Category Archives: Other 2024

HB2401

HB2401 – Managing refrigerant gases used in appliances or other infrastructure.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Ramel, Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Appropriations and scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
There’s a staff summary of the original bill and one of the substitute on the tracking page.

HB2483

HB2483 – Regulating and encouraging biochar production from agricultural and forestry biomass.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Shavers & Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would add producing biochar using mobile units with reduced emissions relative to open burning, and consuming less than 150 green tons a month of clean cellulosic biomass, to the list of alternative forestry disposal practices DNR is currently supposed to encourage. Those materials are defined as residuals from agricultural and forest-derived biomass including green wood, forest thinnings, wood pellets and various kinds of waste; urban wood including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass; corn stover and other crops used specifically for the production of biofuels; bagasse and other crop residues; and wood collected from fire clearance, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, and clean biomass from land clearing. (Materials couldn’t contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass.)

You’d need a burning permit from DNR to produce biochar with biomass from forestry operations, and a burning permit from Ecology to produce it from agricultural waste. including a fee of $1 per ton of waste.

HB2405

HB2405 – Integrating sustainability factors into the State Investment Board’s activities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr; (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Ramel, Berry – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the State Investment Board to integrate sustainability factors into its investment decision making, investment analysis, portfolio construction, due diligence, and investment ownership. Those would include specified corporate governance and leadership factors, and environmental factors that might have an adverse or positive financial impact on investment performance. They’d include social capital factors that impact relationships with outside parties, including human rights, customer welfare, customer privacy, data security, access and affordability, selling practices and product labeling, community reinvestment, and community relations. They’d also include human capital factors such as labor practices, responsible contractor and responsible bidder policies, employee health and safety, employee engagement, diversity and inclusion, and incentives and compensation. They’d include business model and innovation factors that reflect an ability to plan and forecast opportunities and risks, such as supply chain management, materials sourcing and efficiency, business model resilience, product design and life-cycle management, and physical impacts of climate change.

The bill would allow analyzing these factors in a variety of ways, including considering direct financial impacts and risks; legal, regulatory, and policy impacts and risks; performance in relation to industry norms, best practices, and competitive drivers; and effects of stakeholder engagement.

It would have the Board develop and publish proxy voting guidelines that recognize climate change as a business and systemic risk, and use its authority as a stockholder to mitigate these risks. The bill says it should support shareholder resolutions that call for entities to reduce activities that contribute to climate change, and provide public, written comments explaining why the board chose not to support them when it didn’t.

The bill would require an annual report from the Board to the House Capital Budget Committee and Senate Ways & Means on the environmental sustainability of its investment decision-making process, focusing on its process for identifying climate change-related risks and assessing the financial impact those have on the Board’s operations. The report would have to include actions the Board is taking to manage the risks climate change poses to its investment portfolio and strategies; its operations, and Federal climate-related reporting requirements.

The bill would require the State Auditor to conduct a comprehensive biannual evaluation of the Board’s proxy voting guidelines on climate risks, including consideration of how well the Board was conforming to those and to the bill’s investment guidelines. It would report to the Legislature on proxy votes cast in ways that promoted emissions targets required for keeping global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius, instances where proxy votes cast were effective in directing or maintaining guidance to directors to pursue the goals in those guidelines, the overall efficacy of the proxy voting guidelines, and recommendations for improvements.

HB2446

HB2446 – Providing increased funding for reforestation after wildfires and other destructive events.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Paul; (D; 10th District; Island County) (Co-Sponsor Dent – R)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill is nearly identical to SB6281. (However, that specifies that recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries; prioritizes direct reforestation, and specifies that funds could also be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program.)

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would have the Department of Natural Resources create a grant program for climate-informed reforestation after wildfires and other large scale events that damaged forest ecoservices. Grants would be available to tribal ownerships, nonprofit landowners and managers, industrial and nonindustrial private forestland owners, local governments, and other state agencies. Federal lands and lands directly managed by DNR would not be eligible, though recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries. The recipents’ share of the costs would be limited to 25%, including in-kind contributions. DNR would prioritize projects on private forest land where the owners weren’t required to replant; projects including reforesting riparian buffers, potentially unstable slopes, or other areas where state regulations restrict harvesting. The Department would set minimum and maximum sizes for the grants, and take environmental justice into consideration in making awards.

The bill would add the grant program and DNR’s own work reforesting after wildfires to the list of activities that can be funded by revenue from the Climate Commitment Act, and appropriate up to $10 million this fiscal year for each of these.

SB6278

SB6278 – Creating an organic and regenerative agriculture action plan for the State.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsors Muzzall – R; Billig, Nobles, Saldaña, and Valdez – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 25th. Replaced by a substitute adding one or more historically underserved farmers or ranchers to the task force and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Thw bill would have the Department of Agriculture create and chair an organic and regenerative agriculture task force, including representatives from 15 specified interests, organizations, and state agencies. It would be required to include representatives from large farming operations with gross receipts above $250,000 a year and from smaller operations with receipts below that as well as from farming operations on both sides of the Cascades.

