Category Archives: All Bills 2022

SB5322

SB5322 – Requiring environmental and labor reporting on materials for public building construction and renovation.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Keiser, Valdez, Claire Wilson – Ds)
(By request of the Department of Commerce.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 27th, and passed out of committee that day. Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 31st. Replaced by a substitute making some minor changes and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Ways & Means, and had a hearing there on February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1282 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
This is a somewhat revised version of Senator Stanford’s SB5366, which was introduced in 2021 and then in 2022 as a companion bill to Representative Duerr’s bills in those sessions, but wasn’t heard.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the minor changes in the substitute at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would require public institutions of higher educations’ and state agencies’ contracts for construction and renovation projects to require reports of environmental information by cost of certain construction materials for buildings over 50,000 sq.ft., and additional information about labor standards in producing the materials for buildings over 100,000 sq ft. It would cover structural concrete, reinforcing and structural steel, and engineered wood products; they’d be due before substantial completion of a project. Firms that were selected for projects would have to provide data on quantities of covered products, current environmental product declarations for at least 90% of the value of those; any completed health product declarations; manufacturers’ names and locations; any supplier codes of conduct, and any certifications of firms by the Office of Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises. They’d have to ask their suppliers of each covered product in the larger projects for the names and locations of the actual production facilities and a specified report on working conditions for all employees at those, or the steps taken to reasonably obtain that data. (However, they wouldn’t be required to verify any information provided by suppliers, and they’d be exempted from requesting information about working conditions that would cause a significant delay in completion, a significant increase in overall project cost, or result in only one supplier being able to provide the product.)

By July 1, 2024, specifications for a project contract would only be allowed to include performance-based specifications for structural concrete unless that wasn’t practicable. The bill would continue the public database of provided data that was funded in the 2021-2023 budget, and publish the global warming potentials reported in the environmental product declarations. Commerce would have to further elaborate covered product definitions; develop measurement and reporting standards to ensure that data was consistent and comparable; as well as creating model language for specifications, bid documents, and contracts to support the implementation of the reporting requirements. The department would also produce an educational brief providing an overview of embodied carbon; describing the appropriate use of environmental product declarations, including the preconditions needed for them to be comparable; outlining reporting standards, including covered product definitions, standards for reporting quantities, and working conditions; describing the data collection and reporting required by the bill; providing instructions for the use of the database; and listing applicable product category rules for covered products.

If funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Commerce would be authorized to provide financial assistance to small businesses to help offset the costs of producing environmental product declarations and reducing embodied carbon in the built environment, while ensuring they weren’t put at a competitive disadvantage in state contracting as a result of the bill’s requirements.

It would require Commerce to convene a Buy Clean and Buy Fair workgroup with representatives from a specified list of stakeholders to identify opportunities for and barriers to growing the use and production of low carbon materials, promoting high labor standards in manufacturing, and preserving and expanding low carbon materials manufacturing in the state. The group would consider state and domestic supply of raw materials and other supply chain challenges, regulatory barriers, competitiveness of local and domestic manufacturers, costs, and data availability from local, state, national, and foreign product suppliers. It would identify opportunities to encourage the continued conversion to lower carbon cements. By September 2025, it would submit a report on policy recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor. The report would summarize data collected through the bill and other previous projects, make recommendations for improving environmental production declaration data quality and for ways of mitigating Scope 2 emissions through green power purchases, identify barriers and opportunities to the effective use of the database and collected data, and survey the regulatory landscape to identify areas of alignment and discrepancy between local, state, federal, and private policy on embodied carbon and identify opportunities to promote consistency across policies, rules, and regulations.

SB5287

SB5287 – Requiring a study of the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor – Nguyen – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Environment March 14th. Amended to specify that the report should include options for reuse, repurposing, and recycling; passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th. Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 20th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 27th.

Summary –
Subject to appropriations for this particular project, the bill would require the WSE Energy Program to conduct a study on the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state. It would include information and recommendations on:
(1) The cost, feasibility, and environmental impact of various disposal methods;
(2) The availability of recycling and processing facilities for them in Washington and other states;
(3) Potential incentives for the creation of blade recycling facilities in the state;
(4) Mechanisms for establishing recycling requirements, or recycled content standards, for blades;
(5) Considerations and options for designing a product stewardship program for them, and
(6) The feasibility of including all the blades installed, now and in the future, in a recycling program.

A report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature would be due by December 1st, 2023.

HB2119

HB2119 – 2022 Transportation Package.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma (Co-Sponsors Wylie & Riccelli – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 17th. Amended and passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules February 24th.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5974 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The Washington State Wire has a summary of the anticipated budget allocations plus a little political commentary.

Summary –

Amendments in House Transportation –
Amended to synchronize with the current Senate version by declaring the State’s intention to fully fund the ferry vessel and terminal electrification program in accordance with the 2040 Long Range Plan (but not the need to replace vessels on a biennial basis); by creating a Department of Transportation program focused on safety improvements to prevent lane departures in dangerous areas; by delaying the imposition of the tax on imported fuel for five months, reducing expected revenues by $51.2 million; and by depositing revenues from the tax on exported fuel into the Move Ahead WA account, rather than the motor vehicle fund. Other amendments would exempt biofuels exported to other states from the fuel tax; drop the provision allowing cities and towns to impose an additional tax of up to 2% on natural gas, steam energy, or telephone businesses with a vote of the people; and make other minor changes.

Original bill –
The bill would specify that transportation appropriations from the carbon emissions reduction account which is funded by revenue from the cap and invest program can only by used for active transportation, transit programs and projects, alternative fuel and electrification, ferries, and rail. It would declare the Legislature’s intention to use this money for the activities identified in the LEAP Transportation Document. 24% of that money would be dedicated to active transportation and 56% to transit. The bill would expand the cap and invest program’s requirement for environmental justice assessments, for reporting to the Environmental Justice Council, and for directing specified percentages of funding to vulnerable populations to include these investments.

It replaces the section of the Clean Fuels Act about Commerce’s creation of implementation rules with a new section, which simply deletes the subsection of the original act that the Governor vetoed.

The bill would apply the fuel tax to direct deliveries and bulk transfers to any destination with the United States, including tribal lands, but then it would provide credits against that, resulting in a tax of 6¢ a gallon, and no tax if the state to which the fuel went imposed a higher tax on it than Washington’s. (It would extend the current provisions that allow claiming a credit against the tax for fuel used in particular activities like urban transit to those uses of fuel exported to other parts of the country.) It would raise the tax on aircraft fuel sold, delivered or used in the state from 11¢/gallon to 18¢/gallon.

The bill would create a Move Ahead Washington account and a Move Ahead Washington flexible account which could only be spent on projects, programs, or activities assigned to those accounts in an omnibus transportation appropriations act. The bill would raise the basic license plate fee from $10 to $50, raise the motorcycle fee from $4 to $20, raise the dealer permit fee from $15 to $40, and raise license replacement fees; most of that additional revenue, the 25¢ license plate technology fee, and the 50¢ license service fee would be directed to the Move Ahead Washington account. It would raise the enhanced license fee from $32 to $56; add $2 to the fee for abstracts of driving records (and $4 after July 1st 2029); raise the fee for replacing driving identification to change or correct material information from $10 to $20; and deposit the additional revenue in the Move Ahead Washington flexible account. It would raise the documentary service fee that dealers can charge to cover their administrative costs in concluding sales and leases, which include licensing and registration fees and other agency fees, from $150 to $200.

The bill would direct $31 million a year from the general fund to the Move Ahead Washington flexible account from 2026 through 2038. (The bill says this represents the estimated state sales and use tax generated from the new transportation projects and activities it would fund.)

It would fund the sales and use tax reductions for the sale or lease of plug-in and fuel cell vehicles from the general fund rather than the electric vehicle account. It would fund the credits against the B&O tax and the public utility tax for purchases of alternative fuel vehicles over 14,000 pounds, for alternative fuel infrastructure, and for employers’ investments in financial commute trip reduction incentives from the general fund rather than the multimodal transportation account. It would fund the exemptions from the sales and use taxes for the sales of batteries and fuel cells for vehicles, and for work on them, from the general fund, and not the multimodal account.

The bill would raise the maximum amount of the excise tax voters in border area jurisdictions could decide to impose on the retail sale of fuel for the purpose of street maintenance and construction from 1¢/gallon to 2¢/gallon, adjusted for inflation going forward. It would allow cities and towns to impose an additional tax of up to 2% on natural gas, steam energy, or telephone businesses. (This would not require a vote of the people as I read the bill). The revenue would have to be used for improvements in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, the city, or the county, but might include public transportation and transportation demand management projects. It would allow transportation benefit districts to increase an existing sales or use tax for special transportation needs from 2/10 of one percent to up a maximum of 3/10 of one percent. It would allow the governing board of a district that included all the territory of the jurisdiction establishing it to impose a new local sales and use tax of up to 1/10 of one percent, and to vote to extend it for up to ten years.

The bill would make having all new vehicles sold, purchased, or registered in Washington be electric beginning with the 2030 models a target for the State, and would require the Department of Commerce to create “a scoping plan” for achieving that.

It would have Commerce establish a competitive bus and bus facilities grant program to provide funds to transit authorities for the replacement, expansion, rehabilitation, and purchase of transit rolling stock (including ferries and vans); the construction, modification, or rehabilitation of facilities; and the retrofitting of rolling stock and facilities to adapt to technological change or innovation. It would be required to incorporate environmental justice principles and geographic diversity into the selection process, to exclude fuel type as a factor, to limit any single grantee to a maximum of 35% of the funding in a biennium, and to establish an advisory committee to carry out the requirements for the program, including assisting with establishing the grant criteria.

The bill would establish a Connecting Communities program at Commerce to improve active transportation connectivity in communities by providing safe, continuous routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonvehicle users carrying out daily activities; mitigating for the health, safety, and access impacts of transportation infrastructure that bisects communities and creates obstacles in the local active transportation network; investing in greenways providing protected routes for nonvehicular users; and facilitating the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities to improve the connectivity and safety of that network. The program would propose projects to the Legislature considering
(a) Access to a transit facility, community facility, commercial center, or community-identified assets;
(b) The use of minority and women-owned businesses and community-based organizations in planning, community engagement, design, and construction of projects;
(c) Whether they will serve overburdened communities, vulnerable populations, low income households, and people with disabilities;
(d) Environmental health disparities;
(e) Location on or adjacent to tribal lands or locations providing essential services to tribal members;
(f) Crash experience involving pedestrians and bicyclists; and
(g) Identified need by a community.
Commerce would report to the transportation committees of the Legislature in December of each year for five years on selected projects for funding and on the status of previously funded projects.

The bill would require state transportation projects starting design on or after July 1, 2022, and costing $500,000 or more to identify locations on State rights-of-way that don’t have a complete Americans with Disabilities Act accessible sidewalk or shared-use path, that don’t have a bike lane or adjacent parallel trail or shared-use path, that have such facilities on a state route within a population center with a posted speed over 30 mph and no buffer or physical separation from vehicular traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists, and/or a design that hampers the ability of motorists to see a crossing pedestrian with sufficient time to stop. The Department would be required to consult local jurisdictions about existing and planned active transportation connections along or across those locations; and to identify connections to other existing and planned public transportation services; existing and planned facilities that connect to the location; and the potential use of speed management techniques to minimize crash risks. DOT would be required to lower the speed limit with appropriate roadway design and operations where this approach aligns with local plans or ordinances, particularly in contexts that present a higher possibility of serious crashes. It would have to plan, design, and construct facilities providing context-sensitive solutions needed to integrate the state route into the local network and contributing to connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people accessing public transportation and other modal connections, including ADA accessible sidewalks or shared-use paths, bike facilities, and crossings .

