Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forest Products Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panelists say preserving pulp capacity and clearer carbon policy are vital as state climate funds flow
Summary
Panelists at the WFPA meeting argued that Washington’s 2020 Forest Carbon Sector Bill and later Climate Commitment Act funding present opportunities but also challenges — including instances where CCA‑funded actions have removed working lands from production — and warned that pulp mill closures reduce outlets needed for restoration byproducts and hurt rural economies.
Moderator Julie Anderson asked the roundtable whether the 2020 Forest Carbon Sector Bill (House Bill 2528) and subsequent Climate Commitment Act (CCA) implementation have advanced the sector’s goals and where opportunities remain.
Chris McCabe of the Northwest Pulp and Paper Association said HB 2528 helped frame the forest products sector as part of climate solutions and aided messaging during CCA negotiations. He emphasized that biomass is treated favorably in several Washington policies dating back to Initiative 937 and the state energy strategy.
"Biomass is positively recognized in our state energy strategy," McCabe said, and he noted the pulp and paper sector uses a high share of carbon‑neutral biomass for heat and power. He added that, from his members’ perspective, only a small share of state greenhouse gas emissions come from pulp mills (he cited roughly 1% for combustion of natural gas). McCabe urged predictable, achievable environmental standards so companies can plan investments.
Other panelists warned that closures of pulp and paper facilities reduce the available domestic processing for low‑value wood and residues needed to support large‑scale restoration. "When pulp mills shut down, local land managers don’t have places to send wood waste," Lloyd McGee of The Nature Conservancy said, and that gap can force residues to landfills or long shipments, undercutting carbon and restoration goals.
Panelists pointed to tensions in how CCA funds have been used: Matt Kamisky noted some CCA allocations have supported natural‑solutions programs at state agencies but said other uses, according to him, have removed working lands from production in ways that can be counter to restoration and wood‑product goals.
Why it matters: The panel connected climate policy language, mill economics and on‑the‑ground restoration: keeping processing capacity in region supports both carbon outcomes and local jobs. Panelists urged clearer policy alignment between carbon funds, restoration incentives and industrial capacity.
Next steps: Roundtable participants said they will continue to press for cohesive policy that preserves processing capacity, clarifies biomass treatment, and supports workforce and infrastructure investments.
