Category Archives: All Bills 2022

SJR8210

SJR8210 – Adding a section to the Washington Constitution on the conservation and protection of the state’s natural resources.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Senators Lovelett, Liias, Rolfes, Saldaña, Stanford, and Wilson, C. – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HJR4209 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The resolution would submit an amendment to Article I of the Constitution to the voters for their approval and ratification, or rejection. It would affirm that the people of the state, including future generations, have the right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems, and a stable climate, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful qualities of the environment. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall serve as trustee of those natural resources and conserve, protect, and maintain them for the benefit of all the people, including future generations. It would specify that those rights are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among the rights reserved to all the people, and are on par with other protected inalienable rights. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall equitably protect those rights for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, geography, or wealth, and shall act with prudence, loyalty,
impartiality, and equitable treatment of all beneficiaries in fulfilling its trustee obligations.

HJR4209

HJR4209 – Adding a section to the Washington Constitution on the conservation and protection of the state’s natural resources.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; San Juans & Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Representative Berry – D)
Current status – Continued hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy Thursday February 3rd at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SJR8210 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The resolution would submit an amendment to Article I of the Constitution to the voters for their approval and ratification, or rejection. It would affirm that the people of the state, including future generations, have the right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems, and a stable climate, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful qualities of the environment. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall serve as trustee of those natural resources and conserve, protect, and maintain them for the benefit of all the people, including future generations. It would specify that those rights are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among the rights reserved to all the people, and are on par with other protected inalienable rights. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall equitably protect these rights for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, geography, or wealth, and shall act with prudence, loyalty, impartiality, and equitable treatment of all beneficiaries in fulfilling its trustee obligations.

HB1864

HB1864 – Provides funds to help recruit or retain researchers or instructors with skills to further clean energy innovation at public academic and research institutions; provides a credit against B&O taxes for research and development spending on innovations in clean technology.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance January 27th. Amended and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t specify a funding source for the Technology Leadership Account it would create. It also declares the Legislature’s intention to extend the tax credit if more businesses are claiming it over time; that would be a very poor basis for concluding that the credit was actually contributing to that growth, rather than other factors.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute adds clean electrolytic hydrogen storage; marine renewable energy; solar and wind energy; sustainable aviation fuel; low carbon advanced manufacturing; transmission and distribution grid modernization technologies; zero carbon and energy efficient building technologies; energy grid cyber security; electric and zero carbon transportation technologies; recycling; and earth-abundant materials technologies to the definition of qualified clean technology R&D. It drops grid-scale electricity storage, zero carbon steel, zero carbon fertilizer, underground electricity transmission, and zero carbon alternatives to palm oil. It rephrases “clean hydrogen that is produced without emitting carbon” as “clean, electrolytic hydrogen production”; “plant and cell-based meat and dairy” and “drought and flood-tolerant food crops” as “advanced agriculture and food technology”; and “coolants that do not contain F-gases” as “technologies that allow transition from hydrofluorocarbons.” It adds investments in laboratory build-out and equipment to qualified R&D expenditures.

Original bill –
The bill would create an Advanced Technology Leadership and Security Strategic Reserve Account dedicated to providing funding to support recruiting or retaining a researcher or instructor with skills needed to assist in clean technology innovation at a Washington State academic institution, state laboratory or national laboratory. The Director of the Department of Commerce would be able to authorize expenditures from the account in response to a request from the President of one of these organizations including a signed declaration and supporting materials to be specified by the Director. The Department could also draw on the account to provide assistance with the analysis and decision making for awards requested by an academic institution or deemed necessary for due diligence by the Director. The Director would be required to develop factual findings establishing the connection between the amount awarded and furthering advanced technology leadership and security for Washington’s economy, and the Department would report each year to the Legislature’s economic development committees on awards and the findings to support them.

The bill would create a credit against the business and occupation tax for each “person” with research and development spending on innovations in clean technology during the year more than 0.92% of taxable income. That would include research on clean hydrogen produced without emitting carbon, next generation nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, grid-scale electricity storage, electrofuels, advanced biofuels, zero carbon steel, plant and cell-based meat and dairy, zero carbon fertilizer, carbon capture, underground electricity transmission, zero carbon plastics, geothermal energy, pumped hydropower, thermal storage, drought and flood-tolerant food crops, zero carbon alternatives to palm oil, and coolants that do not
contain F-gases. Operating expenses directly incurred in qualified clean technology research and development by a person claiming the credit, including wages, compensation of a proprietor or a partner in a partnership, benefits, supplies, and computer expenses would count as spending in calculating the credit. Up to 80% of payments to a “person” other than a public educational or research institution to conduct qualified clean technology research would also count. Payments to a “person” other than a public educational or research institution; capital costs; and overhead such as expenses for land, structures, or depreciable property would not count.

The credit would be the greater of the person’s qualified clean technology research and development expenditures or 80% percent of the amounts received by a person other than a public educational or research institution in compensation for the conduct of qualified research and development; minus 0.92% of the person’s taxable amount for that, multiplied by 1.50%. It would be limited to the lesser of $900,000 a year or the tax due. An organization receiving the credit could assign part or all of it to the person contracting for the performance of the qualified research and development.

The credit would expire at the end of 2022, but the bill declares the Legislature’s intention to renew it if there’s growth in the clean technology industry in Washington, as measured by the number of businesses claiming the credit.

HB1831

HB1831 – Creates an EV infrastructure training program and requires electricians certified through that to be present when public chargers are being installed or maintained.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bronoske (D; 28th District; Southwest Pierce County) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Berry, Macri, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards January 18th; replaced by a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute removes an error, to say that the current exemptions would apply instead of that they wouldn’t; and specifies that the requirements apply to installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, but only on sites that are “public works”, rather than on any for public use.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Labor and Industries to create the rules for an electric vehicle infrastructure training program certification. Beginning July 1, 2023, all electric vehicle equipment intended for public use would have to be installed by appropriately licensed electrical contractors and appropriately certified electricians. At least one certified electrician would have to be present at any given time on a jobsite where that equipment was being installed or maintained. On a jobsite where the installation of equipment included one or more charging ports intended to supply 25 kilowatts or more to a vehicle, at least 25% of the certified electricians present on the site at any given time would have to have the electric vehicle infrastructure training program certification. (By way of comparison, a typical 40 amp 240 volt charger supplies 9.6 kilowatts.) The current provisions for exemptions from electrical contractor licensing and electrician certification laws would not apply to this work.

HB1823

HB1823 – Shifts the revenue from the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap & invest program) to funding outdoor recreation, climate adaptation, and natural climate solutions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ormsby – D; Eslick, Goehner, Schmick, Klicker, Graham, Chambers, and Abbarno – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill would change the carbon emissions reduction account, which receives roughly $365 million a year of specified revenue in advance of any other allocations from the cap & invest program, into the outdoor recreation and climate adaptation account. The air quality and health disparities account is supposed to get at least $20 million/biennium of the remaining revenue. All the rest of it goes into the climate investment account; 75% of that goes to the climate commitment account and 25% goes to the natural climate solutions account. The bill would eliminate the climate commitment account, and direct all of that revenue into the natural climate solutions account.

Funds in the carbon emissions reduction account are currently dedicated to reducing transportation emissions; under the bill, they would be dedicated to enhancing outdoor recreation and to contributing to climate change adaptation by investing in forest health, drought resilience, flood risk mitigation, and Puget Sound recovery and water quality. $125 million each biennium would go to fund wildfire response, forest restoration, and community resilience.

These funds could also be used for grants and loans to small forestland owners for activities that increase sequestration; the forestry riparian easement program, the family forest fish passage program, or to provide grants under a new grant program administered by the community economic revitalization board and investing in “institutions and infrastructure that make timber and farming towns sustainable and vibrant”. They could be used for drought resilience, or for flood risk mitigation investments including programs to reduce flood damage and improve aquatic habitat in the basins most at risk of catastrophic flooding; to fund flood control authorities to improve floodplains and flood protection infrastructure; or to fund sustainable water supply projects to secure the agricultural industry against climate change risks. They could be used for Puget Sound water quality investments, including upgrading required pollution controls; for outdoor recreation enhancement and amenities, grants to support marinas in complying with the environment protecting measures in aquatic lands permits; grants to replace or add buoys at locations that appropriately balance environmental protection and the needs of on-water recreation; grants to improve equitable access to local trails and connectivity of local trails to parks and regional trail networks; and for investments that measure and reduce the impact of urban heat island effects on salmon, conserve energy, and improve equity in human health.

They could also be used for any other purposes specified in the natural climate solutions account. (The bill would also add the investments in reducing transportation emissions that currently have dedicated funding from the carbon reductions account it would eliminate to the list of purposes that could be supported by that account.)

HB1814

HB1814 – Provides a new one-time credit for start-up costs and virtual net metering for community solar projects with low-income and low income service provider subscribers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsor Representative Berry -D)
Current status – Referred to Senate Ways and Means, amended to reduce the maximum size of a community solar system back down to 199 KWs, and to make a couple of small technical changes. Passed out of committee March 9th, and passed by the Senate March 10th. House concurred with the Senate amendments the same day.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 21st. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 1st. Had a hearing in Finance February 7th; replaced by a second substitute and passed out of committee February 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 26th,

Summary –
2nd Substitute –
This would raise the program’s total cap from @20 million to $100 million; and the biennial cap from $5 million to $25 million. It would increase the eligible system size from 199 kWs to 1,000, and authorize including storage in projects and providing incentives for up to 100% of its cost. This version would have a utility that’s administering a project over 100kWs deliver payments for the power it generates, minus approved administrative costs, to its low income subscribers in some form that provides continuing direct benefits to them, such as rate reductions. If the administrator isn’t a utility, payments for the power would be made to the retail customer where the project was located according to a written agreement with the utility, and then distributed by the administrator to subscribers, minus administrative costs. (Presumably, there also has to be an agreement between the customer that’s hosting the site and the administrator about passing those payments on, though I don’t see that in the bill.)

Substitute –
The substitute eliminates the $500 pre-application fee; it cleans up and clarifies the drafting of the bill in a number of ways, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would create a low-income community solar incentive program for new projects between twelve kilowatts and 199 kilowatts with at least two subscribers or one low-income service provider subscriber. If the utility providing service in their area chose to participate in the program, community solar projects could submit applications for precertification to the WSU Energy Extension Program from July 1st 2022 through June 30th 2033, demonstrating how the project would deliver continuing direct benefits to low income, low income service provider, public agency or tribal subscribers. Projects could be administered by a utility, a non-profit, a housing authority, or by a tribal housing authority if the project were on tribal land. (These benefits could include the credits for the project’s power or other mechanisms that lower participants’ energy burden. Only the portion of a public or tribal agency subscription that was demonstrated to benefit low-income beneficiaries would count as a subscription qualifying for the incentives.) Projects would have to be on sites that didn’t displace critical habitat or productive farmland, but dual use agrivoltaic projects that ensured ongoing agricultural operations would be eligible.

Administrators would have two years after an application was precertified by the Energy Program to complete the project and actually get certified to receive the incentives, though they could request a 180 day extension if they could demonstrate significant progress. The Energy Program would be required to review each project for reasonable cost and financial structure, with a targeted installed cost of $2/watt DC for systems over 200 kWs and $2.25 per watt DC for systems under 200 kWs, excluding costs associated with storage systems and electrical improvements to permit grid-independent operation, but they might approve projects that were more or less expensive based on a review. (The Energy Program could also review and adjust the cost per watt target for each biennium.)

Within 60 days of certification, participating utilities would provide a one-time low-income community solar incentive payment to the administrator of the project to be used to provide direct benefits to its subscribers. The payment would cover up to $20,000 of the “project’s administrative costs related to the administrative start-up of the project for qualifying subscribers.” [That seems to contradict the language saying the payment must be used to provide direct benefits, and another section of the bill says that the administrator can collect a reasonable fee to cover costs incurred in organizing and administering the project provided subscribers are notified about that before signing up. I’m not sure how these are supposed to fit together; maybe this is supposed to mean that subscribers have to pay for the work of getting themselves subscribed, but they get paid back if the program gets certified? Perhaps the fee has to come out of the payments for production….] The upfront payment would also include “up to 100% of the proportion of the installed cost of the share of the project that provides direct benefits to subscribers”, taking into account any federal tax credits or other grants or incentives from which the program is benefiting. [This reads as if it could be any amount below 100%, but there’s nothing else in the bill about how to determine its level, so it may be supposed to mean this should be 100% of that cost, but no more than that – if some of the total cost is providing benefits that aren’t going to qualified providers, but to an agency, for example.] To reimburse utilities for these payments, the bill would create a new credit against their public utility taxes, not to exceed the greater of 1.5% of their year’s taxable power sales or $200,000. The utility would also provide net metering in accordance with the State’s current provisions for projects with a nameplate capacity between 12 kilowatts and 100 kilowatts AC, crediting the metered customer’s bill for production at the retail rate per kilowatt. (The utility would set the rate at which it paid for the production from any larger projects in an agreement with the project.) The administrator would be required to pass payments for production on to the subscribers, after deducting reasonable administrative costs approved by the Extension Program. [It’s not clear how this approval process is supposed to work with the fee the subscribers were notified about before signing up.] The administrator or the utility would report each year on the energy production for the period, each subscriber’s units, and the date and amount disbursed to each subscriber.