The Department would be required to consult with the task force in developing an organic agriculture action plan, a guide to leveraging organic and regenerative agriculture to address economic, social, and environmental challenges, create opportunities for farmers wishing to transition to organic farming, increase resiliency in agricultural methods, and build a robust regional food system. The plan would include and provide recommendations on
(a) Identifying barriers to achieving organic certification and expanding organic markets;
(b) Defining regenerative agriculture and considering how and where it overlaps and interconnects with organic agriculture;
(c) Providing education to support job creation and retention in the organic sector;
(d) Ways to increase Washington’s certified organic acreage to 25% of agricultural land by 2035, and to increase the number of farmers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers transitioning to organic farming production and sales;
(e) Ways to support entry to organic farming, particularly among youth, overburdened communities, and black, indigenous, and other people of color;
(f) Ways to improve coordination of organic farming with food processing and distribution infrastructures;
(g) Options to increase revenue for organic farms, processors, wholesalers, and retailers, and enhance their sustainability;
(h) Ways to enhance soil health, water and air quality, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and improve on-farm resilience through organic or regenerative farming; and
(i) Research on topics specific to or relevant to organic and regenerative farming, including increasing crop productivity and quality, genetic biodiversity, and alternatives to synthetic pesticides.

The Department would provide a progress report on the development of the plan to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by November 2024, and submit the finished plan to them by the next November, including recommendations for legislative, administrative, or budgetary actions necessary to implement it, and on whether or not to continue the task force.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would also authorize the Department to reduce the fees for organic certification to decrease the financial burden of achieving or maintaining that and increase participation in organic agriculture.

SB6281

SB6281 – Increasing funding for reforestation after wildfires and other destructive events.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Warnick, Dozier & Short – R’s; Mullet – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 25th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
The bill is nearly identical to HB2446. (However, that does not specify that recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries; prioritize direct reforestation, or specify that funds could also be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program.)

In the Senate –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that. The amendment removed the provision allowing funding form the Climate Commitment Act to be used for the grant program or DNR’s wildfire reforestation programs.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would have the Department of Natural Resources create a grant program for climate-informed reforestation after wildfires and other large scale events that damaged forest ecoservices. Grants would be available to tribal ownerships, nonprofit landowners and managers, industrial and nonindustrial private forestland owners, local governments, and other state agencies. Federal lands and lands directly managed by DNR would not be eligible, though recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries. The recipents’ share of the costs would be limited to 25%, including in-kind contributions. DNR would prioritize projects on private forest land where the owners weren’t required to replant; projects including reforesting riparian buffers, potentially unstable slopes, or other areas where state regulations restrict harvesting; and direct reforestation. (Funds could be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program, though.) The Department would set minimum and maximum sizes for the grants, and take environmental justice into consideration in making awards.

The bill would add the grant program and DNR’s own work reforesting after wildfires to the list of activities that can be funded by revenue from the Climate Commitment Act, and appropriate up to $10 million this fiscal year for each of these.

SB6256

SB6256 – Creating consumer protections for purchasers of solar energy systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell)  (Co-Sponsors Conway, Hasegawa, Kuderer, Nobles, Saldaña, and Valdez – Ds) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce January 25th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2156 is a companion bill in the House.

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

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

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

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

SB6243

SB6243 – Exempting clean technology manufacturing from the business and occupation tax for ten years.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status –
Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade at 10:30 AM on Thursday, January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
THe bill would exempt manufacturing of clean technology in the state from the business and occupation tax. It would apply to manufacturing tangible property exclusively or primarily used in vehicles, vessels, and other modes of transportation that emit no exhaust gas other than water vapor; charging or fueling infrastructure for those; generation of renewable or green electrolytic hydrogen; production of energy from alternative resources; retrofitting megawatt-class diesel vehicles, vessels, and other modes of transportation to hybrid diesel-electric; production of clean fuels; and storage facilities for electricity, renewable hydrogen, green electrolytic hydrogen, or a green hydrogen carrier for subsequent delivery or consumption.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would measure the exemption’s effectiveness after eight years, evaluating the average construction wages for eligible projects; the number of jobs created in the clean technology sector; the use of apprenticeship programs and women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses by eligible projects; the degree to which the exemption encouraged manufacturing and component production for technologies reducing greenhouse gas emissions; whether facilities benefiting from it would have been developed without it; and any other relevant metric.

SB6112

SB6112 – Creating a ten year B&O tax credit for food donated by grocery stores and other retailers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Kuderer, Nguyen, Randall, Shewmake, Van De Wege, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Ways & Means on  January 18th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The buill would create a ten year business & occupation tax credit for 100% of the purchase price of food donations and 50% of the cost of fuel used by a distributor for transporting them to a food bank. It would be available to businesses retailing a general line of groceries, and they would be able to carry credits over for one year.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would evaluate the year-to-year change in the number of taxpayers claiming the credit and the amount claimed. The bill declares that the Legislature intends to extend the credit if the total value of donations has increased over the period of evaluation. (There’s no mention of a correction for inflation.)

SB6180

SB6180 – Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Torres, Warnick, and Jeff Wilson – Rs; Keiser, Nguyen, Salomon, and Valdez – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2301 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of the copy of it in the folder with materials for the executive session.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology’s Center for Sustainable Food Management to develop and administer new grant programs in consultation with the Department of Agriculture; some of these would support activities reducing emissions by diverting organic materials from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities, or through food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery. They would be administered to prioritize maximizing greenhouse gas emission reductions; eliminating barriers to the rescue and consumption of edible food that would otherwise be wasted; developing stable funding programs for potential recipients to be aware of; and preferring options according to a specified management hierarchy. If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the grants could be used for projects to prevent the surplus of unsold, uneaten food from food businesses or to improve procedures for food donations; projects to improve and reduce the transportation of donated foods and management of cold chains; programs to support the establishment and expansion of wasted food reduction programs to benefit vulnerable communities; and food waste tracking and analytics pilot projects. The Department could award these grants competitively or non-competitively, and would have to prioritize projects benefiting overburdened communities.

