State Funding to Reduce Air Pollution in Overburdened Communities Prioritized Advocacy, Not Cleaner Air

Key Takeaways

1. Of nearly $8.5 million spent, the vast majority of projects produced little to no measurable reduction in air pollution.
2. On average, 58% of funds went to staffing and about 10% to overhead, while only 13% went to equipment that could directly impact air quality.
3. None of the projects will collect environmental monitoring data, making it impossible to verify effectiveness.
4. Projects were funded without requirements for measurable results, cost-effectiveness, or consequences for failure.
5. Many of the grants, including to the Urban League, the Somali Independent Business Alliance and one for “Latinx Migrant/Refugee Communities,” were used for “policy advocacy” and organizing efforts rather than direct pollution reduction.
6. Programs like e-bike subsidies and bike giveaways showed no measurable reduction in vehicle use or emissions, according to cited research.
7. Other projects were unable to implement the promised activity, yielding no air quality improvements.
8. Only one project stood out as cost-effective. A Spokane road-paving project both quantified pollution reduction and delivered it at a reasonable cost per ton.
9. In the future, the state should require that all projects provide reasonable estimates of air quality improvements and create accountability for projects that fail to deliver on promises.

Introduction

In August 2024, just months before voters were set to decide the future of the state’s tax on CO₂ emissions known as the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), the Department of Ecology announced grants to “fund locally led projects in overburdened communities to reduce sources of ‘criteria’ air pollution” like particulate matter. The press release noted that “The Climate Commitment Act supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving public health.”

The claim that revenue from the CCA would help reduce air pollution has been one of the main arguments made by supporters of the law. In May 2024, then-governor Jay Inslee said, “We have this epidemic of asthma in our state,” and promised that money from the CO₂ tax would help address it. The CCA, he claimed, “hands out $10 million in grants to community organizations targeting air quality improvements.” State Representative Joe Fitzgibbon, one of the authors of the CCA, told the Seattle Times editorial board later that year that the CCA is “important for addressing health disparities.”

The CCA required the state to spend $20 million per biennium to “Reduce health disparities in overburdened communities by improving health outcomes through the reduction or elimination of environmental harms and the promotion of environmental benefits.” To achieve that, in 2025 the Department of Ecology offered grants to reduce air pollution in “overburdened communities.” We can now assess how those projects, worth nearly $8.5 million, did and if they reduced air pollution to address the “epidemic of asthma” that Jay Inslee claimed to care about.

An examination of the 21 projects funded by those grants shows that very little of the money was spent on addressing air pollution. Most was spent on things that do nothing to improve air quality, like paying for staff, overhead and public meetings. None of the projects monitored air quality improvements and only a couple attempted to estimate pollution reductions.

For example, money from the “Washington State Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Grant” was spent on: 

• “Policy advocacy” to “groups to push for environmental justice legislation, such as the HEAL Act…”
• Paying $2,000 each to members of a “community advisory board” on air pollution
• Giving away 50 refurbished bicycles and providing middle school students “with the skills to maintain their bikes”
• Subsidizing the purchase of electric bicycles, which has not shown to reduce air pollution

Only one project reduced air pollution at a reasonable cost. Most projects spent little to nothing on tangible efforts to improve air quality.

It is another example of the bait and switch supporters of the CCA have routinely engaged in to justify its high cost. Supporters promise that funding will help disadvantaged communities reduce asthma. Instead, the state funds special interest groups who pocket the money and lobby for additional subsidies.

As long as the taxpayers are going to pay the cost of the state’s CO₂ tax, they should get what they pay for. The legislature and the Department of Ecology should require projects prioritize real-world air quality improvements, measure effectiveness and rescind funding for failed projects.
 

READ THE FULL STUDY HERE  CCA Air Quality Failure Brief