The program would have a total cap of $20 million, a cap of $300,000 for 2023, and a cap of $5 million for any later year. The Energy Program would be required to try to distribute incentive funds equitably throughout the state, by including measures such as reserving or allocating them based on the proportion of public utility taxes collected, the proportion of the State’s low-income customers served by each utility (based on Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program data, and measures to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of community solar installations and a diversity of administrative models for projects. It would be required to use at least $2,000,000 of the funding for the entire program to support nonprofit organizations’ innovative approaches to allocating benefits to subscribers; to defining and valuing benefits to be provided to subscribers; or to other aspects of the subscriber, administrator, system host, and utility relationship. It would be required to ensure that at least $2,000,000 of the funding was available to tribes. It would be required to maintain a website with information about the program, including a monthly report of the number of certifications, and an estimate of the remaining unallocated funding for incentives.

I’ve been told that the first sections of this bill are intended to sunset the most recent State production incentive program with no new funding, while the Code Reviser’s summary says it terminates the application period for that program (which hit its cap early but was still required by the law to accept applications) on June 30, 2020, rather than June 30, 2021, and that it extends the date by which precertified community solar projects may become certified under the program from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022. So far, I can’t make sense of the actual language in those sections. The extension in the bill applies to shared commercial projects as well; I don’t understand whether the projects that were precertified and managed to get certified during those two years would actually be eligible for funding somehow. I don’t know whether projects that got on the waitlist after the program hit its cap were precertified and would now be eligible for certification and incentives.

Details –
The bill would now require the RECs from these community solar projects to be retired, rather than allowing the utility to keep them as part of the contract for a project. Subscribers who moved within the utility’s service area would continue to receive net metering credits on their bills, but if they left the area, the administrator would be authorized to transfer those to another qualified subscriber.

HB1812

HB1812 – Including clean energy projects in the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting and monitoring, shifting the UTC’s current responsibilities in that process to the Council, and making administrative changes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Wylie & Berry – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – House concurred in the Senate amendments; the sections of the bill about consulting with rural stakeholders and reviewing inequities in the siting of renewable energy projects were vetoed by the Governor.
Next step would be – Signed into law except for Sections 19-22.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment and Energy January 25th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. (The substitute would retain hearings in the process rather than converting them to meetings; would allow any facility in the process to apply for expedited permitting, rather than only energy facilities; broadens the definition of clean energy manufacturing facilities to include any form of transportation without exhaust other than water rather thanto the original’s specified list; makes storage facilities include ones for electricity from any source; and makes other small changes summarized by staff at the beginning of it. ) Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing February 7th; amended to make the bill null and void if funding weren’t appropriated for it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor on the floor, amended, and passed by the House February 13th. The striker removed the option for tribes to appoint two members to the Council, removed clean fuel from the definition of clean manufacturing facilities, and made a few other small changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment would create a joint select committee on alternative energy facility siting, with specified membership, to review inequities in where large alternative energy projects have been and are forecast to be sited, and to review 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 amendment would require the Department of Ecology to consult with stakeholders from rural communities, agriculture, and forestry on the benefits and impacts of anticipated changes in the state’s energy system, including the siting of facilities, using the environmental justice community engagement plan, with input from the Environmental Justice Council. It specifies topics to be included in the process, and what’s to be included in a report on rural clean energy and resilience to the committee and other government bodies.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker making a number of minor changes that are summarized at the end of it; passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means, had a hearing there February 26th, and passed out of committee the 28th. Passed by the Senate March 3rd.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would add projects for producing renewable natural gas, renewable and electrolytic hydrogen, biofuel for other uses than transportation, and energy storage facilities to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process. It would also add manufacturing facilities for clean fuel and vehicles (or their components), for equipment for charging and fueling them, for equipment for the production of alternative energy and for energy storage. It would shift the Utilities and Transportation Commission’s role and responsibilities in the current process to the Council, removing the UTC from the process completely.

The bill would replace a representative of the Department of Natural Resources on the Council with a representative of the Commissioner of Public Lands. It would authorize the governing bodies or executive officials of up to two tribes with ancestral lands in the area where an energy facility is proposed to each appoint a member of the Council , sitting and voting when it considered the proposed site. It would add ongoing regulatory oversight of energy facilities in accordance with its environmental and ecological guidelines to the Council’s powers. It would allow it to enter into contracts to carry out the other provisions of the Act for siting energy facilities in addition to studies of sites proposed by applicants, and authorize it to conduct some meetings on the proposed location and operational conditions of facilities rather than legal hearings. It clarifies that certification from the Council is required for the reconstruction of facilities over a certain size as well as for their construction. It would allow applicants to chose to apply for certification from the Council for the construction, reconstruction, or modification of electrical transmission facilities with a nominal voltage of at least 115,000 volts that are located in more than one jurisdiction with land use plans or zoning ordinances, even if they are not outside a current corridor. It would require notifying the county and city legislative authorities where the proposed facility would be located and tribal governments
affected by the proposed facility when an application for siting one was received. It would require the Council to work with local governments where a project was proposed and with tribal governments affected by a proposed facility to provide for meaningful participation and input during siting review and compliance monitoring. It would require the chair and designated staff to offer to conduct government-to-government meetings to address tribal issues of concern, and would require the Council’s reporting to the Governor to include a summary of any government-to-government meetings, including the issues and proposed resolutions.

It would remove the current language prohibiting a city, county, or regional planning authority from changing land use plans or zoning ordinances so as to affect the site of a proposed site after a hearing by the Council had determined the project was in compliance with those. It would require the Council’s director to notify an applicant before making a threshold determination that a facility proposed in a site application would have a probable significant, adverse environmental impact and to provide an opportunity to amend the application. It would require someone who wished to testify at the public hearing required before the Council issued its recommendation to the Governor to already have raised their issue in writing with specificity during the application review process before the hearing. If the environmental impact of a proposed facility were not significant or would be mitigated to a nonsignificant level, the bill would allow the Council to limit that hearing to whether any land use plans or zoning ordinances with which the proposed site has been determined to be inconsistent should be preempted. If the Council granted expedited processing to a project it would have to hold a public meeting to take comments on the application before issuing a recommendation to the Governor.

With the exception of transmission projects, the bill would require the Council to review a preapplicant’s draft materials on request and provide comments on additional studies or stakeholder and tribal input that should be included in the formal application. It would change the provisions allowing the Council to conduct a preliminary study of a site upon request of any potential applicant, making the appointment of an independent consultant to study the project an option for the Council rather than a requirement, and removing the specifications about what might be included. It would no longer allow such a study to be used in place of the “detailed statement” about projects required for other State agencies and local governments by the State Environmental Policy Act.

The bill would exempt the Director of the Council, the Director’s personal secretary, and two designated staff members from the Civil Service Law.

SB5717

SB5717 – Increasing government purchases of compost products, and creating a pilot program to reimburse farming operations for purchasing and using them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell.)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5731 is a much more ambitious compost bill; this bill shares some of its provisions.

Comments –
Since a given amount of collected organics turns into a much smaller amount of compost product, I think the bill’s targets must mean jurisdictions are supposed to buy percentages of the amount of finished compost that a certain amount of collected organics would produce after it was processed.

Summary –
Like SB5731, the bill would require local jurisdictions with curbside organics collection services available to residents to adopt a compost procurement ordinance to implement the State’s current law about using compost in government projects, and a compost procurement plan to meet its requirements. By January 1, 2024, they’d have to make reasonable efforts to purchase finished compost products equivalent to 25% of the amount of organic materials collected and delivered to their compost processor each year. This target would increase to 50% starting in 2026, and to 70% starting in 2028.

Both bills would require the use of compost products to the maximum extent economically feasible to meet the State’s current requirements for using them in projects, though this bill requires that of “governmental units” in general, rather than just state agencies, local governments, and public schools. They both would allow preferential purchasing of compost in order to meet the State’s requirements for projects, rather than having to go with the lowest bidder.

In both bills, if funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored. (However, this bill would not make the purchase of compost spreading equipment for financing for it eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program.)

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology as well as the Attorney General, cities, and counties to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, but would not make the other changes in the enforcement of the Plastic Product Degradability Act that SB5731 does.

HB1810

HB1810 – Requires manufacturers of digital electronic products 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 – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; South King County) (Co-Sponsors Representative Chase – R; Ryu, Berry, Taylor & Fitzgibbon – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Appropriations January 27th. Replaced by a second substitute which would make it null and void if specific funding for it weren’t appropriated, and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules: still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments – SB5795 addresses many of the same issues.

History in the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 19th. The substitute would remove the option for manufacturers to provide a training program leading to certification as a “manufacturer certified repair facility” as alternative to the other fair repair requirements, and would allow independent repair providers to maintain any one of several different repair certifications.

Summary –
Starting January 1, 2023, the bill would require original manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state to make the same documentation, parts and tools, including corrections to embedded software and safety and security patches, that they make available to authorized repair providers available to independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. Manufacturers would be required to make them all available for purchase on fair and reasonable terms.

Starting January 1, 2024, it would require manufacturers to make documentation, parts, and tools, as well as any updates to the embedded software, available to owners of products for purchase on fair and reasonable terms (unless the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of them presented a reasonably foreseeable risk of property damage or personal injury).

If manufacturers sold any documentation, parts, or tools to any independent repair provider 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 documentation or functionality that was not available in a standardized format.

Manufacturer would not be required to sell service parts that were no longer available to authorized repair providers. 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.

As an alternative to these obligations, manufacturers could provide a training program and allow any licensed Washington business to get certified as a “manufacturer certified repair facility” in an open and fair process.

The requirements would not apply to motor vehicles, non-road engines and equipment, or medical equipment. It 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, but would only allow the Attorney General to enforce those provisions.

SB5678

SB5678 – Provides for preliminary declarations by the UTC on whether proposed energy projects would comply with a utility’s requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Energy Transformation Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast Washington.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Carlyle- D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 22nd; referred to Rules; passed by the Senate March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th; replaced by a substitute, which limits the option of seeking a declaratory order to investor owned utilities and clarifies a couple of procedural things. Passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing February 4th and passed out of committee the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would allow a private utility or the person proposing an energy transformation project, nonemitting electric generation project, or renewable resource project that might be acquired by the utility to petition the Utilities and Transportation Commission for a declaratory order to determine whether the project would comply with the utility’s need to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to comply with the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Projects that the UTC determined would comply with the requirements could be identified in a utility’s Clean Energy Action Plan and its Clean Energy Implementation Plan. The Commission could reevaluate a resource or a project in considering whether to approve a Clean Energy Implementation Plan or in a rate case, if it deviated substantively from the one described in the application foe a declaratory order.

(In fact, the last section of the bill says that “nothing” in the section of it about the declaratory orders “preempts the authority of the commission from making a determination, independent of the processes under [that] section … on whether a proposed energy transformation project, nonemitting electric generation project, or renewable resource project … meets the planning and portfolio requirements of an investor-owned utility’s Clean Energy Implementation Plan.)

SB5714

SB5714 – Creates sales and use tax deferments for large solar canopies on commercial, industrial & residential parking lots.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Liias – D)
Current status – Referred to House Finance; had a hearing and passed out of committee March 8th. (There were four proposed amendments; though the Legislature’s website doesn’t indicate whether they failed, none of them seem to have made it into the current version of the bill.) Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings say that the initial capital costs of installing solar generation on parking lot canopies will in most cases be fully amortized over time with the power generated and sold into the electricity system, but that initial capital costs may deter incorporation of installations into new projects.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 17th, and passed out of committee the 24th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to add specifications for the development of the labor standards rules, and passed by the Senate March 4th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute reduces the amount of deferred tax owed by 25%, 50%. or 100% if various labor standards are met, and requires complete repayment of the taxes owed in eight years.

Original bill –
The bill would defer the sales and use taxes for solar canopies with at least a megawatt of capacity in parking lots for commercial, industrial and residential buildings. (If I’ve done the arithmetic correctly, this would be roughly 50,000 sq. ft. of panels.) Applications for the deferral would include the location of the project, its estimated or actual costs, time schedules for its completion and operation, anticipated nameplate capacity and use of the electricity, and any other information the Department of Revenue required. They could be filed until June 30th, 2032.

Applicants would have to begin actual construction on a project within a year of receiving a deferral certificate, unless it was delayed due to circumstances beyond the recipient’s control. (Problems with funding would not count.) Recipients would have to pay any taxes incurred if they didn’t begin construction within a year, and would have to notify the Department if a completed project was going to produce less than 85% of the electricity originally assumed. If a project wasn’t completed within two years, or the Department found it wasn’t being used as a qualifying solar canopy at any time within eight years of its completion, a gradually decreasing proportion of the deferred taxes would be due, with interest.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would be required to evaluate the program, considering the number of solar canopies receiving the deferral, their average and total electric output, the total beneficiary savings from the tax preference, the estimated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions assuming an equivalent amount of energy would otherwise been generated through the combustion of fossil fuels, and any other metrics the committee finds relevant.