The bill would have DOT establish two statewide school-based bicycle education grant program, one for elementary and middle school and one for older students, to develop bicycling skills and street safety knowledge. It would be encouraged to consult with the Environmental Justice Council and the Office of Equity in the process. It would contract with a nonprofit organization with relevant reach and experience, including a statewide footprint and demonstrable experience deploying bicycling and road safety education curriculum via a train the trainer model in schools, for the elementary program, and with a non-profit meeting the same requirements plus experience developing and managing youth-based programming serving youth of color in an after-school and/or community for the junior high and high school program. The elementary program is to identify partner schools according to a long list of equity criteria; provide them with a fleet of bikes; provide a free bike with equipment for participants, and provide in-school bike and pedestrian safety education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and physical education teacher training. The junior high and high school program is to use the equity-based criteria to identify target populations and partner organizations that work with youth from 14 to 18, including schools, community-based organizations, housing authorities, and parks and recreation departments. It would provide education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and initial instructor/volunteer training, as well as ongoing support to those partners. DOT would report annually to the Legislature’s transportation committees on the programs.

The Department would negotiate with the Oregon Department of Transportation to determine the impacts on ridership, revenue, and policy of eliminating Amtrak Cascades fares for passengers 18 years and younger, and report to the transportation committees on the results and the status of fare policy requests to Amtrak by December 1, 2022. The bill would eliminate ferry fares for these passengers. It would establish a transit support grant program to provide support for operating and capital expenses to transit agencies that maintain or increase their local sales tax authority and have adopted a zero-fare policy for at least passengers 18 and younger. Grants would be prorated according to expenditures for operations; no agency could receive more than 35% of the money; and fuel type could not be a factor in the grant process.

The bill would expand the areas in which speed cameras could be used to include any roadway in a school walk area, public park speed zones, and hospital zones, and would require notification signs for drivers in those zones. It would increase the number of additional cameras that cities with over 195,000 people in a county of over 1.5 million were allowed to install, allowing one for every 10,000 residents in specified areas for cities that have done an equity analysis of livability, accessibility, economics, education, and environmental health, and consider that in their placements. Half of the net revenue from cameras in these new specified zones and the additional cameras authorized for larger cities would go to the State’s Cooper Jones active transportation safety account.

The bill would have the Transportation Commission reevaluate options to improve performance on the Interstate 405 and State Route 167 corridors at least every two years, since it has not met the goal of keeping average vehicle speeds in the express toll lanes above 45 mph at least 90% of the time during peak hours. It would remove the block on spending revenue from various accounts until a compliance path for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed businesses to achieve their share of the state’s emissions reduction through 2050 was in place. (HB1682 is intended to provide that.)

It would create a formal interagency council for coordinating the state’s transportation electrification efforts to ensure it’s leveraging state and federal resources to the best extent possible and to ensure zero emissions incentives, infrastructure, and opportunities are available and accessible to all. This would be led by the Departments of Commerce and Transportation with participation from Ecology; Enterprise Services; the State Efficiency and Environmental Performance Office; Agriculture; Health; the UTC; a representative from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction knowledgeable about student transportation; and other agencies with key roles in electrifying the sector. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees. It would develop a statewide transportation electrification strategy to ensure market and infrastructure readiness for all new vehicle sales; identify EV infrastructure grant related funding opportunities, and coordinate grant funding criteria across agency programs to most efficiently distribute state and federal electric vehicle-related funding in a manner that is most beneficial to the state, and advances best practices. It would recommend additional criteria that could be useful in advancing transportation electrification. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees.

SB5974

SB5974 – 2022 Transportation Package.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Southwest Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsor Saldaña – D)
Current status – Sent to conference committee; its report was adopted by both houses March 10. Relative to the amended House striker, the final version restores the specification that $500 million in preservation and maintenance funding is for stormwater projects with an emphasis on green infrastructure. It no longer specifies an intent to fund projects according to the LEAP document. It drops the 6¢/gallon tax on fuel exported to other states, and transfers $57 million a year to the Move Ahead WA flexible fund from the general fund; allows using the Public Works Assistance account for Move Ahead WA projects; and transfers $57 million a year from that account to Move Ahead WA. It restores the inflation adjustment to the border fuel tax, and drops the authorization for voters to approve an increase of up to 2% in their local gas utility tax, and the tax sticker on fuel pumps. It allows extending the local transit benefit tax with a vote more than once. It shifts creating the rail crossing grant program to the Department of Transportation, and limits regional mobility grant awards to transit authorities with free fares for riders 18 and under. It requires Transportation to estimate and report on the cap and invest program credits to be generated as a result of Move Ahead WA projects, and to make recommendations on the most effective ways to invest those to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize transportation. It specifies that completing Connecting Washington projects is a legislative priority, and recognizes that “the application of practical design” during project design may produce cost saving, but it specifies various requirements for legislative oversight of proposed changes. It requires reporting on estimated savings as a result of practical design, and transfers those and some other possible project savings to the transportation future funding program to be split evenly between accelerating current Connecting Washington projects and funding new ones.
Next step would be – To the Governor
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2119 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed
Referred to Transportation February 17th; then passed to Rules without a hearing on February 25th. The bill was amended on the floor by Representative Fey to eliminate the 6% tax on fuel exported to other states, to partially replace the expected revenue by transferring $100 million a year for the next 15 years from the Public Works Assistance Account to the Move Ahead WA program, resulting in a estimated net reduction of roughly $500 million in funding for the program over that period, and to drop the specification that $500 million of the preservation and maintenance funding is for enhancing stormwater runoff treatment with an emphasis on green infrastructure retrofits. His striker also defines biofuels in the Fuel Tax Act as those with life cycle emissions at least 40% below those of the petroleum products they’re replacing; drops the authorization for local increases of up to 2% on utility taxes to fund transportation; drops the required railway crossing grant program; adds some environmental justice provisions; drops the increased license plate fee from $50 to $40 for used cars; and has the Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council develop of a public and private outreach plan and create an industry electric vehicle advisory committee. Other amendments have the Department of Agriculture produce and distribute a sticker required on motor fuel pumps with information on Federal and State tax rate, and remove the inflation adjustment from the provision authorizing jurisdictions within ten miles of the border to raise the border fuel tax from 1¢/gallon to 2¢.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Transportation Committee Thursday February 10th at 10:00 AM; continued February 11th at 8:00 AM. Referred to Rules. Amended by the prime sponsor to adjust the bill in a number of small ways; and by others to declare the State’s intention to fully fund the ferry vessel and terminal electrification program in accordance with the 2040 Long Range Plan and the need to replace vessels on a biennial basis; and to delay the imposition of the tax on imported fuel for five months, reducing expected revenues by $51.2 million. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to eliminate telephone businesses from the optional additional 2% tax; to specify that $500 million of the preservation and maintenance funding under LEAP 2 is to go to enhance stormwater runoff treatment with an emphasis on green infrastructure retrofits; to create a grant program for projects that eliminate at grade highway-rail crossings; to create a Department of Transportation program focused on safety improvements to prevent lane departures in dangerous areas; and to make a couple of other minor changes. Passed by the Senate February 15th.

Comments –
The Washington State Wire has a summary of the anticipated budget allocations plus a little political commentary.

Summary –
The bill would specify that transportation appropriations from the carbon emissions reduction account which is funded by revenue from the cap and invest program can only by used for active transportation, transit programs and projects, alternative fuel and electrification, ferries, and rail. It would declare the Legislature’s intention to use this money for the activities identified in the LEAP Transportation Document. 24% of that money would be dedicated to active transportation and 56% to transit. The bill would expand the cap and invest program’s requirement for environmental justice assessments, for reporting to the Environmental Justice Council, and for directing specified percentages of funding to vulnerable populations to include these investments.

SB5967

SB5967 – Imposing a state climate resiliency and mitigation surcharge on large financial institutions financing the global fossil fuel industry.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Rolfes -D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
From 2023 through 2049, the bill would impose a climate resiliency and mitigation surcharge on financial institutions that are members of a consolidated financial group with an annual net income of at least $1 billion, and that are bankers of fossil fuel industries. If fossil fuel financing minus financing for renewable energy were 4% or more of the groups’ total financing for all industries, the rate would be 0.5%; if it were from 2.5% to 4% of total financing the rate would be 0.375%; and if it were less than 2.5% the rate would be 0.25%. However, institutions with a rate of 0.375% would be able to reduce their current 1.2% B&O surcharge to 1.075%, so they’d actually pay an additional 0.25%, and institutions with a rate of 0.25% would be able to reduce their current surcharge to 0.95%, so they’d actually break even. The rate would be adjusted each July, on the basis of published reporting by the Department of Commerce developed from “league tables published by a well-established financial data analytics and services firm that provides financial, economic, and government information covering industry sectors”. The revenue would go into the climate resiliency account along with some of the revenue from the cap and invest bill and could be spent in a variety of ways.

SB5962

SB5962 – Planning for and implementing the conservation or restoration of 30% of Washington’s lands and waters by 2030.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Rolfes, Lovelett- Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources, and Parks.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Director of the Recreation and Conservation Office to adopt a plan to conserve or restore 30% of Washington’s lands and waters by 2030, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Lands, and the directors of the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Commerce, Ecology, and Agriculture. The plan would have a collaborative and inclusive approach to conservation; benefit everyone in the state; support locally led and designed efforts; honor tribal sovereignty and support the priorities of tribal nations; pursue conservation and restoration, use science as a guide; and build on existing tools and strategies, emphasizing flexibility and adaptive approaches. It would be adopted by December 31, 2023, and the Director would publish periodic progress reports on its implementation and progress toward achieving the 30 by 30 goal.

The bill says that “conservation” should be considered to include “not only preservation, but also the restoration as well as the use of lands and waters that are consistent with providing the critical resources that sustain all life on earth”. It also says that lands and waters designated for special protections like parks, marine sanctuaries and “other public lands” should be considered as “conserved” by the plan, as well as additional lands and waters in public or private management that protect important ecosystem functions.

The bill would create a 30 by 30 Commission, chaired by the Director of the Office, to assist in the development of the plan. It would include representatives of the other departments listed above, and the Director would appoint other members, including land conservation and preservation advocates; additional rural landowners; advocates for outdoor recreation and parks, including urban park accessibility; and representatives from disproportionately impacted communities identified by the environmental health disparities map; from forestry, farming, and ranching; and from cities, counties, and special purpose districts. The Director would also invite representatives of Federal agencies managing lands in the state and representatives of tribes to serve on the Commission. The Director and the Commission would have to include a robust public engagement program in the development of the plan, providing equitable community engagement among all segments of the state.

As a foundation for the plan, the director would be required to adopt guidance for including lands and waters considered to currently be in conservation status, and to prepare an assessment of current progress toward meeting the policy, informed by data and maps provided by relevant governments.

The bill would require state agencies to act consistently with this policy goal, and be
guided by the plan in achieving it. (The bill would encourage cities, counties, and special purpose districts to act consistent with it.)

