Category Archives: Governor 2021

HB1457

HB1457 – Facilitating the installation of broadband facilities on limited access highways.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wiley (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Riccelli, Kloba, Santos, Slatter, Shewmake, Ramel, and Hackney – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there February 16th. Amended and passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor and passed by the House March 8th. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 15th.
In the Senate –
Referred to the Transportation Committee. Had a hearing March 16th; replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 30th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate unanimously April 10th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Transportation Striker –
This authorizes the Department of Transportation to install conduit for broadband when doing highway projects if no broadband operator chooses to do it, and makes a few other minor changes which are summarized at the end of it.

House Striker –
The striker expands the Department of Transportation’s current authority to grant franchises for using state highways to construct and maintain various facilities to include fiber optics, and adds a number of items to the potential Joint Transportation Committee report.
Amendments –
The amendments broadened the study to include all highway corridors and made a couple of other very small changes.

Original bill –
Requires the Department of Transportation to proactively provide broadband facility owners with information about planned limited access highway projects to collaboratively identify opportunities for installing of broadband infrastructure during the appropriate phase of these projects when such opportunities exist.

If specific funding’s appropriated the bill would have the Joint Transportation Committee oversee a consultant’s study to recommend:
1.An effective Department of Transportation strategy, and specific limited access highway corridors, that could be used to address missing fiber connections and inadequate broadband service in underserved parts of the state;
2. The most promising planning and financing tools for installing conduit in anticipation of future fiber installation by others;
3. Opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships between
the Department and service providers to provide broadband for transportation purposes such as intelligent transportation systems, cooperative automated transportation/autonomous vehicles, transportation demand management, and highway maintenance; and,
4. Strategies for mitigating potential safety, operations, and preservation impacts related to the recommendations.

The study would also have to include an examination of any State and Federal laws and regulations that could prevent or limit the
implementation of the recommendations, as well as recommendations for modifications to the applicable State laws and regulations.

HB1502

HB1502 – Specifies competitive bidding procedures counties may use in designing and procuring electric ferries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wiley (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Griffey – R, Ramel, Paul, Lekanoff, Berry, Ortiz-Self, Hackney, Harris-Talley, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there February 17th. Amended and passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the House February 26th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 15th, and passed out of committee March 30th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate, unanimously, April 11th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill simply lists procedures in detail; they seem to be optional, except for a couple. I’m not sure whether a county already has the legal authority to buy an electric ferry or not, but it sounds as if it does.

The amendment would require the Department of Transportation’s Office of Equal Opportunity to specify a percentage of the contract award amount for county electric ferry procurement that the prime contractor would have to meet by subcontracting with small businesses.

SB5452 – 2021

SB5452 – Requires giving electric bicycles the same access to non-motorized dirt trails and closed roads that regular bicycles are given.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Cleveland (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Liias – D and Jeff Wilson – R)
Current status – Converted to a study and passed.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing on February 18th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor in a very minor way and passed by the Senate unanimously March 8th. Senate concurred in the House amendments April 14th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources. Had a hearing March 16th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Striker in the House –
This would postpone the due date for the study by nine months, to September 30th, 2022, and would allow people with a current State disabled parking permit to ride Class 1 & 2 electric bicycles on these trails and roads until June 30th, 2023, or the creation of rules or legislation about the issue.

Substitute –
The substitute converts the bill to a study by the Department of Natural Resources, and a study by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to decide which classes of electric-assisted bicycles are acceptable on these trails and roads under each agencies’ management, and where.

Original
The bill would only apply to Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes. Class 1 bikes only provide power from the battery when the rider is pedaling, provide electric assistance up to 20 miles an hour, and would be allowed on non-motorized trails. Class 3 bikes do not include pedaling, have a maximum speed of 28 miles an hour, and would be allowed on roads with nonmotorized access.

SB5460

SB5460 – Authorizes Director of Licensing to make and enforce rules for the current autonomous vehicle self-certification testing pilot program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 18th; drastically amended and voted out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Passed unanimously by the Senate March 8th.

In the House –
Referred to the Transportation Committee. Had a hearing Monday March 15th, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Amendments –
The first amendment in Transportation, by Senator Padden (R – Spokane Valley) removed the section granting the Department of Licensing authority to make rules to administer and implement the AV self-certification testing pilot program. The second amendment, by the sponsor, delayed the program’s start for a year, until October 2022.

Original bill –
The bill would explicitly authorize the Director of Licensing to adopt and enforce rules to administer and implement the autonomous vehicle self-certification testing pilot program that’s already on the books. (It also drops the current prohibition of screens that the driver can see and that can display video besides a backup camera’s.)

HB1514

HB1514 – Extends tax exemptions for commuter ride sharing vehicles to any carpool or vanpool transporting at least three people, including the driver.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Taylor (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-sponsors Ramos, Harris-Talley – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 17th. Replaced by a substitute, voted out of committee, and referred to Rules February 22nd. Passed by the House March 5th. House concurred in the Senate’s amendments April 13th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 15th, and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Ways and Means;  had a hearing March 31st;  amended, passed out of committee and referred to Rules April 2nd. Passed by the Senate April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5457 is a companion bill to this.

Summary –
Amendment in Ways and Means –
This would limit the tax exemption for vehicles that aren’t operated by a pubic transit agency to those with at least five passengers.

Substitute –
There’s a summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. (It now specifically excludes ride hailing companies’ vehicles along with a variety of others, removes the changes to the definition of a “commute trip”, and makes other small changes.)

Original bill –
Currently, the Commute Trip Reduction Incentives Act provides tax exemptions for vehicles that will be used for at least three years in commuter car pools or van pools making one round trip a day. They’re exempted from the State sales and use taxes, and from the motor vehicle excise tax. (It also exempts them from the regulations applying to drivers or owners of motor vehicles operated for hire, common carriers and public transit carriers, and protects those promoting ride sharing from any civil suits arising from the maintenance or operation of the vehicles.)

The bill expands the scope of these provisions by dropping the references to commuting, and redefining ridesharing as any “carpool or vanpool arrangement whereby one or more groups” of at least three people and not more than fifteen, including the driver, are transported. (I don’t know if this definition would include operations like Uber Pool or not.)

SB5345

SB5345 – Creates an industrial waste coordination program to support local industrial symbiosis projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Benton County) (Co-sponsors Rolfes, Das, Hasegawa, Lovelett, Mullet, Nguyen, Randall – all Ds, and Rivers – R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 3rd. Passed out of committee February 9th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 16th, and passed out of committee on the 18th. Passed by the Senate February 26th. Senate concurred in the House amendments April 14th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 12th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing April 1st and passed out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd; passed by the House April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
House striker –
The striker simply adds environmental justice to the list of program goals and family wage jobs to the list of program goals, and specifies that the program’s grant projects and best practices for industrial hubs should include avoid creating or worsening negative impacts to overburdened communities.

Original bill –
The bill creates an industrial waste coordination program, administered by the Department of Commerce and regional facilitators, to support local industrial symbiosis projects. It’s to develop inventories of current industrial waste innovation; generate a system to manage data on material flows, resource availability and potential synergies; establish best practices for local industrial resource hubs; identify access to capital to fund projects; develop economic and environmental performance metrics to measure the results of industrial or commercial hubs; host workshops and connect businesses, governments, utilities, research institutions, and other organizations to identify opportunities for resource collaboration; assist throughout the life cycle of symbiosis projects, from identifying opportunities to full implementation; develop economic cluster initiatives to spur growth and innovation; and make recommendations to the Legislature about other ways to facilitate industrial symbiosis.

It would establish a competitive grant program for the research, development, and deployment of local waste coordination projects, if funds were specifically appropriated for that. Grants could support:
1. Existing public or private industrial symbiosis efforts;
2. Emerging symbiosis opportunities involving public or private sector organizations, including projects arising from the bill’s industrial waste coordination program, conceptual work by public utilities on redirecting their wastes to productive use; or existing inventories or project concepts for converting specific biobased wastes to renewable natural gas;
3. Research on product development using a specific waste flow;
4. Feasibility studies to evaluate potential biobased resources;
5. Feasibility studies for publicly utilities evaluating business models on transforming to multiutility operations or potential symbiosis with other regional businesses; or
6. Other local waste coordination projects specified by Commerce.
Grants would require equal matching funds, would be limited to $500,000, and would have to be allocated considering factors such as time to implementation and scale of economic or environmental benefits, as well as distributed equally in western and eastern parts of the state, urban and rural areas, and small towns and large cities.

The bill extends the current exemptions from disclosure for financial, commercial, and proprietary information to include this program.

HB1446

HB1446 – Excuses utilities from the penalties for failing to meet required conservation targets if events beyond their reasonable control prevent that.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 9th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee, February 15th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 3rd.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 17th, and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed unanimously by the House April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the end of it. (It now specifies the situations in which a utility would be allowed to do this.)

Original bill-
Under the bill, a utility would be considered to be in compliance with its requirements for acquiring cost effective conservation (and excused from paying a penalty for failing to meet them) if events beyond its reasonable control that couldn’t have been reasonably anticipated or ameliorated prevent it from meeting them. (These events include natural disasters, public health disasters, severe economic recession, unanticipated loss of significant retail electric load, strikes, lockouts, and actions of a governmental authority that adversely affect the acquisition of cost-effective conservation…)

SB5383

SB5383 – Allowing PUDs to provide retail broadband in unserved areas if existing providers don’t object and plan to provide it.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-sponsor Short-R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Substitute referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; had a hearing February 3rd, and passed out of committee February 11th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Ways and Means February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate February 26th. Concurred in the House’s changes April 23rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Community and Economic Development. Had a hearing March 17th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations; had hearing on April 1st; replaced the striker from the Committee on Community and Economic Development with a new striker and passed the bill out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd, amended on the floor and passed by the House April 11th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
A limited alternative to the public internet proposal in HB1336.
I think the bill would require an existing provider to have begun construction and to present a plan about how it intends to complete the expansion, not simply present a plan about how it intends to provide service, but the bill isn’t very clear. It doesn’t provide any mechanism for reviewing the adequacy of the plan, or require its approval by the broadband office. It’s unclear about what qualifies as “near”. There’s no timeline for providing notice of the absence of an objection to the PUD.

Summary –
In Appropriations –
The new striker removed the provision that only allowed expansions when using State or Federal funding for the purpose and made a couple of other small changes summarized at the end of it.

In the House committee –
The striker makes the bill contingent on the passage of HB1336 (the Public Broadband Act), and makes this bill expire June 30th 2023. It defines “unserved areas” as those in which households and businesses lack access to broadband service providing at least 100 megabits/second download and 20 megabits/second upload. (The previous version was at least 25 Mbs/sec download and 3 Mbs/sec upload, or a higher level set by the Broadband Office.) It removes the provisions allowing existing broadband providers to object to ports and PUDs providing retail service in unserved areas. It also only allows the ports and PUDs to do that with State or Federal funding for that purpose, allows them to provide retail service to up to 20% of the residences in a served area if expanding through that to reach an unserved area, and makes some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. Amendments removed the restriction about State or Federal funding, removed the 20% limit, and authorized a PUD that doesn’t provide electrical service to provide wholesale telecommunication service in an adjacent county if there isn’t a PUD providing electrical or telecommunications services headquartered in that county. (I don’t know what quirky situation that provision is designed for…)

Substitutes –
The substitute merely corrects a typo. The 2nd Substitute makes quite a few adjustments, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would allow a PUD to provide retail internet service in any unserved area of the state if no company objected and said they were doing it. The PUD would be required to notify the Governor’s broadband office of its intent and post a notice of that on its website. Any existing broadband provider “near the area” to which the PUD wanted to provide service could file an objection within 30 days, demonstrating that it currently provides, or has begun construction to provide, retail broadband with speeds of at least 150 megabits a second in the area. It would also have to submit a broadband service plan about how it “intends” to provide service to the area, showing that it currently provides minimum download speeds “at or near” 25 megabits a second and minimum upload speeds “at or near” 3 megabits a second to end users near the PUD’s proposed area, and “an outline” of how it intends to provide service of at least 150 megabits a second in the unserved area. If the broadband office notified the PUD that no objection has been filed, it would be able to go ahead and provide service in the area.

By December 31, 2023, the broadband office would be required to submit a report to the Governor and the appropriate committees of the Legislature evaluating the effectiveness of the bill, including the number of PUDs providing retail services in an unserved area, an analysis of the effectiveness of the required broadband service plans, and any recommendations on improving the provision of retail services in unserved areas.

HB1393

HB1393 – Delays implementing manufacturers’ photovoltaic module takeback and recycling requirements for two years.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsors Ramel, Lekanoff, & Duerr – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 5th; passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules. Passed the House February 26th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules March 17th, and paased by the Senate March 29th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
To keep selling or distributing  photovoltaic modules in the state, manufacturers must currently have a takeback and recycling program for them approved by July 1, 2023, and begin annual reporting on that program by April 1, 2024. The bill would change those dates to July 1, 2025 and April 1, 2026.

HB1336

HB1336 – Grants unrestricted authority to public entities to provide retail telecommunications services (aka the Public Broadband Act).
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hansen (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-sponsor Ybarra-R)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Community & Economic Development January 26th. Substitute passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor and passed by the House February 23rd. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 23rd.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, amended and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th. Returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
SB5383 is now proposing a more limited approach to the problem.

Summary –

Senate Committee Amendment –
This would allow jurisdictions to receive financial assistance for expanding broadband even if they had not adopted a comprehensive plan and taken various other planning steps.

Substitute –
There’s a summary of the changes by committee counsel at the beginning of the substitute; the main change is removing the authority of first class cities and code cities to provide internet service.

Original bill –
PUDs are currently authorized to provide wholesale telecommunications facilities within their districts, and within other PUD districts by contract. The bill, to be known as the Public Broadband Act, expands that to include the authority to provide retail service, and to provide service by contract to tribes and to any political subdivision of the state authorized to provide retail telecommunications services in the state.

