Legislation introduced in Olympia takes aim at Cascadia’s high gas prices but misses a root cause: lack of competition.

Sen. Joe Zarelli, a Republican from southwest Washington, proposed a study to determine if the single pipeline that serves the area stretching from Vancouver to Eugene is adequate. One potential fixes, of course, is to relax permitting rules or reduce taxes to encourage construction of an additional pipeline.

It’s no secret that gas costs more in this region than elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada. While supply and demand is part of the equation, close coordination of refining and distribution by oil companies is apparently a bigger factor. There don’t appear to be any attempts to crack that.

UPDATE:

The original post above suggested that Sen. Zarelli advocates relaxed rules or reduced taxes to encourage construction of a new pipeline. Catherine Trinh of the Senate Republican Caucus emailed to say that the bill doesn’t specifically mention either.

The exact language of the bill can be found here.

In recent days the Bush administration slapped tariffs on paper imported from China and annouced a free-trade pact with South Korea. The moves could harm the long-term goal of more trade that’s critical for Cascadia’s economy.

The tariffs on Chinese products are an attempt to placate critics in Congress rather than address the economic trends that make U.S. products less competitive. In fact the U.S. has increasingly little leverage on China because that country is financing our runaway spending.

Today’s announcement of a free-trade deal with South Korea also is less favorable than it seems. It appears to be another bilateral deal that ultimately protects some parts of U.S. industry at the expense of a backlash both overseas and among displaced U.S. workers. Cascadia’s long-term interests would be better served by pushing for comprehensive trade agreements that level the playing field between multiple countries.

There’s no question that trade can be improved by increments. Unfortunately these developments — on top of earlier tariffs on Canadian lumber and foreign steel, and a series of unfair bilateral trade deals — round out a dubious record on promoting trade.

The U.S. government is about to bail out the finances of dozens of counties in Cascadia that depend on the depressed timber industry. It needs to look for a longer term fix instead.

The latest proposal would spend billions of dollars over the next five years to compensate rural areas nationwide hurt by cutbacks in logging. The funds would forestall cutbacks in schools, roads and other public services that could paralyze much of the West.

So far, so good. At a time when the U.S. apparently has money to fund war in Iraq, cut taxes and subsidize corporations, why not bail out areas that have depended on timber for generations?

The problem is that there’s little sign those areas will be weaned from the subsidy when the next five years of funding ends. Instead we should be working toward a system where costs are carried more by those who benefit (for example, commuters pay congestion pricing, companies pay their way and rural areas become more self-sustaining).

The worst outcome would be to spread taxpayer largesse beyond the current list of recipients, sustaining areas where economic growth can’t. The Albany, Ore. newspaper editorialized for a change in the subsidy system, but its solution is more logging in federal lands. Never mind that the land actually belongs to everyone, not just residents of counties closest to them