HB2100

HB2100 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Bronoske -D, Eslick – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Transportation February 1st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5828 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
This bill is identical to the prime sponsor’s HB2070, except that the title no longer says it’s “Relating to implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group.”

Summary –
The bill would no longer require including moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs in their annual reports to the Department of Licensing. It also drops a clause implying the Department can require information about collisions in addition to what the law currently specifies. It requires submitting a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department including information on how to interact with the vehicle being tested in emergency and traffic enforcement situations, and requires submitting the expected period of time during which testing will occur to the Department rather than to various local and state law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways on which testing will occur.

SB5961

SB5961 – Requires state agencies and local governments to use biochar products in projects when it’s feasible, with various exceptions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sefzik (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsor Warnick – R)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations February 21st; passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to limit the requirements to public works projects; specify that the biomass must come from various waste materials; and to not require using it if any of the criteria for exceptions apply rather than all of them. Passed by the House.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 5th; passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 10th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would require the Department of Natural Resources to implement a pilot project to evaluate the costs and benefits of marketing and selling forest products to a biochar facility. It would determine if revenues cover the costs of preparing and conducting the sales, and identify and evaluate factors impacting those, including regulatory constraints and staffing levels. The project would have to include sales in the Olympic region, and be completed by June 30, 2024. DNR would work with stakeholders and report the results and any recommendations to the appropriate committees of the Legislature By November 1, 2024.

Original bill –
The bill would require state agencies and local governments to use biochar products in projects when they can be utilized. It wouldn’t be required if they weren’t available within a reasonable period; if the available products didn’t comply with purchasing standards; if they didn’t meet Federal or State health, quality, and safety standards; or if the prices weren’t reasonable or competitive. It wouldn’t be required of a state agency if the total cost of using it were prohibitive; if applying it would have detrimental impacts on the physical characteristics and nutrient condition of the soil as it is used for a specific crop; or if the project was growing trees in a greenhouse.

SB5849

SB5849 – Extends the reduced B&O tax rate for manufacturers of solar systems and components for five years; creates 10 year property tax exemption for new industrial or manufacturing facilities in designated areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Referred to House Finance; had a hearing March 7th, and passed out of committee March 8th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 17th, and passed out of committee February 24th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to remove the provisions for tax exemptions in designated distressed areas. Passed by the Senate March 4th.

Summary –
Currently the law reduces the B&O tax rate for manufacturing solar energy systems or solar grade silicon to 0.275%. (The normal B&O tax rate for manufacturing is 0.484%.) The bill would extend the expiration date of this exemption from July 1st 2027 to July 1st 2032.

(It would also extend a 10 year sales and use tax exemption for new Industrial or manufacturing facilities of any and all kinds in designated areas.)

SB5896

SB5896 – Shifts a report by the Department of Enterprise Services on the use of electricity to recharge vehicles at State Offices from an option to a requirement.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sefzik (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Lovelett, Carlyle, Liias, Lovick, Saldaña, Frockt, Nobles, Randall, Salomon, Wellman – Ds; Fortunato, Honeyford, Schoesler, Warnick, Lynda Wilson, and Jeff Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 26th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently, the Department of Enterprise Services is authorized to report to the Governor and the appropriate committees of the Legislature on the the number of plug-in electric vehicles charging at State offices, and the amount of state-purchased electricity consumed by them. The bill would change this from a report made when the Director deemed it necessary, if the cost were significant, to an annual requirement.

SB5908

SB5908 – Creating a Clean Car Authority to distribute, coordinate and oversee electric vehicle grants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle, Hunt, Nguyen, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in State Government and Elections January 28th; passed out of committee February 2nd. Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a new State agency, the Clean Car Authority, to distribute electric vehicle grant funding awarded to Washington from the Federal Infrastructure bill, provide a vision for the state about the most beneficial and efficient distribution of electric vehicle grants, as well as coordinating and overseeing their administration by state agencies and local governments. (It would coordinate with the Office of Climate Commitment Accountability, if that were created by SB5842. It would be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Justice Act.

Its Director would be appointed by the Governor the State’s with the consent of the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The Director would have complete charge and supervisory powers over the authority, and could create the Authority’s administrative structures and employ any necessary personnel. (They would be covered by civil service provisions, except for the Director and the Vice Director, if one were created.) The director would be required to appoint an industry advisory committee including representation from the electric vehicle industry, interested stakeholders, and state and local governments administering electric vehicle grants.

SB5903

SB5903 – Requiring multimodal transportation options at drive-up services.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Billig (D; 3rd District; Spokane) (Co-Sponsors Rivers – R; Das, Dhingra, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer, Liias, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Randall, Saldaña, Trudeau, and Wellman – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation January 31st. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require any public or private drive-up service open to motor vehicles to allow bicyclists, pedestrians, and other nonmotor vehicle modes of transportation to access the service. (If mixing multimodal traffic and motor vehicles in the same lane would create a safety hazard, an alternative lane or lanes would have to be made available for it.)

HB2066

HB2066 – Requires local governments to exempt certain infill development from the State Environmental Policy Act’s requirements. (That’s an option for them now.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce and Eastern Thurston Counties) (Co-Sponsors Dufault -D; Klicker, Gilday, Sutherland, Eslick, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment and Energy February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would leave the categorical exemption as an option rather than requiring it, and would require a jurisdiction adopting it to provide a means for collaboration and coordination with any tribe whose lands, usual and accustomed areas, or protected areas would be affected by the infill development. It would limit the current provision which allows the exemption if the applicable comprehensive plan has ever undergone environment review under SEPA by requiring that to have been done within the previous seven years. Cities and counties engaged in a review and evaluation of their urban densities would be required to consider how to maximize the use of the infill development exemption as part of identifying reasonable measures to align their actual development with their targets.

Original bill –
Currently, a local government can choose to categorically exempt certain infill development from SEMA requirements, if it’s for an area where current density and intensity of use is equal to or lower than what’s called for in the comprehensive plan and the development is residential mixed-use, or commercial up to 65,000 sq. ft., excluding retail. (It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and can’t clearly exceed the density or intensity of use that calls for.) The government also has to consider the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determine that they’re adequately addressed by the development regulations or other applicable requirements, rules or laws; and the comprehensive plan has to have completed an environmental impact statement under SEPA’s requirements before it was adopted or the local government has to have prepared an environmental impact statement considering the proposed use or density and intensity of use in the area.

The bill would require these exemptions unless the local government’s legislative body considers the probable adverse impacts and adopts a finding that they’re not adequately addressed by the regulations or other requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan, planned action ordinance, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws. In that case, it can require the development to comply with SEPA.

HB2049

HB2049 – Requiring local governments to accept building applications from certain professionals as complete; excluding some expansion and remodeling projects from local review; and streamlining processes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce and Eastern Thurston Counties) (Co-Sponsors Bateman, Shewmake, Walen, Wicks, Dufault, Macri, Peterson, and Simmons -Ds; Boehnke, Gilday, Hoff, Robertson, Rude, Sutherland, Eslick, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Referred to Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In spite of the title, there’s nothing in the bill saying the changes only apply to affordable housing.

Summary –
The bill would require local governments to accept any building permit application with plans, computations, or specifications prepared by a professional engineer or architect with at least $1 million in liability insurance as complete, and prohibit them from imposing “substantial modifications or conditions on submittals prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed architect, landscape architect, soils engineer, civil engineer, structural engineer, or combination thereof.” The requirement would apply during project review, and would apply to approving construction drawings as well.

Unless a clear violation of substantive and procedural requirements was demonstrated by a local government, the bill would allow no more than three reviews or requests for additional information during project review before a project would be automatically deemed approved. It would shift the current reporting requirements to focus on permitting times for subdivisions and for housing from single-family residences through fourplexes, and it would have local governments report to the Department of Commerce, which would post it, rather than posting the information on their own websites. It would have Commerce freeze funding for public works and the implementing the Growth Management Act if a city missed the deadline for its annual report.

It would require local governments planning under the Growth Management Act to do a technical review of an application for conformity with the requirements by all departments, divisions, and sections of the local government with jurisdiction over the project before returning a permit to an applicant for corrections and changes.

It would prohibit local governments from requiring local project review for the expansion or remodeling of existing buildings, structures, or development if:
(i) Alterations would not modify the existing site layout for single-family dwellings or duplexes, except those located in critical areas, or when two or more duplexes would be built on the same lot;
(ii) The project involves no exterior work adding to the footprint;
(iii) The door or window adjustments or replacements are allowed with no site plan needed; and
(iv) Total additions and alterations and detached accessory structures are less than 2,000 square feet in area without new vehicular access.

The bill would also no longer allow local governments to exclude landmark designations, street vacations, or other approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities, or other administrative or quasi-judicial project permits that they determined presented special circumstances from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.090. [I think that’s simply because that section is not in the code any more, but I don’t know what happened to it.]

SB5910

SB5910 – Accelerating the availability and use of renewable and electrolytic hydrogen.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Hawkins -R; Billig, Conway, Hunt, Mullet, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Passed by the House March 7th. Senate concurred in House amendments March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 5th; passed out of committee on the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 12th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy on February 22nd. Replaced by a striker that drops the authorizations for municipal utilities and PUDs to produce, use, sell, and distribute some kinds of hydrogen; drops the provision making the Facilities Site Review process available to additional facilities; requires specific commitments from participants in an application for Federal hydrogen hub funding; and makes some other changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it.

Replaced by a striker in Appropriations; amended to make it null and void if funding for it isn’t appropriated, and passed out of committee February 28th. The new striker restores the authorizations for municipal utilities and PUDs to produce, use, sell, and distribute some kinds of hydrogen; it restores the tax breaks for producing electrolytic hydrogen and for the sale of electricity to produce it and renewable hydrogen that the Senate substitute dropped. It allows Commerce to provide funding (at an appropriated amount, not the earlier version’s $500K) to support applying for Federal hydrogen hub funding. It requires the Department of Revenue to produce guidance for county assessors to refer to in appraising solar and wind projects of at least one megawatt. Referred to Rules; amended on the floor to require utilities to provide certain information to the UTC before replacing natural gas with renewable or electrolytic hydrogen, and to provide some general guidelines for what the UTC is to consider in setting rates for it; passed by the House March 7th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute no longer expands the tax breaks for the production of renewable hydrogen to include electrolytic hydrogen, and no longer provides the tax breaks on the sale of electricity to produce either of them. It moves the Office of Renewable Fuels under the Director of Commerce, removes the $500,000 appropriation to support applying for Federal clean hydrogen hub funding, and it would add facilities for storing any sort of electricity, not just electricity from renewable sources, to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process.

Original bill –
The bill would create a Statewide Office of Renewable Fuels, with a Director appointed by the Governor. It would work with other state agencies to:
(a) Accelerate comprehensive market development with assistance along the entire life cycle of renewable fuel projects;
(b) Support research into, development, and deployment of renewable fuel production and distribution.
(c) Drive job creation and support the transition to clean energy;
(d) Enhance resiliency by using renewable fuels to support climate change mitigation and adaption; and
(e) Partner with overburdened communities to ensure they benefit from renewable fuels efforts equitably.

It would also collaborate with local government, state and Federal agencies, private entities, public four-year institutions of higher education, and others on research, development, and deployment efforts in the production, distribution, and use of renewable fuels including electrolytic hydrogen. It would review existing renewable fuels initiatives, policies, and investments; consider opportunities for coordinating public, private, state, and federal funds to develop and deploy renewable fuels; and assess opportunities for and barriers to their deployment in hard to decarbonize sectors of the economy. The Office could request recommendations from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals on fire and safety standards adopted by authorities.