The Center would also be required to develop and administer grants to support the implementation of the bill’s requirements and those of chapter 180, Laws of 2022, which is about waste management and organic materials. Priority would be given to grants implementing source separated organics collection and programs for businesses that are required to arrange for organic material management. The Department would have to provide assistance to each local government that demonstrated eligibility for these grants, and would not be allowed to require matching funds from them.

The Center would convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to address mechanisms to mandate or otherwise improve the rescue of edible food waste from commercial generators, including food services, retail establishments, and food processors. It would consider timelines, exemptions, administration, enforcement, and other logistics to phase in edible food donation programs, incentives, or requirements; as well as the systems needed to support increased donations by commercial generators and whether that certain system components wewre in place before requiring any commercial donations. It would assess asset gaps and food infrastructure development needs, facilitate the creation of networks and partnerships to address those and develop innovative partnerships and models where appropriate. It would consider actions taken, costs, and lessons learned by other US jurisdictions with policies for reducing edible commercially generated food waste and through voluntary pilot projects carried out by commercial generators of food waste. Ecology would submit a report to the legislature by September 1, 2025, with the recommendations of the work group.

The bill would have the Department of Agriculture create a commodities donation grant program for one or more nonprofit food cooperative organizations to acquire food at risk of being wasted directly from food producers for distribution to hunger relief organizations. It would rely on existing infrastructure and similar current programs to maximize short term benefits and expedite grants; be designed to achieve efficiencies of scale, and give priority to organizations that have at least five years doing similar work. It would compensate producers for production costs and postharvest logistical and administrative costs that facilitated the acquisition and distribution of the food. The bill declares the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $25 million per biennium to this program.

The bill would double the size of the school awards in the Waste Not program, to $10,000 a year, and declare the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $1 million per biennium to that program.

After March 2027, jurisdictions accepting food waste in their source separated organics collection programs would be required to collect every week instead of 26 weeks a year, unless they reduced the volume or odor of the waste somehow and got a waiver from Ecology. Beginning in April 2030 jurisdictions would have to provide source-separated organic solid waste collection services to all customers, and accept food waste. With a few exceptions, everyone would have to use the curbside program to dispose of organics. The bill shifts the rules about exempted areas in various ways. It requires at least ten hours a year of independent training in organic materials management for compost and anaerobic digester facility managers and supervisors. Starting in 2026 it would require a business that generates at 96 gallons of organic waste a week to have management services for it. (Currently, this isn’t required unless you have at least 4 cubic yards a week.) It would require uniform color coding and labeling on collection bins across the state. It would prohibit using organic wastes contaminated with clopyralid, aminopyralid, or other picolinic acid herbicides as inputs or feedstocks in an organic materials management facility.

The bill would require packaging labels about food quality to say “Best by…” and those about food safety to say “Use by…”. It would prohibit labels saying “Sell by”, and labels saying “Pull by” or “Pull date” on perishable food packaging, though that information could be displayed in a date and month format that consumers couldn’t decipher readily. (You could still have labels indicating when food was packaged or processed, or saying it was best consumed within a certain number of days after being opened.) There’d be required signs about the new labeling in stores over 10,000 sq. ft. Authority to enforce the requirements could be delegated to local health jurisdictions, and would be required to primarily be in response to complaints; there’d be penalties of up to $500 a day for violations. The bill would also have the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology provide education and outreach activities, as well as technical assistance and guidance on request for businesses required to communicate a quality or safety date on food packaging. After two notices including information, violations of the bill’s labeling requirements would be subject to fines of up to $500 a day.

The bill would prohibit plastic stickers on produce, and add new specifications for when wood or fiber-based materials can be labeled “compostable”, and for coloring film plastic bags to help customers tell which are compostable and which need to be discarded as waste. It specifies requirements for labeling products as “home compostable.” It requires jurisdictions to notify Ecology if they choose to enforce the current prohibitions against claiming plastic products are “compostable” or “biodegradable” when they’re not.

It would authorize local jurisdictions to amend the State building code to provide adequate space for locating organic waste and recycling containers with garbage containers, or require posting of signs notifying residents where those containers are.

HB2301

HB2301 – Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Ormsby, Peterson, Pollet, Macri, Cortes, Shavers, Leavitt, and Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Appropriations; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6180 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology’s Center for Sustainable Food Management to develop and administer new grant programs in consultation with the Department of Agriculture; some of these would support activities reducing emissions by diverting organic materials from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities, or through food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery. They would be administered to prioritize maximizing greenhouse gas emission reductions; eliminating barriers to the rescue and consumption of edible food that would otherwise be wasted; developing stable funding programs for potential recipients to be aware of; and preferring options according to a specified management hierarchy. If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the grants could be used for projects to prevent the surplus of unsold, uneaten food from food businesses or to improve procedures for food donations; projects to improve and reduce the transportation of donated foods and management of cold chains; programs to support the establishment and expansion of wasted food reduction programs to benefit vulnerable communities; and food waste tracking and analytics pilot projects. The Department could award these grants competitively or non-competitively, and would have to prioritize projects benefiting overburdened communities.

The Center would also be required to develop and administer grants to support the implementation of the bill’s requirements and those of chapter 180, Laws of 2022, which is about waste management and organic materials. Priority would be given to grants implementing source separated organics collection and programs for businesses that are required to arrange for organic material management. The Department would have to provide assistance to each local government that demonstrated eligibility for these grants, and would not be allowed to require matching funds from them.