SB5668

SB5668– Modifying the regulation of gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes.) (Co-Sponsor Liias -D)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
HB1766 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require each non-municipal gas utility to develop a clean heat transition plan for meeting the state’s greenhouse gas limits with respect to the emissions from fossil natural gas combustion; limiting the expansion of the gas system for residential and commercial space and water heating; advancing the use of high-efficiency electric equipment and production and the distribution of clean gas fuels; and ensuring the safe and equitable transition of the system. Plans would have to ensure that the transition achieves benefits for low-income households, overburdened communities, and vulnerable populations; and ensure the equitable distribution of the energy and nonenergy benefits of the utility’s programs and infrastructure to those communities and populations, including the reduction of energy burdens and improvement of indoor and outdoor air quality.

Plans would have to identify specific actions to achieve the company’s share of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets; and include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative transition actions, including those for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and incorporating the social cost of emissions. They would have to consider recommendations from the latest state energy strategy; identify changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with specific actions in the plan; and prioritize the remaining use of fossil natural gas by residential and commercial customers in consultation with electric utilities. They would have to assess overall current conditions within the company’s service territory, including the state of the economy, public health, and environmental conditions; the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs, including those caused by utility actions outside its service area; and the relative impact of alternative emissions reduction strategies on indoor air pollution and the health of customers. Plans would have to support an equitable transition for overburdened communities and low-income customers through no-cost grant programs for low- income residents and low-cost or specially targeted incentive programs for moderate income or fixed income seniors. Companies would have to consult with any electric utility with customers in their service area in developing plans, and those would be subject to review, modification, and approval by the Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Plans would have to be based on a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of multiple emissions reduction strategies to identify the combination that complied with the requirements at lowest reasonable cost.They would be required to consider:
(a) Measures to increase the efficiency of energy use in residential, industrial, and commercial buildings through thermal load reduction strategies such as envelope efficiency improvements, hot water conservation, or process load reductions;
(b) Development of geothermal and industrial waste heat, and other heat sources that don’t involve substantial emissions of greenhouse gases;
(c) Development of district heating systems using waste heat; and
(d) Reduction of the carbon content of delivered gas by incorporating renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen.
They might also consider expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs, using dual heating systems to limit the use of fossil gas to periods of peak energy demand during a transition period, converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; targeted programs to permanently decommission areas of the company’s distribution systems; using offset credits to the extent the cap and invest program allows; and implementing projects to reduce nonhazardous leaks from pipelines.

The bill would exempt gas companies from the requirement that utilities provide new service on request, and prohibit companies from extending service to new customers unless they determined that was compatible with their plan; it would prohibit them from expanding their service area unless the UTC determined that was consistent with their plan and would not result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the gas plant to be installed in the expanded area. It would require them to charge the full cost of a line extension. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize an extension to a new customer.) After December 31, 2024, it would prohibit them from including any conservation measure that requires the installation of new gas-fired equipment in their conservation acquisition targets or offering financial incentives to acquire any, unless the commission found the measures were consistent with the company’s plan and didn’t result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the equipment.

It would expand the renewable natural gas program to allow a utility to propose delivering renewable hydrogen and hydrogen produced by hydrolysis using any energy source as well, provided that it demonstrated that would reduce its greenhouse gas intensity per therm, including life-cycle emissions, and would not reduce the safety or reliability of its service. The bill would require the UTC to establish safety standards for the use of hydrogen before approving a program that includes it, and would allow the retail customer charge for a program to exceed 5% of the charge for natural gas if the Commission determined that was necessary under an approved transition plan.

Once major projects in an approved plan began operating, the bill would allow the utilities to account for and defer all operating and maintenance costs, depreciation, taxes, and cost of capital incurred in connection with them, as well as costs for contracts to purchase renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen, until the UTC considered their application to recover them through rates.

HB1815

HB1815 – Marking catalytic converters with identifiers to more effectively track their ownership and identify stolen property, and creating a task force to address converter thefts.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ryu (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Boehnke & Chase – Rs; J. Johnson, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Orwall, Shewmake, Leavitt, Sells, and Gregerson – Ds)
Current status – House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5495 also addresses converter thefts; so do HB1873 and HB1994.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Public Safety January 18th. Replaced by a substitute making minor changes and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Transportation. Replaced by a 2nd Substitute eliminating the pilot converter tracking project, converting the task force to a work group, and adding a member representing auto manufacturers and one representing converter manufacturers. It would have the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs establish a grant and training program, when funded, to assist local law enforcement targeting metal theft. Voted out of committee February 7th; referred to Rules; amended on the House floor to make two very minor changes and passed February 12th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law and Justice February 21st. Replaced by a striker making various adjustments that are summarized by staff at the end of it; passed out of committee and referred to Transportation February 24th. Had a hearing there February 26th; amended to have WSU do the catalytic convertor theft study rather than the Joint Transportation Committee, and passed out of Transportation February 28th. Referred to Rules, replaced by yet another striker, amended, and passed by the Senate March 4th.

The bill now has the WSU catalytic converter theft work group; requires any scrap metal dealer’s transactions for a catalytic converter to have documentation indicating that it came from a vehicle registered in the seller’s name; and limits immediate payment for any non-ferrous metal transaction to $30 unless there’s a retained image of the material as well as the seller’s government ID. It also says there must be a three day delay for payments to individual sellers. (I don’t see how this fits with the previous bit.) A floor amendment added similar requirements for auto wreckers. It adds a $1,000 fine per converter to the current penalties for scrap metal dealing offenses, and makes converter transactions without the required records violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs would now be responsible for making recommendations on reducing converter theft (including considering the possibility of a marking program), as well as the grant and training program. People who attempted to purchase or sell unlawfully obtained metals at licensed scrap metal recyclers or to conduct a transaction under the influence of controlled substances would be added to the no-buy database.

Summary –
If funds were appropriated for it, the Washington State Patrol would establish a catalytic converter tracking pilot project intended to deter the theft of converters by marking them with vehicle identification numbers or other unique identifiers. The Patrol would collaborate with law enforcement, insurance companies and scrap metal dealers to identify the vehicles most frequently targeted for converter theft and establish the most effective methods for marking permanently marking them. Materials to arrange for the marking of the converters of vehicles most likely to be stolen at no cost to the owners would be distributed to dealers, automobile repair shops and service centers, law enforcement agencies, and community organizations. The Patrol would make any educational information resulting from the project available to law enforcement agencies and scrap metal dealers, and report to the Legislature by October 1, 2023, describing the progress, results, and any findings, including the number of converters marked, and, to the extent known, whether any marked converters were stolen and the outcome of any criminal investigation into the thefts.

The bill would also create a task force to review state laws related to theft of converters. It would be required to develop recommendations for:
(a) Deterring catalytic converter theft;
(b) Developing tools to identify and recover stolen converters; and
(c) Lowering costs to victims of converter theft.
It might also develop recommendations related to:
(a) Maintenance and accessibility of law enforcement records
related to transactions involving converters; and,
(b) Traceability of payments related to those.

Members would be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and consist of a Democrat and a Republican from each chamber (one of whom would be elected as the chair by the members), and a member from the State Patrol, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Office of Public Defense; the Superior Court Judges’ Association, the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association, the Association of Washington Cities, the Office of the Attorney General, the property and casualty insurance industry, the scrap metal recycling industry, the Washington Organized Retail Crime Association, and two members representing individuals with lived experience being charged with, or convicted of, organized theft. The members would choose one legislator and one nonlegislative member as cochairs, and the Patrol would be authorized to contract with one or more consultants to provide data analysis, research, and other services the task force decided it needed.

HB1801

HB1801 – Requiring ratings of the repairability of digital electronic equipment on its packaging, and creating a commission on its repairability.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; SeaTac) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ryu, Fitzgibbon, and Berry – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Consumer Protection and Business January 19th; replaced by a substitute weakening the bill dramatically and voted out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments-
The bill’s not very clear about exactly where and how each sort of information has to be available; this is my best guess about its intent. I’m also not clear whether the requirement for displaying the scores and the information in the second list below for a product for sale on a website applies to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 digital equipment products of all kinds in the state, or only to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 of that particular item.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would drop everything in the bill about the creation and enforcement of repairability score labeling requirements, and replace the Commission with a three year task force making annual reports and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature.

Original bill –
The bill would require original equipment manufacturers of digital electronic equipment sold or used in the State to provide average repairability scores, for purposes of diagnosis and consumer information, on a label on the front and rear of its packaging. Each piece of equipment’s scores would range from one to ten, and they would cover:
(a) The duration and availability of technical documents and related advice on its use and maintenance;
(b) The ease of dismantling it, tools required, and other characteristics of the fasteners used or other parts;
(c) The manufacturer’s estimate of the duration of its parts;
(d) How long the manufacturer plans to continue manufacturing replacement parts;
(e) The ratio of the price of replacement parts to the price of new equipment;
(f) The potential to recycle or dispose of it;
(g) The expertise required to safely repair it; and,
(h) Any other information deemed necessary by Commerce.
(The manufacturer would average these to create the average repairability score for the packaging.) The Department of Commerce would create specific standards for equipment, and manufacturers would have to meet them for each criterion before they could assign a repairability score higher than five for it. Commerce might also create additional standards for any or all score values for each criterion.

Manufacturers would also have to “include the following information with the repairability scores.” [It isn’t clear to me whether this and the ratings for each criterion (or quick response codes, other codes, or a web address to guide a consumer to full information on a website) would also have to be on the packaging, or whether that’s optional.]
(a) The model number and manufacturer’s suggested retail price;
(b) Information on the software updates provided by the manufacturer;
(c) Potential for a factory reset of the equipment;
(d) Whether or not remote assistance is available from the manufacturer and the price charged for providing that; and
(e) Other information deemed necessary by the department.

Ninety days before selling digital equipment in the state, a manufacturer would have to submit the numeric score for each criterion and the average repairability score for the packaging label; reasons for how the equipment meets the scores chosen; and any other required information to Commerce. The Department would post that on a public website, and might publish its own comments alongside the manufacturer’s information if it determined that or the scores were materially incomplete, inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading. (It would have to try to notify manufacturers of any problems in their submissions and give them up to 30
days to make changes.) The bill would make violations 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 allow an individual who brought a successful action under the Act for a violation to recover all the remedies it establishes and an additional $1,000 in statutory damages for each violation.

Parties selling 1,000 or more pieces of digital equipment annually and listing equipment for sale on a website would be required to display all this information there.

The bill would also create a commission on digital electronic equipment repairability to study, analyze, and prepare reports on local, national, and global repairability standards for digital electronic equipment; and provide recommendations to the Legislature on repairability standards for digital electronic equipment in Washington. Members would be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and consist of a Democrat and a Republican from each chamber (one of whom would be elected as the chair by the members), and a member from Commerce, Ecology, the Attorney General’s office, an advocacy group focused on sustainability of digital electronic equipment; an organization representing the interests of local technology companies; a distributor or marketplace platform for digital electronic equipment; and an original equipment manufacturer. The commission might invite any number of others to participate in an advisory, non-voting capacity. It would report to the Legislature every two years, beginning in October 2024, on the development of local, national, and global repairability standards, and provide recommendations on the creation, implementation, management, and enforcement of State standards, with a focus on achieving compatibility with emerging national and global standards. It would be authorized to issue and enforce subpoenas to obtain documents or testimony from any entity or individual to gather information that would assist in the execution of its duties.

SB5731

SB5731 – Diverting organic materials from landfills, increasing composting, and reducing food waste. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Lovelett – D)
Current status – Did not have a hearing; still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1799 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would add to the State’s current food waste reduction goals by establishing goals to reduce the disposal of organic materials in landfills by 75% from 2015 levels by 2030, and to recover at least 20% of the amount of edible food that was disposed of in 2015 for human consumption by 2025. It defines “organic materials management” to include vermiculture, black soldier fly, or similar technologies as well as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Jurisdictions would be required to provide organic solid waste collection services to all their residents and businesses that generate more than .5 cubic yard of organic materials; and provide for their organic management. (Jurisdictions disposing of less than 5,000 tons of solid waste or with populations under 25,000, census tracts with fewer than 75 people per square mile in unincorporated portions of a county,and areas receiving waivers for up to five years from the Department of Ecology on the basis of factors including the distance to organic management facilities, the facilities’ ability to manage additional organic materials, and current restrictions on their transport would be exempt. However, Ecology could apply the requirements to sparse census tracts and areas with waivers after January 2030 if it determined that the new goals had not or would not be achieved. Counties’ and cities’ solid waste plans would be required to be consistent with the new goals, to identify the capacity for organic management needed to meet them, to consider other methods of managing organics in addition to composting and anaerobic digestion, and to identify priority areas for that in industrial zones in the jurisdiction (and not in overburdened areas). The bill would add composting and other organic materials management facilities to the list of local public works projects eligible for State loans, grants, financing guarantees, and technical assistance through the Public Works Board. By 2023, local governments would be required to adopt a compost procurement ordinance and a procurement plan to implement the State’s current requirements for using compost in projects, giving priority to purchasing compost products from companies that produce them locally, are certified by a nationally recognized organization, and produce compost from municipal solid waste, and meet quality standards comparable to those adopted by the Department of Transportation or Ecology.