By July 1, 2024, it would be required to develop a plan and recommendations for the Legislature and Governor on renewable fuels policy and funding including project permitting, state procurement, and pilot projects. It could apply for Federal funds and grants, would collaborate with a range of other agencies, and might work with them on compiling data about the State’s use of renewable fuels.

The bill would appropriate $500,000 for the next biennium to have the Department of Commerce provide funding to one or more local government bodies or a public-private partnership to prepare an application to secure federal funding to locate one of the four planned regional clean hydrogen hub in Washington. The Infrastructure Bill provides $8 million over four years to develop these; they’d work toward achieving a hydrogen fuel carbon intensity goal; would demonstrate the production, processing, delivery, storage, and end use of hydrogen; and would be the basis for developing a national network to facilitate a clean hydrogen economy. (The bill lists some reasons to think Washington would be a good location.) The Director would seek strong and timely applications with a broad range of participants for developing and implementing the hub’s infrastructure, and that had commitments from manufacturing industries, transportation, utilities, and other sectors to incorporate hydrogen fuels into their transition to cleaner energy.

The bill would have the UTC report to appropriate Legislative committees by December 1, 2024 about whether it should regulate rates and services for the production and distribution of hydrogen fuels; and whether the electric utilities it regulates should be required to analyze the costs and benefits of adopting special tariffs for power used in producing electrolytic hydrogen. The report would also address the adoption of safety standards for distributing and dispensing hydrogen fuel; recommended standards for blending it into natural gas distribution infrastructure; and the role it may serve as the state reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

It would make changes in the definitions of the “alternative energy resources” to add projects for producing renewable natural gas, for renewable and electrolytic hydrogen, and for energy storage to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process. (HB1812 makes some of the same changes, but adds clean energy manufacturing, expands the pre-applicant process to more than transmission facilities, and includes biofuels used for things besides transportation.)
The bill would authorize PUDs to produce, distribute and sell electrolytic hydrogen as well as renewable hydrogen, and authorize municipal utilities to operate with renewable and electrolytic hydrogen as well as natural gas. It would expand the current sales and use tax exemptions for renewable hydrogen (as “electric vehicle infrastructure”), and the exemption from the leasehold excise tax collected instead of property tax form leased public lands to include electrolytic hydrogen production facilities, in addition to ones for renewable hydrogen.
It would provide a 25 year rebate of the sales tax on electricity used in producing electrolytic hydrogen or renewable hydrogen, or in compressing, liquifying, or dispensing them, by exempting those sales from the tax if the utility reduced the price for producers by the same amount.

SB5732

SB5732 – Requiring new buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. to include green, agrivoltaic, or bio-solar roofs, or to make a cash-in-lieu payment for local climate resiliency programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Sheldon, Randall, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings declare that green roofs provide greater weatherization and insulation for a building, can prolong the service life of HVAC systems through decreased use, can triple the life of the roof, can reduce stormwater runoff, can help clean the air and reduce urban heat island effects, can generate employment, can provide recreational spaces, and can be effectively combined with solar panels. (The Living Roofs website has some photos of these.)

It doesn’t take the differences in their potential performance in the different climates in the Eastern and Western half of the state into consideration in any way.

Summary –

After January 1, 2025, the bill would require the design of any new building where the sum of multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial area was over 50,000 square feet, excluding the parking garage area, to have at least 70% of the roof be a green roof. Half of that area could be solar and half could be an intensive green roof with at least six inches of soil; all of it could be an extensive green roof with between three and six inches of soil if half the area also had solar panels; a quarter of the dedicated area could have solar and three-quarters of it could have an extensive green roof; or a quarter of it could have solar panels, half of it could be an extensive green roof, and a quarter of it could be an intensive green roof producing food.

They would have to be designed and constructed by qualified teams of contractors including engineers, landscape architects, architects, and at least one green roof professional. They’d have to have a five-year maintenance plan with a minimum of two visits a year, and be designed to facilitate inspection by local authorities to ensure ongoing energy and environmental performance.They’d have to “be part of performance rating systems” including the LEED program, Sustainable Sites, and the Living Architecture Performance Tool. The Building Code Council would have to adopt rules for the requirements by December 31, 2024.

Building owners could apply for full or partial exemptions from the requirements during permitting and make a cash-in-lieu payment of $50/sq. ft. instead. (The bill estimates that as the average cost of constructing a green roof.) [As I read the bill, these exemptions have to be granted if they’re requested; jurisdictions have to spend any payments they receive on local climate resiliency programs.]

The bill would have the Washington State Institute for Public Policy do a report to the Legislature on the cost of constructing a green roof by January 1, 2025; and recommend any changes to the cost estimates in the Act to ensure that the costs of the various alternative assemblies for complying are roughly equivalent and the cash-in-lieu payments are based on the actual average cost of constructing a green roof.

If funds were appropriated for it, the Institute would also do a cost-benefit analysis of the use of these systems on buildings between 10,000 to 50,000 square feet, in consultation with Ecology, Commerce, and an organization that has experience conducting them. The analysis would include agrivoltaic installation and maintenance costs; and the effects of these various systems on stormwater runoff and water treatment facilities in communities over 50,000; on public health and air quality; on energy efficiency and reductions in fossil fuel use for buildings with agrivoltaic systems; and on Job creation.

SB5715

SB5715 – Increasing the Statewide Broadband Office’s definition of broadband service to at least 100 megabits per second downloads and 20 megabits per second uploads.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Sheldon, Randall, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Community & Economic Development Tuesday February 22nd, and passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 3rd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th, and passed out of committee on February 2nd. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate unanimously on February 15th.

Summary –
The bill would increase the Statewide Broadband Office’s definition of broadband service to at least 100 megabits per second download and 20 megabits per second upload. (Currently, it’s defined as any service that provides at least 25 Mbps downloads and 3 Mbps uploads.)

SB5648

SB5648 – Modifying the State’s limits on local jurisdictions’ ADU requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to Housing and Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.”>Senator Liias (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

SJR8211

SJR8211 –
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Southeast King and Northeast Peirce Counties)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would submit a Constitutional amendment to the voters that would require any state revenue collected from a road usage charge, vehicle miles traveled fee, or other similar charge be used exclusively for highway purposes.

HB2062

HB2062 – Allows a regional transit authority to create enhanced service zones with improved service from rail or high capacity systems, to be approved by residents of the zone and financed by them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Seattle); Co-Sponsor Rep. Liias (D; 21st District; South Seattle, Renton, Tuckwila)
Current status – Referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5528 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
It’s hard to see how the operators of commercial parking facilities without attendants are supposed to be able to keep track of how many of the vehicles that used them were exempt from a commercial parking tax.

Summary –
The bill would authorize regional transit authorities to create enhanced zones to improve rail or high capacity service in ways that directly benefited residents of the zone. A zone would have to be recommended to the authority by an advisory committee whose members represented the proposed zone, and then authorized in a special election by the voters in the zone. The improvements would be financed by increasing the maximum rate of the local special motor vehicle excise tax available to regional transit authorities in counties with a population over 1.5 million from .85% to 1.5% within the enhanced zone, and/or through a local commercial parking tax.

The parking tax could be imposed as a tax on commercial parking businesses in the zone, based on the number of stalls or gross proceeds, or as a tax “for the act or privilege of parking a motor vehicle in a facility operated by a commercial parking business.” In that case, it would still be collected and paid by operator of the facility, but it might be a fee per vehicle or proportional to the charge for parking, and might vary according to a number of reasonable factors including the facility’s location, the time of day, or the duration of the parking. It would also apply to leased spaces as well as temporary parking, unless those were for buildings’ residents. Carpools, vehicles with a disabled parking placard, and government vehicles would be exempt.

An enhanced service zone would have to be within the transit authority’s boundaries and include at least all of a city or town within them; it could also include one or more entire adjacent cities or towns and adjacent unincorporated areas. There might also be multiple enhanced service zones encompassing the same city or town, or adjacent unincorporated area.

HB2070

HB2070 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Bronoske -D, Sutherland – R)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Did not receive a hearing, ans still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5828 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
Since the bill’s officially titled “Relating to implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group”, the changes it would make were apparently recommended by that group. (Since the prime sponsor has now introduced HB2100, which is identical to this bill except for a new title with no mention of the autonomous work group, perhaps they weren’t…)

SB5633

SB5633 – Creating a voluntary, incentive-based plan to conserve at least one million acres of working forestland; and reforest at least one million acres by 2040.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 34th District; Bainbridge Island) (Co-Sponsors Short, Gildon, Hawkins, Wagoner, and Warnick – Rs; Das, Hasegawa, Lovelett, Nguyen, Nobles, Randall, and Stanford – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 20th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1895 is a companion bill in the House.
There’s a staff summary.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to create a voluntary, incentive-based working and nonworking forest conservation and reforestation plan intended to conserve at least a million acres of working forestland and reforest at least a million acres by 2040. The plan would have to respect the full diversity of landowner management and investment objectives, and utilize or develop incentive-based strategies that address preventing the loss of working and nonworking forestland across the state; opportunities to implement incentive-based carbon compensation programs for avoiding conversion and reforestation; reforestation on forestland impacted by wildfire, pests, disease, landslides, land-use change, and other stressors; and tree planting and increased canopy coverage in urban areas. prioritizing highly impacted or overburdened communities. It would have to use the plan to assess and prioritize conservation and reforestation actions each biennium.

The Department would be required to develop a framework to address the goal, mapping and prioritizing areas across the state based on criteria including risk of permanent forest loss, or the loss of critical environmental, economic, cultural, equity, or health benefits including value to local economies, carbon sequestration, landscape-level habitat connectivity, or salmon recovery and important wildlife habitat. It would evaluate and promote existing carbon compensation programs and other incentives for emissions reductions to assist forestland owners in voluntarily engaging in carbon markets. It would map and prioritize historically forested areas, including postwildfire areas and areas where reforestation or afforestation efforts might support environmental restoration, local economic development, or tribal restoration objectives, and it would conduct an analysis of the regional reforestation pipeline, including seed collection, nursery capacity, and workforce needs, to ensure an adequate basis to meet goals and growing needs. (Reforestation analyses would be required to include an ecological assessment of advantages and disadvantages of intervention, and of best strategies for maintaining and restoring ecological integrity and resilience to climate change.) It would map and prioritize urban and community areas where tree planting might provide environmental, economic, or health benefits, particularly to highly impacted or overburdened
communities. It would conduct the analysis needed to develop a strategic plan, including specific criteria to prioritize the conservation of forests at risk of conversion, and analysis of the reforestation pipeline, the state’s private sector logging and milling capacity, and equity and environmental justice impacts.

In developing the framework, the department would have to consult with impacted communities using the State’s community engagement plan and identify opportunities to increase equity in forestland ownership; utilize the Washington health disparities map to help identify highly impacted or overburdened communities lacking equitable access to forest benefits; consult with the Washington State Office of Equity on how to make values-driven, data informed decisions to identify and address disparities impacting communities of color; invite input from tribes on forested areas with important cultural, ecological, and economic values threatened by conversion or other disturbance; and engage a range of stakeholders (including a long specified list) in the development and implementation of the conservation and reforestation plan.