It then authorizes cities, towns, code cities, and counties to provide those. It expands the current authority of ports to provide wholesale telecommunications services in or outside their districts to include retail services.

SB5295

SB5295 – Multiyear and performance based rate setting for gas and electrical utilities; expanded assistance for low-income customers and vulnerable populations; and supporting energy conservation measures in rental housing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Short – R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 27th, replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker and passed by the Senate March 5th.  Senate concurred in the House’s changes April 15th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 16th; amended and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Rules; amended on the floor and passed by the House April 7th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Representative Shewmake’s HB1125 had nearly identical provisions for efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties, without the required reporting on the results every two years. It’s dead for this session.

Summary –
House floor amendment –
This simply required utilities to propose grants and other assistance programs for low income customers as well as discount rates for them to the UTC for review.

House committee amendments –
One broadened the declarations of State policy about providing gas and electrical services to be declarations about energy services. One requires private gas and electrical companies to propose discount rates for low income customers, to be approved or modified by the UTC. One requires them to defer all revenues more than 0.5% above their approved rate of return for refunds to customers or allocation by the commission; requires, rather than authorizes them, to enter financial assistance agreements when requested with organizations that represent broad customer interests in regulatory proceedings; and specifies a number of other things about such agreements that are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment.

Senate Striker –
The prime sponsor’s striker authorizes the UTC to deal with multi-year rate plan proposals rather than requiring that; requires it to set performance measures in approving such plans rather than allowing that; and makes a number of other changes, mostly to the low-income assistance provisions, that are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes, at the beginning of the substitute, which removes the provision allowing utilities to invest in rental energy conservation in lieu of contributions from the owner and makes quite a few adjustments to the rules. (The amendment was minor.)

Original Bill –
The bill would replace the current processes for setting the rates of regulated private gas and electric utilities with multiyear rate plans, to be reviewed and approved by the UTC if it finds they’re lawful, establish just and reasonable rates, are supported by appropriate evidence, and are consistent with the public interest. They could cover up to four years, and are to include a budget, a forecast, a clean energy implementation plan, a price index, and a fixed escalation rate. The Commission’s to approve rates for each year of the plan in advance, and they’d stay as set if actual rates of return remained within 0.5% of those in the plan.  If a company’s quarterly reports demonstrated its actual rate of return was falling more than 0.5% below the approved rate in the plan, it could apply to modify the plan, defer some costs, adopt a new multi-year plan, or start a new general rate setting procedure altogether. (However, the bill also says the UTC can establish procedures to ensure that rates remain just and reasonable during the course of the plan. Presumably, those would deal with rates of return rising more than 0.5% above approved rates.) A company could defer new costs associated with complying with governmental policies or plans that didn’t exist when the plan was developed, without owing interest, and apply to recover those in its next rate case or multi-year plan.

Utilities may ask the UTC to approve proposals for recovering up to 5% of their approved revenue for the first year of a plan from ratepayers to pay for expanding the affordability of services to customers including bill assistance programs or special rates for low-income residential customers. The bill expands utilities’ authority to provide discounts to low income customers to include discounts for customers receiving public benefit assistance that provides cash, housing, food, or medical care including temporary assistance for needy families; supplemental security income; emergency assistance to elders, disabled, and children; supplemental nutrition assistance  program benefits; public housing; federally subsidized or state-subsidized housing; the low-income home energy assistance program; veterans’ benefits. They’re to send out information about the available ways for customers to reduce their bills twice a year, and do substantial outreach to inform customers of these particular discounts, including enrolling them as the default if they’re on a list of the recipients of qualifying public benefits and providing them with information about the program.

The bill authorizes the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow private electric and gas utilities to invest in energy efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties that wouldn’t currently be cost-effective unless the owner paid part of the initial cost. They’re to be allowed a return on these investments over a period of time that reduces the customer’s energy burden and minimizes the impact on the customer’s bill, while incentivizing the company to make them. These investments are to be secured by the meter, and repaid over time through an “energy services charge” on the regular bills paid by tenants or the building owner. (If the owner pays the bill, there has to be a site-specific services agreement; if tenants pay it, the owner has to provide them with at least thirty days notice before work on the project begins, including a description of the work being done and the expected benefits of the conservation measures.) Utilities must prioritize these investments to reduce the energy burden of low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and customers in highly impacted communities. They must report on the performance of these conservation measures to the UTC and the WSU Energy Office every two two years, using smart meter data, and including an estimate of the annual energy savings using normalized weather conditions along with any available supporting data; an estimate of savings on energy costs; and an updated estimate of the payback period.

Utilities may agree to assist organizations representing the interests of customers belonging to a highly impacted community or in vulnerable populations with the costs of participating in the UTC’s regulatory proceedings, and may recover the costs in rates. (More than one utility and more than one organization might participate in one of these agreements.) They’d have to be approved by the UTC, which could determine how they were administered, including how much financial assistance might be provided; how it was distributed, and how it was to be recovered in rates.

HB1287

HB1287 – Creates a tool for forecasting and mapping EV charging infrastructure needs; requires addressing those in utilities’ integrated resource planning, and in building code updates.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-sponsor Hackney – D)
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there on February 16th. Replaced by a second substitute and voted out of Transportation February 18th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House March 3rd. House concurred in the Senate amendments April 14th.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; had a hearing March 18th; amended and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Transportation; had a hearing March 29th, amended by the chair (reportedly without a role call vote), passed out of committee April 1st and referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor (who vetoed Hobbs’s amendment and signed the resulting bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate floor amendment –

The amendment would add areas zoned R-3 to those that would have increased code requirements for EV charging capability. (R-3 zoning allows single family, duplexes, triplexes, and row houses.)

Senate Transportation  amendment –
Chairman Hobbs’ amendment would delay making the 2030 phaseout a goal until the point when 75% of the cars and light trucks on the road were paying a road usage charge.

Senate committee amendment –
This added the goal for a 2030 phaseout of internal combustion cars and light trucks from the sponsor’s SB5256 (which died in committee) to the bill.

House Floor Amendments –
Representative Barkis’s amendments specified that money from the electric vehicle account could fund this bill’s activities; required Commerce to identify gas stations, convenience stores, and small retailers colocated with charging infrastructure; and to consider recommending such sites for future installations. Representative Ramel’s amendment removed green hydrogen from the bill and made a number of other changes which are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
The substitute makes a number of small changes, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the new version. The second substitute made some administrative changes and technical adjustments, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Commerce to create a publicly available mapping and forecasting tool to provide locations and essential information for the charging and refueling infrastructure to support forecasted levels of electric vehicle use across the state. It’s to be developed in consultation with several other agencies and stakeholders, and to enable the coordinated, effective, efficient, and timely deployment of the charging and refueling infrastructure needed for transportation electrification consistent with the State’s emissions reductions targets. Utilities’ integrated resource plans would be required to account for how they expect to meet the State’s forecasted needs for this infrastructure and the associated energy impacts. The bill would require the Building Code Council to increase the current code requirements for providing charging infrastructure as needed to support the anticipated levels of use resulting from the ZEV standards, and needed to meet the State’s targets.

The tool’s to prioritize on-road transportation initially, and include the most recent data charging and refueling infrastructure feasible. It must incorporate DOT’s traffic and traveler information for passenger and freight vehicles, such as volumes and travel patterns. If it’s feasible, it must provide the data needed to support agency programs that directly or indirectly support transportation electrification efforts; and evolve over time to support future programs.

To the extent feasible, the tool must include:
1. The amount, type, location, and installation year for charging infrastructure and refueling infrastructure that’s expected to be necessary to support usage in the state;
2. EV adoption, usage, technological profiles, and any other characteristics needed to model future usage affecting needs for that infrastructure;
3. The estimated energy and capacity demand for it;
4. Boundaries of political subdivisions (including those for retail electricity suppliers; public transportation agencies, and tribal governments);
5. Existing publicly or privately owned Level 2 and DC fast chargers, and refueling infrastructure, identifying refueling that supplies renewable hydrogen, if possible.
6. A public interface allowing any user to determine the forecasted charging and refueling infrastructure needs within a provided geographic boundary;
7. The ability to download all data tracked by the tool, or use it within a separate mapping and forecasting tool.
8. Integrate scenarios including varying levels of public transportation and active transportation usage; of vehicle miles traveled; and of adoption of autonomous and shared mobility services.
9. Incorporate infrastructure located at or near the border in neighboring state and provincial jurisdictions when appropriate.

The  tool must integrate population, health, environmental, and socioeconomic data on a census tract basis to support highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations disproportionately burdened by transportation-related emissions and to ensure economic and mobility benefits flow to communities that have historically received less investment in infrastructure. (The department must consult with other agencies to ensure the tool properly integrates best practices for cumulative impact analyses and is developed in coordination with their efforts to identify disproportionately impacted communities.)

To the extent it’s appropriate, the tool must integrate related analyses, such as the department’s state energy strategy, the Joint Transportation Committee’s public fleet electrification study, the West Coast Collaborative’s alternative fuel infrastructure corridor coalition report, and other related assessments.

HB1168

HB1168 – Expands wildfire response, forest restoration, forest sector workforce development, and community resilience programs with $25 million in required funding this biennium.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; East King County) (Co-sponsors Kretz-R, Fitzgibbon-D, Griffey-R, Riccelli-D, Lekanoff-D, Ramos-D, Callan-D, Harris-Talley-D, Dent-R, and Klicker-R)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there February 16th; amended and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Rules, and passed unanimously by the House March 9th. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 22nd.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks. Had a hearing March 23rd; replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing March 30th; amended and passed out of committee April 2nd; referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 9th. Returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate floor amendment –
This requires the Department of Natural Resources to hire an independent contractor to increase the intensity of its sampling for the forest inventory over the next four years, and to hire a contractor to review, analyze, and advise on its forest growth and yield modeling for the calculation of the sustainable harvest level. DNR’s sustainable harvest calculation technical advisory committee would be required to be involved in the inventory update and the growth and yield modeling, and to create recommendations for regular maintenance and ten year updates to the inventory. The amendment restored the JLARC review of the sustainable harvest calculation dropped in Ways and Means; JLARC and one of the contractors for its review would be added to the advisory committee; and JLARC would submit a report with findings and recommendations to the Legislature and to the Board of Natural Resources. It would be required to determine whether modifications to the sustainable harvest calculation are necessary before approving the harvest level for 2025-2034.

Ways and Means amendment –
This removed requiring the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee to oversee an independent review of the sustainable harvest calculation.

Senate striker –
The striker adds legislative intent to provide a total of $500 million over eight years for forest health and reduction of wildlife dangers, and makes some other minor changes which are summarized at the end of it. The amendments direct DNR and Commerce to work to expand markets for biomass, biochar, and other material produced as a result of forest health treatments; have DNR report on its progress; and require inmate forest fire suppression and support crews to receive at least the minimum wage.


Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the many small changes it makes at the beginning of the substitute. It replaces the $25 million in required funding with provisions specifying that at least 25% of any appropriated funding is to go to forest health activities, and at least 15% is to go to community resilience. (The amendment makes the bill null and void if specific funding isn’t appropriated for it.)

Original bill –
Creates the wildfire response, forest restoration, and community resilience account, and requires funding it with at least $25 million this biennium, which may not be shifted to emergency fire or suppression costs. The Department of Natural Resources is to request funding for the program each biennium, accompanied by a report on completed and planned work to Legislative committees and the Office of Fiscal Management. The money may only be used, if appropriated, for:
1. Fire preparedness activities consistent with the goals of the State’s wildland fire protection 10-year strategic plan, including firefighting capacity, investments in resources, equipment, and technology; and the development and implementation of a wildland fire aviation support plan;
2. Fire prevention activities to restore and improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to drought, insect infestation, disease, and other threats to healthy forests, including silvicultural treatments, seedling development, thinning forests and prescribed fire, and postfire recovery activities to prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources and minimize threats to life and property resulting from a wildfire. Priority for these activities must be given to programs, activities, or projects aligned with three specified State forest plans, and any forest health treatments on Federal lands have to be in addition to what’s outlined in Federal agencies’ work plans.)
3. Fire protection activities for homes, properties, communities, and values at risk including potential control lines or strategic fuel breaks in forests, rangelands and communities; improved warning and communications systems; increased engagement with non-English speaking communities in their home language for community preparedness; and the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise USA and Fire-adapted Communities Network programs.

Every other year, the Department of Natural Resources must report to the Governor and the Legislature on the type and amounts of expenditures for the program; the unexpended and unobligated funds in the account; recommendations for disbursements to local districts; progress on implementation of the wildland fire protection 10-year strategic plan and the 20-year forest health strategic plan, including assessment of lands and communities that need forest health treatments; treatments prioritized and conducted by landowner type, geography, and risk level; the estimated value of any merchantable materials from treatments; and the number of acres treated by type, including the use of prescribed fire. It’s to recommend necessary or advisable adjustments to the bill’s funding arrangements.

The bill expands the requirements for development of the Department’s forest health assessment and treatment framework, adding that it must:
1. Partner with federally recognized tribes where possible to expand use of the Tribal Forest Protection Act on Forest Service and BLM lands;
2. Prioritize forest health treatments adjacent to or near state lands when entering into good neighbor agreements with those agencies to increase the treatments’ speed, efficiency, and impact on the landscape; and
3. Work with stakeholders to develop an integrated small forestland owner assistance program for forest health activities that integrates existing programs to more efficiently and effectively reach and motivate these diverse audiences; identifies and removes barriers to technical assistance, funding, and planning; increases education and outreach to these owners; and distributes funding effectively in order to lower risk in high risk areas. (It’s to develop a mapping tool to identify small forestland owners within wildfire risk areas and use that to evaluate and optimize forest health work at a landscape scale, and to manage the programs for small forestland owner and landowner assistance to have the greatest impact on wildfire prevention, preparedness, and response.)