Beginning January 1, 2024, the bill would require a business that generates at least eight cubic yards of organic waste per week that isn’t managed on site to arrange for organic materials management of that; beginning in 2025 the requirement would apply to businesses generating at least four cubic yards, and beginning in 2026, businesses that generate at least four cubic yards of any solid waste per week would have to arrange for organic management of their organic waste, unless the department determined that additional reductions in the landfilling of organic materials would be better achieved, at reasonable cost to businesses, by establishing a different threshold. Businesses could fulfill the requirements by:
(a) Source separating organic waste and subscribing to a service with organic waste collection and materials management;
(b) Managing its organic waste on-site or hauling its own organic waste for organic management; or
(c) Qualifying for exclusion from the requirements of this section consistent with subsection (1)(b) of this section.
Businesses’ contracts for gardening or landscaping service would have to require that the organic waste be managed organically. (The requirements wouldn’t apply in areas of a jurisdiction with no available businesses that collect and deliver organic materials to solid waste facilities that provide for the organic materials management of it and food waste, and would not apply at all in jurisdictions with no available capacity at the solid waste facilities to which businesses that collect and deliver organic materials could feasibly and economically deliver them.)

The bill would modify the current Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which reduces gleaners and food donors exposure to liability, by only requiring the “apparently fit grocery products” it covers to meet all safety and safety-related labeling standards; those would not include certain current required pull dates or a “best by,” “best if used by,” “use by,” “sell by,” or similarly phrased date intended to communicate information about the freshness or quality of a product to consumers. The bill would allow donors to be paid for the costs of handling, administering, and distributing donated food and grocery products, and would allow charging needy individuals that much for them.

The bill would create a Washington Center for Sustainable Food Management at the Department of Ecology to help coordinate statewide food waste reduction. It would be authorized to:
(a) Coordinate the implementation of the State’s food waste reduction plan;
(b) Draft plan updates and measure progress on actions and strategies, and toward the statewide goals established in the bill and that plan;
(c) Maintain a website with current food waste reduction information and guidance for food service establishments, consumers, food processors, hunger relief organizations, and other sources of food waste;
(d) Provide staff support to multistate food waste reduction initiatives in which the state is participating;
(e) Maintain the consistency of the plan and other food waste reduction activities with the work of the Conservation Commission’s food policy forum;
(f) Facilitate and coordinate public-private and nonprofit partnerships focused on food waste reduction;
(g) Collaborate with federal, state, and local government partners on food waste reduction initiatives;
(h) Develop and maintain maps or lists of locations of the food systems of Washington that identify food flows, where waste occurs, and opportunities to prevent food waste;
(i) Collect and maintain data on food waste and wasted food;
(j) Research and develop emerging organics and food waste reduction markets;
(k) Develop and maintain statewide food waste reduction and food waste contamination reduction campaigns, in consultation with other state agencies and other stakeholders, including the development of materials may inform food service operators about the protections from civil and criminal liability under federal law and under the Samaritan Donation Act when donating food; and develop guidance in support of distribution of promotional materials by local health officers as part of routine inspections, and State agencies; and,
(l) Distribute and monitor grants for food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery.
The Center would be required to research and adopt several model ordinances for optional use by counties and cities that provided mechanisms for commercial solid waste collection and disposal designed, in part, to establish disincentives for generating organic waste and for landfilling organic materials. Ecology would do a State Environmental Policy Act review of these, and actions by jurisdictions adopting them would not be subject to its requirements. The department would be authorized to establish a voluntary reporting protocol for reports by businesses that donate food and recipients, could encourage its use, and could also request information about the volumes, types, and timing of food managed by a facility, and the food it generated

The bill would make the purchase of compost spreading equipment or financial assistance to farmers to purchase that eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program, if it were for annual use for at least three years with significant volumes of compost from a composting site that wasn’t owned or operated by the farmer. If funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored.

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, rather than the Attorney General. It would shift the definition of “Supplier” in the State’s Plastic Product Degradability law to make manufacturers (or importers into the State, if the State lacked authority over the manufacturers) responsible for compliance with it. It would require plastics labeled as compostable to use green, beige, or brown labeling, striping, or other design patterns that help differentiate them from noncompostable materials, prohibit the use of similar schemes on plastics and food service products that weren’t compostable, and would add beige to the acceptable colors in the current State rules about making it easy to identify compostable plastic film products. It would prohibit plastic produce stickers that were not biodegradable.

It would shift the State’s share of the responsibility for enforcing the Plastic Product Degradability law from the Attorney General to Ecology, specify that it’s enforcement must be based primarily on complaints filed with the Department and cities and counties, require the Department to create ways to file complaints, and require it, cities and counties to provide education and outreach activities to inform retail establishments, consumers, and suppliers about the requirements of the law.

HB1799

HB1799 – Diverting organic materials from landfills, increasing composting, and reducing food waste.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Berry – D)
Current status – House concurred in Senate amendments March 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5731 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment & Energy January 21st. Replaced by a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing and passed out of committee on February 7th. (I don’t know if an amendment to make the bill null and void unless funding for it were appropriated passed or not – it’s labeled “Checked”.) Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor making various adjustments which are summarized by staff at the end of it and passed by the House February 14th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker dropping the Good Samaritan pricing provision, removing extended producer responsibility programs for packaging and paper products from the waste management funding study, and making some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. Passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 26th; and passed out of committee the 28th. Amended on the floor to prohibit expanding any existing organic materials management facility that processed more than 200,000 tons of material in 2019 (with the exception of anaerobic digesters); to exempt jurisdictions with between 25,000 and 50,000 people and without curbside organics collection from the organics collection service requirements, and to add a labeling requirement for nonfood contact film products. Passed by the Senate March 3rd.

Summary –
The substitute delays some local requirements by two years, drops the ban on non-compostable produce stickers, makes the compost reimbursement program permanent, and makes a lot of other small changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would add to the State’s current food waste reduction goals by establishing goals to reduce the disposal of organic materials in landfills by 75% from 2015 levels by 2030, and to recover at least 20% of the amount of edible food that was disposed of in 2015 for human consumption by 2025. It defines “organic materials management” to include vermiculture, black soldier fly, or similar technologies as well as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Jurisdictions would be required to provide organic solid waste collection services to all their residents and businesses that generate more than .5 cubic yard of organic materials; and provide for their organic management. (Jurisdictions disposing of less than 5,000 tons of solid waste or with populations under 25,000, census tracts with fewer than 75 people per square mile in unincorporated portions of a county,and areas receiving waivers for up to five years from the Department of Ecology on the basis of factors including the distance to organic management facilities, the facilities’ ability to manage additional organic materials, and current restrictions on their transport would be exempt. However, Ecology could apply the requirements to sparse census tracts and areas with waivers after January 2030 if it determined that the new goals had not or would not be achieved.) Counties’ and cities’ solid waste plans would be required to be consistent with the new goals, to identify the capacity for organic management needed to meet them, to consider other methods of managing organics in addition to composting and anaerobic digestion, and to identify priority areas for that in industrial zones in the jurisdiction (and not in overburdened areas). The bill would add composting and other organic materials management facilities to the list of local public works projects eligible for State loans, grants, financing guarantees, and technical assistance through the Public Works Board. By 2023, local governments would be required to adopt a compost procurement ordinance and a procurement plan to implement the State’s current requirements for using compost in projects, giving priority to purchasing compost products from companies that produce them locally, are certified by a nationally recognized organization, and produce compost from municipal solid waste, and meet quality standards comparable to those adopted by the Department of Transportation or Ecology.

SB5722

SB5722 – Creates a benchmarking and energy management program (and eventual performance standards) for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and other buildings between 20,000 and 50,000 sq.ft.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Liias – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1774 is a companion bill in the House. (Dead bill)

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th. Replaced with a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 4th and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 17th, and passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Appropriations; amended to make it null and void if funding for it isn’t appropriated; and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor delaying the start date of the expanded early adoption incentive program for smaller buildings by a year, to July 2025, and making a couple other minor changes. (I now think the bill caps these expanded incentives at $150 million.) Passed by the House March 3rd.

Summary –
Substitutes –
The substitute would expand the current early adoption incentive program to include buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. They’d get 30¢/sq.ft for implementing their benchmarking, energy management, and operations and maintenance planning requirements without having to meet the performance standards for bigger buildings, and these incentives would be available for buildings using gas, without regard to their greenhouse gas emissions. Multifamily buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. would be eligible for these incentives as well, rather than being able to choose to apply for the 85¢/sq.ft. incentives for early compliance with the performance standards for non-residential over 50,000 sq.ft as they could in the first version of the incentives. Owners could apply from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2030. (I think the bill would allow another $75 million for these incentives, and that the additional funding would not be available for the previous phase of incentives, which reached their $75 million cap very quickly, but the language of that provision isn’t very clear.)

The bill also requires a small business impact statement, and an appeals process for administrative decisions including penalties. It would authorize enhanced incentive payments for building owners committing to anti-displacement provisions rather than limiting incentives for multifamily buildings to those limiting increase in rent to inflation for four years.

Original bill –
By December 31, 2023, the bill would have the Department of Commerce create a benchmarking and energy management requirement for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The requirements are to be consistent with the current Clean Buildings energy performance standards for non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq ft, but are limited to energy use analysis through benchmarking and reporting, energy management planning, and operations and maintenance planning. The Department would be required to create an actual performance standard for these buildings by 2030, and the bill would authorize it to establish targets for buildings’ greenhouse gas-adjusted energy use intensity in this and the current performance standards.)

Commerce would provide a support program for building owners including outreach and informational materials connecting them to utility resources, periodic training, phone and email support, and other technical assistance. It would have to include enhanced technical support such as assistance with benchmarking and planning for buildings whose owners typically don’t employ dedicated managers, such as multifamily housing, child care facilities, and houses of worship. The bill also says the department “shall consider” underresourced buildings with a high energy use per square foot, buildings in rural communities, buildings whose tenants are primarily small businesses, and those located in high-risk communities according to the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities map. [I think that probably means it’s supposed to consider what additional support owners of those buildings might need, and provide that, but it’s not clear.] (The requirements would also have to include provisions for financial hardship.)

Commerce would also be required to establish an incentive program to supplement the cost to building owners or tenants, less utility incentives and annual savings resulting from the requirements. It would have to require that tenants’ rent could not be raised at a rate above inflation for four years after receiving the incentives.

The Department would have to notify the owners of covered buildings of the requirements by July 1, 2025, and owners would have to file reports demonstrating they’d developed and implemented the bill’s required procedures by July 1st, 2027 and every five years after that. It would adopt rules imposing a penalty of not more than 30 cents a square foot for failing to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements, or for increasing rent above the rate of inflation for multifamily leased space receiving the incentives. (Penalties would be deposited in the low-income weatherization and structural rehabilitation assistance account and reinvested into the program to support compliance with the standard.) [I think this means the actual performance standard to be established by 2030.]

The department would have to evaluate the benchmarking data to determine energy use and greenhouse gas emissions averages by building type, and report to the Legislature and the Governor by October 1, 2029, with recommendations for cost-effective building performance standards for the covered buildings, their estimated costs for building owners, and anticipated implementation challenges.

By December 31st, 2030, the Department would be required to adopt rules to add these buildings to the State’s energy performance standard program. It would have to consider the age of buildings in setting performance targets, and might establish a longer timeline for compliance by multifamily buildings than for the other buildings covered by the bill. The rules could not take effect until the end of the 2031 regular session.

HB1792

HB1792– Expanding various tax exemptions for the production, distribution, and use of hydrogen made by electrolysis.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Orcutt, Abbarno – Rs, and Fitzgibbon -D)
Current status – Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
In the House –
Had a hearing in Environment & Energy January 18th. Passed out of committee January 21st. Referred to Finance. Had a hearing there February 7th. Amended by the prime sponsor to reduce the length of the exemption to 15 years, and passed out of committee February 17th.

Original Bill –
The bill would define electrolytic hydrogen production facilities (using any energy source) as “fuel cell vehicle infrastructure”, including them in the current sales and use tax exemptions for labor, services, and materials used in installing, constructing, repairing, or improving fuel cell infrastructure. That definition would also exempt leased public land used for installing, maintaining, and operating electrolytic hydrogen facilities from the excise tax ordinarily collected from leaseholders in place of the property tax. (These exemptions all currently expire July 1st, 2025.)

