amount that is from Move Ahead Washington funding accounts.
  • Total Funding %, MAW: The percentage of the total funding that comes from Move Ahead Washington funding accounts.
  • Overburdened share, Authorized CCA (UNMAPPED ONLY): An initial estimate of what share of investment authorized funding is indicated and intended for priority communities that are Overburdened, but not Tribal-Led.
  • Overburdened share, Total CCA (UNMAPPED ONLY): An initial estimate of what share of investment total funding is indicated and intended for priority communities that are Overburdened, but not Tribal-Led.
  • Tribal share, Authorized CCA (UNMAPPED ONLY): An initial estimate of what share of investment authorized funding is indicated and intended for Tribal-Led projects.
  • Tribal share, Total CCA (UNMAPPED ONLY): An initial estimate of what share of investment total funding is indicated and intended for Tribal-Led projects.

Investment Categories

Active Transportation: Projects focused on improved walking and biking access. The primary funding account for this category is the Climate Active Transportation Account within the Move Ahead Washington transportation budget.

Buildings, Innovation, and Clean Energy: A range of decarbonization projects focused on efficiency, renewables, and reduced fossil fuel consumption that Includes buildings, power sector, and industrial or hard-to-decarbonize sector investments.

Electric Transportation: Non-transit, on-road focused investments in electric vehicle charging and electric vehicles.

Environmental Justice Communities: Investments with an intentional and direct focus on improving Environmental Justice process and outcomes.

Ferries: Projects focused on capital costs of electrifying the Washington State Ferry system and some passenger ferry routes.

Fish Barrier and Habitat: Projects intended primarily to improve salmon or other fish access and habitat improvement.

Freight and Facilities: Projects focused on port or rail activities and the movement of goods across or to and from the state.

Natural and Working Lands: Agricultural, wildfire, and land conservation projects, not including those that are primarily for fish habitat.

Planning and Implementation: Climate Commitment Act and broad programmatic planning and implementation efforts, including general staffing. Planning efforts directly tied to investments or outcomes that fit in other investment categories may be assigned to those categories.

Public Transit: Projects that address ridership and fares, expanded or enhanced service, and capital projects for buses and bus infrastructure. Transit electrification efforts are shown as Public Transit investments and not Electric Transportation. The primary funding account for this category is the Climate Transit Programs Account within the Move Ahead Washington transportation budget.

Roads and Bridges: No high risk projects are in this category, which includes investments from the broader Move Ahead Washington Transportation budget which received roughly 30% of its funding from the Climate Commitment Act.

Tribal-Led: Investments where a project lead or project partner is a Tribal government or entity. This icon is based on a Tribal logo used for certain work programs of the US EPA.

Investment Risk Level Bins

There are four risk levels we assign to investments.  The tool allows a user to easily filter by risk level alongside other filters. The risk levels intended to capture the following criteria:

investments must have large funding shares (typically majority funding at least) from Climate Commitment Act Accounts.  This category includes projects that are at least one of the following:

  • Majority planned funding for future bienniums beyond Fiscal Year 2025 (ending in June 2025), meaning they are not authorized for nearer-term spending, or;
  • Specified in budget language as available only starting in 2025 or no longer available in the case that the Climate Commitment Act is repealed before the end of 2024.

investments must meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • Programs that have been authorized for near-term spending but not yet awarded to projects, and / or;
  • Programs that have a non-majority but greater than 10% spending share planned for future biennia, and / or; 
  • Investments that meet at least one of the “High” risk criteria but with Move Ahead Washington as the primary funding source.

 

 Investments must meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • Are all or nearly all authorized for the current biennium with no conditions on spending within 2024 or only starting in 2025, and/or;
  • Include substantial planned future investments but have a relatively small share of funding from Climate Commitment Act or Move Ahead Washington accounts, and/or;
  • Have clearly been awarded with no risk of funding being rescinded – such as a study being complete or infrastructure being fully constructed.

 

 Investments are those with risk at or approaching zero, as they:

  • Are already completed or must be completed before the end of 2024, and / or;
  • Are almost completely (>90%) funded by sources other than Move Ahead Washington or Climate Commitment Act accounts.