The Department and the Department of Commerce are to develop a plan for tracking, maintaining, and publicly reporting on a working definition of the forest sector workforce, including the job skills, certifications, and experience required; recommendations for training, recruiting, and retaining the forest sector workforce needed to implement the bill’s goals; gaps and barriers to a full workforce pool, including estimates of jobs created and retained as well as any reductions in the workforce; an estimate of the number of private contractors needed; an inventory of local and regional contractors trained to carry out wildfire response and forest health work, and of local contractors used for those each year; an inventory of existing training facilities and programs; and recommendations for addressing identified barriers or other needs to continue the development of the needed workforce.

The agencies are to develop and implement a workforce development program in consultation with higher education, centers of excellence, and workforce development centers. It’s to include making new or existing competitive grant programs available to a variety of organizations with qualifications and experience in developing training programs relevant to the needs of the sector. Priority funding’s to go to programs meeting urgent forest health and wildfire suppression skills gaps and demonstrating a lack of available workforce in underserved communities. Grants awarded may be used for a variety of activities providing on the job training; hard and soft skills development; test preparation for trade apprenticeships; and advanced training relating to an expansive list of jobs in the sector from hand crews to ecologists, and including mill workers and technicians. They may be used in developing education programs for students that inform them about forestry, fire, vegetation management, and ecological restoration;  increase awareness of opportunities for careers in the sector and expose students to them through work-based learning opportunities; connect students in pathways to careers in the sector; and incorporate opportunities for secondary students to earn industry recognized credentials and dual credit in career and technical education courses. They can also be used in developing regional education, industry, and workforce collaborations, including recruiting and building industry awareness and coordinating candidate development, creating a statewide recruiting and outreach program to encourage people to volunteer with local fire departments, or training local building and construction trade members to be deployed during periods requiring surge capacity for wildland fire suppression, including as firefighters or heavy equipment operators who meet the department’s requirements. The Department’s to use existing programs such as the Washington Conservation Corps and customized on-the-job training to expand opportunities and promote family wage careers in the sector, and look for opportunities to expand them including a postrelease program to help formerly incarcerated individuals who served on fire response crews get jobs in wildfire suppression and forest management.

The bill adds meeting regularly and coordinating with the regional leadership of the Forest Service to the responsibilities of the Commissioner of Public Lands. The Commissioner’s to identify strategies to improve delivery and increase the pace and scale of forest health, resiliency, and fuels mitigation treatments on federal lands; document the resources needed to increase the capacity available to the Forest Service on Washington’s national forests; identify ways to add to planning and implementation support to the Service through the use of cooperative and good neighbor agreements; and maximize the utilization of available efficiencies for complying with the national environmental policy act, as it applies to the Service’s activities in the state, such as using tools to increase the pace and scale of forest health treatments including categorical exclusions, shared stewardship, and use of the Tribal Forest Protection Act for forest health, fuels mitigation, and restoration activities. The goals of these meetings also include accelerating completion of the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements for forest health and resiliency projects, including through increased staffing and the use of partners, contractors, and department expertise to complete analyses; and pursuing agreements with federal agencies in the service of the forest biomass energy partnerships and cooperatives State law currently authorizes. Every two years, the Commissioner’s to report to the chairs of the appropriate legislative standing committees on progress, including identifying any needed state or federal statutory changes, policy issues, or funding needs; and estimating the acres of at-risk forests on each national forest and the number of acres treated.

HB1216 – 2021

HB1216 – Combines Commerce’s Urban Forest Management Program with DNR’s Community and Urban Forestry Program; adds tribal lands and prioritizes environmental justice investments.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramos (D; 5th District; Issaquah) (Co-sponsor Callan – D) (Requested by the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 26th. Amended and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 16th; amended again and passed out of that committee February 17th. Amended on the floor and passed by the House March 1st. The House concurred in the Senate’s amendments April 12th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks. Had a hearing March 16th, clarified by amendment in a very minor way and passed out of committee March 18th. Referred to Ways and Means, had a hearing March 30th, passed out of committee April 2nd, and was referred to Rules. Passed the Senate April 9th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
As amended –
The amendment in Natural Resources specified that the bill doesn’t apply to lands designated as natural area preserves or natural resources conservation areas; or to land subject to the Forest Practices Act; timber and forestland taxes; or open space, agricultural, and timberlands taxes. The amendment in Appropriations would make the bill null and void if funding were not specifically appropriated for it. The floor amendment in the House allows private property owners to opt out of urban and community forestry programs.

Original bill –
At this point, the Department of Commerce runs an Urban Forest Management program under RCW 35.105 in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources, and DNR runs a similar Community and Urban Forestry Program under RCW 76.15. The bill rolls Commerce’s program into DNR’s, deleting all of RCW 35.105.030, expands the combined program to include tribal lands, and adds language about planning for and prioritizing environmental justice issues. (It removes port districts, public school districts, community college districts, irrigation districts, weed control districts, and park districts from the program; cities, towns, and counties are still included.)

Details –
The bill requires DNR to analyze needs and opportunities related to urban forestry in the state. It’s to use existing canopy and inventory data, and may acquire more if needed. It may consult with external experts, and must consult with appropriate tribes in watersheds where urban forestry work is taking place. This process is to identify and prioritize areas where urban forestry will generate the greatest benefits in relation to canopy needs, health disparities, and salmon habitat, using analyses and tools including the canopy analysis and inventory; DNR’s 20-year forest health strategic plan; health disparity mapping tools to identify highly impacted communities at the census tract level; and data to target program delivery in areas where there are significant opportunities related to salmon and orca habitat and health. It’s also required to do a statewide inventory of urban and community forests to produce statistically relevant estimates of the quantity, health, composition, and benefits of urban trees and forests. [The relation of this requirement to the ones at the beginning of this paragraph isn’t clear to me.]

The department would be required to ensure that at least 50% of the resources used in delivering the policies, programs, and activities of the program were benefiting vulnerable populations and were delivered within a quarter mile of highly impacted communities, scaling resources so the most resources were directed to the most highly impacted communities in those areas. This includes resources for establishing and maintaining new trees as well as maintaining existing canopy. (“Highly impacted communities” are defined as those designated by cumulative impact analyses done by the Department of Health, or in census districts at least partly on tribal lands. They can also be defined by analyses of “vulnerable populations”, identifying health conditions of communities as a factor of environmental health hazards and their disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs relative to income, access to food and health care, linguistic isolation, and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.)

The department is also to provide technical assistance and capacity building resources and opportunities to cities, counties, federally recognized tribes, and other public and private entities in collecting tree data, and in activities developing and coordinating policies, programs, and activities promoting urban and community forestry. It may consult with Commerce about technical assistance, including on intersections between urban forestry programs and Growth Management Act planning. It’s to try to enable cities’ urban forest managers to access carbon markets by working to ensure tools it develops are compatible with urban forest carbon market reporting. It may use existing tools to help cities develop urban forestry management plans and ordinances, and there’s a list of twenty-one items the management plans and fourteen items the ordinances may include… [These are the same items Commerce was to consider including in the model plans and ordinances it was required to develop as part of its program; they don’t specifically include maximizing carbon sequestration and storage.] It must encourage communities to include participation and input by regional vulnerable populations on plans. It may create innovative tools to support urban forestry programs, including comprehensive tool kit packages that can be shared and locally adapted.

The bill adds improving human health, stormwater management, stream temperature and salmon habitat to the program’s goals; and adds some language about long-term care and maintenance to its descriptions of programs. The shift eliminates the Commerce program’s particular grants and competitive awards program, and its development of model plans and ordinances by the agency, it allows DNR to create an advisory body to fill the functions of the disappearing technical advisory committee from the other program.

SB5192

SB5192 – Requires signage, multiple payment methods, and interoperability for publicly available EV chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 26th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 11th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there March 15. Amended and passed out of committee March 18th. Referred to Rules, and passed the Senate April 6th. Senate concurred in the House’s changes April 22nd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing April 19th, replaced by a striker and voted out of committee April 20th. Referred to Rules, and passed the House April 21st. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
The NW Energy Coalition maintains a web page supporting and tracking the bill.

Comments –
I’m not sure how expansive the requirement to “facilitate means for conducting a charging session in languages other than English, and means for facilitating charging sessions for consumers who are unbanked, underbanked, or low-moderate income” is, or how one would meet it for everyone in those categories.

Summary –

Striker in House Appropriations –
This made some minor changes which are summarized at the end of it.

Amendments in Ways and Means –
The amendments created a ten year exemption from the requirements for the testing and inspection of weights and measuring equipment for equipment in place before 2024, exempted chargers at auto dealers, and made some other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the amended version.

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

Original bill –
The bill requires publicly available EV chargers to display a specified set of information, and to accept multiple payment methods in accordance with rules created by the Department of Agriculture. It requires the hardware, software, and communications network of a provider of public charging systems to be able to interact with, exchange, and make use of information, including payment information, from a different provider’s systems.

It applies to chargers that a lessee or property owner designates as available only to customers or visitors of a business; or ones that any member of the public can drive to in a parking garage or gated facility, with or without an entrance fee. (However, chargers that are clearly marked as available for use by the general public at no cost at all times are exempt from the bill’s requirements. So are free chargers are clearly marked as reserved for workplace use by workers or contracted employees, and free chargers reserved for residents, tenants, visitors, or employees of a private residence; a development with individually owned units in addition to shared facilities and common areas; or a residential building adjacent to a private residence.) The director of the Department of Agriculture is authorized to expand the requirements to other chargers to benefit the public and protect consumers.

Providers of service at covered chargers are required to clearly mark and disclose all the charges, fees, and costs associated with a charging session at each charger or location at which users can pay for and begin a session. They must include any fee for use of the parking space; any nonmember plug-in fee; the price to refuel in dollars/kWh or megajoule; any potential changes in that price due to variable pricing; and any other fees charged for a charging session. If a session or portion of one is offered at no cost, that must be disclosed.

In consultation with Commerce and the UTC, the department must adopt and update rules requiring charger providers to make multiple payment methods available at all publicly available Level 2 and DC fast chargers. The rules must include deadlines for compliance for previously installed and future chargers, and payment methods that must be available at a minimum. (These must be convenient and reasonably support access; they can include a credit card reader, a toll-free number on each charger that allows starting a session and paying whenever the charger’s available for use, or paying using a mobile phone or device.) They must also provide a means for conducting a charging session in languages other than English; a means for facilitating sessions for consumers who are unbanked, underbanked, or have low to moderate incomes. Providers can’t require a subscription, membership, account or a minimum balance to begin charging; if they sell or intend to sell consumer data from associated with charging, they have to disclose all the types of data they’re collecting to users.

By July 1st, 2022, the department is to require all providers to meet and maintain interoperability standards for these chargers that align with national and international best practices or standards. These should allow the hardware, systems, software, or a communications network provided by one party, vendor, or service provider to interact with exchange and make use of information, including payment information, with the corresponding systems provided by a different one. Starting July 1, 2022, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Agriculture and the UTC, is to adopt and update rules establishing inventory, payment, and reliability reporting requirements for providers. These must include requirements for collecting and submitting information including provider contact information; certification for each charger model operated in Washington; an inventory of active, retired, decommissioned, or removed charging equipment in the state; annual reports detailing charging equipment payment information; and specifications for reporting data to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Alternative Fuels Data Center.

The Department of Agriculture is allowed to establish a reasonable registration fee for electric vehicle supply equipment to cover the costs associated with enforcing the bill’s requirements. It must adopt, and amend as needed, rules for metering the sale of electricity as a vehicle fuel consistent with the the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s handbooks, except where modified to achieve state objectives. (These may not take effect before January 1, 2024.) It adds penalties of $200 for a first violation, and $500 for each subsequent one, on errors in the metering of electricity use by charging equipment that benefit its owners.

SB5141

SB5141 – Implements the recommendations of the environmental justice task force.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing on a proposed substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 20th; passed out of committee with a minor technical amendment February 9th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 17th. Amended and passed out of committee February 19th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 1st. Senate concurred in the House’s changes April 20th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 12th, and a second hearing in the committee March 16th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing March 30th; replaced by a new striker, amended and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules April 2nd. Replaced by a striker on the floor,  further amended, and passed the House April 11th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
House Floor Amendments –
The adjustments made by the striker on the House floor are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the end of it. One of the other floor amendments said environmental justice assessments could be done by completing a checklist like the ones allowed in SEPA evaluations, including the criteria specified in the bill; specified that assessments are not required to be comprehensive or exhaustive examinations of potential impacts of a significant action, and do not require novel quantitative or economic analysis; and required agencies to use cumulative environmental health impact analysis as part of environmental justice assessments only where applicable. Others prohibited agencies from contracting with entities that employ registered lobbyists for purposes of implementing environmental justice responsibilities; required agencies to identify overburdened communities in a way that allows measuring “the performance effectiveness” of their environmental justice obligations; clarified that the expected impacts on tribal rights and resources of actions undergoing an assessment are to be identified through the consultation process required for significant agency actions, and eliminated the requirement that covered consultations had to be done in accordance with the existing statute that addresses tribal consultation.

Amendments in House Appropriations –
Fitzgibbon’s second striker adds a few small changes to the previous one, according to the slightly different summary at the end of it. The amendments to it required a technical review of the health disparities map, added a couple of members to the environmental justice council, required agencies to aspire to complete environmental justice assessments within fifteen business days and to report on their record of doing that, and made a few other minor changes.

Striker in House Committee –
The staff summary of the adjustments made by the striker is two and a half pages at the end of it.