The bill would create a new exemption from the public utilities tax for the sales of electricity to an electrolytic hydrogen production business, a business producing hydrogen using renewable resources as the source of the hydrogen and the energy, or a business compressing, liquifying, or dispensing either of these. The exemption would last for 25 years from when the business began commercial operations, provided it began by July 1, 2032, and provided the electricity used for hydrogen was metered separately from the power for the businesses’ general operations, and the price for it was reduced by an amount equal to the tax exemption. (The exemption would not apply to any remarketing or resale of electricity originally obtained by contract for the production of electrolytic hydrogen.)

The bill would authorize public utility districts to produce, use and sell electrolytic hydrogen under the current regulations governing their renewable gas businesses. It would authorize municipal utilities to use renewable and electrolytic hydrogen as well as natural gas.

HB1793

HB1793 – Creates rules for owners’ installations of charging stations in common interest communities such as condominiums, cooperative apartments, and developments with homeowners’ associations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; South Seattle, Renton, Tukwila.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Fitzgibbon & Berry – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law and Justice February 17th. (An amendment to allow charging a reasonable fee for the placement of a charging station was initially reported as passing, but actually failed.) Passed out of committee February 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 1st.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Civil Rights & Judiciary January 18th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 28th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor by the prime sponsor and passed by the House February 9th.

Summary –

Floor amendment in the House –
This drops the provision allowing an association to charge the cost of an infrastructure upgrade to meet the power needs of chargers against the unit owners who have them, and requires a written disclosure of some more details about an installed charger to a buyer. It drops the language saying charging equipment is not real property, and no longer says the owner may either remove the EVCS or sell it to the buyer or to the association upon sale of the apartment, unit, or lot. [I don’t know if these last two changes have any significant practical implications or not…]

Substitute –
The substitute no longer allows an association to authorize installing a charger in a common area, or to create a new parking space to facilitate installing a charger; allows alternative ways for a vehicle owner to pay a charger’s electricity besides a separate meter; requires sellers to make disclosures about installed chargers; no longer requires a certificate of insurance from homeowners in associations subject to the Homeowners’ Associations Act; and specifies that the requirement for a certificate from unit owners in associations subject to the Washington Uniform Common Interest Act only applies to certain types of those.

Original bill –
The bill would prevent an apartment owners’ association from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station in a designated parking space for the personal use of an apartment owner. The association might impose reasonable restrictions on charging stations, and could require an owner to submit an application in advance for approval for the installation. (It would have to be processed and approved in the same way as an application for approval of an architectural modification, would have to be approved or denied in writing within sixty days, and would automatically take effect at the end of that period if it hadn’t been denied by then, unless the delay resulted from a reasonable request for information.) An association could charge a reasonable fee for processing an application if there were a fee for all applications for architectural modifications. It would have to approve an application if the installation were reasonably possible and the apartment owner agreed in writing to:
(a) Comply with the association’s reasonable architectural standards for the installation;
(b) Engage an electrical contractor familiar with the standards to install it;
(c) Provide, within14 days after an approval, a certificate of insurance naming the association as an additional insured on the apartment owner’s policy for any claim related to the installation, maintenance, or use of the station, or, if the charging station is located in a common area, reimbursement to the association for the actual cost of any increased premium attributable to the station, which would have to be provided with 14 days of receiving an invoice for that from the association;
(d) Register the electric vehicle charging station with the association within 30 days after installation;
(e) Pay for the electricity associated with the separately metered electric vehicle charging station; and;
(f) Comply with the other requirements of the bill.
The owner would have to obtain any permit or approval required by the local government for a station, and comply with all relevant codes and safety standards. A station would have to meet all applicable health and safety standards and any national, state, or local requirements.

If installation of an electric vehicle charging station in a designated parking space were impossible or unreasonably expensive, an association could authorize the installation of an electric vehicle charging station for the exclusive use of an apartment owner in a common area.. In such cases, the association could enter into a license agreement with the owner for the use of the space; the owner would still have to comply with the requirements of the bill.

Unless a written contract set other terms, an apartment owner would be responsible for the costs of installing a station. It would be the owner’s property, and if it was removable, the owner could take it or sell it to the buyer of the apartment or to the association if either decided to purchase it. An owner would be required to inform any prospective buyers of the existence of a station, the related responsibilities, and whether the owner planned to remove it . The owner and each successive owner would be responsible for:
(a) Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the station;
(b) Costs for damage to it, a common area, or limited common area resulting from its installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement;
(c) The cost of electricity associated with it;
|(d) Obtaining and maintaining an insurance policy that meets the bill’s requirements;
(f) Removing the station if that were reasonably necessary for the repair, maintenance, or replacement of the common area or limited common area; and,
(e) Any costs for a removal of the station and the restoration of the common area or limited common area after the removal.

An association might install a charging station in the common areas for the use of all apartment owners and, in that case, the association would have to develop appropriate terms of its use. An association would be authorized to create a new parking space to facilitate the installation of a station. If it reasonably determined that the cumulative use of electricity in the community attributable to the installation and use of charging stations required the installation of additional infrastructure to provide a sufficient supply of electricity, it could assess the cost of the improvements against each apartment owner that had, or would, install a charging station.

An association that willfully violated the bill’s requirements would be liable to the apartment owner for actual damages, subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 to the owner, and responsible for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs In any action in which an apartment owner requesting to have a station installed and seeking to enforce compliance with the bill prevailed.

The bill would create identical provisions for the installation of chargers in a condominium unit or common space by the owner of a unit , and for the installation of chargers in a lot or designated parking space by the owners of residences in developments with home owners’ associations.

SB5670

SB5670– Requiring local governments to allow additional duplexes through sixplexes near major transit stops and in areas now zoned single family.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Kuderer – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1782 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
In the Senate –
Had a hearing in Housing & Local Government January 18th; amended to allow zero lot line setbacks where appropriate and passed out of committee January 27th.

Original bill –
The bill defines “middle housing” to mean duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments with up to six units. The bill would require cities with over 20,000 people planning under the Growth Management Act [GMA] to allow them on all lots zoned for single family within half a mile of a major transit stop, and to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on all other lots zoned for single-family. As an alternative, a city with a population of 500,000 or more could alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of at least 40 units/acre across all of its urban growth area; a city with between 100,000 people and 500,000 could rezone to an average minimum density of at least 30 units/acre across its UGA; and a city with between 20,000 and 100,000 people could rezone to an average minimum of at least 25 dwelling units/acre across its UGA. Within nine months of the effective date of the bill any of these cities that had not adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of its comprehensive plan’s mandatory elements would be required to perform the actions for addressing racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion specified in the GMA for areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop. (The bill would define a major transit stop for the purposes of the entire GMA as a ferry terminal; a stop on a light rail, commuter rail, or fixed rail system; a stop on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on HOV lanes; or a stop for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of 15 minutes or less for at least five hours during weekday peaks.

Any city with a population of at least 10,000 planning under the GMA would have to allow duplexes on any lots currently zoned for single-family. (Any city with a population between 10,000 and 20,000 would be able to alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of 15 dwelling units or more per acre instead.) Cities choosing any of the alternatives based on average minimums in the bill would also have to adopt findings of fact demonstrating that will not result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, or further exclusion in housing, and then transmit those findings to the Department of Commerce.

Cities would be allowed to adopt development and design standards for middle housing, provided that those didn’t discourage it through unreasonable costs, fees, delays, or other requirements or actions which individually, or cumulatively, made developing it impracticable. They would be prohibited from requiring zoning, development, siting, or design review standards for it that were more restrictive than those for single-family residences, and would be required to apply the same development permit and environmental review processes to both. They would be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition of developing it within a half mile of a major transit stop; from requiring more than than one off-street parking space per lot for it on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet; and from requiring more than two off-street parking spaces per lot for it on lots larger than that.

The Department of Commerce would provide technical assistance to cities implementing the bill’s requirements, and prioritize cities demonstrating the greatest need for it. It would publish a model middle housing ordinances within 18 months of the bill’s effective date, and that would preempt local development regulations until a city took all the actions necessary to implement the bill’s requirements. Commerce would establish a process by which cities implementing the requirements could seek approval of necessary local actions. Any local actions approved by the department would be exempted from appeals under the GMA and the State Environmental Policy Act. It would exempt amendments to development regulations and other nonproject actions taken by a city to implement its requirements from administrative or judicial appeals under the GMA. [I think the language of the bill would only exempt them if they had been approved by Commerce, but I’m not sure.]

The bill’s zoning requirements would take effect twenty-four months after its effective date for cities over 10,000 people, or twelve months after the Office of Financial Management determined that a city had reached one of the population thresholds in the bill.

HB1782

HB1782 – Requiring local governments to allow additional duplexes through sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments near major transit stops and some of these in areas now zoned single family.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bateman (D; 22nd District; Thurston County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Macri, Berry, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Local Government January 18th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing February 5th, and passed out of committee (after the failure of a series of amendments.) Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5670 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute provides for additional technical assistance from Commerce; adds a variety of new requirements; and makes other changes. There’s a staff summary at the beginning of the substitute.

HB1774

HB1774– Creates a benchmarking and energy management program (and eventual performance standards) for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and other buildings between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; South Seattle, Renton & Kent.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ramel, Berry, Dolan, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Environment & Energy. Did not have a hearing by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5722 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
By December 31, 2023, the bill would have the Department of Commerce create a benchmarking and energy management requirement for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The requirements are to be consistent with the current Clean Buildings energy performance standards for non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq ft, but are limited to energy use analysis through benchmarking and reporting, energy management planning, and operations and maintenance planning. The Department would be required to create an actual performance standard for these buildings by 2030, and the bill would authorize it to establish targets for buildings’ greenhouse gas-adjusted energy use intensity in this and the current performance standards.)

SB5669

SB5669– Strengthens State energy codes by adding reductions in net energy use, net-zero readiness, and wiring for solar in new buildings for the 2031 code cycle, and by creating a residential stretch code.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Senator Stanford – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Never heard. (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1770 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require the State Energy Code to provide an 80% reduction in residential and non-residential energy use compared to the 2006 baseline by 2034. (This would be 10% more than the reduction currently required by 2031. Since buildings are constructed under the code in place when they’re permitted, it takes a couple of additional years for a code update to actually become effective.)

It would also require those buildings to be “net zero ready”, and to include wiring for photovoltaic panel installation in the future. (The Department of Energy defines “net zero ready” buildings as being so energy efficient that an added renewable energy system could offset all or most of the building’s annual energy. The bill would have the Building Code Council develop the actual rules for meeting the State’s definition of that standard.)

The bill would have the the Department of Commerce propose rules for the technical provisions of an optional statewide residential reach code, and would require the Code Council to adopt one. Any city, town, or county could choose to adopt and enforce it in place of the State Energy Code’s standard requirements. It would have to become effective by 2023, and have to achieve the reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that would become effective in the regular State residential code by 2034, but could not exceed the “net zero” energy standard.

The bill would also eliminate a provision specifying that space heating equipment efficiency should be allowed to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance in the code.

HB1770

HB1770 – Strengthens State energy codes by adding reductions in net energy use, net-zero readiness, and wiring for solar in new buildings for the 2031 code cycle, and by creating a residential stretch code.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ramel, Berry, Dolan, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker which drops the requirements for net-zero readiness by 2034 and for an eventual 80% reduction in net energy consumption from the 2006 Washington State Energy Code. It eliminates the home affordability cost analysis. The bill now simply authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt a residential energy stretch code created by the Code Council to reach the 70% reduction in energy use currently required for the regular 2030 code three years earlier. (It would also require a 70% reduction in emissions, though.) Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5669 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Local Government January 19th; replaced by a substitute January 21st. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to require an affordability cost analysis for any change in the residential code; to exclude new EV charging loads from the 80% reduction requirement; and to clarify a couple of sentences. Passed by the House February 12th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute replaces a requirement for “wiring for photovoltaic panel installation” with a requirement for “electrical raceways and designated space for solar equipment for photovoltaic panel installation”. It adds an exemption for buildings with inadequate solar exposure, and changes a few other dates and details which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill would require the State Energy Code to provide an 80% reduction in residential and non-residential energy use compared to the 2006 baseline by 2034 (through changes in the code adopted in the 2031 cycle; this would be 10% more than the reduction currently required by 2031, through changes in the 2028 cycle.) Since buildings are constructed under the code in place when they’re permitted, it takes a couple of additional years for a code update to actually become effective.)

The bill would also eliminate a provision specifying that space heating equipment efficiency should be allowed to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance in the code.

HB1768 – 2022

HB1768 – Expanding the definition of the conservation projects that the Department of Enterprise Services and school districts are to implement (if they’re cost effective) to include projects reducing energy demand or greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 17th. Passed out of committee September 24th, referred to Rules; passed by the Senate March 3rd.
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 & Energy January 13th; substitute adopted January 20th. Passed by the House February 10th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute makes the same changes in definitions for the program that authorizes municipalities to negotiate performance-based energy contracts for conservation in their buildings. There’s a staff summary of these and other small changes at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill would expand the definition of the conservation projects that the Department of Enterprise Services and school districts are required to implement, if they’re cost effective. It currently includes projects reducing energy consumption or energy costs, and projects increasing efficiency. The bill would include projects reducing energy demand or reducing greenhouse gas emissions through distributed energy resources, such as energy storage, demand response, electric vehicles, and grid-interactive efficient buildings.