The Center would convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to address mechanisms to mandate or otherwise improve the rescue of edible food waste from commercial generators, including food services, retail establishments, and food processors. It would consider timelines, exemptions, administration, enforcement, and other logistics to phase in edible food donation programs, incentives, or requirements; as well as the systems needed to support increased donations by commercial generators and whether that certain system components wewre in place before requiring any commercial donations. It would assess asset gaps and food infrastructure development needs, facilitate the creation of networks and partnerships to address those and develop innovative partnerships and models where appropriate. It would consider actions taken, costs, and lessons learned by other US jurisdictions with policies for reducing edible commercially generated food waste and through voluntary pilot projects carried out by commercial generators of food waste. Ecology would submit a report to the legislature by September 1, 2025, with the recommendations of the work group.

The bill would have the Department of Agriculture create a commodities donation grant program for one or more nonprofit food cooperative organizations to acquire food at risk of being wasted directly from food producers for distribution to hunger relief organizations. It would rely on existing infrastructure and similar current programs to maximize short term benefits and expedite grants; be designed to achieve efficiencies of scale, and give priority to organizations that have at least five years doing similar work. It would compensate producers for production costs and postharvest logistical and administrative costs that facilitated the acquisition and distribution of the food. The bill declares the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $25 million per biennium to this program.

The bill would double the size of the school awards in the Waste Not program, to $10,000 a year, and declare the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $1 million per biennium to that program.

After March 2027, jurisdictions accepting food waste in their source separated organics collection programs would be required to collect every week instead of 26 weeks a year, unless they reduced the volume or odor of the waste somehow and got a waiver from Ecology. Beginning in April 2030 jurisdictions would have to provide source-separated organic solid waste collection services to all customers, and accept food waste. With a few exceptions, everyone would have to use the curbside program to dispose of organics. The bill shifts the rules about exempted areas in various ways. It requires at least ten hours a year of independent training in organic materials management for compost and anaerobic digester facility managers and supervisors. Starting in 2026 it would require a business that generates at 96 gallons of organic waste a week to have management services for it. (Currently, this isn’t required unless you have at least 4 cubic yards a week.) It would require uniform color coding and labeling on collection bins across the state. It would prohibit using organic wastes contaminated with clopyralid, aminopyralid, or other picolinic acid herbicides as inputs or feedstocks in an organic materials management facility.

The bill would require packaging labels about food quality to say “Best by…” and those about food safety to say “Use by…”. It would prohibit labels saying “Sell by”, and labels saying “Pull by” or “Pull date” on perishable food packaging, though that information could be displayed in a date and month format that consumers couldn’t decipher readily. (You could still have labels indicating when food was packaged or processed, or saying it was best consumed within a certain number of days after being opened.) There’d be required signs about the new labeling in stores over 10,000 sq. ft. Authority to enforce the requirements could be delegated to local health jurisdictions, and would be required to primarily be in response to complaints; there’d be penalties of up to $500 a day for violations. The bill would also have the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology provide education and outreach activities, as well as technical assistance and guidance on request for businesses required to communicate a quality or safety date on food packaging. After two notices including information, violations of the bill’s labeling requirements would be subject to fines of up to $500 a day.

The bill would prohibit plastic stickers on produce, and add new specifications for when wood or fiber-based materials can be labeled “compostable”, and for coloring film plastic bags to help customers tell which are compostable and which need to be discarded as waste. It specifies requirements for labeling products as “home compostable.” It requires jurisdictions to notify Ecology if they choose to enforce the current prohibitions against claiming plastic products are “compostable” or “biodegradable” when they’re not.

It would authorize local jurisdictions to amend the State building code to provide adequate space for locating organic waste and recycling containers with garbage containers, or require posting of signs notifying residents where those containers are.

HB2336

HB2336 – Assessing the suitability of state-owned lands for agriculture and renewable energy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Morgan (D; 29th District; Spanaway) (49 bipartisan co-sponsors)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on January 17th. Amended and passed out of committee January 24th. Scheduled for a hearing in the Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
The amendment in committee would include land that could be used for grazing as land suitable for agriculture; would require an agency to already be considering land for sale or surplus for it to count as underutilized; and would include land that could be used for agrivoltaics as land that’s suitable for renewable energy.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to assess unused and underutilized state-owned lands in consultation with the State Conservation Commission, determining their suitability for agricultural purposes. It would report the results to specified government recipients by June 30th, 2025. The Department would run a campaign to promote agricultural production on suitable land, with an emphasis on reaching communities that might have lacked access to opportunities as agricultural producers historically. It would also assess and evaluate land utilization in the state for agricultural purposes on an ongoing basis, identifying and mapping agricultural uses and water resources, including data on surface water, groundwater resources, and water quality. It would use this data to support and expand agricultural opportunities throughout the state.

The Washington State University Energy Program would use data from Agriculture’s study to identify lands that weren’t suitable for agriculture and assess their suitability for producing renewable energy. It would report its results to the same specified recipients by June 30, 2026.

SB6121

SB6121 –Regulating and encouraging biochar production from agricultural and forestry biomass.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Nobles and Randall – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2483 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
The substitute removes the $1/ton cap on the fee for burning agricultural waste and substitutes language about flame cap kilns for the biochar micro and macro units in the original.

Summary –
The bill would add producing biochar using mobile units with reduced emissions relative to open burning, and consuming less than 150 green tons a month of clean cellulosic biomass, to the list of alternative forestry disposal practices DNR is currently supposed to encourage. Those materials are defined as residuals from agricultural and forest-derived biomass including green wood, forest thinnings, wood pellets and various kinds of waste; urban wood including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass; corn stover and other crops used specifically for the production of biofuels; bagasse and other crop residues; and wood collected from fire clearance, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, and clean biomass from land clearing. (Materials couldn’t contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass.)

You’d need a burning permit from DNR to produce biochar with biomass from forestry operations, and a burning permit from Ecology to produce it from agricultural waste, including a fee of up to $1 per ton of waste.