Amendments on the Senate Floor –
These required transportation spending decisions made within the framework of the environmental justice implementation plan to be restricted to appropriations in the transportation bill and limited to discretionary spending; specified that agency actions are to be “in consideration of” the Council’s guidelines rather than being consistent with them or following them, and that the Council’s identification and prioritization of actions for agency assessments, and its timelines for actions, funding and expenditures are suggestions. They added a report by the Council to the Governor and the Legislature, removed tribal and indigenous populations from the definition of vulnerable populations; and finally specified that the role of the Council is to be purely advisory and that its decisions are not binding on any agency, individual, or organization.

Amendments in Ways and Means –
The major amendment made a lot of changes specifying and clarifying administrative procedures; they’re summarized by staff at the beginning of it. (The other amendment just made the Governor’s appointments to the Council subject to confirmation by the Senate.)

Substitute –
The substitute narrows the sweeping definition of “cumulative impacts” to “cumulative environmental health impacts” and makes a number of other adjustments that focus more narrowly on impacts on health, but since it retains the definitions of “overburdened communities” and now consistently includes “vulnerable communities” alongside that, I think it still requires addressing burdens due to a variety of adverse socioeconomic factors as well as the problems caused by the physical environment. It now specifies that an “equitable distribution” of benefits and burdens means “a fair and just, but not necessarily equal, allocation” of them, and is to be based on current conditions.

It no longer makes the creation of the Environmental Justice Council subject to funding, increases its size from ten to fifteen, adds specifications about its membership,  and increases its authority. It’s now to adopt additional agency guidelines for community engagement plans, maintaining the reporting dashboard, and designating overburdened communities. It expands the Council’s technical assistance to agencies to include environmental justice obligations for budgeting and financing criteria and decisions, environmental justice assessments and  community engagement plans. It specifies a number of things included the definition of “significant agency actions” requiring environmental justice assessments. The Council’s now to review all agency environmental justice assessments, implementation plans, budgeting and funding criteria, and community engagement plans. (The bill doesn’t seem to say it has to approve them, though it does say it’s an agency’s duty to carry out the bill’s requirements after the Council reviews its criteria for these.) It now says agencies must comply with the Council’s guidelines for environmental justice implementation plans instead of saying they must give substantial weight to them.

It now calls the “omsbuds” the “environmental justice advocate”, and drops the list specifying the items and actions that person is authorized to investigate.

The substitute also requires agencies to conduct regular compliance reviews of existing laws and policies guiding community engagement, and makes a lot of minor changes in language and details.

Original bill –
The bill says all state agencies should “strive” to act in accordance with its environmental justice policies, and requires the Departments of Health, Ecology, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Commerce and Transportation, as well as the Puget Sound Partnership, to “apply and comply” with its provisions.

It establishes a ten person Environmental Justice Council appointed by the governor and staffed by the Department of Health to represent the interests of community-based organizations. The Council’s to adopt guidelines on implementing the act’s requirements for agencies preparing environmental justice implementation plans, developing budgeting and funding criteria and making budgeting decisions, and preparing and using environmental justice analyses. It’s also to provide technical assistance to support agencies’ compliance with those analyses and enterprise equity implementation; do an annual evaluation of those aspects of their performance, provide appropriate information to various parties about agency compliance with the requirements; review existing environmental laws and make recommendations for additional legislation to further the state’s environmental justice goals, including legislation to be created and requested by particular agencies; hold hearings and conducting proceedings to receive information to assist in performance of their duties; and prepare and submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature on the work of the Council, progress in meeting the state’s environmental justice goals, and implementing this act.

Environmental justice analyses –

The Department of Health is to continue developing an environmental heath disparities map, in consultation with the Council. It’s to use the most currently available information to identify cumulative impacts and overburdened communities, and include tools to visually display environmental disparities over time, tracking agency progress in an interactive, regularly updated dashboard; as well as measuring the link between environmental quality and human health, disaggregated by race. (The department’s to request public comment, and encourage participation in the process by representatives from community organizations representing overburdened communities through engagement and listening sessions in all regions of the state. It may request assistance from academic researchers and other state agencies, and must include a summary of revisions to the map as part of its annual report to the Council on its progress toward meeting the act’s goals.)

The bill requires agencies considering a significant action to do an environmental justice analysis of cumulative impacts, using resources such as the environmental health disparities map, as well as qualitative assessments of environmental and socioeconomic stressors that may contribute to environmental health disparities. It’s to identify overburdened communities and vulnerable populations that may be affected by the proposed action, and how the impacts may be distributed across those. (The act defines “overburdened communities” as those designated by the Environmental Justice Council that the act establishes, with the assistance of the Department of Health. These include rural communities, communities in census tracts that are fully or partially on tribal lands, and areas with a high concentration of members of a “vulnerable population”, ones that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs relative to income, access to food and health care, and linguistic isolation; and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.) It’s also to identify any local and regional impacts to tribal treaty rights and resources; summarize community input and describe how overburdened communities and affected tribes may be further involved in development of the proposed action; and describe options for the agency to reduce the disproportionate impact on overburdened communities, or a reasonable justification for not doing so. (The bill says an agency must consider, without limitation, each of the following methods for reducing an impact:

1. Eliminating disparities and the unequal effect of environmental harms on overburdened communities;
2. Reducing or ensuring the action does not add to the cumulative impact;
3. Providing equitable participation and meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the development of the action;
4. Prioritizing equitable distribution of resources and benefits to overburdened communities,
5. Ensuring positive workforce and job outcomes for them;
6. Meeting a community need identified by an overburdened community;
7. Modifying substantive regulatory or policy requirements; and
8. Any other mitigation techniques, including those suggested by the Council, the office of equity, or representatives of overburdened communities and vulnerable populations.

(If an agency determines it can’t reduce the impact of the action on overburdened communities and vulnerable populations, it must provide a clear explanation of that determination as part of the record of the decision, and provide notice of it to members of the public who participated in the process.)

Budgets and funding –

In making decisions about budget development, investments, granting or withholding benefits, and distributing funding, agencies must:
1. Direct benefits to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities to reduce statewide disparities. (They are to establish a goal “of 40 percent and no less than 35 percent of investments that create environmental benefits directed to” them.)
2. Make investments to eliminate health disparities proportional to those a community experiences;
3.Focus investments on creating environmental benefits, including eliminating health burdens, creating community and population resilience, and raising the quality of life;
4. Ensure investment priorities are self-determined by overburdened communities and vulnerable populations in them through equitable participation;
5. Balance investments across the state and within counties, local jurisdictions, and unincorporated areas to reduce disparities by location and contribute to reducing disparities based on race and ethnicity;
6. Promote transparency by clearly articulating goals and assessment metrics to communicate where, why, and how funds distributed; and,
7. Consider a broad scope of grants so that funds may be applied to a variety of purposes, including community grants to monitor pollution and grants focused on building capacity and training for community scientists and staff; technical assistance for communities new to receiving grants; and education and work-readiness youth programs focused on infrastructure or utility-related internships to develop career paths for youth and eventual community leaders.

Environmental justice implementation plans –

By September 1, 2022, each agency must prepare an environmental justice implementation plan, giving “substantial weight” to the Council’s guidelines. It’s to be updated annually and must include:
1. Goals and deliverables to reduce environmental health disparities and achieve environmental justice in the agency’s programs;
2. Metrics to track and measure accomplishments of those;
3. Methods to equitably solicit and receive information and opinions from members of the public across the state;
4. Strategies to ensure compliance with existing federal and state laws and policies; and
5. A plan for community engagement that evaluates services and programs for equitable participation and the support of meaningful and direct involvement of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities. The plan must include best practices for outreach and communication to overcome barriers to engagement from vulnerable populations, overburdened communities, and other historically or currently marginalized groups; tools that integrate spatial, demographic, and health disparities data to evaluate and understand the nature and needs of the people who may be impacted by agency decisions; processes to include members of the affected communities including providing child care and other expenses; and methods for outreach and communication with those who face language or other barriers to participation.

The Omsbuds –

If funding’s provided, the bill creates an Office of Environmental Justice Ombuds within the Office of the Governor to provide information to overburdened communities and the council; promote public awareness and understanding of environmental justice for overburdened communities; identify system issues and responses for the Governor and the Legislature to act on; and ensure agency compliance with the provisions of this act. After consultation with the Council, appropriate committees, representatives of overburdened communities, and other relevant stakeholders, the Governor is to appoint an ombuds who’s a person of recognized judgment, independence, objectivity, and integrity, and is qualified by training or experience in environmental justice. The ombuds holds office for three years, and may only be removed, by the Governor, for neglect of duty, misconduct, or the inability to perform duties. Administrative and staff support is to be provided by the Governor’s office. The Council is hold a portion of its meetings to jointly receive stakeholder input on the ombuds’ activities and priorities.

The omsbud is to maintain a number of avenues of communication for receiving complaints and inquiries; monitor agency compliance with the requirements of the act; establish a statewide uniform reporting system to collect and analyze data related to complaints about agencies, and establish procedures to receive, investigate, and resolve them; establish procedures to gather stakeholder input into the ombuds’ activities and priorities, and submit an annual report to the Governor, the Legislature, and the Council including the ombuds’ budget and expenditures, agencies’ compliance with the act; the number of complaints received and resolved; a description of significant systemic or individual investigations or outcomes achieved during the prior year; outstanding or unresolved concerns or recommendations; and comments from stakeholders, including representatives of overburdened communities, on activities during the prior year.

The ombuds may initiate and attempt to resolve an investigation upon the ombuds’ own initiative, or upon receipt of a complaint regarding significant legislative rules; agency budgets, investments, or funding distribution; resource allocation; programmatic or project actions; policies, rules, or procedures; or proposed legislation that may create environmental harms or benefits for overburdened communities. If the ombud believes that an agency should reconsider, explain, or change something, the omsbuds is to have access to records and reasonable access to agency facilities to conduct a full investigation, including the opportunity to interview employees who might reasonably be believed to have knowledge of what’s being investigated. The ombuds may not levy any fees, must remain neutral and impartial, and must render a public decision on the merits of each complaint at the conclusion of an investigation, stating the ombuds’ recommendations and reasoning. If the ombuds concludes there’s significant noncompliance with the act’s requirements, that must be reported to the Governor, the Council, and appropriate committees of the Legislature. (The ombuds must consult with a person or agency before announcing a conclusion or recommendation that criticizes them expressly, or by implication.) Agency employees’ interactions with the omsbud are covered by the whistleblower law.

SB5126

SB5126 – Creates a cap and trade program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Saldaña – D) (Requested by the Governor)
Current status – To the Governor
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 19th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and voted out of committee February 25th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there March 15th. Replaced by a second substitute, amended a number of times, and passed out of committee March 22nd. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor, and passed the Senate 25-24 on April 8th. Senate concurred in House amendments April 24th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing April 14th; replaced by a striker, amended repeatedly, and passed out of committee April 16th. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing there on April 19th, was replaced by a new striker, further amended, and voted out of committee April 20th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a new striker on the floor, amended, and voted out of the House April 23rd. Referred to the Senate for consideration of concurrence in the House’s changes.
Next step would be – To the Governor
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The cap and trade program is a revised version of the one in Senator Carlyle’s SB5981, from 2019-2020.

Summary –
Changes on the House floor –
The striker removes the provision that made the transfer of funds to the account for transportation reduction after 2027 dependent on enacting a clean fuel standard with a carbon intensity reduction of more than 10% by then. It would now make the program contingent on a gas tax increase of at least 5 cents a gallon after April 2021, rather than on the addition in some budget cycle of at least $500 million per biennium above the November 2020 forecast to the transportation accounts. It now allows EITEs to bank unused allowances, “including for future sale and investment in best available technology when economically feasible”. It restores the Senate’s language about allocations of allowances to electric utilities, allowing them to bank allowances without limits and dropping the specifications about Ecology’s rulemaking from the earlier House versions, among other things.

It says that the State, agencies and other jurisidictions may only consider the State’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets “in a manner that recognizes, where applicable, that the siting and placement of new or expanded best-in-class facilities with lower carbon emitting processes is in the economic and environmental interests of the state of Washington, and it makes a number of changes in the language about siting and permitting facilities in Section 10 (9), including “expanded” facilities as well as new ones, and saying agencies “shall” rather than “may” allow them to meet their GHG mitigation requirements under SEPA by complying with this act’s requirements.

The striker exempts railroads from coverage for the first eight years of the program. It restores the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program; and adds forest health and clean energy to the list of potential workforce development areas. It requires Ecology to do a formal evaluation of the potential consequences of permitting the use of banked allowances from a linked program before entering into an agreement, and it specifies that isn’t acceptable unless a linking jurisdiction has provisions to ensure the distribution of benefits from the program to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities; Ecology determines it won’t produce net adverse impacts to either jurisdictions’ highly impacted communities or “analogous communities in the aggregate; and it won’t adversely impact our ability to meet the State’s targets. These and other changes are summarized by staff at the end of the new version.

One amendment requires annual reporting on the recipients, amounts, and actual results of funding, the reductions in emissions (if any) from each project and their cost per tonne, as well as a comparison to other projects, to facilitate the development of cost-benefit ratios for them. Another requires Ecology to develop a proposal in collaboration with stakeholders for assisting residential households that use fuels that besides electricity or natural gas for home heating, giving priority to assisting low-income households through weatherization, conservation and efficiency services, and bill assistance.

In House Appropriations –
The striker in Appropriations creates a new Air Quality and Health Disparities Improvement Account, and declares the Legislature’s intention to dedicate at least $20 million per biennium to it, for reducing criteria pollutants and improving health outcomes in overburdened communities through spending on capital projects and transportation. Though it retains the provisions in Section 13(4)(a) for reducing EITEs emissions between 2035 and 2050, it now also requires Ecology to request legislation in the 2022 session outlining a pathway, developed in consultation with stakeholders, for EITEs to achieve their share of the state’s emissions reductions through 2050, and it says that no expenditures of the program’s revenues may be made if the Legislature has not “considered and enacted” that request legislation by April 1st, 2023. It replaces the provision saying no state agency may adopt or enforce a program that regulates greenhouse gas emissions from a stationary source except as provided in this chapter by specifying that the cap and trade program preempts the Clean Air Rule.