SB5666

SB5666– Allows public electric utilities to fund outreach and investment to convert customers’ equipment from fossil fuels to electricity if they have approved plans establishing that will provide net benefits to the utility.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Carlyle – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1767 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would allow public electric utilities to adopt a targeted electrification plan after public comment, establishing that the sum of the benefits of an option for electrifying its residential and commercial customers’ gas or wood equipment would equal or exceed the sum of its costs. (These utilities would still be authorized to offer incentives and programs to accelerate the electrification of homes and buildings if that were in their direct economic interest.)

The benefits they consider may include system impacts, as well as:
(i) Utility revenue from increased retail load;
(ii) Distribution and transmission system efficiencies resulting from demand response or other load management opportunities associated with the increased load, including direct control and dynamic pricing;
(iii) System reliability improvements;
(iv) Indoor and outdoor air quality benefits to existing and future customers;
(v) Reductions in customers’ greenhouse gas emissions, taking into consideration the utility’s obligations under the cap and invest act and the State’s greenhouse gas emissions limits;
(vi) Public health benefits, such as resilience in dealing with extreme heat and wildfire smoke for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations.
The analysis may differentiate the benefits and costs for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations in their service area.

The costs they consider must include:
(i) The electricity, which must be demonstrated to have a lower greenhouse gas emissions profile than direct use of natural gas or any other resources that might be used to serve or offset the load from electrification during the life of the equipment;
(ii) Any upgrades to the utility’s distribution or transmission system or load management practices and equipment made necessary by the increased load; and
(iii) The cost of any incentives, advertising, or other inducements used to encourage customers to electrify a use served by a different fuel.

After adopting a plan, a public utility would be authorized to offer incentives and establish other programs to accelerate the targeted electrification of homes and buildings, including the promotion of electrically powered equipment, advertising programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates. A utility offering these incentives and programs would be required to prioritize service to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities, and to ensure that all customers were benefiting from the transition to clean energy through the equitable distribution of energy and non energy benefits and the reduction of burdens to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities including long-term and short-term public health and environmental benefits; reduction of those costs and risks; and energy security and resiliency.

HB1767

HB1767– Allows public electric utilities to fund outreach and investment to convert customers’ equipment from fossil fuels to electricity if they have approved plans establishing that will provide net benefits to the utility.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Macri, Berry, Dolan, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed out of committee January 20th. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5666 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 18th.

HB1766

HB1766 – Modifying the regulation of gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Slatter -D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment & Energy January 28th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
SB5668 is a companion bill in the Senate.

SB5641

SB5641 – Makes commercial greenhouses with plastic roofs as well as residential ones, and temporary growing structures with permanent walls as well as those with plastic sides, exempt from the building code.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeastern Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government February 18th, and passed out of committee the 22nd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 18th; passed out of committee January 20th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate January 28th.

Comments –
On average, transportation from the farm to the supermarket accounts for less than 4% of total food emissions. (Food that’s flown, like fresh fish and flowers, has relatively high transportation emissions; food that travels a long way by ship has suprisingly low ones.) Local food raised in a heated greenhouse may well not involve lower greenhouse gas emissions than food shipped a long way from a warmer location.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current exemption of “temporary growing structures” with plastic roofs from the requirements of the building code to include commercial greenhouses as well as residential ones, and to include buildings with permanent walls as well as those with sides made of plastic.

HB1753

HB1753 – Creates requirements for consultation with tribes on expenditures from the climate commitment act.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; parts of Whatcom, Skagit and San Juan counties.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Fitzgibbon -D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 16th, and passed out of committee the 22nd. Referred to Ways & Means; had a hearing there February 26th, passed out of committee and referred to Rules the 28th. 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 the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 13th; replaced by a substitute making a few small changes and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 4th; passed out of committee February 5th. Referred to Rules; amended on the floor by the prime sponsor, creating a capacity development grant program to support tribal participation and making other changes in the process which are summarized by staff at the end of the striker. Passed by the House.

Summary –
The bill would require State agencies that allocate funding or administer grants using revenue from the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap and invest bill) to consult in a new process with any affected tribe on all funding decisions and programs that might impact tribal resources, including cultural resources, fisheries, archaeological or sacred sites, and other rights and interests in lands reserved or protected by federal treaty, statute, or executive order. (It covers the use of revenue from the climate investment account, the climate commitment account, and the natural climate solutions account, and the requirements of the bill would also apply to local governments’ projects and programs receiving funding from those.)

Applicants for funding would be required to engage in a preapplication process with any tribes within a project area at the earliest possible date. That would include providing a notice to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and any affected tribes including the detailed scope of the project and its location, preliminary application details available to Federal, State, or local governmental jurisdictions, and all publicly available materials, including public funding sources. An applicant would also be required to offer to discuss the project and its potential impacts with them. (The notification and offer to initiate discussion, or the reason why a discussion has not occurred, would have to be documented with a funding application when it was filed, and a copy of the application would have to be delivered to the Department and to the affected tribes.) If any funding decision, program, project, or activity that impacted lands or fisheries within which a tribe possesses reserved rights were funded from the accounts without such a consultation, an affected tribe could request that all further action on it cease until meaningful consultation had been completed.

Any affected tribe could request a formal review of a completed consultation by submitting a request to the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs and notifying the agencies involved and the Department. The agencies and each tribe would be required to meet separately to initiate a discussion within twenty days of the request, unless the affected tribes agreed to conduct a joint consultation with the state. After the formal review, an affected tribe or an state agency could request that the Governor and an elected tribal leader or leaders meet to formally consider recommendations from the parties. After that, the Governor or an elected tribal leader could call for the state and tribe or tribes to enter into formal mediation, conducted as a government-to-government proceeding, with each government retaining their right to a final decision that met their separate obligations and interests. Mediators would be jointly selected by the parties, and any agreement between the governor and a tribal leader or leaders resulting from the mediation would be binding. Any party could still initiate further steps, including legal review, to resolve a continuing disagreement. (During these steps, agencies would not be allowed to approve or release funding, or make other formal decisions to advance a project, including permitting, except when they were legally required to.)

The bill would require the Office of Indian Affairs to coordinate with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and tribes in developing a periodically updated consultation process, including best practices for early, meaningful, and effective consultation, early notification and engagement by applicants and tribes as part of the preapplication process, and protocols for communication and collaboration with tribes. The Office would provide training and other technical assistance to agencies (and to local governments that requested it) as they implemented the required consultation.

SB5626

SB5626 – Adding a climate resilience element to water system plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 22nd. Did not progress by cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th. The substitute adds some specifications about the Department’s technical assistance, and would have the UW’s Climate Impacts Group assist in the development of tools for that if funding were appropriated. It would also eliminate the Public Water Board’s and Commerce’s participation in the administration of the Water System Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 3rd; passed out of committee on the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

Summary –
The bill would require public water systems serving 1,000 or more connections to include a climate resilience element as part of their water system plans. They would have to determine which extreme weather events pose significant challenges to their system and build scenarios to identify potential impacts; assess critical assets and the actions necessary to protect the system from the effects of extreme weather events on operations; and generate reports describing the costs and benefits of the system’s risk reduction strategies for decision makers and stakeholders.

The Department of Health would be required to update its water system planning guidebook to assist systems in implementing the climate resilience element, including guidance on any available technical and financial resources. The bill would authorize the Department’s water system acquisition and rehabilitation program to make loans to systems to partially cover project costs as well as the current grants, and would make climate resilience planning and actions to protect system from extreme weather events, including infrastructure and design projects, eligible for financing from the program.

HB1731

HB1731– Enhancing the requirements for autonomous vehicle testing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsor Representative Boehnke-R)
Current status – Rescheduled for a hearing in Transportation Thursday February 1st at 3:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill would require programs for testing fully autonomous vehicles with a backup human operator in the car on public roadways to certify that only someone with a valid US driver’s license and authorized by the developer of the system will operate or monitor the vehicle, that the vehicle will be continuously monitored by the operator, that he or she will be able to direct the vehicle’s movements if human assistance is required, and that the vehicles’ operation will comply with Washington State motor vehicle laws at all times.

It would require programs for testing fully autonomous vehicles without a backup human operator in the car on public roadways to certify that the vehicles will have an automated system that performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task within the environment in which it’s designed to function; that they’ll be capable of achieving a minimal risk condition to reduce the risk of a collision without human intervention when it’s necessary to maintain safe operations (such as stopping); and that they’ll comply with the motor vehicle laws. These programs would also have to certify that they have a comprehensive safety case framework with identifiable safety-related goals and mandatory feedback mechanisms in place; have conducted driving simulations and closed-course testing in preparation for testing on public roadways; have evaluated the safety record of the autonomous vehicle being tested to determine its readiness for testing on public roadways; and have put any additional safety measures appropriate to the less predictable driving environment of testing on public roadways in place, based on the evidence they’ve collected through these previous measures. Programs would also have to certify that they’ve verified that the vehicle meets appropriate and applicable industry standards to help defend against, detect, and respond to cyberattacks, unauthorized intrusions, and false control commands.

The bill would shift the current requirements for reporting information about collisions or moving violations to the Department; it would require submitting the information that’s sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the national autonomous vehicle incident reporting requirements, or the information the Department decided to require. It would add local fire service providers to the authorities that programs have to notify about periods in which they’ll be testing vehicles, and require providing a guide including instructions for interaction with autonomous vehicles without human operators as part of the notices when those are going to be tested. It would make the registered agent for a testing program responsible for tickets issued for violations of the traffic laws by fully autonomous vehicles without human operators in them, though those would not become part of the agent’s driving record. It would make any commercial or proprietary information submitted to the Department to which the NHTSA grants confidential status exempt from the public disclosure law.

SB5619

SB5619 – Develops a plan to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1661 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The findings say:
These marine forests and meadows play an important role in climate mitigation and adaptation by sequestering carbon and relieving ocean acidification. Marine vegetation can sequester up to times more carbon than terrestrial forests, and therefore represent a critical tool in the fight against climate change.
There’s research on using kelp growing on open ocean platforms, where the biomass falls into regions where there’s so little biological activity that it doesn’t break down and the carbon captured in its growth stays sequestered. I don’t know how much carbon from our local kelp forests stays sequestered for long. How well local eel grass meadows sequester carbon is unclear.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 20th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. The substitute, which matches the one for HB1661, would focus the Conservation Plan on native species; have it address current conservation efforts; and identify research needed on native seaweed aquaculture. It specifies consultation and adds reporting requirements. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 5th. Amended and passed out of committee February 7th. (The amendment has DNR map both native and non-native eelgrass and kelp throughout the Sound and along the coast and allows it to use that mapping in establishing the health and conservation plan.) Referred to Rules; passed the Senate unanimously February 10th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources February 18th; passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Appropriations. Amended to make it null and void if funding isn’t appropriated for it, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 2nd.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to work with partners to establish a kelp forest and eelgrass meadow health and conservation plan that tries (subject to available funding) to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.

They would develop a framework to identify and prioritize kelp forest areas in greatest need of conservation or restoration, mapping areas throughout Puget Sound and along the coast where they were historically present, identifying priority locations for restoration that are at highest risk of permanent loss, or that contribute significant environmental, economic, and cultural benefits to tribal nations and local communities; locations where opportunities for partnership and collaboration exist, and locations where restoration would most benefit nearshore ecosystem function including salmon recovery, water quality, and other ecosystem benefits. They would identify potential stressors impacting the health and vitality of forests and meadows in prioritized areas in order to specifically address them in conservation and restoration efforts.

The department would collaborate with impacted tribal nations, and other local and regional partners, to address conservation and restoration needs in the priority areas and the appropriate tools and partnerships to address them. In developing coordinated actions and success measures, it would assess and inventory existing tools for conserving and restoring these ecosystems and reducing stressors related to their decline; identify new or amended tools that would support the goals of the plan; and identify success measures to track progress toward them.

The department would submit a report to the Office of Financial Management and the appropriate committees of the Legislature by December 1, 2022, including a map and justification of identified priority areas, an approach to monitoring the areas that are meeting the criteria for conservation or restoration established in the plan, and activities to be undertaken consistent with the plan. A final version of the plan would have to be submitted to OFM and these committees by December 1, 2023.

The department would continue to monitor kelp forests and eelgrass meadows to inform adaptive management of the plan and coordinated partner actions, and submit a report every two years including an updated map of distributions and trends; a summary of success measures and findings, including relevant information from the prioritization process; an updated list summarizing potential stressors, prioritized areas, and corresponding coordinated actions and success measures; an update on the number of acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows conserved by region, including restoration or loss in priority areas; an update on consultation with impacted tribal nations and local communities; any barriers to plan implementation; and legislative or administrative recommendations to address those barriers.