HB2298

HB2298 – Establishing a climate resilience and environmental equity campus.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Postsecondary Education & Workforce.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources and Highline Community College to establish and administer a climate resilience and environmental equity campus as a joint operating agency. The campus would provide workforce training for postsecondary students pursuing careers in climate-focused science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through on-site training and a variety of internships. It would develop a climate-focused program and curriculum including training in those disciplines as well as social justice, collaborative decision making, ethical climate engagement, and community and civic engagement. It would provide informational exhibits exploring careers in those disciplines. The campus might be “made available” to the State’s public universities and colleges.

The campus would be governed by a Board of Directors with nine members appointed by the Governor and representing Highline, DNR, and specified institutions and stakeholders. It would work with industry to develop opportunities to offer students direct experience providing career and skills training, promote faculty collaboration with industry; encourage projects ranging from small scale research to large multipartner projects; work with industry to market in-state career opportunities in the specified disciplines, diversify the workforce, and educate the public on the pathways to success in those fields. It would work with colleges, universities, and industry to develop an industry-recognized certificate for students who completed training at the campus.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it the bill would have the DNR acquire Weyerhaeuser’s former corporate headquarters as a site for the new campus.

HJM4003

HJM4003 – Advocating a Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (There’s a long list of co-sponsors.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment  on January 25th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Memorial would urge the US government to participate in developing a Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty as an international mechanism to manage a global transition away from coal, oil, and gas; and affirm the need for a plan to phase out fossil fuel production that prioritizing the most impacted workers and local government services with short-term and long-term investments including enforceable labor standards to protect workers and communities.

SB6092

SB6092 – Requiring large businesses to report all their associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen)
Current status – Had a hearing in the the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 17th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Senator Nguyen’s substitute removed the reporting requirements and replaced them with a report on the SEC’s climate-related disclosure rules and whether those disclosures would be sufficient to assess compliance with Washington’s policies.

Summary
The bill would require entities doing business in the state and having total annual revenues over $1 billion to report their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to Ecology, beginning in October 2026. (Scope 1 emissions are defined as the direct emissions from any sources they own or directly control, regardless of location, and including emissions from fuel combustion. Scope 2 emissions would be the indirect emissions from electricity they purchased and used anywhere.) Starting in October 2027, they would have to report their Scope 3 emissions, the other indirect emissions associated with their activities regardless of location, including emissions associated with their supply chains, business travel, employee commutes, procurement, waste, and water usage. This would include the emissions from the use of products sold by the oil, gas, coal, and natural gas industries.

Ecology would adopt guidelines for the reporting, incorporating the greenhouse gas accounting and reporting standards and the methods developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to the extent that was practical. (Those include provisions for using industry averages and proxy data for Scope 3 emissions.) The Department would consult with stakeholders and other reporting entities that have demonstrated leadership in the disclosure and reduction of full-scope greenhouse gas emissions. It would have to investigate the availability of data and generally accepted protocols for estimating the carbon intensity of reporting entities’ operations, and if sufficient data and accepted protocols for estimating those were available, it would have to amend the guidelines to require including that information after October 2028. (It would be required to align the reporting timelines and required information with those of other Federal and state emissions reductions laws and policies to the extent that was possible; it might revise the guidelines from time to time to be consistent with protocols that entities follow for reporting in other jurisdictions. A report would have to be accompanied by an analysis from an independent, third-party auditor who had found it to be complete and accurate, or by a filed emissions disclosure under Section 38532 of California’s health and safety code, which includes an audit. (The bill currently has a typo with an incorrect section number.) Ecology would develop a website to make them easily accessible by the public.

Where a reporting entity failed to provide a required report on time, provided an incomplete report, or provided a report containing inaccurate information as determined by the independent auditor, the department would post a notice about that on the program’s website. The bill doesn’t say anything about penalties for these problems, though it would add a chapter to the Environmental Health and Safety laws so it’s possible something in those would cover that…

SB6005

SB6005 – Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2049 is a companion bill in the House.
See also HB1900.

Comments – The House bill is a revised version of HB1131, which was introduced by the same sponsors last session, was much amended, and eventually died in Rules. (Its companion bill, SB5154, died in Ways and Means.) The new version is 104 pages long, so trying to summarize its details seems ill advised; I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Summary
The bill would create a system funded and managed by producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use, and  would create new requirements for postconsumer recycled content.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on their activities and the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, and pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program. Producers would  fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues. Each organization would also provide up to $5 million/year or 4% of its annual expenditures for a packaging financial assistance program providing grants for governments, non-profits and private organizations to support programs to reduce the negative environmental impacts of covered products through reuse.

In consultation with stakeholders, an advisory council and the UTC, producer organizations would have to develop five year plans for dealing with their covered materials. These would have to meet a long list of requirements plus any added by Ecology, would be due by October 1st 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology) and would have to be implemented by January 2029 and updated regularly. Each organization’s plan would set performance rates including an overall recycling rate for its covered products, a recycling rate for each category of covered materials, a source reduction rate for eliminating plastic components, and (starting with its second plan) a minimum reuse rate. Proposed rates would have to be justified if they differed from those in the most recent performance rates study, and improve over time until Ecology determined that the maximum technically achievable process had been reached. Reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2030. There are requirements for outside evaluations if organizations fail to achieve these rates, and Ecology could require corrective actions or impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for failures to comply with the bill’s requirements.

Plans would also include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing it. and for consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Producer organizations would structure members’ fees  to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging.