 

“Tribal-Led” and “Overburdened Communities” Investments

As the two broad categories of priority community investments we include short-hand designation (“Overburdened, Not Tribal-Led” and “Tribal-Led”) for tracking priority spending defined under the Climate Commitment Act, which sets minimum investment amounts and uses the following language in doing so (RCW 70A.65.230):

“(a) A minimum of not less than 35 percent and a goal of 40 percent of total investments that provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities identified under chapter 70A.02 RCW, and;

(b) In addition to the requirements of (a) of this subsection, a minimum of not less than 10 percent of total investments that are used for programs, activities, or projects formally supported by a resolution of an Indian tribe, with priority given to otherwise qualifying projects directly administered or proposed by an Indian tribe. An investment that meets the requirements of both this subsection (1)(b) and (a) of this subsection may count toward the minimum percentage targets for both subsections.”

Overburdened Emphasis and definitions

The Climate Commitment Act draws on terminology and definitions from other state law, including, “vulnerable populations”, “overburdened communities”, and “environmental benefits”.  

Overburdened communities references previous efforts through RCW 70A.02 which itself sets a minimum definition of overburdened communities as including “highly impacted communities” as defined in RCW 19.405.020.  In turn, RCW 19.405.020 refers to the Department of Health Cumulative Impact Analysis completed in 2020 for the designation of Highly Impacted Communities (RCW 19.405.140).  That Cumulative Impact Analysis was completed through the Environmental Health Disparities process resulting in the following definition:

The Department of Health designates as a highly impacted community any census tract with a 9 or 10 overall rank on the Environmental Health Disparities (EHD) map, or any census tract with tribal lands. For the purposes of designating highly impacted communities, the EHD map is the CIA referenced under RCW 19.405.140, as explained more below.

Based on this definition, we include, as a starting point all investments located in census tracts “with a 9 or 10 overall rank on the Environmental Health Disparities (EHD) map”.  We include in a select few that are directly adjacent to 9 or 10 overall rank census tracts but where there appears to be clear and obvious access (e.g. for an active transportation project such as the 148th Street Non-Motorized Bridge Project Phases 1 & 2 in North Seattle) or nearby to a large upstream pollution source (e.g. the Mukilteo ferry route and terminal).  Additionally, we include any locations that have been defined through Ecology’s Improving Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Initiative.

We also include programs or projects that explicitly indicate funding prioritization or minimums that are likely to meet the vulnerable populations in overburdened communities definition – although absent specific projects to evaluate these are more speculative and based primarily on intent.  However, many investments from broader programs that are not explicitly directed to priority communities will have greater than zero funding that meets the criteria.

The Climate Commitment Act references “direct and meaningful benefits” through it’s section on Environment Justice Assessments (RCW 70A.65.030) to include:

(a) The direct reduction of environmental burdens in overburdened communities; (b) the reduction of disproportionate, cumulative risk from environmental burdens, including those associated with climate change; (c) the support of community led project development, planning, and participation costs; or (d) meeting a community need identified by the community that is consistent with the intent of this chapter or RCW 70A.02.010.

The commmunity needs reference to RCW 70A.02.110, is under the definition of  “Environmental benefits” and reads that environmental benefits includes: “(c) Meet a community need formally identified to a covered agency by an overburdened community or vulnerable population that is consistent with the intent of this chapter.” We will continue to seek and welcome feedback on our priority community designations for investments.  In some cases we may determine that although a project meets strict location criteria (at least a highly impacted community) it does not meet the definition of direct and meaningful benefits.

Tribal-Led

We only include as Tribal-Led investments those that include a direct allocation to a Tribal entity as either a lead or partner.  We are seeking to stay within a strict definition of “projects formally supported by a resolution of an Indian tribe, with priority given to otherwise qualifying projects directly administered or proposed by an Indian tribe” and invite feedback and will continue to seek guidance to make sure the Tribal-Led designations are aligned with the law.

Other Estimates of funding allocations

There are some published estimates of how the Climate Commitment Act funding is performing on the metrics of investment minimums.  The information in our database allows for a similar analysis for those interested but with much more specific project detail rather than broader program allocations.  Here are two previous efforts on assessing investments with overburdened and tribal focus: