Category Archives: Energy 2024

SB6303

SB6303 – Providing several fifteen year tax incentives to encourage energy storage system and component parts manufacturing in Washington.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Scheduled for executive session in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 8:00 AM on Friday January 26th. (The bill hasn’t ever had a hearing, as far as I can see; the sponsor is the committee chair, which may have something to do with that.). Passed out of committee the same day, and referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax on businesses selling, manufacturing, or processing energy storage system and component parts in the state at 0.275% through 2040. (This would include batteries, thermal storage systems, mechanical systems including pumped hydro, and electrical systems like super capacitors and superconducting magnetic energy storage.)

It would also provide an annual credit of $4,000 for each person employed in a permanent full-time position manufacturing any of these, and an additional $4,000 credit for each position that lasts over ten years.

It would make the construction of facilities to produce these eligible for the sales tax deferrals on materials and equipment, labor, or services currently available for a variety of green investment projects. (These allow you to postpone starting to pay the taxes until two years after the completion of a project, and to pay them gradually over ten years.)

There’d be a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee report on the program after five years evaluating average construction wages for eligible projects; the number of jobs created in the clean technology sector; the use of apprenticeship programs, and women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses by eligible projects; the degree to which the preference encouraged manufacturing and component production for technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; whether facilities benefiting from the preference would have been developed without the preference; and any other relevant metric. However, the bill specifies that the Legislature doesn’t intend to change the expiration of the preference based on the findings of the review…

HB2429

HB2429 – Making procedural changes in the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s consideration of applications for site certifications.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Pollet – D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 29th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
When the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council holds the required public hearing, conducted as an adjudicative procedure, before submitting its recommendation about a site application to the Governor, the bill would require the attorney acting as counsel for the environment to state full support for the application for certification; qualified support for it with recommended modifications; or opposition to its approval. It specifies that people testifying at the hearing in support of approval or in opposition to it have the right to call any witness with relevant information except for members of the Council and its staff.

The bill specifies that majority consensus by a quorum of the Council is required to conduct the its business, and that the Chair cannot conduct it unilaterally. It also specifies a few other minor procedural points, including stating that applications for facility site certification have to contain sufficient information for the Council to evaluate all their potential impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act.

HB2417

HB2417 – Creating a revolving loan fund to support developing clean energy in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Pasco) (Co-Sponsor Hackney – D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it in this session, the bill would create a revolving loan fund to support developing clean energy in the state. It could make loans to public or private entities for electric vehicle or hydrogen vehicle fleets, charging, or refueling stations; siting evaluations and permitting for generation or transmission projects promoting energy reliability; installation of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydrogen infrastructure to assist with supplying the applicant’s energy needs; the buildout of advanced nuclear reactor technology including small modular reactors; and decarbonization of facilities. It would be managed by the State Energy Office, and the bill has a few provisions about due diligence, conflicts of interest, and canceling loans for ethics violations.

SB6240

SB6240 – Providing the reduced B&O tax rate for producing alternative jet fuel to much smaller companies in distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 25th. Passed out of committee January 30th and referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2410 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current ten year reduced business and occupation tax rate for the production of alternative jet fuel to companies producing at least 500,000 gallons a year, if they were in economically distressed areas. (Currently, you have to produce at least 20 million gallons a year to get the special rate of 0.275 percent.) (Distressed areas are defined by a number of different measures of unemployment and income.)

HB2156

HB2156 – Creating consumer protections for purchasers of solar energy systems.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way)  (Co-Sponsors Doglio and Pollet – Ds)  By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 16th; amended and passed out of committee January 19th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6256 is a companion bill in the House.

In  the House –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made in the amendment.

