(The Center Square) – Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese on Friday rejected Todd Myers’ lawsuit against Washington state’s Departments of Ecology and Commerce over the agencies’ failure to comply with a state law requiring timely reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.
Myers is the vice president for research at the Seattle-based free-market Washington Policy Center think tank.
His lawsuit seeks to force the two agencies to comply with RCW 70A.45.020, which requires agency staff to report statewide greenhouse gas emissions for the preceding two years at the end of an even-numbered year. The law requiring timely disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions was adopted in 2008.
“But I simply do not believe there is standing in this case for the reasons I have identified,” Lanese said during Monday’s hearing. “Thus, I am granting the state’s motion for summary judgment, and I am dismissing this action.”
The judge reasoned that the applicable statute identifies the beneficiaries of reporting requirements as the Governor’s Office and appropriate legislative committees. He noted there are other interested parties – such as Myers – but that doesn’t mean they are in the “zone of interest” to have standing to force the state to provide the requested information.
Lanese also noted that this session, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 5036, which mandates that Ecology and Commerce report annual emissions data to the governor and Legislature, starting in 2026. SB 5036 goes into effect on July 27.
“But the court does believe that the state has released the available data,” the judge said. “The issue really is that available data is not coming out fast enough to comply with the statutory obligation. However, they’ve cleaned up the statute.”
Assistant Attorney General Jenna Slocum with the Ecology Division, arguing for the state, said the nature of the information is crucial.
“So, here we see the Legislature wants data that is accurate, that can show the progress over time,” she said, referring to RCW 70A.45.020. “That is consistent, and that shows an analysis of that breakdown by sector. They do not want data that is going to be raw, that can be duplicated elsewhere. They do not want the data just pulled from EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] on process. And they do not want data that’s following a different methodology that does not fit with the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] because that would not allow any kind of tracking tool in which the Legislature and the Governor’s Office and the public could view whether or not these goals in this statue were being met.”
Myers is represented by the Citizen Action Defense Fund, an Olympia-based nonprofit watchdog organization.
CADF Executive Director Jackson Maynard argued for transparency in making his case.
“This is like trying to steer a car by looking in the rear view mirror while somebody keeps blocking that mirror,” he told the judge. “That’s why we brought the complaint in this case.”
Maynard also argued Myers has standing.
“We are asking this court to admit standing under the public interest doctrine,” he said. “This is again a matter that the Legislature has identified as an existential threat [climate change] that impacts the health, finances and well-being of all Washingtonians. It is difficult to imagine a matter of greater public interest.”
Myers was disappointed with Lanese’s ruling.
“Ecology’s argument that climate change is a public crisis but the public doesn’t have standing to hold the agency accountable for its failure is hypocritical,” he said in a statement to The Center Square. “The state will point to a victory on a legal technicality while ignoring the continued failure of their policies.”
Maynard had a similar take.
“We are obviously disappointed in the Court’s ruling, from both a legal and policy standpoint,” he said in an email. “The public deserves to have access to the results of the state’s efforts here, particularly when they’re using their tax dollars to pursue these lofty goals. As such, we are exploring all options at this time, including a potential Motion for Reconsideration and/or an appeal.”
Carleen Johnson contributed to this story.
