Washington’s Cap and Invest Program continues to evolve as the state moves deeper into implementation of the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). On February 2, 2026 the Washington Department of Ecology released two important guidance documents for emissions intensive, trade exposed (EITE) facilities: one addressing requests to adjust allocation baselines (Publication 26 14 011) and another outlining the process for requesting upward adjustments to reduction schedules (Publication 26 14 012). Together, these documents clarify how EITE facilities can seek relief when existing allocation or reduction frameworks no longer reflect operational realities. The deadline for submitting the adjustment request for the second compliance period (2027-2030) is March 31, 2026.
At the same time, the Washington Legislature is considering House Bill 2537 (HB 2537), which signals a longer term policy direction focused on technology feasibility, emissions leakage risk, and best available technology (BAT) assessment for EITE facilities. The guidance documents and HB 2537 both explicitly link allocation and compliance flexibility to demonstrated technical and economic feasibility constraints, rather than granting blanket relief.
This article summarizes the two guidance documents and how the proposed HB 2537 relates.
Background: EITE Facilities Under Washington’s Cap and Invest Program
Under the Cap and Invest Program, EITE facilities receive no cost emissions allowances to mitigate the risk that production (and emissions) move or “leak” out of Washington to jurisdictions without equivalent climate regulation (i.e., carbon-leakage risk). These allowances are based on historic emissions and production, but they are also subject to declining levels over time to align with statewide emissions limits.
The CCA has aimed to balance emissions reductions with economic competitiveness. The two guidance documents reflect this balancing act by providing structured pathways for facilities to request changes when assumptions underlying their allocations no longer hold.
Requesting Adjustments to Allocation Baselines for EITE Facilities
The first guidance document focuses on adjustments to allocation baselines for EITE facilities for the second compliance period (2027–2030). The current allocation baseline is established using data from 2015 through 2019.
When Baseline Adjustments Are Allowed
Ecology may adjust an EITE facility’s allocation baseline when there are significant changes to emissions or production data used to establish that baseline. Eligible triggers include:
- Revised greenhouse gas emissions reports for baseline years;
- A reassigned emissions level under the GHG reporting rule; or
- A change in reporting methodology relative to prior baseline years.
Importantly, this pathway is not intended to revisit baseline assumptions due to current or expected future performance constraints. Instead, it addresses data integrity and representativeness issues; situations where the original baseline is no longer technically accurate based on corrected or updated information.
Submission Requirements and Timing
Facilities seeking a baseline adjustment must submit a request to Ecology by March 31, 2026, and include:
- A cover letter summarizing the request;
- A detailed explanation tied to the regulatory criteria outlined above;
- Identification of the preferred year for the revised baseline to take effect (2026 or 2027); and
- A comprehensive data package, including emissions and production data from 2015–2025, process descriptions, and unit level emissions information.
Ecology expects to finalize determinations by October 2026, though possible amendments to the rule could extend review timelines.
How Trinity Can Help
The baseline adjustment pathway is best suited for facilities that have documented significant changes to historic emissions or production data. Trinity brings extensive experience in GHG emissions and product data reporting, both in the consultant role supporting reporting entities and as a third party verifier. Trinity can partner with EITE facilities to identify and support opportunities for defensible baseline adjustments.
Requesting Upward Adjustments to Reduction Schedule for EITE Facilities
The second guidance document addresses a different aspect of the Cap-and-Invest program: whether an EITE facility can justify an upward adjustment to its reduction schedule of 97% for the next four-year compliance period (2027–2030).
Eligibility Criteria
Ecology may grant an upward adjustment if a facility demonstrates that additional reductions in carbon intensity or mass emissions are not technically or economically feasible. To qualify, the facility must demonstrate at least one of the following conditions:
- Significant changes in emissions are attributable to manufacturing specific goods;
- Significant changes in the external competitive environment increase leakage risk; or
- Abnormal operating periods that materially affect carbon intensity.
This eligibility cannot be satisfied by qualitatively asserting hardship. Ecology requires a facility specific technical and economic feasibility assessment, explicitly modeled on best available technology analysis.
Required Technical Assessment
Facilities must identify and evaluate all emissions reduction measures with practical potential, including:
- Combustion related emissions controls;
- Process emissions reduction opportunities; and
- Other facility specific strategies (e.g., fuel switching, process reconfiguration, production shifts).
The assessment must document why measures are or are not technically feasible, considering technology readiness, implementation constraints, and infrastructure limitations.
Required Economic Assessment
For measures deemed technically feasible, facilities must conduct a comprehensive economic evaluation, including:
- Capital and operating costs;
- Available tax credits and/or incentives;
- Net present value analyses using at least three scenarios (minimum, most likely, and maximum costs); and
- Justification for classifying measures as economically infeasible, including constraints on cost pass through to customers.
Requests must be submitted to Ecology by March 31, 2026, with determinations expected before preliminary 2027 allowance allocations.
How HB 2537 relates to this Guidance
The structure and intent of the upward adjustment guidance closely mirror the direction of HB 2537, which proposes amendments to RCW 70A.65.110 on allowance allocation to EITE facilities.
Shared Emphasis on Technical and Economic Feasibility
HB 2537 expressly conditions upward adjustments and future allowance frameworks on demonstrations that further reductions are not technically or economically feasible, echoing the criteria laid out in this upward adjustment guidance document. Both frameworks emphasize:
- Best available technology analysis;
- Facility specific circumstances; and
- Recognition that emissions reductions may be constrained by physics, process requirements, or cost realities.
HB 2537 goes further by requiring EITE facilities to submit technology assessments and emissions reduction planning documents on a recurring basis, verified by third parties. The technical feasibility assessment required under this new guidance closely resembles these planning obligations, positioning facilities that engage early as better prepared for future legislative requirements extending through 2050.
How Trinity Can Help
The schedule adjustment assessment focuses on whether near term reductions are realistically achievable given current technology, economics, and market conditions. In addition to our decades of experience conducting BACT/RACT/LAER analyses, Trinity brings experience from supporting EITE facilities in Colorado with GHG Best Available Emissions Control Technology (BAECT) analyses under the GHG Emissions and Energy Management (GEMM) regulation work that closely parallels the BAT style technical and economic feasibility assessments required by Ecology’s upward adjustment guidance. Trinity routinely performs the same types of technical evaluations and multi scenario economic analyses Ecology now expects. Drawing on our work supporting compliance under Washington’s Cap and Invest program, California’s Cap and Trade program, and client specific decarbonization roadmaps, Trinity is well-versed in evaluating emissions reduction technologies, assessing infrastructure and operational constraints, and conducting defensible cost analyses.
Strategic Implications for EITE Facilities
The two guidance documents and HB 2537 indicate several key points:
- Adjustment is possible, but only through rigorous demonstrations with extensive documentation.
- Facilities should distinguish between baseline accuracy issues and future feasibility constraints when selecting a pathway.
- Technical and economic feasibility assessments are becoming a core pillar of EITE compliance strategy.
- Early action can reduce near term compliance obligations and position facilities favorably as Washington refines its long term decarbonization framework.
If you are considering a request to adjust your allocation baseline or reduction schedule, or would like to discuss compliance strategies, please contact Nancy Liang in Trinity’s Seattle office at 425.966.2973