The Department would be required to identify, prioritize, utilize, and develop voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities consistent with the plan, using appropriations provided for that specific purpose. It would have to utilize and build on various previous reports to the Legislature. It would assess and inventory existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities relevant to the goals of the plan, and consider new ones. These might include tools such as payment for ecological services, technical or financial support to small forestland owners, tax or market incentives, conservation and working forest easements, fee simple land acquisition, or transfer of development rights. The Department would identify their limitations and make recommendations to improve, accelerate, or expand them to maximize their effectiveness. It would identify new or existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentives addressing economic stressors that contribute to forest conversion (including the retention of milling infrastructure, market access,
and workforce development); that give financial value to the underlying environmental, health, equity, and cultural values of working forestlands; and that provide support to small working forestland owners achieving their objectives and goals.

The Department would develop a pilot rapid response fund to test opportunities and barriers to acquiring private working forestlands at imminent risk of conversion from willing sellers, and maintaining them as working forests.

By December 1st 2022, the Department would report to the Office of Financial Management and the appropriate committees of the Legislature including a map and justification of identified priority areas, an approach to monitoring to assure that the forested acres were meeting the criteria of success established in the plan, and a description of activities to be undertaken consistent with it. The plan would have to be finalized and submitted to them by December 1st 2023. Each biennium after that, the Department would have to submit a report reviewing previous and future activities. This would include a list and brief summary of tools, financing opportunities, and incentives used in the preceding biennium, including total funding, costs for those, and their outcomes and effectiveness. It would highlight any of them that contributed to more equitable outcomes, including equity in forestland ownership, access to green spaces, and urban tree cover canopy. It would include any barriers to implementation, legislative or administrative recommendations to address those, and a comparison of the requested and actual funding for the plan the previous biennium, with an analysis of the additional progress that would have been expected with full funding, if that’s possible. The report would include a list and brief summary of tools and incentives to be used in the next biennium with requested appropriations, including information from the prioritization process. It would identify potential partnerships between the State and the forest products industry to promote the use of those as a way toward maintaining the state’s forestland base and reaching its emissions goals, and would identify a range of other potential partnership opportunities. The report would include criteria by which working and non-working forested areas would be considered protected from conversion, including a minimum time frame for that conclusion. It would provide an update on the acres of working and nonworking forestland by region, and on private sector logging and milling capacity, including gains or losses, and potential reasons for significant changes. It would provide an update on the quantity and quality of jobs created or sustained through conservation and reforestation activities; on the locations and acres reforested; and on consultation with highly impacted communities.

HB2020

HB2020 – Includes requiring design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building Challenge certifications, and provides accelerated permitting for them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wallen (D; 48th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Leavitt, Ramel, Ryu, Macri, Bateman, Lekanoff, and Pollet -Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Local Government January 18th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Did not progress by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill is mostly about increasing affordable housing, but it would also require the standards set by local design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building certifications. It would require cites to create a preferred permit path program that would be available to developments that were Passive House or Living Building Challenge certified as well as for projects with 20% affordable housing. The program would provide expedited processing in less than 120 days. (The substitute drops most of the original bill, including the requirements about providing for certified high efficiency buildings; it retains creating a Sustainable Equitable Affordable Measured Board to “provide oversight and guide local jurisdictions in achieving goals for expeditious sustainable affordable housing”, create a plan, and measure and report on progress.

HB2026

HB2026 – Implementing a pilot program collecting a per mile road use charge on vehicles in place of the gas tax.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wicks (D; 38th District; Everett)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a road use charge program for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, collecting an annual fee of 2.5¢ for each mile they drove in the previous year rather than the $225 in fees they currently pay. The new system would apply to new all electric cars purchased or leased after July 1 2025, and would be a registration option for other all electric vehicles. It would be an option for plug-in hybrids after July 1, 2026. The total annual fee could not exceed the current additional fees for the car, and that limit would be reduced by $50 for voluntary participants.

After July 1st 2027 owners of an internal combustion vehicle could choose to pay the road use fee, and would get a credit against the fuel tax that the Department determined corresponded to the tax they would have paid on its annual fuel usage. The charge could not exceed the current additional fees for plug-ins, and that limit would be reduced by $50. The department would have to design and execute a public outreach and education program, in consultation with the Transportation Commission, before implementing the program.

The bill would require at least 500 state owned electric, electric-hybrid, and internal combustion passenger or light duty truck fleet vehicles to be included in the program. They’d be selected by the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Transportation Commission, to further test the viability of a per mile fee on electric-hybrid and internal combustion vehicles, but would not be subject to the fee until July 1, 2027.

The Department would offer owners one or more methods of reporting miles driven, including one based on submitting odometer readings periodically. It could also include one or more automated methods, and could certify one or more private sector services to provide those. It would have to offer periodic payment options to participants. It would report to the Legislature on the program’s performance each year, and offer recommendations for improving it. The Transportation Commission would be required to assess approaches to implementing a per mile fee discount for low-income vehicle owners, in collaboration with the DOT, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature’s Transportation Committees by January 10, 2024, as part of its report on the results of its Federal research program. By January 1, 2029, the Joint Transportation Committee would evaluate the road use charge in consultation with the Department to assess requirements for fully implementing it in place of the fuel tax, well as the potential revenue impacts of that, and report to the Legislature’s transportation committees.

HB2001

HB2001 – Expanding the incentive program for affordable housing to include tiny houses.
Prime Sponsor – Representative McCaslin (R; 4th District; Spokane Valley) (Co-Sponsors Graham, Jacobsen, Chase, and Sutherland – Rs)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government Tuesday February 1st at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current incentive program for affordable housing to include tiny houses. The program allows cities and counties to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing, if it meets certain requirements. (The incentives include density bonuses within the urban growth area; height and bulk bonuses; fee waivers or exemptions; parking reductions; and expedited permitting.) The bill would allow tiny houses to be built inside or outside the urban growth area.

HB2003

HB2003 – Creating a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products are responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Donaghy (D; 44th District; Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Duerr, Fitzgibbon, Jesse Johnson, Leavitt, Peterson, Ramel, Ryu, Simmons, Macri, Bateman, Ormsby, Davis, Riccelli, Lekanoff -Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment and Energy. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5697 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would create a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products were responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted. They would be required to join a producer responsibility organization, which would submit a nine year plan for approval to the Department of Ecology, implement it, and report to Ecology on its plan performance in specified ways. Ecology would be authorized to collect a fee from producer responsibility organizations to cover the costs of the statewide needs assessment, would administer the program, and would appoint and support an advisory council for it.

The bill is 74 pages long. There’s already a proposed substitute from the prime sponsor of the Senate version, which will be heard in committee there January 18th. (It’s in the folder for the bill onb the page with the committee materials for the hearing). There’s a staff report on that.

SB5862

SB5862 – Has the county or county treasurer take any steps in foreclosure proceedings to facilitate the enforcement of a CPACER lien that can’t be done by the capital provider.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Rivers, Fortunato, Gildon, and Jeff Wilson – Rs; Kuderer, Lovick, Nguyen, Nobles, Stanford, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government February 16th. Passed out of committee February 18th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th; referred to Housing and Local Government. Had a hearing there January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor rewriting the section about responsibilities for collection to try to establish that’s the responsibility of the lender, and that the government is not playing a constitutionally impermissible role in the process. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 9th.

Summary –
The bill would have the county or county treasurer undertake any action or obligation in foreclosure proceedings under RCW 84.64.80 to facilitate the enforcement of a CPACER lien that can’t be done by the capital provider or an assignee. It specifies that these are just to “facilitate the enforcement of the C-PACER lien by the capital provider or assignee” and shall not constitute prohibited enforcement activities under RCW 36.165.110, which says that a county “may not enforce any privately financed debt.” Any money received related to delinquent installments would go to the capital provider, who would reimburse the county or the treasurer for their costs.

SB5697

SB5697 – Creating a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products are responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Rolfes, Kuderer, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Pedersen, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing on a substitute by the prime sponsor in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 18th. Replaced by a second substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means and scheduled for a hearing there on February 5th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2003 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

Substitute –
The second substitute makes further changes which are summarized by staff in a page of small print at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would create a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products were responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted. They would be required to join a producer responsibility organization, which would submit a nine year plan for approval to the Department of Ecology, implement it, and report to Ecology on its plan performance in specified ways. Ecology would be authorized to collect a fee from producer responsibility organizations to cover the costs of the statewide needs assessment, would administer the program, and would appoint and support an advisory council for it.

The bill is 74 pages long; there’s already a proposed substitute from the prime sponsor, which is what will be heard in committee. (It’s in the folder for the bill on this page with materials for the hearing.). There’s a staff report on the substitute.

SB5872

SB5872 – Would allow any electricity produced with less than the average emissions of new combined-cycle natural gas turbines to keep being sold in spite of the State requirement for carbon-free electricity by 2045.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Short, Wagoner and Jeff Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology. Did not have a hearing by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow electricity from any power plant producing fewer emissions than the 2008 emissions performance standard for baseload electric generation or the average emissions of available new combined-cycle natural gas thermal electric generation turbines to be sold without counting as a violation of the State requirement that utilities have to deliver carbon-free electricity by 2045.

HB1994

HB1994 – Making a second or subsequent theft of a catalytic converter or other metal a Class B rather than a Class C felony, and lengthening the sentence if a thief confronted someone trying to prevent the theft.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Young (R; 26th District; Kitsap Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Sutherland and Jacobsen – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Public Safety.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
See also HB1815; HB1873 and SB5495.

Summary –
The bill would make a second or subsequent theft of a catalytic converter or other commercial metal property, nonferrous metal property, or private metal property with a value between $750 and $5,0000 a class B felony, rather than a Class C felony like such thefts of most other kinds of property. It would count a conviction for theft in the third degree, of property worth less than $750, as a first violation if the original charge was for this class B felony.

It would add twelve months to the standard sentence range if it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that someone convicted of this crime had engaged in a confrontation during the theft with the property owner or a third party trying to prevent it from occurring.

SB5744

SB5744 – Creates a ten year sales and use tax deferral for projects investing at least $2 million in clean technology manufacturing, clean alternative fuels production, generating renewable electricity, or storing it, with options for reducing or eliminating the deferred taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle, Conway, Das, Kuderer, Mullet, Pedersen, Saldaña, Trudeau – Ds) (By request of the Office of Financial Management.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1988 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would expand the deferral for facilities to store energy from renewable sources to include storage for renewable or electrolytic hydrogen and for any electricity. It would leave the current tax exemptions for renewable hydrogen production facilities as part of “electric vehicle infrastructure” in place. It would require Labor and Industries to adopt rules for the minimum labor standards and good faith efforts required to get the bill’s reductions in deferred tax obligations.

Original bill –
The bill would defer state and local sales and use taxes on materials and equipment, labor, or services for projects investing at least $2 million in buildings, or machinery and equipment, or both, for any new, renovated, or expanded clean technology manufacturing operation; facility to produce clean fuels or renewable or electrolytic hydrogen; or facility to generate or store electricity from renewable resources. The manufacturing of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions other than water, including motorcycles would be qualified; so would charging and fueling infrastructure for any of those, as well as equipment and facilities for generating renewable and electrolytic hydrogen (including preparing those for distribution); for producing clean fuel with associated greenhouse gas emissions not exceeding 80% of 2017 levels, and for generating electricity from renewable resources or equipment used directly in storing it.