Summary –
The bill would require anyone selling or installing a commercial or residential system for more than $1,000 to be licensed and have a written contract with the customer. The contract would have to include:
(a) An itemized list of work to be performed including any known or anticipated electrical upgrades;
(b) Any financing that’s incorporated directly in the contract, conforming to all state and federal consumer loan regulations and disclosure requirements;
(c) The exact amount paid, if any, by a solar contractor or salesperson to any lender in the
form of a dealer fee, or other inducement to obtain financing;
(d) The total dollar amount of the contract and the cost per DC watt from the nameplate rating;
(e) A detailed, performance-based payment schedule based on project completion milestones, explaining when costs are due, the customer’s right to cancel the contract, and the cancellation fees that would be due at each milestone in the payment schedule;
(f) The model, brand name and warranty period of the major components to be installed. (The customer would have to agree in writing to any changes in those.);
(g) Any ongoing operations and maintenance costs included in the contract;
(h) A list of anticipated maintenance activities the customer will need to perform to maintain the warranty and performance of the equipment including inverter replacement;
(i) The system’s projected first-year production in kilowatt-hours, based on the characteristics of the specific site, and developed with a nationally recognized methodology and industry-standard tool.
(j) An explanation of what happens annually to any unused net metering or other bill credits from on-site generation;
(k) The contractor’s good faith estimate of electric bill savings the customer is expected to achieve over the first year after interconnection.
(l) The name, business address, and phone number of the primary solar salesperson or sales firm, if different from the contractor;
(m) The name, business address, and registration number of the contractor, with a link to the Department of Labor and Industries contractor verification tool;
(n) A statement of whether all or part of the work is intended to be subcontracted or performed by another person or entity than the contractor’s own workforce;
(o) A recommendation in capital letters about the importance of getting approval of any expected loan for the project before signing the contract and of knowing whether payments would begin before the statement was operational.
(p) A notification in capital letters of the customer’s right to cancel the contract within three days.
(q) Notice about potential complications in receiving the Federal residential clean energy tax credit for the project. (This and the preceding two items would need to be initialed by the customer to acknowledge reading and understanding them.)
(r) A statement clearly explaining whether the contract includes the cost of uninstalling and
reinstalling the system if it’s on the customer’s roof and that must be replaced or repaired in the future. If that isn’t covered, the customer’s responsibility for this work needs to be stated.
(s) A copy of the IRS’s current Form 5695 instructions for the residential clean energy credit qualified solar electric property costs;
(t) A statement that it’s the contractor’s responsibility to install the system per manufacturer instructions, in compliance with the national and local codes, and with the utility’s interconnection standards;
(u) A copy of, or electronic link to, the applicable utility interconnection application, and a statement documenting which party is responsible for getting permission to operate from the utility. (The interconnection agreement would have to be approved by the utility before installation began, unless the utility waived that requirement).

There would have to be a statement that the addition of a solar system may affect the value of the structure as determined by the county assessor and any change in value may be reflected in annual property taxes, and a statement informing the customer that the system will automatically disconnect from the grid in the event of a power outage to protect utility repair personnel from electric shock, and that the solar system will not provide any power to the customer in that case. (This is not required if the system includes energy storage and/or power conversion and control technologies designed and installed to provide backup power during a grid outage.)

There are various provisions protecting the customer’s right to cancel the contract within three days, and prohibiting collecting any payment for the system during that period.

The bill would prohibit trying to sell a system using any statement or representation about the costs, financing, terms, or conditions of its purchase or installation that as deceptive, and would classify violations of the bill’s requirements as unfair or deceptive acts and unfair methods of competition under the Consumer Protection Act. Contractors, subcontractors, or solar salespeople who failed to comply with the requirements would be liable to the customer for any actual damages sustained as a result of the failure, and if you bought or were assigned an installation contract you’d be subject to the same potential liabilities.

HB2341

HB2341 – Studying the potential effects of offshore wind development on the oceanographic processes of the Pacific and marine life.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Stokesbary – R; Chapman, Morgan, Timmons, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 19th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the University of Washington School of Oceanography conduct a comprehensive scientific study on the cumulative effects, both positive and negative, of offshore wind development on oceanographic processes such as tides, waves, and currents, and of how changes in those could affect the broader marine ecosystem. It would have to at least address the impact full projected build-out of offshore wind generation along the West Coast is likely to have on ocean upwelling;
wind turbines’ capacity to attract and/or repel fish and marine life; and the physical effects associated with turbines’ construction and operation, including water cloudiness, noise, vibrations, and disruptions to electromagnetic fields. The UW would submit a copy of its study to the Governor and to the committees of the Legislature with jurisdiction over energy and fishing by June 30, 2026.

HB2297

HB2297 – Requiring solar systems on certain new school buildings over 50,000 sq.ft. when the State provides the funding.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Orwall (D; 33rd District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Hackney, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Goodman, Riccelli, Simmons, Pollet, and Doglio, Ds.)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday January 18th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
It seems to me that the bill currently says schools must notify OSPI about “qualifying systems”, but they won’t be able to know if they’re actually considering a qualifying system until after the agency does a cost benefit analysis, and OSPI isn’t supposed to do that analysis until after it’s notified of a project.

Summary –
The bill would have public schools planning to construct a building that was over 50,000 square feet (and that the building code required to have a solar zone) notify the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; they’d provide the estimated cost of permitting, purchasing, and installing a qualifying solar energy system, a comparison of the proposed system’s capacity to the school campus’ anticipated electrical consumption. and the electrical consumption of investments in their 10-year capital plans and anticipated improvements required to comply with the State’s energy-related building standards. (A qualifying system would have to maximize buildings’ or sites’ solar potential without exceeding the school campus’ anticipated electrical consumption and have an estimated positive net present value.)