This striker no longer requires Ecology to revise linkage agreements to ensure reductions of criteria pollutant emissions or to reduce the offset limits and the allocation of no cost allowances to entities identified as high priority emitters of criteria pollutants with a source that’s correlated with their emissions of greenhouse gases. It no longer requires the Climate Investment Account to be included in the legislature’s balanced budget requirements, and makes some other changes summarized at the end of it.

One of the amendments says that in dealing with criteria pollutants in overburdened areas Ecology can’t impose requirements on a permitted stationary source that are disproportionate to the source’s contribution to air pollution compared to other permitted stationary sources and other sources of criteria pollutants in the community. One requires Ecology to conduct an environmental justice assessment before entering into a linkage agreement, and makes a number of other clarifications, adjustments and procedural changes that are summarized at the end of it. One amendment modifies the provisions about SEPA review, specifying that Ecology must evaluate any potential net cumulative greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the project “as compared to other existing facilities and existing or emerging low carbon processes that supply the same product or end use,” authorizing Ecology to decide the appropriate threshold for an analysis of the potential net emissions rather than requiring one for projects emitting over 25,000 tonnes a year, and no longer specifying a life-cycle analysis. (That may already be required by SEPA.)  It makes some other changes to the interactions of the program with SEPA that I don’t follow, but which are summarized by staff at the end of it. I also don’t see how the text amends the definition of “supplier” for the GHG reporting requirements, though the summary says it does.)

An amendment rewrites the section on EITEs. It drops the provisions for adjusting the requirements to get to the state’s targets, creates a formula for set reductions of 3%, adjusted for production levels, in each compliance period through 2035, leaves what happens after that open, and makes it easier for aerospace industries to shift from mass-based accounting to carbon intensity accounting, (There’s a summary of these and other changes at the end of the amendment.) (Fitzgibbon supported this amendment, suggesting that the provision for enacting legislation about the 2035-2050 compliance path for EITEs by 2023 in order to keep the program going would put a lot of pressure on the Legislature to replace this section in the next session.)

An amendment drops grants for sequestration under the sustainable farms and fields bill from the list about funding programs, activities, or projects that achieve agricultural energy efficiency or emissions reductions “including…”, and adds grants, rebates, and other financial incentives for agricultural harvesting equipment, heavy-duty trucks, agricultural pump engines, tractors, and other equipment; grants, loans, or financial incentives to food processors for projects that reduce emissions; renewable energy projects; farmworker housing weatherization programs; dairy digester research and development; and alternative manure management.

House Environment & Energy amendments –
The striker deposits the fixed dollar amounts of revenue that the final Senate version dedicates to Flexible Forward transportation spending (roughly sixty percent of the total program revenue) in a new carbon emissions reduction account, which can only be used to reduce transportation sector carbon emissions through measures including alternatives to single occupancy passenger vehicles; reductions in single occupancy vehicle miles traveled; and reductions in per mile vehicle emissions, including through funding alternative fuel infrastructure and incentive programs, as well as emission reduction programs for freight vehicle and rail transportation, ferries and other maritime and port activities.

After deducting up to 5% for administration, it transfers 75% of the revenue remaining to the climate commitment account, and the other 25% to a natural climate solutions account. It specifies that 35 % of total investments from these accounts must provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities  (and that 40% is a target). The projects, activities, and programs funded from these two accounts “include, but are not limited to” many of those listed for potential funding from the climate commitment  account in the final House version. (The striker adds grants supporting local GMA land use planning, fish passage correction investments, and the intention to dedicate at least $50 million per biennium to supporting tribes’ efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change to its list.)

It also makes imported electricity a covered source in the first compliance period rather than the second, and adds an account for retiring allowances generated by voluntary renewable generation projects. It restores the provisions from the original bill for establishing a governance structure to implement the state’s climate commitment, provide accountability for achieving the state’s targets, establish a coordinated approach to resilience, build an equitable and inclusive clean energy economy, and ensure that the government provides clear policy, requirements, financial tools, and other mechanisms to support achieving the targets. (It omits the Senate bill’s specifications as to what that structure would include.)

It replaces a number of definitions of environmental justice terms in the Senate version with references to the nearly identical definitions in SB5141 (the HEAL Act), except that it seems to refer to a definition for “Environmental justice assessment” that doesn’t exist in the HEAL Act, though the body of that act does specify what’s required for one in considerable detail.

It specifies that allowances cannot be banked for more than eight years. It specifies detailed rules for governing electric and gas utilities’ use of the free allowances they’re to receive for the benefit of ratepayers, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of the striker.

Other amendments require considering the number of no cost allowances in the marketplace in setting the number of allowances offered at each auction, specify that the Department must only offer a number of allowances at each auction that will enhance the likelihood of achieving the state limits, and prohibit EITE’s free allowances being sold or traded. They advance the first environmental review of the program by two years, to 2023; require the review to include an evaluation of initial and subsequent health impacts related to criteria pollution; and require permitted or registered sources in an overburdened community to get an enforceable order under the Clean Air Act if Ecology has imposed stricter standards on the area after a review. Fitzgibbon’s amendment prohibits revenue from being transferred to the account for transportation reduction after 2027 unless a clean fuel standard with a carbon intensity reduction of more than 10% has been enacted by then, allows transferring allowances among an owner or operator’s EITE facilities, and makes some other adjustments about EITEs and landfill emissions that are summarized at the end of it. An amendment adds an exemption for fuel used for agricultural purposes, and provides for creating a five year exemption for fuel used for transporting agricultural products on highways. An amendment eliminates the provisions about the State Environmental Policy Act that prohibit state emission limits from being the basis for the denial of a permit application  or for judicial review and the provision establishing that compliance with cap and trade program requirements is the only mitigation for greenhouse gases that can be required by a state agency or local government, but it allows lead agencies to decide that compliance is sufficient mitigation, and makes a number of other changes about the interaction of SEPA and the bill that are summarized at the end of it.  An amendment requires permits for new or revised facilities to include a clause requiring the facility to comply with the greenhouse gas emission limits if they stop being covered under the cap and trade program. An amendment prohibits the Department from granting any free or discounted allowances to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities that are built or modified after the effective date of the bill and that would increase detectable criteria pollutants or other pollutants harmful to human health in overburdened communities. An amendment establishes a program to assist small forestland owners seeking to benefit from carbon sequestration markets; it would include providing funding or consultation to assess a project’s technical feasibility, investment requirements, development and operational costs, expected returns, administrative and legal hurdles, and project risks and pitfalls. It allows assisting multiple landowners to aggregate sufficient acreage to provide the scale to offer offset credits at a competitive price. It directs that $10 million from revenues go to the Forestry Riparian Easement program, and declares the Legislature’s intention to appropriate $2 million per biennium to assist small forestland owners.

Senate floor amendments –
Senator Carlyle’s floor amendment specified that compliance with the program is the only mitigation for greenhouse gases that can be required by any agency or other jurisdiction; moves up the first evaluation by a year, to December 2027; requires Ecology to take steps to reduce criteria pollutants in overburdened areas if that is not happening, including the option of reducing a EITE facilities’ free allowances; and makes a number of other clarifications and small adjustments that are summarized at the end of it.

The other floor amendments  specify percentage reductions over several three year periods for facilities using mass-based baselines, rather than having Ecology establish obligations and allocations for them that are comparable to those for facilities with carbon intensity baselines. They specify that aerospace industries have to get additional free allowances to accommodate increased production on a basis comparable to those for other facilities, and that if it was “appropriate based on projected production”,  Ecology must “achieve a similar ongoing result” by adjusting a facility’s baseline. They require Ecology to recommend whether to provide EITEs with an annual allocation for process emissions beyond 2034  based on a best available technology limitation. They also require Ecology to notify the Legislature whenever an entity is no longer covered by the program; to retain a list of all the covered entities, opt-in entities and market participants on its website; and to maintain a searchable website showing the contents of each holding account, including its allowances.

Substitute and amendments in Ways and Means –
The substitute by Senator Carlyle, the prime sponsor, allowed qualifying as a “biofuel” with a 40% reduction of emissions compared to the equivalent petroleum fuel rather than requiring a 50% reduction; increased the percentage of offsets in the second compliance period that must provide direct environmental benefits in the state from 50% to 75%; placed the entire compliance program in limbo until there’s legislation which will add at least $500 million in new revenue per biennium to the motor vehicle and multi-modal transportation accounts for an indeterminate period; and made a lot of other adjustments which are summarized at the beginning of it.

Carlyle’s first amendment made the status of energy-exposed trade intensive industries permanent; added asphalt industries and all other petroleum products industries to the EITE list; and provided EITEs with free allowances to cover all their compliance requirements until the end of 2034, rather than stepping it down to 75% of the original allocation by 2026.  The amendment no longer has Ecology create the rules for allocating allowances to EITE’s. [So far, I find the language in the replacement for Section 12 about the new system it would create baffling, but there’s a staff summary of what it’s apparently supposed to do and of a number of additional changes the amendment would make at the end of it.]

Carlyle’s second amendment eliminated the Governor’s task force, and made a lot of additional changes to the bill, which are summarized at the end of it. Two other amendments included the investment account created by the bill in the State’s requirements for four year balanced budgets and removed the emergency clause.

Substitute and Amendments in Senate Environment, Energy and Technology –
There’s a four page summary by staff of other changes made in the substitute at the beginning of it. Among other things, it directs $650 million of the revenue each biennium between 2022 and 2037 into a Forward Flexible Account; after that 50% of the revenue is to go to funding transportation. The amendments are currently in the committee materials folder for the February 25th session. They allow carbon capture projects to be used as offsets; remove tribal and indigenous populations from the definition of vulnerable communities and revise the language about consultation with tribes; significantly increase the annual amounts going to the Forward Flexible account in the first years of the program and cap total contributions to that fund at $5.2 billion; add petroleum refining to the list of industries getting free allowances in the first phase of the program; and make some minor adjustments to environmental justice provisions, limits on offsets and linkages, and the handling of credits for the benefit of low-income gas customers.

Original Bill –
Climate Commitment Task Force
The bill would have the governor create a comprehensive program to provide accountability and authority for achieving the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets, establish a coordinated and strategic statewide approach to climate resilience, and build an equitable and inclusive clean energy economy.

By July 1st of this year, he’s to form a climate commitment task force, with representatives from state agencies, other governments, members of highly impacted communities, and other stakeholders. (“Highly impacted communities” and “overburdened communities” are defined by the bill as those at least partly on tribal land, or designated by the Department of Health’s cumulative impact analysis, which is still underway, as highly impacted by fossil fuel pollution and climate change.) By December 1st, it’s to deliver recommendations on the development of the program for the Legislature to review, and to act on during the 2022 session; including advice on a governance structure, reporting requirements, a formal process for coordinating within the state and with other governments, structures to facilitate investments, suggested duties and roles related to resilience, proposed legislation, needed funding, and a schedule for implementing the comprehensive program.

The program is to:
1. Address greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors and sources, ensuring emitters are responsible for meeting targeted  reductions and that the government provides clear policy and requirements, financial tools, and other mechanisms to support achieving them;
2. Increase resilience and support an equitable transition for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, including through early and meaningful engagement of overburdened communities and workers. (“Vulnerable populations” include those in communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs, access to food and health care, and linguistic isolation; and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.)
3. Apply the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available to guide the state’s climate actions and strategies.
4. Be developed and implemented in consultation and collaboration with all levels of government and society; and implemented with sustained leadership, resources, clear governance, and prioritized investments at the scale necessary to meet the state’s targets in the most effective and efficient manner possible;
5. Include periodic measurement and reporting of progress and changes to the program as needed to meet the limits.

It has to include a strategic plan for aligning existing law, rules, policies, programs, and plans with the state’s greenhouse gas limits; common state policies, standards, and procedures for addressing emissions and climate resilience; a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding; an updated statewide strategy for addressing climate risks and improving resilience; a comprehensive community engagement plan that addresses and mitigates barriers to engagement from historically or currently marginalized groups; and an analysis of gaps and conflicts in state law and programs, with recommendations for improvements.

The Governor is to develop a framework for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes on the implementation of the act, ensuring meaningful tribal engagement on rule making, programmatic decisions, and investment decisions. He’s to convene an annual meeting with all the Federally recognized tribes in the state to share information and discuss progress toward the bill’s goals.

Cap and Trade Program

The bill requires the Department of Ecology to implement a state greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade program requiring allowances from covered sources for each metric ton of emissions above a gradually decreasing cap. The cap is to be set, evaluated, and adjusted over time so that covered entities contribute their proportional share of the overall State reductions needed to meet our emissions limits. Current and future allowances are sold at auction, but participants with emissions may not buy more than 10% of the ones in an auction, and other participants are limited to 4% of them. Allowances can be sold or traded, and they are to be designed with a number of specified features, and to the extent it’s practical, to allow linking the program with those in other jurisdictions. It requires setting a floor and a ceiling on prices for allowances, and mechanisms for increasing or decreasing the allowances available in an auction to help keep prices within that range.

Covered entities –
You need allowances if your facility emits more than 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2 equivalents; if the associated emissions from your generating electricity in the state exceed that level; or if you’re a supplier of fuels other than natural gas that would produce emissions above that level when combusted. Starting in 2027, you need allowances if you have been responsible for emitting more than that in recent years through the sources of electricity you’ve imported into the state, if you’ve supplied natural gas emitting more CO2 than that when burned, or if your facility and the emissions associated with your direct purchases of electricity exceed that level. A covered entity may request a reduction in its obligations if a change in manufacturing reduces its emissions or changes in its external competitive environment result in a significant increase in leakage risk. Others (including tribal governments and Federal agencies) can also opt-in to the program if they’re responsible for emissions but aren’t required to participate (if, for example, they can make reductions cheaply and want to make money by selling the allowances they earn), or if they just want to trade in the market. Participants who don’t submit enough allowances to cover their emissions are to be fined four allowances for each missing one within six months; they can be fined up to $10,000/day for failing to submit these or other violations of terms or orders, and up to $50,00/day for violating the rules against manipulating an auction.