Applications for the deferral could not be submitted after June 30th, 2032. Ten percent of the deferred taxes would become due on December 31st of the second year after completion of the project, and the rest of them would be due in annual payments of 10% at the end of each of the nine following years. (No interest would be charged, except on delinquent payments.)

The State would reduce its part of the taxes to be repaid by half for projects certified by L&I as including procurement from and contracts with women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses; procurement from and contracts with entities that have a history of complying with federal and state wage and hour laws and regulations; apprenticeship utilization; and preferred entry for workers living in the area where the project is being constructed. (If a project was built without one or more of these, the Department would be allowed to certify that it met them if it demonstrated it had made all good faith efforts to do so, but was unable to due to lack of availability of qualified businesses or local hires.) Projects that met these standards and paid workers at prevailing wage rates determined by local collective bargaining would receive a 75% reduction, and those that also were developed under a community workforce or project labor agreement would not have to repay the deferred taxes at all. A person leasing qualified buildings, machinery, and equipment would only receive the tax benefits if the owner agreed to pass them on in writing, and if the lessee agreed in writing with the Department to do the required tax performance reporting.

Construction would have to begin within two years or the taxes would become due. A gradually decreasing percentage of them would be due if the project had not been completed within five years or if it were used for some other purpose that didn’t qualify for the deferment.

The bill would revise a definition so that renewable hydrogen production facilities would no longer be included under the current sales and use tax exemptions as part of “electric vehicle infrastructure.”

HB1921

HB1921 – Creating rules for the tax assessment of wind and solar facilities, and authorizing counties to enter into agreements for their annual payment of fees in place of property taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Boehnke & Young – Rs; Fitzgibbon, Shewmake, & Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Finance January 18th; replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor making a number of changes that are summarized in a staff memo and passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules February 7th. Replaced on the floor by a striker from the prime sponsor which stripped the bill down to the development of rules for assessment by the Department of Revenue and required county assessors to refer to those in valuing renewable property, though they’d still be allowed to use other methods if they had a compelling reason. Passed by the House 97-1 on February 15th.
Next step would be – To the Senate.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Revenue to develop rules for the tax assessment of solar and wind facilities of at least one megawatt of AC nameplate capacity that were not yet in service, using a cost-based approach. In doing this, it would have to develop industry specific trending tables for solar and for wind projects, and to develop an appraisal model in cooperation with stakeholders within 90 days of the effective date of the bill. The bill would prohibit revaluing a facility for at least twenty years after it was placed into service.

It would also allow the governing body of a county and the owner of the property for a wind or solar project in the unincorporated area of the county that was not yet in service to enter into an agreement exempting it from the property tax and providing for the payment of an annual fee in its place. The fee could not be more than $4,500/MW of AC nameplate capacity for a solar project and $8,000/MW for wind projects, plus $750/MW for storage associated with projects. Agreements would be limited to a maximum of ten years, but might be renewed by mutual consent. If any portion of the property were within an incorporated city, the county would have to have its consent to an agreement. The payments would be due on April 30th each year, and handled as if they were property tax payments. If the fee weren’t paid, the property would be subject to the regular tax the next year, though it could continue under the agreement by paying the fee plus penalties and interest by October 31st of the year in which it was due.

HB1988

HB1988 – Creates a ten year sales and use tax deferral for projects investing at least $2 million in clean technology manufacturing, clean alternative fuels production, generating renewable electricity, or storing it, with options for reducing or eliminating the deferred taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Berry and Paul – Ds) (By request of the Office of Financial Management.)
Current status – Referred to Senate Ways and Means; had a hearing March 7th and passed out of committee the 9th. Passed by the Senate March 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5744 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance February 1st; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 24th; amended to add a JLARC review after five years and passed out of committee the 28th. Referred to Rules; passed by the House March 4th.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute adds making compounds (like ammonia) from green or renewable hydrogen for storing or transporting it to the deferments, along with storage for electricity from any source . It requires the Department of Labor and Industries to adopt rules with minimum requirements, documentation requirements, consultation requirements, and a certification process for the labor standards in the bill. It would no longer remove renewable hydrogen production facilities from the current sales and use tax exemptions for “electric vehicle infrastructure.”

SB5842

SB5842 – Making adjustments to the Climate Commitment Act, and creating an Executive Office of Climate Policy and Accountability in the Department of Ecology.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 11th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Liias, Das, Nguyen, and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The provisions about the Office of Climate Policy and Accountability are presumably intended to shape the provision in the cap and invest act which says “The Governor shall establish a governance structure to implement the state’s climate commitment” in accordance with a long list of criteria.

I would have thought that the earlier provision saying the bill preempted the Clean Air Act would have left anything in that which the new bill didn’t cover operable; one of the Senate floor amendments will also repeal it.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 18th. Replaced by a striker eliminating the requirement that the rules for smoothing obligations over time match those of linked jurisdictions; requiring that investments from the price ceiling auctions produce at least a metric ton of reductions for each unit allowing a metric ton of emissions; and making some other small changes. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 2nd.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor adding biofuels from wastewater treatment plants to the definition of biomass for the cap and invest bill, and moving a reporting date by six months; passed out of committee February 2nd. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 4th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 7th. (The 2nd substitute would let all covered entities use credits released through the price ceiling mechanisms to meet their compliance obligations. It would allow Ecology to suspend the price floor mechanism if it “might enter into a linkage agreement” with a jurisdiction that doesn’t have one. It specifies that the new Office of Climate Policy and Accountability would only report on the state’s progress in achieving GHG limits, rather than developing a strategic climate work plan; would not represent the State nationally or internationally; and could only implement laws administered by Ecology in accordance with the polices established in the bill and monitor their economic impacts to minimize leakage.) Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to restrict the use of banked offset credits to those issued in the two years before the bill takes effect (or after that); to direct the Department of Ecology to repeal the Clean Air Act (in addition to saying this bill preempts it); and to drop the provision creating the Office of Climate Policy and Accountability. Passed by the Senate February 11th.

Summary –
Original bill –
Currently, the Climate Commitment Act (aka as the cap and invest program) uses the total state emissions between 2023 and 2025 as the basis for calculating the proportion of an entity’s emissions to total state emissions for entities that begin to be covered by the program during the second compliance period, from 2027 through 2030. The bill would use the total state emissions during 2015 through 2019 instead, which is what it does for entities covered during the first compliance period.

The bill would readopt Section 22 of the original act, about the managing and smoothing of compliance obligations, verbatim, except for the part about the poison pill provisions preventing the Act from taking effect unless an additive transportation package was passed. (The Governor vetoed all those provisions in the bill.) He also vetoed the rest of this section, on the grounds that it primarily provided a convenient summary of compliance obligations that duplicated other passages in the Act, that there weren’t any substantive aspects of the section that Ecology couldn’t adopt and implement through its rulemaking authority, and that it created an internal inconsistency with regard to the expiration date of allowances, because the ability of covered entities to rely on the last seven years of allowances in Section 22(1) conflicted with the unlimited time period for use of allowances in Section 9(2).

The bill would exempt a variety of specified bidding information from public disclosure, as well as information contained in the secure online tracking system, and various submitted financial or proprietary information.

It would narrow the current provision preventing a state agency from adopting or enforcing any other program that regulates greenhouse gas emissions from a stationary source. It would now allow them to adopt and enforce limitations on emissions from stationary sources that are not greenhouse gas pricing or market-based emissions cap and reduce programs, and that are authorized or directed by state statute or required to implement a federal statute, rule, or program.

It would create an Executive Office of Climate Policy and Accountability within the Department of Ecology, reporting to the Director. Its primary purpose would be supporting the state’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing accountability to achieve the State’s 2050 emissions limits and providing an accurate inventory of emissions. It would be required to aggressively implement laws and policies to achieve those limits, and would represent the State on national and international emissions reduction policies. It would be required to develop a strategic climate work plan with performance milestones and accountability measures, to present that to the Legislature by January 31, 2024, and to submit a legislative report on progress by January 31, 2025, and every two years afterwards.

Section 7 of the bill would change the name of what’s currently called “an auction ceiling price” to “a reserve auction floor price”, which seems like a confusing choice to me. (The reserve auction floor price is a ceiling price, because extra allowances from the reserve are sold at auction to increase supplies and hold the prices down if they rise above the floor for the reserve auction.)

SB5837

SB5837 – Removing plastic carryout bags as an option for use at retail establishments; making the 8¢ charge for paper carryout bags permanent.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Das, Hunt and Nobles – Ds)
Current status –Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Plastic bags are clearly bad for the environment; whether they’re bad for the climate is unclear; it depends on how often they’d are reused, what bags are used to replace them, how bags are dealt with at the end of their useful lives, and complicated full life cycle estimates of the associated emissions.

Summary –
The bill would advance the date after which retail establishments may not provide reusable film plastic carryout bags to a retail customer or a person at an event from January 1st, 2026 to January 1st, 2023. (The current law would have allowed them to continue providing bags of at least four mils if the 2025 Legislature hadn’t amended the requirements in response to a study it ordered.) (This bill would add an exemption for bags to contain or wrap hot food.)

It would make the 8¢ charge for a paper carryout bag permanent, and continue the 8¢ charge for a compliant reusable plastic carryout bag until the end of 2022. It would eliminate provisions for increasing the charges for them to 12¢ in 2026, for the increase from 20% to 40% in the required post-consumer recycled content of reusable plastic carry-out bags that’s currently scheduled for July 1st, 2022, and for the increase in their minimum thickness from 2.25 mils to four mils that’s currently scheduled for January 1st, 2026. These would be superceded, as I understand the bill, since retail stores would not be allowed to provide them at all after the end of 2022.

SB5828

SB5828 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Wagoner, Rivers – Rs; Dhingra, Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd; replaced by a substitute changing the title to drop the reference to the autonomous vehicle work group and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Still in Rules at cutoff. Sent to the “X” file Februry 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

SB5818

SB5818 – Limits review and appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act and Growth Management Act to promote housing construction in cities.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Short – R; Liias, Kuderer, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 24th and passed out of committee. Referred to Rules; replaced by a striker making various changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it; and passed by the House March 4th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Housing & Local Government January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate February 15th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute simplifies (and perhaps broadens) the exemption from GMA review and SEPA appeal of some local development regulations by saying it applies to any that “increase housing capacity, increase housing affordability, and mitigate displacement” and aren’t in a critical area. It adds projects creating “light and glare” to those that are exempt from SEPA appeals about aesthetics as long as they’ve passed local design review. The staff summary says it “removes the requirement for Ecology to modify the existing rule-based categorical exemption for single-family residential project types in UGAs to apply only to single-family residential types with total square footage of 1500 square feet or more”. (As I read the bill, there’s no difference in the effect of these two versions.) It drops the provision about awarding attorney’s fees, making it more difficult for citizens to go to court.

Original bill –
The bill would remove the ending date for the current exemption from administrative or judicial appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act of any ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions a city takes to implement the twenty-five steps the Growth Management Act encourages to increase residential building capacity. (The exemption, which was adopted in 2020, will expire in April 2023 now.) It would add an exemption from environmental or judicial review under SEPA for them. It would exempt adoption of ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions to implement any strategies adopted in a city’s housing action plan from these SEPA appeals and reviews. (I think that Section 3 of the bill merely adjusts another section of the law to make the same changes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.)

It would exempt any action taken by a city to implement strategies adopted in a housing action plan from review or legal challenge under the Growth Management Act. It would exempt the adoption of any ordinances and amendments to development regulations taken by a city to implement actions specified in the housing element of its comprehensive plan from SEPA environmental or judicial review and administrative or judicial appeal.