OSPI would provide technical assistance to public schools for estimating a project’s costs and scope, and perform a cost-benefit analysis for each project included in a notification, comparing the state’s investment to the value produced by the project over a period of at least 25 years, and estimating whether it would result in a positive net present value over the period of analysis.

OSPI would develop a program to provide grants to cover the costs of installing systems on buildings that were required to provide solar zones by the building code. The agency would also estimate the cost of implementing the bill before each fiscal biennium, and request appropriations for the cost estimates. The first of these requests would be due by September 30, 2024. The Superintendent would award these grants if funds were specifically appropriated for them.

HB2253

HB2253 – Providing fair access to community solar.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Ryu, Orwall, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Paul, Springer, Macri, Bergquist, Pollet, and Tharinger, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 16th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6113 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would raise the maximum size of community solar projects from 1,000 kW to 5,000 kW and allow larger projects with a utility’s approval.  (Projects larger than 1,000 kW would have to be built with prevailing wage labor.) On a sizable list of preferred sites, including rooftops, impervious surfaces, and industrial areas, projects could be built on the same parcel as another community solar project. They’d have to have at least three subscribers, and a single customer couldn’t own or subscribe to more than 49% of a project’s capacity. At least half of a project’s capacity would have to be taken by low-income subscribers, low-income service provider subscribers, or both. After 10 years the UTC or a public utility’s governing board could lower the required percentage of low -income subscribers provided it wasn’t made lower than the utility’s percentage of low-income ratepayers. (“Low income” would be defined by the UTC, but could not be more than 80% of area median household income or 200% of the Federal poverty level, adjusted for household size. The bill allows using a number of methods like subscribers’ enrollment in other low income programs to simplify certifying their eligibility.) Low income subscribers would be exempt from any program administrative fees. Any renewable energy credits generated by a project would have to be retired for the benefit of the subscribers.

The bill would provide net-crediting for community solar, including both the community solar subscription cost and a community solar bill credit on the subscriber’s electric bill. (An electric utility could impose a net-crediting fee on the community solar project manager, capped at one percent of the subscription fee.) It would shift the management of projects from “community solar companies” to “community solar project managers”, allowing nonprofits, individuals, and small businesses to fill that role, and would remove the current provisions allowing the UTC to not enroll companies without adequate financial resources or adequate technical competency to provide the proposed service as project managers. There’d still have to be a performance bond of a suitable size for the project, but it couldn’t be set “in such a manner as to preclude” these new managers from participating. The bill would no longer require projects on tribal lands or Federal tribal trust lands to be administered by tribal housing authorities.

The UTC would set the value of credits, taking into account:
(i) The value of the electricity;
(ii) The value of the project to transmission and distribution capacity, deferred transmission and distribution investments, deferred generation investments and added generation capacity, voltage, reduced system losses, reduced line losses, and ancillary services;
(iii) The value of the project to grid reliability and resilience;
(iv) The value of environmental attributes, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, methane leakage reductions, public health, and energy security; and
(v) Other factors the commission determined were associated with locally produced electricity.
The UTC would be required to add some unspecified additional value for community solar projects when the majority of the project’s capacity was subscribed by low-income subscribers or low-income service provider subscribers; the project was owned by or served tribal communities; and it incorporated energy storage. The value  of credits would have to be updated biannually or annually, and would include an annual escalator. Credits would be carried forward on a customer’s bill as long as the account existed rather than expiring at the end of each year. However, the UTC or a public utility’s governing body would be able to adopt a different rate for crediting a subscriber’s bill if they had good cause to do that. As far as I can see, the subscription rates will be up to the project managers.

The UTC would develop other specified rules for community solar projects in private utility areas including modifying existing interconnection standards, fees, and processes as needed to facilitate their efficient and cost-effective interconnection,  ensure that the interconnection customer pays the reasonable costs, and ensure that interconnections are designed, engineered, and completed in accordance with good utility practice. The rules would also require each investor-owned utility to efficiently connect a community solar project to its electrical distribution grid, not discriminate against facilities or subscribers, and  provide for subscribers that receive utility allowances. The Commission would have to have at least two meetings with representatives of specified stakeholders before adopting the rules. Public utilities could adopt the UTC’s rules, create their own if they were compatible with the bill’s requirements, or decide not to participate in the program.

Unsubscribed energy would be carried on the project’s account until the end of the following calendar year and could be allocated to subscribers at any time during that period. After that any undistributed bill credit would be compensated to the project manager.