HB1723

HB1723 – Increasing the accessibility and affordability of telecommunications services, devices, and training through reduced rates, grants, and planning programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; South King County) (Co-Sponsors Representative Taylor & Ryu – Ds)
Current status – House concurred in the Senate changes.
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 Community & Economic Development January 11th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 18th. The substitute no longer requires utilities to provide services to low-income persons at a reduced rate determined by the UTC; adds eight more types of anchor institutions, adds three sorts of people to the definition of underserved populations, and adds pre-kindergarten students to those that must be considered when awarding grants. Had a hearing in Appropriations January 27th. Replaced by a second substitute making the bill null and void if specific funding for weren’t appropriated and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 12th. (The floor amendments allowed the program to assist low-income people with the cost of services through other means in addition to rate reductions; would have telecommunications providers determine rates for eligible services rather than the UTC; would no longer allow the UTC to exclude a provider from the program because of excessive charges or poor customer service; and would make the program subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for it.)

In the Senate – Passed
Scheduled but not heard in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 23rd. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee February 24th. (The striker no longer requires telecommunications providers providing eligible voice and broadband, when enrolling new customers to inform new customers of these and other reduced rate options, and no longer requires them to submit specified information toverifying the eligibility of low-income customers. It no longer requires DSHS to verify low income eligibility or to reimburse providers for the difference between the reduced rates and regular prices, and it makes a couple of other small changes.) Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 26th. Replaced by a striker which eliminates the proposed Anchor Institution Digital Equity Program and the proposed Washington Broadband Assistance Program, requiring the Statewide Broadband Office to to develop and report on a state digital equity plan in consultation with the Digital Equity Forum, the UTC, and DSHS instead. Passed by the Senate March 4th.

Summary –
The bill would establish a Digital Equity Forum to develop recommendations to advance digital connectivity in the state and advise the State Broadband Office, and would create three new digital equity programs.

It would create a broadband assistance program, administered by the Department of Social and Health Services, to provide low-income persons with reduced rates for eligible voice and broadband services. The Utilities and Transportation Commission would determine eligible services and the amount of assistance, considering the number of customers expected to participate, the price of services, other available assistance programs, and other relevant facts. It would adopt guidelines to reduce barriers to enrollment in the program, which might include allowing providers with low-income internet offerings to automatically enroll customers who had already demonstrated eligibility through initial enrollment in another low-income internet offering without additional verification. Telecommunications providers would be required to provide those services to low-income persons at the reduced rate determined by the Commission, to inform customers that they may be eligible for reduced rates, and to provide information to the department for verifying the eligibility of those customers. The Department would reimburse companies for the discounts. (It would not be allowed to limit these customers to one line.) It would consult with the Office of Equity about methods for administering the program to reduce barriers to participation and a plan for outreach, eligibility determination assistance, and enrollment navigation assistance for populations that would be challenged to participate.

If funding were provided, the bill would establish a Digital Equity Forum to develop recommendations to advance digital connectivity in the state and advise the Broadband Office on the digital equity opportunity and digital equity planning grant programs. The directors of the Office and the Washington State Office of Equity would appoint members they agreed on to the Forum, prioritizing representatives from tribes; state agencies involved in digital equity; and underserved and unserved communities. Two State Representatives and two Senators, one from each party, would also be appointed as members by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.

The Statewide Broadband Office would create and manage an anchor institution digital equity program providing rates discounted by at least 50% for broadband services and 25% for basic telecommunications services to public schools, housing authorities, libraries, medical and health care providers, community colleges and other higher education institutions, and other nonprofit or governmental community support organizations. It could provide partial or full grants for the costs for building, rehabilitating, or maintaining telecommunications infrastructure, prioritizing applications by the extent to which they help expand access to state-of-the-art technologies for rural, inner city, low-income, and disabled residents, and the extent to which any broadband service provided is consistent with the office’s current established goals. (The bill would also slightly expand the purposes of the Statewide Broadband Office to include increasing the adoption of broadband as well as its accessibility, to cover underserved as well as unserved communities, and to allow it to work with public housing agencies. It would allow it to assist applicants for the assistance programs it creates in seeking grants for broadband services, and would have it coordinate an outreach effort providing information about available broadband assistance programs to hard-to-reach and low-income communities, or to contract for that outreach.)

If funding were provided, the bill would have the Department of Commerce establish a digital equity planning grant program for local governments, institutions of higher education, workforce development councils, or other entities to development digital equity plans for discrete regions of the state. Priority would be given to applications accompanied by express support from community or neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations, public development authorities, federally recognized Indian tribes in the state, or other community partners and partners using community-based participatory action research methods as a part of the proposed plan. The Digital Equity Forum would review them and provide input to the department about prioritizing awards. The Department would be required to evaluate and rank applications using objective criteria such as the number of underserved populations served and subjective criteria such as the degree of support and engagement evidenced by the community who will be served; to consider the input provided by the forum; and to consider the extent to which the mix of grants awarded would increase the number of K-12 students gaining access to greater levels of digital inclusion.

The bill would focus the the Department of Commerce’s current community technology opportunity program on advancing broadband adoption, digital equity and inclusion. It would have the Digital Equity Forum review applications for the program’s grants and provide input on prioritizing awards, as well as requiring Commerce to consider that input and the extent to which the mix of awards would increase the number of K-12 students gaining access to greater levels of digital inclusion. It would remove the requirement for matching funds for program grants, and would have the Department provide additional support for evaluating the impact and efficacy of activities supported by the grants; and for developing, cataloging, disseminating, and promoting the exchange of best practices to achieve digital equity. It would explicitly have the Department collaborate with broadband stakeholders in implementing the program, including broadband action teams across the state.

HB1722

HB1722– Requires cities and towns to allow microtrenching for fiber optic cables.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (D; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsor Representative Paul-D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Committee on Local Government Wednesday January 26th at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5775 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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.

SB5616

SB5616 – Allows using the energy efficiency account permanently for loans, loan guarantees, and grants that reduce greenhouse gas emissions for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (By request of the Office of Financial Management)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations February 22nd. Passed out of committee February 24th, and referred to Rules. 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 Ways & Means January 17th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 31st. Referred to Transportation and had a hearing there February 3rd. Replaced by a second substitute making a couple of housekeeping changes and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 11th.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would make the change allowing the energy efficiency account to be used for projects reducing EITE emissions permanent.

Original bill –
During the next biennium, the bill would allow money in the energy efficiency account to be appropriated and spent on loans, loan guarantees, and grants for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries. (It would also create a clean energy transition workforce account to support workers affected by the state’s transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy, and a forest resiliency account dedicated to spending on forest health, carbon sequestration, and any other activities that help protect Washington forests.)

HB1711

HB1711– Allows cities and counties to waive or defer ADU fees; defer taxes; and waive regulations for them, provided that they can’t be used as short-term rentals.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollet (D; 46th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Representative Shewmake -D)
Current status – Passed out of committee and referred to Rules January 21st; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th.

Summary –
The bill would allow cities and counties to waive or defer fees for ADUs, including impact fees; defer the payment of taxes on them; or waive specific regulations for them. However, it would only allow these or other local incentives for the development or construction of ADUs if they were subject to binding commitments or covenants preventing their regular use as short-term rentals, and the jurisdiction had a program to audit compliance with those.

(It also removes the current definition of an ADU’s owner as someone with at at least a 50% interest in the property it’s on, and fixes the phrasing about route frequency in the definition of a major transit stop.)

SB5580

SB5580 – Authorizes loans and grants for emergency public works broadband projects, and no longer requires UTC assessments of applications’ technical feasibility.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsor Senator Mullet -D) (By request of the Public Works Board)
Current status – Referred to Rules. Still there at cutoff; sent to the “X” file February 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1673 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th.

Summary –

Substitute –
When the Board was funding emergency public works projects, the substitute would require it to prioritize replacing an existing provider’s damaged infrastructure, and prohibit funding a new provider to overbuild the existing one.

Original bill –
The bill would authorize the board to make low-interest or interest-free loans or grants for emergency public works broadband projects, including the construction, repair, reconstruction, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement to critical broadband infrastructure damaged by unforeseen events.

It would no longer require the board to consult with the Utilities and Transportation Commission to assessments of the technical feasibility of applications and to consider those as part of its evaluations of them.

It would also make financial and commercial information and records supplied by businesses or individuals in applying for loans or program services exempt from disclosure under the public records act, and make very minor changes in the processes for applications and for objections by current providers.

HB1673

HB1673 –Authorizes loans and grants for emergency public works broadband projects, and no longer requires UTC assessments of applications’ technical feasibility.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ryu (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Donaghy -D, Leavitt -D, and Boehnke -R) (By request of the Public Works Board)
Current status – Cancelled hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on February 17th. Amended to prioritize funding projects that replace existing providers’ damaged infrastructure, specifying that the Board “shall not provide funds to a new provider to overbuild the existing provider,” and passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5580 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Community and Economic Development January 11th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 14th. (There’s a staff summary of the substitute’s changes in a memo.) Had a hearing in the Committee on the Capital Budget February 1st, and passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules February 7th. Amended on the floor to allow an existing provider to object to a project if the service they provide or commit to providing meets the State’s 2024 speed standards of 25Mb/sec download and 3Mb/sec upload, rather than the 2028 goals which increase to at least 150Mb/sec in both directions. Passed by the House unanimously February 10th.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the board to make low-interest or interest-free loans or grants for emergency public works broadband projects, including the construction, repair, reconstruction, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement to critical broadband infrastructure damaged by unforeseen events.

HB1702

HB1702 – Creates $100 B&O tax credit for each residential broadband installation and tax exemptions for developing and manufacturing broadband satellites.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce & Tribal Affairs on Monday February 21st at 9:30 AM
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill specifies that most of these benefits only apply to broadband for residences or businesses; however, its final provision would seem to exempt any research and development activities in satellite manufacturing, launch, and communications, of whatever kind, from the B&O tax.

Summary –
The bill would provide a $100 credit against their business and occupation tax to broadband service providers for each new installation that supplies service meeting the State’s speed standards to a residential customer who didn’t already have that.
It would also exempt manufacturing low earth orbit satellites and components used to provide broadband service to a residence or business; antennae or other hardware for receiving signals at these locations; and “research and development activities in satellite manufacturing, launch, and communications” from the B&O tax.

(Each of these tax benefits would be available for six years, until the end of 2027.)

SB5590

SB5590 – Eliminates the expiration date for the Marine Advisory Council, which works on addressing the impacts of ocean acidification.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; parts of Skagit, Snohomish and King Counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 24th, and passed out of committee. 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
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th; amended to keep an expiration date, but extend it to 2032, and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 14th.

Comments –
The original section of the law establishing the Council says that it’s to deliver recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature, but it doesn’t actually ever specify what those are supposed to be about…

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would eliminate the expiration date for the Marine Advisory Council, which works on addressing the impacts of ocean acidification. It’s currently June 30th, 2022.

The Council’s composed of 23 voting members representing State and tribal government, State agencies, and a range of stakeholders, with invited participation as non-voting members by representatives of NOAA and academic institutions conducting scientific research on ocean acidification. It’s to focus in a sustained and coordinated way on increasing the state’s ability to address impacts of ocean acidification; to advise and work with the University of Washington and others to conduct ongoing technical analysis on accidification’s effects and sources; and to deliver recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees in the Legislature [presumably about ways to address those impacts], identifying actions necessary to implement them, and taking the differences between in-state and out-of-state impacts and sources into consideration.

The Council’s also to seek public and private funding for resources needed for ongoing technical analysis to support its recommendations; and to help conduct public education about ocean acidification’s impacts, contributions to those, and implementation strategies “to support the actions adopted by the Legislature”.

It’s to meet at least twice a year, and accept public comment on agenda items and other matters relating to the protection and conservation of the state’s ocean resources.

HB1682

HB1682 – Provides additional free allowances, reduced over time, for emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities, and allows using cap and invest revenue for reducing their emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & West Seattle) (Requested by the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment & Energy Tuesday January 18th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 5th. Replaced by a second substitute from the prime sponsor advancing the date for completion of Ecology’s report on alternative methods for managing the distribution of credits to EITEs from 2026 to 2024, providing a detailed statement of legislative intent about criteria for the policies which Ecology is to consider in preparing the report, and making some other changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. Passed out of committee February 28th; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Section 26(5) of the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap and invest bill) prohibited expenditures of the revenues after April 1st, 2023 unless the Legislature had considered and enacted legislation brought forth by Ecology, and developed in consultation with stakeholders, outlining a compliance pathway specific to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed businesses for achieving their proportionate share of the state’s emissions reduction limits through 2050.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would make awards of no cost allowances to facilities using best available technology starting at the fourth compliance period rather than the third, and would replace the general criteria for those with detailed specifications about qualifying and the process; it also makes some minor changes. There’s a staff summary at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill would extend the period during which emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses receive free allowances to help meet their obligations under the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap and invest program). The Act stepped down the number of free allowances each facility received during two four year periods, ending January 1st, 2035. (It also prohibited the expenditure of any revenue from the program after April 1st, 2023 unless the Department of Ecology had proposed and the Legislature had enacted a pathway for these facilities to achieve their proportionate share of the state’s emissions reduction limits through 2050.)