Offsets –
In  2023 through 2026 up to 8% of an entities’ obligations may be met with approved offset credits, and at least 75% of those must reduce “provide direct environmental benefits” in the state; in 2027 through 2030 up to 6% of them may be offset and at least 50% of those must reduce provide those benefits in Washington. At any point another 5% may be met through offsets on tribal land in the US or a linked jurisdiction. (The bill may intend this to mean tribal land in the state, but it doesn’t say so.) Ecology may adjust these limits to ensure achievement of the State’s emission targets or provide for alignment with linked jurisdictions.

Exemptions –
The bill exempts aviation and marine fuel burned outside the state, coal burned at the Transalta plant, and military installations.

Free allowances –
In 2023 through 2040, the bill provides a gradually decreasing number of free allowances to energy-intensive trade exposed industries in ten categories, and to any others that can demonstrate through objective criteria that they meet requirements about their energy use and trade exposure that the Department of Commerce is to establish by January 1st, 2024 . Facilities with relatively lower emissions than others in a sector may receive a larger share of the allowances. Starting in 2027, free allowances for each entity receiving them are to be reduced each year in proportion to the program’s scheduled reductions in total allowances.

The Department of Ecology is to develop rules, in consultation with Commerce, providing electric utilities with free allowances in 2023 through 2026, and providing enough of them to consumer owned utilities in 2027 through 2030 to cover the emissions budgets in their clean energy implementation plans.  The bill provides natural gas utilities ongoing free allowances for the gas sold to low-income customers receiving rate or bill assistance. (The utilities are to auction these allowances for the benefit of their ratepayers; gas utilities can only use the proceeds to minimize cost impacts on low-income consumers through actions such as weatherization, conservation, and help paying bills.)

Investments –
Revenues from the program are to go into a climate investment account. Investments from it must meet specified high labor standards, and projects must be be reviewed for a number of equity and opportunity efforts. These funds may only be used for a wide range of specified activities:
1. Covering the costs of administering the program;
2. Implementing the working families tax rebate;
3. Paying for clean transportation programs that reduce emissions, including ones that accelerate the deployment of zero-emission vehicles, provide refueling or grid infrastructure for them, or reduce vehicle miles traveled;
4. Supporting natural resilience to the impacts of climate change and increasing sequestration;
5. Funding clean energy transition and assistance programs, including ones that reduce lower income people’s energy burden and rural residents’ transportation fuel burden, ones that reduce dependence on fossil transportation fuels, such as public transit and car sharing, and community renewable energy projects that provide benefits to qualified participants at reduced or no cost;
6. Supporting fossil fuel workers affected by the transition to a clean energy economy, including providing full wage replacement, health benefits and pension contributions for every worker within five years of retirement, and for one to five years for workers who have been employed for those periods; wage insurance for up to five years for reemployed workers with more than five years of service; up to two years of retraining costs; peer counseling and employment placement services; investing in workforce development; and investing in transportation, municipal services, and technology that supports a community’s capacity for clean manufacturing.
7. Supporting projects in the state that produce verifiable emissions reductions beyond baseline estimates, including deploying renewable energy resources, distributed generation, demand-side technologies and strategies, and grid modernization projects; reduce the emissions of industrial facilities; achieve energy efficiency or emissions in the agricultural sector, including through bioenergy and biofuels; promote low-carbon architecture; promote the electrification and decarbonization of buildings; or improve energy efficiency, including district energy projects and investments in transforming the market for high-efficiency appliances.

The Office of Equity is to creates an environmental justice and equity advisory panel to provide recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature about a number of different aspects of the program and investments made from it . The panel’s to include members representing union labor; a member from each side of the state representing tribal governments; and members with expertise in environmental justice and equity issues representing the interests of vulnerable populations in communities in different areas of the state at least partly on tribal land or identified by the Department of Health as highly impacted by fossil fuel pollution and climate change. There’s to be consultation in advance with tribes on all funding decisions that affect their rights and interests in their lands. Agencies are to report to the panel each year on their progress in meeting environmental justice and equity goals.

When they’re allocating funds or issuing grants using the revenue agencies must conduct an analysis to ensure that a meaningful percentage of total investments from the program provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within overburdened communities by reducing those environmental burdens, or their disproportionate risk from them; supporting community-led project development, or meeting a community need identified by vulnerable members of the community that’s consistent with the intent of the bill. The analysis has to “adhere to” various principles, including  that the benefits should reduce state-wide disparities, and be proportional to the health disparities a community experiences. These agencies are to report annually to the environmental justice and equity advisory panel and the office of equity on their progress toward meeting environmental justice and health goals.

Clean Air Act –
The bill responds to a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of Ecology’s authority under the Clean Air Act, specifying that it authorizes the department to adopt air quality standards, emissions standards, or emissions limitations for the production and distribution of fossil fuels or any other products that emit greenhouse gases in the state,  and to prioritize reducing emissions of those and criteria pollutants in overburdened communities if that’s needed to meet the bill’s goals. It specifies that Ecology has the authority to regulate indirect emissions from any products whose consumption, use, combustion, or oxidation releases contaminants into the air. It adds single suppliers’ annual electricity emissions over 10,000 tonnes to the reporting requirements, and requires Ecology to establish methods for verifying emission reports, at least for sources over 25,000 tonnes a year. It also allows Ecology to add greenhouse gases included in linked programs to Washington’s definition.

Details –
The bill requires creating an electronic system for handling allowances. There are provisions for managing and maintaining the integrity of the auctions,  and it requires appointing an independent organization to run them.

HB1114

HB1114 – Includes mitigation of urban heat island effects using tree planting and cool roof programs in utility energy conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Amended twice and voted out of committee February 12. Referred to Rules February 15th. Passed the House unanimously February 25th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules March 17th, and passed the Senate unanimously on March 24th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Estimating the energy savings associated with planting trees in urban areas is pretty complicated – trees of different ages, species and sizes in different locations would have different effects. Street trees often die in eight or ten years, and trees planted in subdivisions get removed by homeowners who are tired of raking leaves or want more sun. I think the bill’s language implies that the private utilities are supposed to estimate the energy savings in their planting programs (which would qualify for an extra 2% return on their investments), but all the bill says about that is that program performance is to be measured in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted.”

Summary –
As amended –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the first amendment at the end of it, and of the second amendment at the end of that. (The significant changes added provisions about environmental justice.)

Original bill –
The bill specifies that installed materials and equipment for cool roofs are included in the State’s utility energy efficiency programs, and now says that the use of tree planting for conservation by utilities is “highly” encouraged. (It specifies that utility tree planting programs should reduce the peak-load demand for electricity in residential and commercial business areas during the summer months; reduce winter demand for energy in residential areas by blocking cold winds from reaching homes, protect public health by removing harmful air pollutants; use the natural processes of trees to lower temperatures and absorb carbon dioxide; lower electric bills for ratepayers by limiting electricity consumption without reducing benefits; relieve financial and peak-load demand pressure on the utility; protect water quality and public health by reducing and cooling stormwater runoff and keeping pollutants out of waterways, with special attention given to those vital for salmon; ensure the trees are planted in locations that limit the amount of public funding needed to maintain infrastructure; and measure program performance in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted”.)

It “encourages” PUDs to assist their customers in the acquisition and installation of materials and equipment, for compensation or otherwise, for the conservation or more efficient use of energy, including through a cool roof program. The use of appropriate tree plantings for energy conservation is “highly” encouraged as part of these programs.

It now specifies that municipal utilities are authorized to fund tree planting as part of their energy conservation programs.

It adds tree planting programs and cool roof programs to the energy efficiency programs on which private utilities are authorized to earn a 2% incentive rate of return.

The bill also allows PUDs, private gas and electric companies, and municipal utilities to fund tree planting programs with the voluntary donations for urban forestry they’re already authorized to encourage their customers to make.

HB1091

HB1091 – Implements a low-carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island) (Co-Sponsor Slatter – D) (Requested by the Governor)
Current status –
Conference committee version passed by both houses.
In the House – Passed
Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 21st. Had a hearing in Appropriations on February 4th; replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 9th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 16th, was amended, and passed out of committee as a 3rd Substitute on the 19th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 27th. Returned to the House by the Senate for possible concurrence with amendments there; the House refused to concur in the changes April 20th, and asked the Senate to agree to its version. Conference committee report signed April 24. Passed by the House April 25th.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 10th; replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing March 27th; replaced by a much weakened striker, amended, and passed out of committee April 1st. Referred to Rules April 2nd; amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 8th. The Senate declined to accept the House version, and the bill went to conference committee. Conference committee report signed April 24. Passed by the Senate April 25th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
(The original bill was an updated version of HB1036, but the only substantive change was requiring fuels to have associated emissions at least 20% below 2017 levels to generate credits.)
The current price of CO2e reductions under California’s low carbon fuel standard is $200/metric ton; in Oregon it’s roughly $100/tonne.

Summary –
Conference Committee Striker –
This slows the rate at which reductions in fuel carbon intensity need to be made by dropping the provision for a step up to 2.5% reductions in 2032 and 2034. This delays the point at which a 10% reduction is reached by several years, and creates a pause at that level; it now requires a JLARC report on the program and a legislative review at that point before continuing the program, rather than requiring the reauthorization in the Senate’s version. It moves the date for reaching a 20% reduction out to 2038. Like the Senate bill, it drops the House provision that said Ecology had to require any additional reductions after 2031 that were needed to meet the State’s targets. It makes the implementation of the bill dependent on an increase of at least five cents a gallon in the gas tax rather than the additional $500 million in transportation funding added in the Senate’s version.

It makes the continuation of the program past the 10% reduction level dependent on at least a 15% increase in biofuel production and in state feedstocks, and on the approval beyond appeals of at least one new or expanded facility increasing biofuel capacity by more than sixty million gallons a year. (It says this expansion must include at least one new facility producing at least ten million gallons a year.) It also expands the severability clause to specify that the rest of the act is still to be enforced if these provisions are held to be invalid.

The striker drops the provision specifying that broadband investments generate credits, but adds a provision to the House definition of a credit saying that they can be generated by “other activities consistent with this chapter.” It allows up to 10% of total credits to be generated by state investments reducing transportation GHG emissions and decarbonizing the sector. It drops the Senate’s provisions about limiting SEPA review for new biofuel facilities and requiring the evaluation of their net cumulative emissions.

The final version caps the price of credits in the clearance market in 2023 at $200 (in 2018 dollars); it’s limited to inflation increases after that. It follows the Senate version in requiring Ecology to hold a clearance market if any covered facility is short of credits, allows carrying forward deficits, requires Ecology to undertake an exploration of the root causes for a shortfall after two deficit periods,  and allows it to implement remedies for the problem (subject to some prohibitions). It follows the Senate in requiring electric utilities to spend 50% of their revenue from credits they generate on transportation projects  that Ecology and DOT decide produce the largest reductions in GHG emissions, rather than on the vehicle purchase incentives the House specified. It adds that they “should consider” projects expanding low and moderate income access to zero-emission transportation.

The conference version kept the Senate provision requiring deferral of compliance obligations for at least a quarter and up to four years if the forecast projected there were not going to be enough available credits to meet covered parties’ obligations, requiring an emergency deferral if there was not an adequate supply of renewable fuels for reasons that couldn’t have been foreseen or prevented, and providing a full or partial deferral for an individual party unable to comply for reasons beyond its control. It drops the House and Senate provisions about a WSU study of least conflict sites and a stakeholder process about mitigation of impacts, and has Ecology and Commerce make recommendations about improvements to permitting processes for industrial projects and facilities, and mitigations of their environmental impacts instead.

It makes the expedited Energy Facility Site Evaluation permitting process an option for smaller biofuel facilities capable of producing between 1,500 and 25,000 barrels a day.

Senate floor amendments –
These prohibit Ecology from raising the standard after 2026 unless a new biofuels production facility producing more than sixty million gallons of biofuels a year has been successfully permitted, and there’s been at least a 25% increase in the volume of in-state biofuel production and the use of agricultural feedstocks grown within the state. They require the program to generate credits for investments funded in an omnibus transportation act that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize the sector, but allow Ecology to limit the number of those that can be earned each year. They require rule making for the program to conform to the standards for significant rules under the Administrative Procedure Act; if funds are appropriated, they require the WSU Energy Program to consult with stakeholders and identify least conflict priority sites for projects to produce significant volumes of low carbon transportation fuel, require Ecology to periodically consult with stakeholders to identify and discuss mitigation of significant likely environmental impacts associated with them, and require periodic reporting to the Legislature on a range of issues about them.