It would direct the Department of Ecology to conduct expedited rule making to modify the thresholds for the categorical exemptions from threshold determinations and environmental impact statements in the current SEPA rules to exempt four attached single-family residential units as well as four detached ones; exempt multifamily residential projects of up to 200 units in incorporated urban growth areas rather than projects up to 60 units; exempt single-family residential project types of less than 1,500 square feet in incorporated urban growth areas with up to 100 units, while continuing to cap the current exemption at 30 units for single-family residential projects larger than that.

It would exempt project actions pertaining to residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development from SEPA appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on aesthetics, or those impacts, unless the project had not been subject to local design review requirements. (I think it merely restates their current exemption from appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on transportation, or those impacts, unless DOT had found a project would present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned transportation system.)

The bill adds a provision to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party at trial or on appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a project-specific affordable housing development.

SB5795

SB5795 – Requires manufacturers of portable flat screen digital electronics to provide independent repair providers and owners access to the documentation, parts and tools for repairs that they make available to authorized service providers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Keiser, Pedersen, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
This bill addresses the same issues as HB1810, and makes many of the same provisions in slightly different language. However, it adds an alternative way to comply with many of the requirements for access to information and tools, through aftermarket providers, which isn’t clearly written and doesn’t seem to include any requirements about the extent or quality of that access. This bill would only apply to “handheld or portable devices” with a microprocessor and flat screen, like laptops and smartphones, that were originally manufactured for distribution and sale in the United States for general consumer purchase.

Summary –
The bill would require original manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state on or after January 1st 2012 to make the same diagnostic and repair information that they make available to authorized repair providers available to independent repair providers in the same format, and for no charge or the same charge, including corrections to embedded software and safety and security patches.

Manufacturers would be required to make them all available for purchase on fair and reasonable terms. It would require them to make equipment or service parts for these, including any updates to their embedded software, available to owners of those products and independent repair providers for purchase on fair and reasonable terms (unless the parts were no longer available to the manufacturer or authorized repair provider). If manufacturers sold any diagnostic, service, or repair documentation any independent repair provider or owner in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they would be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included diagnostic, service, or repair documentation or functionality that was not available in a standardized format. A manufacturer of digital electronic products sold or used in the state would have to make any diagnostic repair tools it makes available to its own repair or engineering staff or any authorized repair provider available for purchase with the same capabilities and at fair and reasonable rates by owners and independent repair providers.

The bill says that manufacturers could fully satisfy all the obligations above by providing “diagnostic repair documentation to aftermarket diagnostic tools, diagnostics, or third party service information publications and systems” and would not be responsible beyond that for the content and functionality of those.

Equipment or parts sold or used in the state to provide security-related functions would not be allowed to exclude diagnostic, service, and repair information need to reset a security-related electronic function from the information provided to owners and independent repair facilities. The bill also says that if information necessary to reset an immobilizer system or security-related electronic module is excluded in the sub-section it “may be” obtained by owners and independent repair facilities through the appropriate secure data release systems, but there doesn’t seem to be an exclusion in the current version.

The bill would prohibit manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state on or after January 1, 2023, in Washington state from designing or manufacturing them in a way that prevented reasonable diagnostic or repair by an independent repair provider, including attaching a battery in a way that made it difficult or impossible to remove. They’d be prohibited from establishing end user license agreements that restricted the legal uses of a product after purchase, and from dictating the venue for legal disputes in them.

The bill would make a violation of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, and would create an additional civil penalty of $500 for each violation of its provisions.

SJM8008

SJM8008 – Urging the United States Government to enter into a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsors Senators Lovelett, Lovick, Salomon, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would transmit a memorial from the Legislature to the President Biden, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and Washington’s Congressional representatives urging them to begin good faith negotiations to enter into a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. (It would commit participating nations to end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion, phase out existing production in line with the global commitment to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and accelerate equitable transition plans.)

SB5775

SB5775 – Requires cities and towns to allow microtrenching for fiber optic cables.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Senators Short – R; Conway, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Claire Wilson, and Paul – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1722 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require cities and towns to allow microtrenching for installing fiber optic cable, unless they makes a written finding that allowing it would inconvenience the public use of the right-of-way or adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. (A microtrench for conduit is no more than four inches wide and between 12 inches and 26 inches deep; they could be shallower if the jurisdiction and the installer agreed to that.) Jurisdictions could charge fees to cover their costs for issuing permits and inspections.

HB1964

HB1964 – Requires property leases for solar or wind projects to include and maintain a decommissioning plan and financial assurance of the project owner’s capacity to implement it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Corr y (R; 14th District; Jefferson and Clallam Counties)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on Tuesday February 22nd at 10:30 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th. Passed out of committee February 3rd and referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor and passed by the House February 11th. (The striker required the projected cost of demolition to include an offset for the salvage value of the facility and be based on the cost of hiring a third party to do the work. It required the financial assurance to include an additional 20% contingency factor; prohibited local jurisdictions from requiring higher financial assurances; and made some other changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it.

Summary –
The bill would make developers leasing land for a solar or wind project responsible for decommissioning it within 18 months of when it stopped operating, requiring them to make and maintain a plan for decommissioning and financial assurance of their capacity to implement it.

The Department of Ecology would be required to develop a provisional standard form for these within 180 days in consultation with the industry, and then a final form. Unless a property owner and the project owner agreed on other terms in writing a plan would have to provide for removing nonutility-owned equipment, conduits, structures, fencing, and foundations to at least three feet below grade; removing graveled areas and access roads (unless the property owner requested leaving them in writing); restoring the property to a condition reasonably similar to its initial state, including replacing topsoil removed or eroded on previously productive agricultural land; and reseeding cleared areas, unless the property owner made a written request that not be done because of plans for agricultural planting. (The project owner would not be required to remove equipment and materials that a public utility required top remain on-site.)

The financial assurance would have to be equal to the cost of meeting these obligations, as calculated and updated every five years by a third-party professional engineer hired by the project owner from a list made by the department, and equal to at least $10,000/megawatt of the facility’s AC nameplate capacity. (Acceptable methods of assurance would include a bond or escrow account.) At least thirty days before beginning construction a project owner would have to provide the decommissioning plan and proof of financial assurance covering at least 20% of the cost of decommissioning to the county auditor. Each five years after that an updated decommissioning plan and proof of financial assurance increasing the coverage by 20% would be required, so that financial assurance covering 100% of the cost of decommissioning would be required with the updated plan due on or before the 20th anniversary of the beginning of construction.

On or before the 20th anniversary of beginning construction, the updated decommissioning plan would have to include include an estimate of the removed materials (including wind turbines, photovoltaic modules, turbine blades, towers, guy wires, auxiliary equipment, and steel support structures) that would be salvaged, recycled, refurbished, or sent to a landfill. No more than 20% of the mass of a facility, excluding cement support structures, could be landfilled.

The bill would preempt local ordinances and regulations dealing with any aspects of facility agreements, financial assurance, and decommissioning plans associated with wind and solar projects. None of its requirements would apply to the nonutility owner or operator of a net metered distributed  generation system with a nameplate capacity of below 3,000 kilowatts.
.

HB1932

HB1932 – Creates criteria for recyclable products and packaging; prohibits “deceptive or misleading claims” about recyclability; requires increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content in plastic tubs, thermoform containers, and single-use cups.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Santos, Duerr, Slatter, Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5658 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t say so, but I assume its categorizing misleading labels about reyclability as “deceptive or misleading claims” is intended to make them subject to the consumer protection laws.

Summary –
The bill would establish standards for what products and packaging the State considers to be recyclable, and would make symbols or statements on them suggesting they were recyclable a “deceptive or misleading claim” unless they met those standards and were “of a material type and form that routinely became feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.”

By January 1, 2025, Ecology would complete a study of the material types and forms that are collected, sorted, sold, or transferred by facilities that process recyclable materials from curbside recycling programs and other solid waste facilities. It would identify which of these are actively recovered and not considered contaminants by included operations or facilities; and how material was collected or processed. It would publish its preliminary findings on its website, take public comments before the final version, and update the study every five years.

A product or packaging would be considered recyclable if at least 75% of what’s sorted and aggregated in the state is reprocessed into new products or packaging; or if the material type and form are collected for recycling in jurisdictions that encompass at least 60% of the population, and are sorted into defined streams for recycling by large transfer or processing facilities that collectively serve at least 60% of programs statewide, and then sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the State’s solid waste management requirements. (Ecology could modify the rules to include smaller facilities to meet the goals of the program.) Until 2031, product or packaging not collected under a curbside collection program would count as recyclable if the program recovered at least 60 percent of its material and that had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material type and form; after 2031 recovering at least 75% of the material would be required. Products or packaging in compliance with State or Federal laws passed after 2023 and governing recyclability or disposal would count if the Director of Ecology determined they wouldn’t increase increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive consumers about their recyclability. Plastic packaging could not count as recyclable if it included any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent that.

Cities, counties, and the State would be authorized to impose civil liability in the amount of $500 for a first violation of the law, of $1,000 for a second one, and of $2,000 for a third and any subsequent one. Ecology would be required to develop an enforcement program to investigate and identify violations by 2026.

The bill would include plastic tubs and thermoform plastic containers like clamshells and egg cartons (starting in 2026), as well as single-use plastic cups (starting in 2029) in the current law requiring gradually increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content and annual reporting about that.

SB5658

SB5658 – Creates criteria for recyclable products and packaging; prohibits “deceptive or misleading claims” about recyclability; requires increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content in plastic tubs, thermoform containers, and single-use cups.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Rivers – R; Das, Hunt, Saldaña, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1932 is a companion bill in the House.

Cities, counties, and the State would be authorized to impose civil liability in the amount of $500 for a first violation of the law, of $1,000 for a second one, and of $2,000 for a third and any subsequent one.
Ecology would be required to develop an enforcement program to investigate and identify violations by 2026.

HB1931

HB1931 – Eliminates the expiration date for the fees Ecology receives for the costs of hydropower licensing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 24th, and passed out of committee the 28th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Appropriations January 25th; passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor by the prime sponsor to extend the current expiration date to 2029, and passed by the House February 15th,

Summary –
The bill would eliminates the expiration date for the fees Ecology receives for the costs of hydropower licensing, which is currently June 30th, 2023.

HB1924

HB1924 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel, shifting expiration from 2024 to 2034.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Tharinger (D; 24th District; Jefferson and Clallam Counties) (Co-sponsors Representatives Chapman and Fey – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Finance Committee January 24th; passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in the 2021 session as HB1387, but did not get a hearing in the House Finance Committee.

Summary –
The bill adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat or biofuel, shifting its expiration date from 2024 to 2034.

HB1918

HB1918 – Exempts zero-emission outdoor power equipment from the sales tax and imposes an additional 6.5% air quality tax on equipment with emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Macri (D; 43rd District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Valdez, Berry, Ryu, Simmons, Peterson, Goodman, Ramel, Kloba, Bateman, Harris-Talley, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Senate Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations January 20th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Finance; had a hearing there February 17th. Replaced by a second substitute adding exceptions for government purchases of a few more kinds of equipment and allowing waivers; passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Rules; passed by the House March 4th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute removes the additional 6.5% tax on equipment with emissions other than water; requires state agencies and local governments to buy zero-emission large outdoor equipment when that’s practicable. It requires Commerce to provide technical assistance about these kinds of equipment to the government and the public instead of having it monitor compliance with the bill’s requirements for governments. (It also exempts outdoor power equipment used for emergency response activities, in natural resource work on forestland, in agricultural settings, or in remote settings that can only be reached by water from the bill’s requirements.)

