The wait to curb emissions from Seattle buildings has gone on long enough, climate groups say.

The Seattle City Council is considering Building Emissions Performance Standards, which would require the city's biggest buildings to cut their climate pollution completely by 2045. Apartments would have a 2050 deadline.

Jess Wallach, campaigns co-director for 350 Seattle, said buildings are the second largest source of carbon emissions in the city, but this policy has been delayed and watered down over the past two years.

"This is an opportunity to ensure that the biggest buildings in Seattle, which are by and large owned by wealthy corporations and real estate giants, are on track for a just transition to move their buildings off of fossil fuels and onto Seattle's clean-energy grid," he said.

A report recently released by 350 Seattle found almost none of the largest buildings in Seattle is owned by individuals or families and that about half are owned by private entities based outside the city. Building owners have said the plan is too costly.

Wallach said the city council was going to vote on the standards in September but has delayed it, likely until the beginning of next year.

Deepa Sivarajan, Washington local policy manager for Climate Solutions, said Seattle is facing increased threats from climate change, including hotter summers, and noted that transitioning away from fossil-fuel use will help the city build climate resiliency and lower utility costs.

"So many of our buildings are not air conditioned in Seattle," she said, "and electric heat pumps, which are the most cost-effective and energy-efficient solution when you're switching over from a fossil fuel to electricity - they provide heating and cooling together."

The state of Washington has passed its own energy-efficiency standard for buildings. However, Wallach said rather than duplicating those rules, Seattle's standards would increase their effectiveness.

"Seattle's policy is going to help ensure that the state-level policy is not only implemented here but actually goes further and faster and more successfully," he said, "and in that way we can be a model for other cities around Washington."

The Building Emissions Performance Standards would reduce Seattle building emissions 27% by 2050, according to the city.


get more stories like this via email

Pennsylvania is among the five states projected to be hit hardest if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed.

A report from the think tank Energy Innovation showed the law has brought more than $1.33 billion dollars in clean energy and transportation investments, creating nearly 4,700 jobs.

Megan Ziegler, CEO of the Southwest Pennsylvania Municipal Project Hub, said the Inflation Reduction Act helps modernize infrastructure and supports local governments and schools in upgrading outdated facilities. She added reducing tax credits and clean energy projects would negatively affect the Pennsylvania economy and environment.

"These are called direct pay or elective pay," Ziegler explained. "This was a great tool because this was the first time that local governments, nonprofits and schools, because of their tax-exemption status, were able to offset these investments in their buildings and their systems the way that private industry has been leveraging those for years."

The report revealed repealing existing federal clean energy tax credits and funding programs would increase average annual household energy costs in Pennsylvania by nearly $60 per year in 2030 and more than $80 per year in 2035.

Zeigler pointed out many homeowners in southwest Pennsylvania have used state rebates and tax credits to make energy efficient upgrades, helping to lower costs as temperatures rise. She warned cutting the programs would raise expenses and stressed the need for bipartisan support because clean energy investments create jobs and strengthen the economy.

"There was a lot of IRA funding that was dedicated to grid stability," Zeigler noted. "Ultimately, our region needs to make smart investments by diversifying our grid with more renewables, microgrids or even hydroelectric systems. This reduces blackouts and saves ratepayers over time as well."

Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, said the nationwide study showed what would happen to energy projects and jobs between 2025 and 2035 if cuts are made.

"When we compared the top 10 states for each of those side by side, we found that there were five states that were in the top 10 in both of those categories, and those were Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Georgia," Orvis reported.

He added those states risk higher energy bills and job losses due to growth in population, manufacturing and electricity demand. A Moody's analysis found President Donald Trump's 2024 policy plan could fuel inflation, slow the economy and trigger a recession by the middle of this year.

As President Donald Trump rolls back clean energy initiatives at the federal level, states like Maryland are pushing ahead with their own energy transitions.

Legislation moving through the Maryland General Assembly includes a bill to codify Gov. Wes Moore's campaign pledge, to transition the state to 100% clean energy by 2035. Another bill, known as the Abundant Affordable Clean Energy Act, would expand battery storage to the regional grid.

Rebecca Rehr, director of climate policy and justice for the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said clean energy investments can also help the economy and combat rising energy costs.

"We can create a model of economic growth and clean energy adoption that other states can follow," Rehr contended. "We can really lead here, especially in the face of federal rollbacks. You can have economic growth and a growth of the clean energy industry here in Maryland at the same time. These go hand in glove."

Energy costs for many Maryland households have recently gone up 50% for gas and 30% for electricity.

Clean energy advocates in the state are also playing defense. Top Democratic leaders in the General Assembly introduced the Next Generation Energy Act, to build new natural gas plants. Rehr argued it would impede progress the state has made in the clean energy transition.

"If this bill moves forward as it was introduced, it not only seeks to build new gas in Maryland," Rehr pointed out. "It seeks to fast-track new gas in Maryland, which could have consequences and again sort of flies in the face of any environmental justice provisions in state law."

The state also has goals to produce 8.5 gigawatts of wind power by 2031.

Texas would be one of five states to suffer the most if the Trump administration repeals the Inflation Reduction Act, according to a report from the think tank Energy Innovation.

Since the legislation was enacted in 2022, more than $17 billion in clean energy and transportation projects have been announced statewide.

Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, said ending the tax credits and reducing clean energy projects would negatively affect the Texas economy and environment.

"What the IRA does is, it creates an incentive for developers to build even more clean electricity," Orvis explained. "When those clean electricity plants come online, they help to lower the cost of electricity and bring down rates. That means that Americans pay less for their electricity every year."

The report showed ending the programs would increase the average annual household energy costs in Texas by more than $90 a year in 2030, and more than $370 a year by 2035. Some Republican lawmakers support keeping the IRA tax credits in place but the Trump administration said renewables make energy more expensive.

Orvis noted the nationwide study showed what would happen to energy projects and jobs between 2025 and 2035 if cuts are made.

"When we compared the top 10 states for each of those, there were five states that were in the top 10 in both of those categories: Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Georgia," Orvis reported.

The results mirror analysis from financial services company Moody's, which analyzed President Donald Trump's campaign policy platform in August 2024 and found it would increase inflation and weaken economic growth, causing a recession as soon as mid-2025.