In Ways and Means –
The striker replaced the requirement for a 2028 standard 10% below 2017 levels with a set of stepped reductions producing a maximum reduction of 4% by then, followed by maximum reductions of 1%/yr through 2031, and 2.5% a year through 2034. It no longer requires Ecology to update the rules to produce emission reductions through 2050 consistent with the state’s targets. It requires the passage of “a separate additive transportation funding act” generating more than $500 million/biennium in revenue before Ecology can actually activate the program. [This is the same provision recently attached to the cap & trade bill.] It no longer has Ecology design mechanisms to provide a financial disincentive for relying on the mechanisms for cost compliance, and directs the department to hold a credit clearance market for any period where at least one regulated party is short of credits. It caps the maximum price for credits in the clearance market at $200, adjusted for inflation. [This is about their current price in the California market.] It requires Ecology to evaluate the net cumulative GHG emissions for new or expanded facilities that would require a SEPA review and would result in annual GHG over 25,000 MT per year, including any net displacement of global emissions.  [This involves estimates like the controversial ones for the Kalama methanol proposal, where the proponents claimed that the methanol would be used in China to produce plastics with fewer emissions than what would be used to make them there otherwise.] It requires 50% of an electric utility’s revenues from credits to be used for activities and projects that Ecology and the Department of Transportation jointly decide do the most to reduce GHG emissions and decarbonize transportation. If the forecast projects there will be less than 100% of the credits needed to comply with the requirements during a compliance period the bill requires Ecology to issue a deferral, adjusting the requirement temporarily, using the requirement for the previous period, suspending the calculation of deficits, or taking other measures needed to keep the costs of credits under the cap. The bill no longer allows broadband projects to generate credits, and makes some other minor changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment requires Ecology to use the standard for the previous period if it determines before the beginning of 2026 or 2028 that available in-state feedstocks for the program are less than 25% of what’s needed for compliance.

In the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology –
The striker in committee made a number of modest adjustments to the bill which are summarized by staff at the end of it; the amendment specified that utility credits for providing power from a zero emission resource for transportation are only available for electricity supplied to a metered customer for charging or refueling, and limits the required mechanisms for assigning credits to charging in a utility’s service area. (Ecology could apparently still decide to assign them for providing charging beyond that area.)

Amendments on the House Floor –
Amendments required Ecology’s reports on health benefits to distinguish between those from the Clean Fuel Standard and those from vehicle efficiency improvements; authorized credits for broadband investments facilitating remote work and required Ecology to create a metric for them; removed expedited site review for clean fuel projects; created a program to identify least conflict priority sites for them; required periodic consultation with stakeholders on mitigation for probable environmental impacts from them and reporting to the Legislature on mitigation, funding needs, permitting, and environmental review; and allowed nonprofit and public entities to earn credits from fueling battery or fuel cell vehicles. Representative Fitzgibbon’s amendment and Representative Paul’s amendment each made a number of changes which are summarized at the bottom of those. (All the amendments are available at the bottom of the bill page.)

Second substitute adopted by House Environment and Energy –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the second substitute at the beginning of that. An additional amendment in the House Transportation Committee would require Ecology to expedite processing of environmental reviews under the State Environmental Policy Act and permit applications for projects related to producing low-carbon transportation fuels.

Substitute adopted by House Environment and Energy –
There’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of the substitute. (They include requiring 50% of the revenue to go to reducing the cost of new electric vehicle leases and purchases, and giving utilities credits for electricity used in residential charging.)

Original Bill –
The Department of Ecology is to establish rules to reduce the intensity of transportation fuels, including electricity, used in the state. They’re to take effect January 1st, 2023, and to reduce the full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions attributable to fuels other than electricity to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (By 2031, Ecology is to update them so emissions from transportation sources will meet the state’s target of a 95% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.)

The rules are to create a system of trackable, verifiable, tradeable, and bankable credits, generating a credit (or a deficit) when the production, importing, or dispensing of fuel with a lower (or a higher) carbon intensity than the department’s standard results in the emission of a metric ton of CO2e. The estimates of greenhouse gas emissions may not privilege fuels from any particular places, and must reflect the carbon intensity of each electric utility’s mix of generation sources. The rules must include cost containment mechanisms, such as provisions allowing the department to establish a credit clearance market and sell credits at a price it sets after the end of each compliance period, a similar means for complying if participants haven’t been able to acquire enough credits to meet the requirements by the end of a period, and a similar means of ensuring that the prices of credits don’t significantly exceed those of credits in similar programs in other jurisdictions. (Such mechanisms must be designed to financially disincentivize participants from relying on them rather than reducing emissions.) Persons associated with the supply chains of transportation fuels covered by the program and those generating credits from fuels that are not covered by the program may elect to participate in the market. (The department may also designate an entity to aggregate and use credits generated by any persons covered by the program that generate credits but choose not to participate.)

Electricity and fuels used by aircraft, vessels, railroad locomotives, and military vehicles are not covered by the program. Fuel for off-road logging vehicles, construction and mining, and agriculture isn’t covered until 2028, but can be used to generate credits and trade them before then. Ecology is also authorized to allow the generation of credits associated with electric or alternative transportation infrastructure that already exists when the bill becomes effective.

The rules must allow generating credits from providing zero emission vehicle refueling infrastructure and other low carbon fuel infrastructure including, fast charging battery electric vehicle infrastructure and hydrogen electric vehicle refueling infrastructure. They may allow generating credits from any activities that reduce emissions in the state, including carbon capture and sequestration projects, such as innovative crude oil production projects including carbon capture and sequestration; refinery investments in it; or direct air capture projects; and fueling of vehicles with electricity the department certifies as net-zero. (This must include electricity for which a renewable energy credit or other environmental attribute has been retired or used only for purposes of the program; electricity produced using a zero emission resource that’s directly supplied as a transportation fuel by its generator, and the smart charging of an electric vehicle when the carbon intensity of grid electricity is comparatively low.) The department’s to periodically consult with an advisory panel, including representatives of forestland and agricultural landowners, on how to best incentivize and allot credits for sequestration through activities on agricultural and forestlands. It may set yearly limits on the credits that can be generated by emissions reducing activities that it chooses to include, providing those “take into consideration” the return on investment needed for it to be financially viable.

Before each compliance period, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Agriculture and Ecology, is to estimate whether the expected supply of low-carbon fuels will generate enough credits to meet the program’s compliance requirements.

Utilities must spend half of their low carbon fuel standard revenues from supplying retail customers on projects supporting the use of electrification or renewable hydrogen in transportation. Sixty percent of that must go to projects in or directly benefiting areas with high levels of air pollution or disproportionately impacted communities identified by the department of health. Ecology may adopt requirements, developed in consultation with utilities, for spending the other half of these revenues.

Details –
Calculations of life-cycle emissions may include “changes in land use associated with transportation fuels and any permanent greenhouse gas sequestration activities”, and may consider the efficiency of a fuel as used in a powertrain.

The department may obtain additional information it needs to estimate fuel emissions from suppliers and utilities; companies covered by the program should be allowed to demonstrate appropriate carbon intensity values to the department if that doesn’t counter the reduction goals of the program or prove administratively burdensome.

It’s to try to harmonize the rules with those of other states that have adopted low carbon fuel standards or similar requirements for low-carbon transportation fuels and that supply (or might supply) significant quantities of those to the state, or get them from us.

There are variety of reporting requirements. The bill allows Ecology to collect fees from participants to to cover the costs of administering the program. It extends the current penalties for violations of air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee is to report to the Legislature on a variety of issues about the program after five years, including its costs and benefits, associated emissions reductions, and its effects on employment and fuel prices. The bill removes a poison pill provision about the transfer of transportation funds which has been intended to block adoption of the standard.

HB1050

HB1050 – Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from hydrofluorocarbons.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 15th. Replaced by a substitute, amended in a couple of minor ways, and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; replaced by a 2nd substitute and voted out February 11th. Referred to Rules February 15th. Passed out of Rules, amended on the floor, and passed by the House February 23rd. The House concurred in the Senate’s amendments April 12th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 16th; replaced by a striker and voted out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing March 30th. Amended, passed out of committee, and referred to Rules April 2nd. Passed by the Senate April 7th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill included an amendment to the current law on utilities’ conservation requirements saying utilities had to “consider the nonenergy impacts associated with the generation of electricity as well as from other sources, including refrigerants” in assessing conservation, but that vague and sweeping language has been dropped in the substitute.

Summary –
Ways and Means Amendment –
This required the Building Code Council to solicit input from stakeholder organizations and experts on potential low global warming  substitutes and  equipment before adopting rules about refrigeration or air conditioning systems that use them.

Senate Environment, Energy and Technology Striker –
It made a number of minor technical and procedural changes, which are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes at the beginning of the substitute, and there’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the second substitute at the beginning of that. The House made one minor amendment on the floor, and passed one joke amendment. (They’re at the bottom of the bill page.)

Original bill –
The bill expands the provisions of the 2019 legislation limiting the uses of hydrofluorocarbons (HB1112). It authorizes setting a limit on the global warming potential of any substitute for the chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and other Class I and Class II chemicals regulated under the Federal Ozone Protection Act that’s used as a refrigerant, and authorizes regulating their use in stationary air conditioning in steps over time. (The findings say these are conditional, but I don’t think the language of Section 8 of the bill actually says that.) It does authorize the Department of Ecology to regulate the use of refrigerants in light duty vehicles, conditional on another state’s doing that, and subject to the EPA’s rules on the acceptable conditions for using various substitutes.

The bill requires Ecology to establish a refrigerant management program to lower the emissions from those  to the levels of achievable superior performance established for the EPA’s voluntary greenchill program. It requires operators of equipment with more than 50 pounds of charging capacity to register it with the department. (Larger equipment using a refrigerant that is not a Class I or II chemical, and has a global warming potential less than 150 is also exempt.) Owners of registered equipment must inspect them for leaks periodically and after recharging them, as well as providing leak rate documentation to prospective purchasers. The Department is to establish requirements for reporting on systems, and for repairing leaks; it may establish regulations for servicing them, a policy for applying for exemptions, and a system for collecting fees to cover the costs of the program.

The bill extends the current rules for reducing emissions from ozone-depleting substances to cover these substitutes. (Those include requiring recovering them when servicing, repairing, or disposing of various cooling equipment, and prohibiting their use in containers for consumers to use in recharging appliances or vehicle air conditioning systems.) The bill directs the state building code council to adopt codes allowing the maximum use of substitutes with lower global warming potentials, and intended to minimize leakage.  It establishes a state procurement preference for recycled refrigerants.

It also says that utilities “must consider” the nonenergy impacts associated with the generation of electricity as well as from other sources, including refrigerants, in assessing the cost-effective, reliable, and feasible energy conservation they’re legally required to pursue.

The bill requires the Department to make recommendations on the end-of-life management and disposal of refrigerants to the Legislature by December 1st 2021, after soliciting feedback from potentially impacted parties and the public. These must include the legal and financial obligations of manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, equipment owner-operators and service technicians to support or participate in the program; a funding mechanism for refrigerant recovery and disposal activities including a financial incentive for the recovery and emission-reducing management of refrigerants; and performance goals and operational standards for activities to collect, transport, and recycle, reuse, or dispose of refrigerants.

Details –
The bill doesn’t cover chillers. It allows manufacturers to disclose a product’s compliance with the regulations as an alternative to identifying the substances used in labels on products and equipment. It extends the current penalty system for violations of the air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements.

SB5026

SB5026 – Authorizes ports’ purchases of zero and near zero emissions cargo handling equipment; prohibits purchase of automated container cargo handling equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsor Cleveland – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Transportation January 25th; referred to the Committee on Housing and Local Government and had a hearing there on Tuesday, February 2nd. Passed out of committee February 10th, and referred to Rules. Passed out of Rules, amended on the floor and passed by the Senate February 23rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Local Government. Had a hearing on March 10th, and passed out of committee March 12th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes purchases of zero and near zero emissions cargo handling equipment for the use of a port district, a port development authority, or its tenants or lessees. It also prohibits the purchase of any container cargo handling equipment that’s remotely operated or remotely monitored. (I think the floor amendment in the Senate would make the bill expire ten years from now, at the end of 2031, though the staff summary only says it expires the prohibition on fully automated equipment.)

SB5022

SB5022 – Implements a minimum recycled content requirement for plastic beverage containers, prohibits the sale and distribution of some polystyrene products, and establishes optional serviceware requirements. (Changed title)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsor Rolfes – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing for a substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 26th. Passed out of committee February 3rd; referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 16th. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 18th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker and further amended on the floor; passed the Senate March 2nd. Senate concurred in the House amendments April 19th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing on March 11th and 12th. Replaced by another striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing April 1st. Was replaced by yet another striker, amended, and passed out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd. Amended on the floor and passed by the House April 7th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1118 is an identical companion bill.
The sponsors have a flyer summarizing the bill. (My summary, based on my reading of the original text of the bill, differs from this in some ways.)

Comments –
The bill says a lot about collections, but almost nothing about how producers are expected to deal with the responsibility of sorting or processing the products they’ve collected, though I think its definitions of what counts as a measured “recycled” material imply that responsibility.

It says producers are required to invest in recycling and reuse infrastructure and marketing development, including paying for equipment upgrades, new technology, and new facilities, but without any discussion of how those investments are to be determined or what limits there may be to them.

The bill’s language is all about jurisdictions and companies collecting “source separated” materials. I think most collection processes currently let residents put everything in one bin, and try to separate everything later.

It says jurisdictions “may” contract with producer organizations to provide collection services, and that if producers contract for services with them they have to pay their reasonable costs. (I assume that is also supposed to mean that jurisdictions can’t ask for more than that, though the bill doesn’t seem to say that.)

I have no idea how many different producer responsibility organizations would emerge from the bill’s requirements. It allows the creation of one producer organization for all materials, one for each category of material, and even separate organizations for some big brands, like a company running its own bottle deposit program.

Summary –
House floor amendments –
One of these revised the provisions for collecting fees from producers to cover Ecology’s costs. The other lets Ecology temporarily exclude containers from the content requirements if a producer demonstrates annually that it isn’t technically feasible to meet them because of Federal health or safety requirements, added consumer electronics and personal care products representatives to the stakeholder committee, and made some other minor adjustments.

Appropriations striker and amendments –
(The materials folder for this meeting doesn’t have the usual indications of whether amendments were approved or not, so I’m assuming they were all approved, which may not be right.) The striker retained some of the changes in the committee striker, and made other small adjustments; the changes are summarized at the end of it. One amendment would exempt styrofoam food service containers from the prohibition if they had at least 25% postconsumer recycled (PCR) content beginning in 2023, 50% PCR content beginning in 2030, and 75% PCR content beginning in 2035; the others made minute changes.