There’d be reviews of the program by the UTC after five and ten years, with reports to the Legislature.

SB6039

SB6039 – Promoting the development of geothermal energy resources.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Shewmake, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 10th. Amended to limit the collaborative assessment of development opportunities and risks to the three most promising sites and make other small changes. Passed out of committee January 19th, and referred to Ways & Means. Scheduled for a hearing there at at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2129 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the amendment,

Summary –
The bill would require the Washington Geological Survey to create a comprehensive database of publicly available subsurface geologic information for the state in coordination with various agencies, to maintain it, and to make a searchable interface for it available on the Survey’s website. The Survey would acquire, process, and analyze new subsurface geologic data, would characterize the hazard of induced seismicity for high-potential geothermal play areas, and would provide technical assistance on the proper interpretation and application of subsurface geologic data and hazard assessments.

The Department of Natural Resources would be required to update the State’s geothermal resources lease rates to make them competitive with those adopted by the Federal government and other states in the West. The update would also try to optimize the State’s competitiveness in attracting exploration and development projects, balancing that goal with its obligation to trust beneficiaries.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the Department of Commerce would create a competitive geothermal exploration cost-share grant program incentivizing deep exploratory drilling to identify locations suitable for the development of geothermal energy. The grants could be used to offset the direct costs associated with that drilling; awards to private applicants would be limited to half the overall cost of the project and awards to public and tribal applicants would be limited to two-thirds of the cost. Commerce would consult with the Survey to develop a method for awarding the grants, using nine criteria the bill specifies.

The bill would require Ecology, Commerce and the Survey to collaborate in identifying opportunities and risks associated with the development of geothermal resources, consulting with tribes and a variety of other stakeholders. They’d be required to consider the potential impacts of geothermal resources development on the rights, interests, and resources of potentially affected tribes; on listed endangered species, and on overburdened communities. They’d also explore the capacity for geothermal resources to help the state meet its clean energy generation requirements and greenhouse gas emissions limits, and develop factors to guide the identification of preferable sites for the development of geothermal resources including geologic suitability and proximity to electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure. There’d be interim and final reports to appropriate committees of the Legislature.

SB5992

SB5992 – Requiring applicants seeking energy facility site certification for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Warnick (R; 13th District; SouthCentral Washington) (Co-Sponsor King, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 24th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2042 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
My guess is that this is about the proposal for a pumped storage facility at Goldendale.

Summary –
The bill would require applicants seeking site certification through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.

HB2129

HB2131 – Promoting the development of geothermal energy resources.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Mena, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 29th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6039 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary
The bill would require the Washington Geological Survey to create a comprehensive database of publicly available subsurface geologic information for the state in coordination with various agencies, to maintain it, and to make a searchable interface for it available on the Survey’s website. The Survey would acquire, process, and analyze new subsurface geologic data, would characterize the hazard of induced seismicity for high-potential geothermal play areas, and would provide technical assistance on the proper interpretation and application of subsurface geologic data and hazard assessments.

The Department of Natural Resources would be required to update the State’s geothermal resources lease rates to make them competitive with those adopted by the Federal government and other states in the West. The update would also try to optimize the State’s competitiveness in attracting exploration and development projects, balancing that goal with its obligation to trust beneficiaries.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the Department of Commerce would create a competitive geothermal exploration cost-share grant program incentivizing deep exploratory drilling to identify locations suitable for the development of geothermal energy. The grants could be used to offset the direct costs associated with that drilling; awards to private applicants would be limited to half the overall cost of the project and awards to public and tribal applicants would be limited to two-thirds of the cost. Commerce would consult with the Survey to develop a method for awarding the grants, using nine criteria the bill specifies.

The bill would require Ecology, Commerce and the Survey to collaborate in identifying opportunities and risks associated with the development of geothermal resources, consulting with tribes and a variety of other stakeholders. They’d be required to consider the potential impacts of geothermal resources development on the rights, interests, and resources of potentially affected tribes; on listed endangered species, and on overburdened communities. They’d also explore the capacity for geothermal resources to help the state meet its clean energy generation requirements and greenhouse gas emissions limits, and develop factors to guide the identification of preferable sites for the development of geothermal resources including geologic suitability and proximity to electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure. There’d be interim and final reports to appropriate committees of the Legislature.

HB2042

HB2042 – Requiring applicants seeking energy facility site certification for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Corry (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5992 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comment –
My guess is that this is about the proposal for a pumped storage facility at Goldendale.

Summary –
The bill would require applicants seeking site certification through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.