Spokane council approves $650,000 Carbon Quest feasibility study and accepts EPA subaward for climate resilience

Spokane City Council voted to authorize a contract with Carbon Quest of up to $650,000 to conduct a feasibility and engineering study of carbon‑management options at the city’s Waste‑to‑Energy facility and approved budget amendments to accept an EPA subaward tied to a climate resilience project.

Council members said the study responds to requirements flowing from the Washington Climate Commitment Act and to uncertainty over whether the city’s Waste‑to‑Energy plant can be exempted from new state obligations without expensive upgrades. City legal staff and council members described the action as preparatory work to evaluate technical solutions and costs.

The study was authorized through Resolution R.2025‑5703 (listed on the agenda as “declaring that a special market condition does exist, waiving competitive bidding requirements, and authorizing the city to enter into a contract with Carbon Quest in the amount not to exceed $650,000”), and council also approved ordinance amendments (referred to in the meeting as Ordinance C366339 and related budget language) to accept an EPA subaward tied to consent agenda item OPR‑2025‑0101.

Why it matters: Council members said the Waste‑to‑Energy facility provides electricity, reduces landfill volume and protects groundwater; without a technical solution or a state exemption the city could face steep new costs that would be passed to utility ratepayers. Council discussion emphasized both the facility’s operational value and the need to explore options that meet state requirements without unnecessarily large rate increases.

Public comment was strongly divided. Several speakers opposed the contracts and the grant on fiscal or political grounds. Will Hewings called the EPA subaward and the study “wasteful” and tied it to federal climate policy; Justin Holler and a caller identified as “Dave M.” urged the council to be more frugal. Larry Andrews and others urged the council to shop for other bidders and questioned long‑term project financing. Dennis Flynn, who testified later in the meeting, criticized carbon‑capture proposals as expensive and uncertain. Supporters of the study were fewer in number during the public comment recorded on the transcript, but council members argued the study is a necessary step to evaluate compliance options.

Council members outlined the facility’s local benefits during debate: the plant handles roughly 800 tons of municipal solid waste per day, generates about 22 megawatts of electricity (roughly described as powering about 13,000 homes), and can earn up to roughly $5 million annually through power sales, according to remarks summarized in the public record. Council members also said the plant reduces solid‑waste volume by approximately 70–90% (by weight) and produces an inert ash that goes to a regional landfill.

Several council members urged constituents to press state legislators for an exemption for the Waste‑to‑Energy facility under the Climate Commitment Act; the council said an exemption would be the least costly path for residents. Staff noted that the city and the plant previously received substantial state support (council remarks recalled a state contribution of about $60 million in the late 1980s–early 1990s) and that missing an exemption could require hundreds of millions of dollars in system replacements or upgrades over time.

Outcome and next steps: The council approved the contract authorization and the budget ordinance amendments by voice vote. The meeting record shows the items passed; the transcript records the motions and voice votes but does not include a roll‑call tally. Staff and council said the study will return results and recommendations to the council for further decisions on financing and implementation.

Budget and funding notes: Public commenters and councilmembers referenced federal and state funding sources: the EPA subaward (OPR‑2025‑0101, identified in the meeting) and state programs administered under the Climate Commitment Act and Department of Ecology. The $650,000 contract figure is the maximum authorization approved by council; any larger project funding would require separate approvals.

Council members and several public speakers urged transparency on procurement, the exploration of alternative bidders, and outreach to state legislators to seek an exemption that could avoid major utility rate increases.