Original bill –
The bill would impose an additional air quality improvement tax of 6.5% on each retail sale of outdoor power equipment that produced emissions in use other than water. (The tax would be collected from January 1st 2022 through 2032, and apply to equipment with less than 25 horsepower.) The bill defines “outdoor power equipment” as lawn mowers, riding lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, string trimmers, brush cutters, chainsaws, pole trimmers, pole saws, log splitters, leaf blowers, leaf shredders, leaf vacuums, soil tillers, soil cultivators, augers, mulchers, edgers, wood chippers, stump grinders, pressure washers, snow blowers, tampers, compactors, and other equipment designed or marketed for use in an outdoor setting in the management of vegetation, landscaped outdoor spaces, or built spaces.)

The bill would exempt zero-emission outdoor power equipment from the sales tax, and require physical and electronic retailers to notify potential customers of that and of the 13% tax on other outdoor power equipment in specified ways. It would not allow state agencies and local governments to purchase any outdoor power equipment with emissions after 2024. The Department of Commerce would review their compliance with the requirement by December 1, 2026, and submit a report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including a review of the market availability, cost, and performance attributes of zero emission outdoor power equipment relative to emitting versions.

There would be a JLARC evaluation of the results, covering at least the amount of the exemption and the tax for each type of equipment; the number of taxpayers that received the exemption and the total exempted; the number of taxpayers that paid the air quality improvement tax and the total paid, the average per taxpayer of the exemption and the new tax, the net effect on state revenues of the two changes, and to the extent that it’s practical, the amount of the benefit to taxpayers in each county as a result of the exemption and the cost to them of the tax.

HB1873

HB1873 – Prohibits scrap metal dealers from buying a catalytic converter from anyone but a business or the owner of the vehicle from which it came; strengthens current law against removing markings from metal property.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Klippert (R; 8th District; Kennewick) (Co-Sponsors Gilday, Jacobsen, Corry, Robertson, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Public Safety.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This bill would make a second or subsequent violation of the current law’s prohibitions on removing identifying marks from metal property or entering into a transaction where they’ve been deliberately and conspicuously altered a Class C felony; otherwise; it’s identical to SB5495. HB1815 also addresses converter thefts, by requiring unique marking identification on converters, and creating a task force on the issue. See HB1994 as well.

Summary –
The bill expands the regulations about scrap metal dealers to prohibit them from buying a catalytic converter from anyone but a commercial enterprise or the owner of the vehicle from which it came. (The owner would have to provide the year, make, model, and vehicle identification number for the vehicle.) It adds precious metals to the dealers’ reporting requirements for “private metal property” and “non-ferrous metal property” transactions (though it doesn’t specify that addition each time those others are specified). It requires a five day delay before cash payments can be made for these materials, and requires keeping records of them for at least three years.

It makes it a gross misdemeanor, and a civil infraction subject to a $1,000 fine, for any scrap metal business and for any owner, partner, or employee of one to purchase or receive private metal property
knowing that it’s stolen. It makes a second or subsequent violation of the current law’s prohibitions on removing identifying marks from metal property, or entering into a transaction where they’ve been deliberately and conspicuously altered, a class C felony.

HB1896

HB1896 – Requires battery producers to participate in and fund a stewardship program providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Harris-Talley (D; 37th District; Rainier Valley) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Ryu, Simmons, Slatter, Peterson, Gregerson, Ormsby, Goodman, Ramel, Kloba, Frame, Bateman, Macri, Valdez, Duerr, and Pollett – Ds)
Current status – Had a continued hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th. Replaced by a substitute making minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing February 5th. Amended (by Rep Boehnke from the Tri-Cities) to require Commerce to contract with PNNL for a study of the end-of-life management of large format batteries rather than doing it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill is a slightly revised version of HB2496, which was introduced in the 2020 session, and had a hearing in the House, but did not advance beyond that. This bill eliminates the exemption for producers selling less then 5,000 batteries a year in the state, and adds some environmental justice standards. There are roughly 25 pages of details in the bill, and I haven’t tried to get all of them into the summary.

Summary –
The bill would make producers responsible for creating and funding a product stewardship system for dealing with all used batteries under twenty-five pounds (with a few exceptions, including vehicle batteries.). The bill would have users drop off used batteries at “free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible” sites, and prohibit putting them in containers for mixed recycling, landfills, incinerators, or waste-to-energy plants. (The system would include education and outreach to encourage participation.) Batteries from producers who weren’t participating couldn’t be legally sold in the state.

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans have to include performance goals for target collection rates and targets for the percentages of materials recovered through recycling. (They must collect and provide for the end-of-life management of batteries in an amount roughly equivalent to the Washington market share of the batteries of producers participating in the plan, and recover and recycle at least 70% of the weight of rechargeable batteries and 80% of others.) Plans have to include a system to collect charges from participating producers to cover the costs of the system, and structure the charges to encourage designs that reduce the environmental impacts of products. They have to adjust the financial obligations of producers in proportion to their use of recycled content in batteries.

There have to be collection sites for batteries under 12 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. Collection sites have to operate on a free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible basis for any person, business, government agency, or nonprofit organization. Programs have to use the collection sites of any retailer, wholesaler, municipality, solid waste management facility, or other entity that meet the requirements for sites and request it. They have to reimburse organizations implementing a State approved electronic recycling plan for their costs, and reimburse local governments for the costs of any facilities of theirs used as battery collection sites for the program.

Plans have to include a procedural manual for collection sites about reducing risks of spills or fires, and protocols for responding to those, and for managing damaged batteries. There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for hefty batteries between twelve and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people. (They have to be certified to handle and ship hazardous materials. )

Plans have to manage batteries by prioritizing prevention and waste reduction first, then reuse when that’s appropriate, and then recycling. They can only deal with batteries in other ways, like landfilling them, after a year, and after demonstrating to Ecology that these other higher priority options aren’t technologically feasible or economically practical.

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2026, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

After issuing a warning, Ecology can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for violations of the law and of up to $10,000 a day for intentional, knowing, or negligent violations. In addition, management organizations can seek reimbursement from another battery stewardship organization that fails to deal with its batteries in an amount roughly equivalent to the national battery market share of its producers. In fact, organizations are authorized to sue producers who are not participating in an approved plan for their expenses in dealing with that producer’s batteries, and if there’s more than one management organization they can sue others that are not dealing with their producers’ share of the used batteries for their expenses in collecting and dealing with those.

Details –
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; it doesn’t cover batteries sealed in products.

Plans have to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology, which is to collect a fee from producers to cover the cost of administering the program. It’s to maintain a public list of producers and brands that can be legally sold because they’re in the program.

The bill allows manufacturers to request that submitted information be exempted from public records requests, and has the Director of the Department do that if it isn’t detrimental to the public interest and is consistent with the public records law. It authorizes the Pollution Control Hearings Board to deal with appeals.

HB1895

HB1895 – Developing a plan for the conservation, reforestation, and restoration of forests in Washington State.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Harris-Talley (D; 37th District; Rainier Valley) (Co-Sponsors Maycumber, Steele, Graham, – Rs; Leavitt, Ramos, Lekanoff, Valdez, Shewmake, Simmons, Stonier, Peterson, Berg, Kloba, Callan, Riccelli, Macri, and Duerr – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 18th. (Still in committee at cutoff.)
Next step would be – Dead bill
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5633 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB1871

HB1871 – Establishes a moratorium on the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s siting alternative energy facilities, pending a report on the Energy Independence Act and recommendations of a Joint Legislative Committee.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Klicker (R; 16th District; Walla Walla) (Co-Sponsors Dent, Chase, Ybarra, and Sutherland – Rs)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy Friday January 25th at 8:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings assert that viewshed, wildlife, and land use patterns in specific counties of the state are being permanently impacted to deliver carbon-free energy benefits to the most populous counties of the state; that voters in those counties opposed the renewable energy mandate in I-937, but have ended up with the projects and transmission lines that required; that they feel these facilities have not brought the promised “green jobs,” meaningful tax revenue, or local environmental benefits “in so far as these local communities were already served with clean, affordable hydroelectric energy”; and that the Legislature should consider providing producer counties with mitigation payments, viewshed impairment payments, or supplemental economic development assistance to improve equity and environmental justice.

Summary –
The bill would establish a moratorium on siting alternative energy facilities through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, which allows bypassing the local permitting process in certain cases, pending a comprehensive performance report on the effects of the Energy Independence Act and the recommendations of a Joint Legislative Committee.

By December 1, 2022, the Department of Commerce would have to submit a report on alternative energy siting inequity to a Joint Select Committee and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature. The report would have to contain an assessment of the beneficial impact of the energy independence act on Washington’s fuel mix, including:
(a) An assessment of the beneficial impact of the energy independence act on Washington’s fuel mix, including the percentage of that coming from the renewable resources promised and promoted by the Act; and a calculation of the cumulative expenditures between 2006 and 2020 on compliance costs by each electric utility subject to the Act to meet its requirements for using renewable energy resources; purchasing of renewable energy credits; and spending four percent of retail revenues on renewable resources.
(b) An assessment of the capital expenditures in each county in Washington on renewable resources in each of those years;
(c) An assessment of the impacts associated with those capital expenditures on state and local tax revenue, the property tax base in each county, and the sources of revenues dedicated to local school districts, including the impacts, if any, on state and local effort assistance funding;
(d) An identification of the number and type of jobs created in each county as a result of implementing the Act, categorizing them as short-term construction jobs; long-term jobs outlasting facility construction; regulatory or compliance jobs created at state agencies, electric utilities, or local governments; and jobs related to the production or marketing of electricity from a new renewable energy resource;
(e) A calculation of the cumulative incremental cost above the least cost wholesale energy resource of compliance with the Act’s targets – for each utility, and in aggregate for all utilities in Washington;
(f) A calculation of the incremental cost of renewable resources eligible under the Act, including wind and solar, relative to other nongreenhouse gas emitting energy resources, such as electricity derived from nuclear or hydroelectric facilities, based on the average wholesale market price of electricity from those other nongreenhouse gas emitting energy resources during these years, and,
(g) A generalized description and map of the areas of Washington that electric utilities consider to have available resources for potentially economical utility-scale wind or solar energy facility development.

It would require the Department of Commerce to form a utility technical advisory group to consult in preparing the report, inviting the participation of a representative from each utility that currently subject to the Act’s renewable energy and conservation requirements. (Commerce could also ask for input from other utilities.)

The bill would create a Joint Legislative Committee on alternative energy facility siting, consisting of two Senators and two Representatives from each party, and alternates, chosen by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. It would review the report, and review inequities in where large alternative energy projects have been sited in Washington; inequities in where they are expected to be sited, and forms of economic development assistance, mitigation payments, and viewshed impairment payments that counties not hosting their per capita share of alternative energy resources “should provide” to counties that host more than their per capita share. The Committee would report its findings and any
recommendations to the committees of the Legislature with jurisdiction over environment and energy laws by December 1, 2023. Recommendations could be made by a simple majority, and two or more members could report minority findings if the committee didn’t reach majority-supported recommendations.