A consultant would do the needs assessment of the solid waste system, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The advisory council, stakeholders and the UTC would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Ecology would be required to consider a variety of factors to identify materials and methods for the uniform statewide collection of covered products for recycling, categorizing them as suitable for residential curbside collection, drop-off collection, and alternative collection. (Approved pilot programs could try curbside collection of additional materials that were not on Ecology’s list.) The bill would prohibit claiming covered products were recyclable if Ecology didn’t categorize them that way, and prohibit making deceptive claims about their percentages of recycled content or their compostability.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse the costs of regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. (They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover the different categories of materials on Ecology’s list, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. .

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There’d be requirements about labor, health and the responsible management of materials at recovery facilities; for reporting on those by producer organizations; and for detailed reporting on their operations by processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to plastic containers for household cleaning products; personal care products; beverages, milk and wine;  plastic tubs for food products, thermoform containers; and plastic single-use cups. Producers of these products would have to belong to producer responsibility organizations and and maintain certification of their compliance with the bill’s requirements from accredited third parties. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2025 and 2036.  The producer responsibility organizations would report to Ecology annually on their members’ use of postconsumer recycled content. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet them. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic; it also makes changes to the definitions of producers.

In addition –

The bill would create an advisory council with representatives appointed by the Director of Ecology from ten groups. It would review, comment, advise, and make recommendations on the needs assessment, Ecology’s lists, producer organizations plans, reports, and other aspects of the bill’s programs.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

Beginning in 2029, jurisdictions’ solid waste plans would have to provide for curbside collection of source separated recyclables from single-family and multi-family residences served by curbside garbage collection. (Counties could choose to require  the collection of materials that Ecology categorized for curbside recycling collection at drop-off locations in areas regulated by the UTC.)  Ecology would create a model comprehensive solid waste plan jurisdictions could adopt rather than developing their own plans for source separation programs.

 

SB5965

SB5965– Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2068 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments
The bill sets a greenhouse emissions reduction requirement, but it looks to me as if it lets retailers and manufacturers set their own targets wherever they like for quite a few things, and I’m not sure if it’s intended to do more about situations where a disclosure would simply say “We’re doing very little about that”, or if it simply intends to get clear about what is and isn’t happening at this point.

Summary
The bill would require every clothing retailer or manufacturer doing business in the state and having more than $100 million in annual gross revenue to disclose various environmental policies, processes, and outcomes, including the significant real or potential adverse environmental impacts of its operations and targets for prevention and improvement. They’d have to identify the suppliers of at least 50% of the volume in their supply chain, from raw materials to final production, making a good faith effort to prioritize the ones involving the largest environmental risks. They would have to report on their policies, processes, and activities for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for potential adverse impacts, including the findings and outcomes of those activities. They’d have to identify relevant policies for responsible conduct of businesses such as theirs and provide information on steps they’d taken to embed those in their own policies and management systems. They’d have to disclose any areas of significant environmental risk they’d identified in their activities and business relationships, and the adverse impacts of those — identified, prioritized, and assessed in the context of their own activities and business relationships. They’d need to disclose the criteria they’d used to prioritize those risks, as well as any actions or plans to prevent or mitigate them. If the information was available, they’d have to include estimated timelines, targets, and benchmarks for improvement and their outcomes. They’d need to disclose measures to track implementation and results, and their provision of or cooperation in any remediation.

Beginning in 2027, they’d be required to establish, track, and disclose progress towards various performance targets, which the bill would require them to meet. They’d have to report independently verified figures for the annual volume of material they’d produced, including a breakdown by material type, and figures for how much production had been displaced with recycled materials as compared to growth targets. They’d have to establish and disclose quantitative baseline and reduction targets for energy and greenhouse gas emissions, water, and chemical management. (Their greenhouse gas emissions reporting would have to be independently verified, and conform to a World Resources Institute target guidance and to its reporting standard.) They’d have to disclose targets for impact reductions, and plans for tracking due diligence implementation and results including, where possible, estimated timelines and benchmarks for improvement.

The bill would authorize civil suits against retailers and manufacturers alleged to be failing to comply with the bill’s requirements, and would authorize suing Ecology to make it investigate alleged violations or make it enforce the requirements. Ecology would publish an annual report on compliance, Violating a disclosure, performance target achievement, or reporting requirement of the bill’s would be subject to a penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation in the case of a first offense, and up to $20,000 for each repeat offense.

HB2144

HB2144– Providing for a beverage container deposit return program implemented by a distributor responsibility organization, if it and Ecology agree on a plan.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stonier (D; 49th District; Clark County) (Co-Sponsor Berry, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 9th; amended and passed out of committee January 18th. Scheduled for a hearing in Finance at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments
This is a new version of part of HB1131, which died in Rules last session.

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

Summary
The bill would allow a group of distributors handling the majority of beverages in qualifying containers sold in or into Washington to form a distributor responsibility organization to operate a deposit return system. (I think it covers glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans.) If they did, other distributors would have to join them, or fulfill all the requirements of the bill independently. The organization would submit a plan for Ecology’s review explaining how it would achieve performance targets, with attention to the volume of sales in different areas and to providing convenient drop off locations in rural areas, small cities, communities close to the ferry system, economically strained areas, and underserved urban areas. It would include education and outreach activities. It would describe how this system would coordinate with other recycling systems and producer responsibility organizations. If Ecology and the organization couldn’t reach an agreement on the plan the system would not be created, and the containers would be subject to any other Washington producer responsibility legislation.