House committee striker and amendments –
The striker made a lot of small changes and adjustments which are summarized at the end of it. One amendment would make the requirements for postrecycled content in plastic mini wine bottles the same as those for dairy milk bottles. The other would create an impartial third party facilitator for the stakeholders’ advisory committee, with specified qualifications and responsibilities; have its members selected by the facilitator rather than Legislative leaders; and making some other minor changes that are summarized at the end of it.

Striker and other Senate floor amendments –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made in the striker at the end of that. (It added recycled content requirements for plastic trash bags and for household cleaning and personal care product containers, and made quite a few other small changes.) The other amendments created a stakeholder advisory committee to make recommendations on developing recycled content requirements for plastic packaging, and made a tiny technical clarification.

Substitute –
The substitute heard in committee would actually only implement a minimum recycled content requirement for plastic beverage containers, prohibit the sale and distribution of some polystyrene products, and establish optional serviceware requirements; it doesn’t include provisions about extended producer responsibility any more. There’s now a staff summary of these and other changes in the substitute, at the end of the bill report. (The amendments in Ways and Means were minor, but one changed the actual title of the bill to reflect the big changes made in the substitute.)

Original –
The bill creates producer responsibility requirements for brand owners of products, covering all packaging and paper goods sold or supplied to customers for residential use. (It expands the recommendations of the studies on plastics ordered by the Legislature a few years ago.) Producers are responsible for paying for collecting recyclables by contracting with cities and with private contractors currently collecting source separated material, or by setting up parallel operations. They are responsible for processing materials up to the point at which they could be reused. (For example, plastics would have to be ready to be flaked or pelletized; metals would have to be ready to be smelted.) The bill exempts producers selling, distributing or importing less than a ton of material, or with aggregate revenue of less than $1 million from covered products.

Their responsibilities can be met by joining producers’ organizations, or individually. Producers’ plans for meeting the requirements must be informed by public comment, as well as consultation with stakeholders and an advisory committee with specified membership; submitted by July 1, 2024; reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology; and implemented within the next year. The Department is authorized to add requirements to these plans. (They’re to be updated on a five year cycle.)

Plans must cover how producers will:
1. use and interact with existing recycling programs and infrastructure, including a description of procurement practices;
2. increase the reuse, refill, and recyclability of covered products;
3. work with and achieve the goals of underserved and underrepresented communities that bear a disproportionate share of adverse environmental, social justice, and economic impacts through socially just management practices including community outreach and engagement in the appropriate language of the impacted communities and meaningful consultation;
4. increase the efficiency of the system for collecting and managing covered products through reuse and recycling;
5. retain producers’ right of first refusal on recycled materials produced from products they collect;
6. identify market engagement strategies to improve effectiveness and efficiency and ensure open competition among waste management service providers when obtaining collection and recycling services, including strategies that involve the use of competitive tenders or open-market financial incentives;
7. describe how they intend to meet the bill’s requirements for providing convenient collection of materials, including the jurisdictions where curbside collection is available, the location of permanent collection facilities, the types and locations of alternate collection methods, and the locations of services collecting materials in public places;
8. list the products they are required to collect and the types of facilities or locations where those are to be collected;
9. include a plan to minimize the amount, cost, and toxicity of residuals from the collection and processing of covered materials, including residuals from materials recovery facilities or similar facilities producing specification-grade commodities for sale (but not residuals from further processing of end market-ready material);
10. include a plan for collecting, transporting, and processing covered products to ensure responsible management and recycling, including meeting the bill’s reuse and recycling performance requirements, providing material that will assist producers in meeting its recycled content requirements, and ensuring covered products intended for collection don’t contain toxic substances;
11. provide for equitable provision of recycling collection services in the state; and environmentally sound and socially just management practices for worker health and safety;
12. describe how producer fees and adjustments to them will encourage design for recycling and litter prevention;
13.  include a plan for reducing contamination from covered products at compost or other organics processing facilities, including improving decontamination equipment and conducting packaging contamination composition studies;
14. plan for the education and outreach the bill requires, including how cities and counties will be involved in and reimbursed for education and outreach activities supporting the achievement of the bill’s requirements; and,
15. describe the dispute resolution process to be used, as needed, with residents, collectors, processors, producers, and end-market users of materials.

Producers are required to manage the products they collect in an “environmentally sound” and “socially just” manner, with human health and environmental protection standards equivalent to or better than those required in the US and other countries in the OECD. (“Environmentally sound” means they comply with laws and rules protecting workers, public health, and the environment; provide for adequate recordkeeping, tracking, and documenting of the fate of materials within the state and beyond; and include environmental liability coverage for the producers.  “Socially just” means that their practices allow every individual the same economic, political, and social rights, privileges, and opportunities, and that they don’t disproportionately impact any community, and in particular communities in the state or elsewhere, with disproportionately higher levels of adverse environmental, social justice, and economic impacts.) [Among other things, these definitions apparently mean that any recycling in other countries must comply with US labor and environmental standards.] They have to track and verify that products collected by their programs are managed responsibly, and report on that publically. (They also have to document how they’ve used domestic and local collection and processing infrastructure, and the extent to which using those to meet the requirements of the bill is technologically feasible and economically practical.)

The bill requires “all covered products” to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2030.  (Converting covered materials to energy, fuels, or landfill cover does not count as recycling them.) By 2026, at least 5% of all covered products must actually be reused, and at least 55% must actually be reused or recycled. By 2030, at least 10% of all covered products must actually be reused, and at least 75% must actually be reused or recycled. (There are also requirements specifying percentages of reuse and recycling by 2026 and 2030 for different categories of materials, increasing from those for flexible plastics to those for glass.) It prohibits the sale or distribution of various styrofoam containers, packing peanuts, and restaurant items. It creates fines of $250 for violations of the styrofoam rules (and of up to $1,000 for repeat violations). Violations of the rest of the new chapter are subject to fines of up to $1,000 a day (and of up to $10,000 a day for willful or negligent  violations).

The bill includes requirements for the use of post-consumer recycled content in covered products, with varying dates and percentages for different products and materials, ranging from 10% of the content of flexible plastics by 2026 and 50% by 2030 up to 50% of the content of paper packaging by 2026 and 75% by 2030. Beverage containers are to include at least 25% recycled plastic starting in 2025, and at least 50% by 2030. The bill allows producers or their organizations to trade credits to meet these obligations.

Ecology is authorized to waive or reduce the bill’s requirements for post-consumer recycled content in a variety of ways in response to a number of specified factors, and must consider doing that every two years and in response to producer petitions, but no more than once a year. Starting in 2028, Ecology would also be authorized to modify or lower the reuse and recycling performance requirements in response to the markets for them and other specified factors, to expand them to include other materials, and to set requirements for dates beyond 2030.

The bill requires producer organizations to invest in reuse and recycling infrastructure and market development in the state, including installing or upgrading equipment to improve sorting and mitigate impacts of commodities at existing sorting and processing facilities, and capital expenditures for new technology, equipment, and facilities.

The bill requires producers to develop education and outreach programs to provide clear, equitable, socially just, and consistent information to residents, supporting the achievement of the reuse and recycling requirements. Programs must:
1. use consistent and easy to understand messaging to reduce residents’ confusion about the recycling and end-of-life management options available for different products;
2. establish a process for answering customer questions and resolving their concerns;
3. provide resources that are appropriate for the communities served and reach diverse ethnic populations, including through meaningful consultation with communities with higher levels of adverse environmental and social justice impacts;
4. develop and provide materials about the program for retailers, collectors, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations;
5. inform producers and retailers about their obligation to sell only covered products from producers participating in an approved plan; and
6. evaluate the effectiveness of education and outreach efforts.

Producer organizations must ensure convenient collection services for their covered products are available in jurisdictions where they supply them. Curbside collection of covered products (except for products designated for “alternative collection” because they aren’t suitable for curbside pickup) must be provided wherever there’s curbside garbage collection; in other areas, free and accessible access to permanent collection facilities must be provided at all solid waste transfer, disposal, and processing sites. At least 90% of residents must have access to a permanent site within 15 miles, and to an additional permanent site for every 30,000 residents in urban areas; underserved areas have to be provided with reasonably located and frequent collection events.

Jurisdictions may or may not choose to collaborate or contract with producers to provide collection services, or education and outreach activities required by the bill. In areas where solid waste collection is provided by companies regulated by the UTC, source separated curbside collection of recyclables for residents is to be provided where there’s curbside garbage collection (though companies can be exempted by the UTC if they haven’t already been providing that service or relinquish their right to provide it.) If they do provide it, producers must pay for the service according to the rates established by the commission, and pay any taxes and fees that would otherwise be paid by residents.

When producers contract with jurisdictions or companies to provide services required by the bill they have to use open, competitive, and fair procurement practices; compensate cities and counties that provide collection or outreach services for all their reasonable costs; ensure that all contracted service providers meet minimum operating standards, operate in an environmentally sound and socially just manner, meet high labor standards, demonstrate procurement from and contracts with women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses, provide fair opportunities without discrimination; and maintain the records and chain of custody documentation needed to decide if they’ve met the bill’s requirements.

Details –

The Department of Ecology is to collect annual payments from producers that cover the costs of administering the program, and is authorized to establish equitable ways to divide those costs among producers. (Producers are prohibited from charging consumers “non-reimbursable point of sale fees” to cover these costs.) Producer organizations charging their members for the costs of implementing the plan must structure those in “an environmentally sound and socially just manner that encourages the use of design attributes that reduce the environmental impacts of covered products”, through steps such as adjusting charges to favor designs that facilitate reuse and recycling and the use of recycled content; discourage the use of materials that increase the costs of managing covered products; and encourage other design attributes that reduce the environmental impacts of covered products, including the potential to create litter.

There are various reporting, auditing, and verification requirements; Ecology’s authorized  to expand these. Appeals of penalties for violations are to be handled through Ecology’s existing appeal processes.

Producers and producer organizations must establish and fund advisory committees with a specified range of representatives. They can sue for their costs for dealing with materials created by other producers who haven’t participated or haven’t met the bill’s requirements.

Programs using any advanced technology to convert used plastic polymers into recycled material have to provide Ecology with a third-party assessment of its potential impacts on air and water pollution, the release or creation of any hazardous pollutants, and the full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the facility, including the final use of products.

SB5008

SB5008 – Revives B&O tax exemption for Bonneville funds utilities spend on low-income bill assistance or weatherization.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Robinson (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Short)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 21st; referred to Ways & Means. Had a hearing there on March 11th, and passed out of committee March 18th. Referred to Rules March 19th, and passed the Senate April 11th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing April 16th; referred to Rules, and passed the House unanimously April 22nd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
An identical measure (HB2505) was sponsored in 2020 by Senator Robinson (who was then a Representative). It passed both houses unanimously and was signed by the Governor, then vetoed right afterwards as the pandemic’s potential effects on the budget became clear.

A similar exemption was created by the Legislature in 2010 and expired in June 2015. In the 2018 session, Senator Hobbs’s SB6323 proposed reviving it through 2029, but that bill died in the Ways and Means Committee. (At that point, the fiscal note estimated that the bill would reduce the general fund by $600,000 in the first biennium, and $1.2 million per biennium going forward.)

Summary –

The bill creates an exemption from the B&O tax for funds utilities receive from the Bonneville Power Administration as credits against contracts, for energy conservation, or for demand-side management, provided that they use that money for bill assistance or weatherization for low-income customers, and that it’s an addition to what they would be spending in any case. (The exemption would expire in ten years, though the bill declares the intention of making it permanent.)

SB5000

SB5000 – Creates a different sales and use tax exemption for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hawkins (R; 19th District; Wenatchee) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 21st; had a hearing on a substitute bill in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 26th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of Transportation February 11th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 18th. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 3rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Finance. Had a hearing March 15th, and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing March 29th and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules. Passed the House April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The State’s current tax exemptions for clean alternative fuel vehicles already cover the same vehicles. However, the current exemptions will step down on August 1st, 2021; again two years later; and then end July 31st, 2025. This bill’s exemptions might last through 2030, if its caps at 650 new and 650 used vehicles aren’t reached before then. (The bill specifies that you can’t claim both its exemptions and the current ones.) During the overlap, which exemptions are more generous may depend on the cost of the sale or lease, and which period it occurs in; I haven’t tried to work through the various possibilities.

The program is to be funded by transfers from the electric vehicle account established in RCW 46.17.324, which has received a $75 piece of the EV registration fees since October 2019. (That fee will currently expire in 2025, five years before the expiration of this pilot program, but I don’t know how much money may have accumulated in the account.)

Summary –
Amendments in Ways and Means –
One allowed PUDs to produce renewable hydrogen from non-emitting sources (like nuclear) as well as from renewable resources; the second one removed the feasibility study.

Substitute –
The substitute adds a study of the feasibility of converting public fleet vehicles to hydrogen fuel cell technology including infrastructure needs, manufacturing capabilities, estimated price differences and total cost of ownership comparisons for diesel, electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; and recommendations on how to cost-effectively deploy and operate fuel cell technology. The 2nd substitute, by Senator Hobbs, made the WSDOT study of the feasibility of converting pubic fleets to hydrogen dependent on specific funding for that being included in the transportation budget,

Original bill –
Establishes a pilot program exempting the sale or lease of fuel cell passenger cars, light duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles from 50% of the State’s sales and use taxes. Completely exempts up to $16,000 of the cost of the sale or lease of a used fuel cell vehicle from these taxes.

The exemptions would be available for up to eight years, beginning on July 1, 2022; however, the exemptions for new vehicles and for used ones would each be capped at 650 transactions. (There are reporting requirements, and provisions for an analysis of the program’s effectiveness in promoting the technology by the joint legislative audit and review committee.)