In the last of the original Act’s compliance periods, from 2031 through 2034, it required facilities using mass-based estimates of their emissions to get free allowances to cover 94% of their original baseline emissions. (It lowered the free allowances for facilities reporting the carbon intensity of their operations with a 3% reduction from the previous level for each compliance period.) This bill would now grant both kinds of facilities additional free allowances to cover 88% of their emissions during 2035, and then set their free allowances at 6% below the previous year’s level each year until 2050.

The bill shifts from saying Ecology may adjust a facility’s benchmark for a compliance period upward if it demonstrates additional reductions in carbon intensity or mass emissions are not technically or economically feasible to saying that Ecology would be required to adopt rules to provide a process for these adjustments in the third and subsequent periods. (Raising the benchmark reduces the number of allowances a facility needs.) Ecology would be authorized to grant an adjustment based on that determination and other factors including a finding it’s necessary to accommodate for changes in the manufacturing process that have a material impact on emissions; changes to a facility’s external competitive environment that result in a significant increase in leakage risk; or abnormal operating periods when a facility’s carbon intensity has been materially affected. Any adjustments may not increase the total annual allowance budget for the program for any calendar year in the compliance period for which the adjustment was granted or any future calendar year; reduce the progressively equivalent reductions year over year in the annual allowance budgets; or prevent the achievement of this sector’s share of the emissions-intensive and trade-exposed businesses’ proportionate share of the State’s targets. The Department would also be able to adjust the numbers of all these additional free allowances if that was necessary to ensure achievement of this sector’s share of the State’s targets, or to provide for alignment with other jurisdictions to which the state had linked the cap and invest program.

The bill would add programs, activities, or projects that reduce the emissions of emissions-intensive, trade- exposed facilities to the list of those eligible for funding from the revenue generated by the cap and invest program.

It would also eliminate the requirement for a report to the Legislature by December 1, 2026, after consultation with manufacturers, about alternative methods for determining the allowances to be provided to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities from 2035 through 2050, best practices for ensuring against emissions leakage and economic harm to businesses in carbon pricing programs, and alternative methods of emissions benchmarking and mass-based allocation of allowances. It would remove the original Act’s provision for continuing to award free allowances at their level in 2034 if the Legislature doesn’t adopt a program for continuing them by December 1, 2027.

HB1672

HB1672 – Exempts local property tax increases for conservation futures from RCW 84.55.010’s limits on local levies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wylie (D; 49th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Had a hearing in Finance January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would exempt local property tax increases for conservation futures from RCW 84.55.010’s limits on local levies. (That limits a local levy to the amount of the largest property tax in a district during the most recent three years, adjusted for various factors like increased assessed values, times one of several limit factors which depend on the district but are often 1%.)

HB1661

HB1661 – Develop a plan to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 18th; replaced by a substitute January 25th. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 3rd. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5619 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would focus the Conservation Plan on native species; have it address current conservation efforts; and identify research needed on native seaweed aquaculture. It specifies consultation and adds reporting requirements.

Original bill –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to work with partners to establish a kelp forest and eelgrass meadow health and conservation plan that tries (subject to available funding) to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.

HB1660

HB1660 – Modifying the State’s limits on local jurisdictions’ ADU requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing & Local Government Wednesday February 23rd. Amended to specify that jurisdictions issuing ADU permits aren’t liable if that violates various ownership associations’ existing restrictions on them. Passed out of committee February 23rd; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5648 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th; replaced by a substitute January 21st. (The substitute would prohibit local jurisdictions from limiting ADUs in various additional ways; there’s a staff summary of the details at the beginning of the substitute.) Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to prohibit condominium associations or associations of apartment owners from blocking the construction or use of an ADU and passed by the House February 14th.

Original bill –
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.

HB1663

HB1663 – Reducing methane emissions from landfills.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsor Representative Fitzgibbon -D)
Current status – House concurred in the Senate amendments March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
I’ve done my best to summarize this bill, but I wouldn’t swear I’ve got it right…

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 16th, replaced by a striker making minor changes that are summarized at the end of it and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 26th. Amended to make a couple of minor changes and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to allow local governments to receive funding from the Climate Commitment Act for installing gas collection devices and gas control systems; to remove the requirement for methane hot spot monitoring and reporting; and to include installation of an energy recovery device as qualifying for the up to two year extension on the deadline for compliance. Passed by the Senate March 4th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment & Energy; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th. (The substitute exempts limited purpose landfills; there’s a staff summary of the other minor changes in it.) Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 4th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute adding a 3% limit on methane leak rates for gas collection and control system routing gas to energy recovery or treatment systems, and changing the frequency of source testing for gas control devices. Passed out of committee February 5th, and referred to Rules. Amended on the floor, to change the frequency of required source testing in municipal landfills from three years to five years, unless they’re non-compliant, in which case they must be tested annually until they comply two years in a row. Passed by the House February 11th.

Summary –
The bill applies to municipal solid waste landfills and to limited purpose landfills that received waste after January 1st 1997, and receive or have received nothing but solid waste that isn’t inert or hazardous. If one contains less than 450,000 tons of waste, its owner or operator has to do an annual waste in place report. Landfills with more waste have to include a calculation of their gas heat input capacity in their report. (That’s the gross heating value of the methane emissions, which can be calculated in various ways.) If that’s more than 300,000 btus/hour recovered and there’s any measured concentration of methane over 200 parts/million by volume from the surface of one of these larger active, inactive, or closed landfills over four consecutive quarterly readings, they have to install a gas collection and control system, conduct instantaneous and integrated surface monitoring of the landfill surface, monitor the gas control system, and monitor each individual wellhead to determine the gauge pressure.

Collection and control systems have to handle the expected gas flow rate from the entire area of the landfill, be designed and operated so that there is no gas leak that exceeds 500 parts/million by volume at any component under pressure, and collect gas at a rate that keeps the instantaneous monitoring of surface methane (other than nonrepeatable, momentary readings) below 500 parts/million by volume ; or maintains an average methane concentration determined by integrated surface emissions monitoring below 25 parts/million by volume. (The requirements don’t apply to the working face of the landfill or areas where the cover’s been removed to work on systems or for law enforcement excavations.

Ecology or the local authority would have to allow the capping or removal of the gas collection and control system at a closed municipal solid waste landfill or limited purpose landfill, if the system had been in operation for at least 15 years, or the owner or operator demonstrated that system would be unable to operate for that long due to declining methane rates; the surface methane concentration measurements were below the act’s limits; and they submitted an equipment removal report.

The bill would exempt these landfill emissions from the cap and invest program, but it would expand the law that allows Ecology to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 a day for violations of the Clean Air Act to include violations of these landfill emissions regulations, of the Clean Fuels Act, and of the rules governing burning permits (RCW 76.04.205). (I don’t know why it includes this last item, since that RCW already authorizes these penalties.)

Ecology would develop rules for implementing the bill, and for the monitoring procedures; it could collect fees to cover its costs. Owners or operators of these landfills would have to maintain records on monitoring, testing, landfill operations, and the operation of any gas control or collection device or system. They would have to notify Ecology if the landfill closes, and if they remove or shut down a gas control system. They could request alternatives to the requirements, which Ecology could evaluate on the basis of factors including their compliance history; documentation containing the landfill gas flow rate and measured methane concentrations for individual gas collection wells or components; permits; component testing and surface monitoring results; gas collection and control system operation, maintenance, and inspection records; and historical meteorological data.

HB1657

HB1657 – Reducing the emissions and the safety risks of insufficient overnight commercial truck parking through tax incentives.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Griffey (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Had a hearing in Finance Tuesday January 25th at 1:30. Amended to increase the minimum qualifying parking space dimensions to 12 feet wide and 70 feet long, and passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules February 7th; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The findings include a reference to a 2016 survey by the Department of Transportation in which over 60% of truckers reported spending an hour or more per day looking for parking.

The current language of the bill would seem to exempt any buildings on a piece of property that included a qualified truck parking lot from real and personal property taxes, not just the part of it with the actual lot. It doesn’t say anything about how affordable the charging or hydrogen fueling needs to be, about what capacity for charging or refueling some or all of the trucks is required, or that the spaces need to be in a location where they are used by truckers. The intent to continue the incentives isn’t tied to any evidence that 1,000 additional parking spaces would not have been developed in any case.

The exemptions are subject to the standard review by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. For that, a new tax preference performance statement is supposed to “specify clear, relevant, and ascertainable metrics and data requirements that allow the committee and the Legislature to measure [its] effectiveness in achieving the designated purpose of the exemption.” In relation to this review requirement the bill specifies the tax preference as “intended to provide incentives to increase safe overnight truck parking capacity.”

Summary –
The bill would exempt all real and personal property “upon which there are at least 10 safe, overnight commercial truck parking spaces constructed” from taxes on their value starting with the taxes due in 2023, and continuing until a year after the Secretary of the Department of Transportation certified to the Department of Revenue that the state has sufficient safe, overnight commercial truck parking for its freight delivery needs of the state or January 1, 2033, whichever is sooner. It would exempt the sales of materials and labor used to construct a parking lot with at least ten qualified commercial or port district truck parking spaces from sales and use taxes, if they were accessible and suitable for overnight use, and allowed for charging electric batteries or fuel cells. It adds all leasehold interests in real property owned by a port and used by a tenant to provide qualified port district truck parking spaces to the current list of interests exempt from the leasehold excise tax.

The bill declares the Legislature’s intent to extend the incentive if the number of truck parking spaces suitable for overnight use grows by at least 1,000 spaces while it’s in place, and at least half of the spaces developed have hydrogen fueling access or electric charging access.

Details –
The exemptions would apply to spaces on which substantial construction work began while they were in place; spaces would have to be at least 11′ by 54′; port district spaces would only have to be accessible and available to any commercial truck authorized to be on port property.

SJM8007

SJM8007 – Senate Joint Memorial urging the Federal government to move forward with steps to manage and permanently store spent fuel from commercial nuclear plants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities & Benton County)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would urge Congress and the Secretary of Energy to implement the recommendations of a 2021 study by the Government Accountability Office on commercial spent nuclear fuel.

That recommended Congress consider:
(1) Amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to authorize the Department of Energy to initiate a new consent-based process for siting, developing, and constructing new consolidated interim storage and permanent repository facilities;
(2) Creating an independent board to ensure the long-term continuity of leadership for managing spent nuclear fuel;
(3) Restructuring the Nuclear Waste Fund so funds used to develop, construct, and operate a permanent repository are based on the spent nuclear fuel program’s life-cycle costs; and
(4) Directing the Department of Energy to develop and implement an integrated waste management strategy.

HB1644

HB1644 – Allows using the transportation vehicle fund to plan for clean student transportation vehicles, and to develop charging and fueling infrastructure for them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Senn (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-sponsor Rep. Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy)
Current status – House concurred in the Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Appropriations January 24th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules; passed the House 94 to 2 on February 9th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education February 18th; passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to include converting or repowering existing fossil fuel pupil transportation vehicles to electric or zero-emission ones, and passed by the Senate March 2nd.

Summary –
The bill specifies that the transportation vehicle fund can also be used to complete a feasibility plan to transition from gas or diesel student transportation vehicles to electric or alternative fuel ones; and for the purchase, installation, and repair of charging and fueling stations for those, as well as other costs necessary for station installation. The amendment in Appropriations simply replaced “alternative fuel vehicles and fueling stations” with “zero emission vehicles and fueling stations.”

SB5543

SB5543 – Creates a program providing rebates for new all electric landscaping equipment in exchange for operating gas and diesel equipment that would be scrapped or recycled.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in Ways and Means on Thursday February 17th at 4:00 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 11th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th. (The substitute would convert the rebate for new equipment to a point of sale incentive, structured as a B&O credit on sales of discounted new equipment, limited to one item a year per customer. The credit would be limited to $50,000 per retailer, capped at $2 million altogether, and usable until the end of 2024.)

Summary –
The bill would establish a cash for clunkers pilot exchange program providing rebates for new all electric landscaping equipment, if funds were appropriated for that purpose. (It would be eligible for funding from the Climate Commitment Act – aka the cap and trade program.)

The program would cover edgers, trimmers, chainsaws, and pole saws; leaf blowers and vacuums; walk-behind mowers; ride-on or stand-ride mowers; additional batteries and chargers; and any other equipment approved by the Department of Ecology. Residents who turned in any operable gasoline or diesel landscaping equipment to be scrapped would be eligible for one rebate of $100 on any new piece of all electric equipment costing up to $300 including tax, or a rebate of $200 on a more expensive piece. Commercial landscapers could turn in up to three pieces and get up to three rebates.

The Department of Ecology would administer the program, and could coordinate doing that with local clean air agencies, or regional offices where a local clean air agency doesn’t exist. The department would be required to maintain a public list of retailers that agreed to take old gasoline or diesel equipment for recycling or disposal, and to track the effectiveness of the program by estimating emissions reductions from the exchanges.