If it came into existence, containers would be refundable for 10 cents and display that on their labels; charges for the refund value of the containers would not count as gross income in calculating the business and occupation tax, and they wouldn’t be subject to the litter tax if they were shown as an item on receipts. Drop-off locations could be located at dealers, any retail establishment, any publicly owned facility, or any other location convenient for consumers. There would also be a convenient bulk drop-off system for containers in the organization’s bags. The organization could use automated equipment to count returned containers and issue redemption vouchers for the deposits; it would not have to provide refunds for contaminated containers, ones that were so damaged that the brand was illegible, or ones it had reasonable grounds to believe were sold outside the state. Dealers over 5,000 square feet and selling more than 100,000 containers a year would have to install a self-service kiosk provided by the organization to print redemption vouchers, pay customers for them, and sell bags for the program at a price established by the organization. (They could choose to let customers redeem their vouchers for store credit rather than cash.) The organization would reimburse dealers for their payments to consumers, and pay the full deposit for containers purchased in the state and returned by recovery facilities, governmental entities, and other processing facilities if the containers had been collected and separated according to the organization’s standards and are delivered directly to one of its processing facilities. (The containers would have to be separated by material type, not contaminated with other materials, and in substantially the same shape as when they were purchased.) It would have to have a way to accept direct, sorted returns in commercial quantities at its facilities for an additional refund premium if they were returned by non-profits that served very low-income individuals who relied on regular container refunds for daily income and that the organization approved.

The organization would reimburse the Department of Ecology for the costs of administering the system. It would pay up to $15 million a year for five years to offset demonstrated losses that local governments and operators of curbside or drop-off recycling programs experienced as a result of scrap material being diverted to the deposit return system.

Starting in 2029, at least 60% of all qualifying beverage containers would have to be redeemed for reuse or recycling through system; this requirement would increase to at least 80% starting in 2032 and at least 1% of the beverages by the end of that year would have to be in reusable packaging. There would be specified annual reporting by the organization and third party auditing of some financial issues. Ecology could collect a annual fee of 10 cents from the organization for each container below that year’s performance target. The Department might choose to propose that the organization add additional drop-off areas as an alternative to the financial penalties or along with a reduction in those. There are also minor possible penalties for other violations of the requirements.

The organization would establish a Consumer Convenience Advisory Council with representatives from various stakeholders to work with it  to identify potential convenient bag drop-off locations. provide input on the location of new drop-off sites, and consult along with Ecology in selecting a third-party firm to conduct consumer convenience assessments. These would be done in the fourth and ninth years of the program, paid for by the organization, and designed to identify any barriers to achieving the performance requirements and to make recommendations if the number of drop-off locations in the plan hasn’t been reached or the redemption rate is significantly below the performance targets. The organization would update its plan in the year after the assessment, taking any recommendations into account.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would consult with the organization, study the impacts of the requirements on the litter rates of beverage containers and other covered products as well as possible improvements to the litter tax, and report to the Legislature.

HB2120

HB2120 – Allowing cities to grant nuclear facilities an additional four years to complete projects and qualify for the tax breaks available for new manufacturing in targeted urban areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Shavers, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance on  January 25th and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The State currently provides a tax break to encourage new manufacturing and industrial uses on undeveloped or underutilized lands in targeted urban areas. The law requires projects to be completed within three years to qualify, but cities are authorized to extend that period by up to two years under certain circumstances. The bill would allow extensions of up to six years for nuclear facilities.

HB2073

HB2073– Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from anesthetics and studying alternatives for reducing those from a pesticide.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th. Replaced by a substitute postponing the designation of sulfuryl fluoride as a greenhouse gas and making some other changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it; passed out of committee January 23rd. Scheduled for a hearing in Appropriations at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to commission a study that analyzes the evidence supporting the treatment of sulfuryl fluoride (a fumigant pesticide) as a greenhouse gas. It would determine the potential sources of sulfuryl fluoride and of other gases with a high global warming potential that are used for anesthetic purposes in Washington, including Sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, halothane, and nitrous oxide; and determine how they’re used in Washington and estimate the emissions from them. It would recommend potential points of regulation for each of them and measures for reducing or eliminating their emissions. The study would be due by July 1st, 2025.

Ecology would also be required to consult with a list of medical and environmental stakeholders in developing a guidance document intended to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic gases with a high global warming potential, without unduly limiting the judgment or needs of medical, dental, or veterinary professionals in providing safe and effective care. The Department would be required to consider:
(a) the efforts of other jurisdictions to restrict the use of such gases or otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of anesthesia;
(b) the guidance documents or best practices prepared by national and international anesthesiology professionals and guidance documents published in peer-reviewed medical journals; and,
(c) existing practices in place at facilities and by practitioners in Washington to limit greenhouse gas emissions associated with anesthesia use.
After July 1, 2026, facilities at which anesthetic gases were used, and the medical, dental, or veterinary practitioners that use such gases, would have to use anesthesia in a manner consistent with the guidance document.

Producers or suppliers of sulfuryl fluoride would be included in the Climate Commitment Act’s annual report if their greenhouse gas emissions exceeded 10,000 metric tons of CO2e. Ecology would also consult with the Department of Agriculture and stakeholders and report to the Legislature on the availability of alternative chemicals or practices that would be less hazardous to humans or the environment than the current uses of sulfuryl fluoride. By October 1st, Ecology would consult with the Department of Health and stakeholders, considering these studies, and recommend any further statutory changes needed to appropriately and effectively reduce these emissions.

HB2068

HB2068– Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5965 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments
The bill sets a greenhouse emissions reduction requirement, but it looks to me as if it lets retailers and manufacturers set their own targets wherever they like for quite a few things, and I’m not sure if it’s intended to do more about situations where a disclosure would simply say “We’re doing very little about that”, or if it simply intends to get clear about what is and isn’t happening at this point.

Summary
The bill would require every clothing retailer or manufacturer doing business in the state and having more than $100 million in annual gross revenue to disclose various environmental policies, processes, and outcomes, including the significant real or potential adverse environmental impacts of its operations and targets for prevention and improvement. They’d have to identify the suppliers of at least 50% of the volume in their supply chain, from raw materials to final production, making a good faith effort to prioritize the ones involving the largest environmental risks. They would have to report on their policies, processes, and activities for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for potential adverse impacts, including the findings and outcomes of those activities. They’d have to identify relevant policies for responsible conduct of businesses such as theirs and provide information on steps they’d taken to embed those in their own policies and management systems. They’d have to disclose any areas of significant environmental risk they’d identified in their activities and business relationships, and the adverse impacts of those — identified, prioritized, and assessed in the context of their own activities and business relationships. They’d need to disclose the criteria they’d used to prioritize those risks, as well as any actions or plans to prevent or mitigate them. If the information was available, they’d have to include estimated timelines, targets, and benchmarks for improvement and their outcomes. They’d need to disclose measures to track implementation and results, and their provision of or cooperation in any remediation.

Beginning in 2027, they’d be required to establish, track, and disclose progress towards various performance targets, which the bill would require them to meet. They’d have to report independently verified figures for the annual volume of material they’d produced, including a breakdown by material type, and figures for how much production had been displaced with recycled materials as compared to growth targets. They’d have to establish and disclose quantitative baseline and reduction targets for energy and greenhouse gas emissions, water, and chemical management. (Their greenhouse gas emissions reporting would have to be independently verified, and conform to a World Resources Institute target guidance and to its reporting standard.) They’d have to disclose targets for impact reductions, and plans for tracking due diligence implementation and results including, where possible, estimated timelines and benchmarks for improvement.

The bill would authorize civil suits against retailers and manufacturers alleged to be failing to comply with the bill’s requirements, and would authorize suing Ecology to make it investigate alleged violations or make it enforce the requirements. Ecology would publish an annual report on compliance, Violating a disclosure, performance target achievement, or reporting requirement of the bill’s would be subject to a penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation in the case of a first offense, and up to $20,000 for each repeat offense.

HB2049

HB2049– Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Doglio & Fitzgibbon, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 9th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6005 is a companion bill in the Senate.
See also HB1900.

Comments – The bill is a revised version of HB1131, which was introduced by the same sponsors last session, was much amended, and eventually died in Rules. (Its companion bill, SB5154, died in Ways and Means.) The new version is 104 pages long, so trying to summarize its details seems ill advised; I’ve tried to cover the important points.

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

Summary
The bill would create a system funded and managed by producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use, and  would create new requirements for postconsumer recycled content.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on their activities and the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, and pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program. Producers would  fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues. Each organization would also provide up to $5 million/year or 4% of its annual expenditures for a packaging financial assistance program providing grants for governments, non-profits and private organizations to support programs to reduce the negative environmental impacts of covered products through reuse.

In consultation with stakeholders, an advisory council and the UTC, producer organizations would have to develop five year plans for dealing with their covered materials. These would have to meet a long list of requirements plus any added by Ecology, would be due by October 1st 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology) and would have to be implemented by January 2029 and updated regularly. Each organization’s plan would set performance rates including an overall recycling rate for its covered products, a recycling rate for each category of covered materials, a source reduction rate for eliminating plastic components, and (starting with its second plan) a minimum reuse rate. Proposed rates would have to be justified if they differed from those in the most recent performance rates study, and improve over time until Ecology determined that the maximum technically achievable process had been reached. Reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2030. There are requirements for outside evaluations if organizations fail to achieve these rates, and Ecology could require corrective actions or impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for failures to comply with the bill’s requirements.

Plans would also include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing it. and for consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Producer organizations would structure members’ fees  to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging.

A consultant would do the needs assessment of the solid waste system, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The advisory council, stakeholders and the UTC would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Ecology would be required to consider a variety of factors to identify materials and methods for the uniform statewide collection of covered products for recycling, categorizing them as suitable for residential curbside collection, drop-off collection, and alternative collection. (Approved pilot programs could try curbside collection of additional materials that were not on Ecology’s list.) The bill would prohibit claiming covered products were recyclable if Ecology didn’t categorize them that way, and prohibit making deceptive claims about their percentages of recycled content or their compostability.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse the costs of regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. (They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover the different categories of materials on Ecology’s list, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. .

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There’d be requirements about labor, health and the responsible management of materials at recovery facilities; for reporting on those by producer organizations; and for detailed reporting on their operations by processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to plastic containers for household cleaning products; personal care products; beverages, milk and wine;  plastic tubs for food products, thermoform containers; and plastic single-use cups. Producers of these products would have to belong to producer responsibility organizations and and maintain certification of their compliance with the bill’s requirements from accredited third parties. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2025 and 2036.  The producer responsibility organizations would report to Ecology annually on their members’ use of postconsumer recycled content. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet them. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic; it also makes changes to the definitions of producers.

In addition –

The bill would create an advisory council with representatives appointed by the Director of Ecology from ten groups. It would review, comment, advise, and make recommendations on the needs assessment, Ecology’s lists, producer organizations plans, reports, and other aspects of the bill’s programs.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

Beginning in 2029, jurisdictions’ solid waste plans would have to provide for curbside collection of source separated recyclables from single-family and multi-family residences served by curbside garbage collection. (Counties could choose to require  the collection of materials that Ecology categorized for curbside recycling collection at drop-off locations in areas regulated by the UTC.)  Ecology would create a model comprehensive solid waste plan jurisdictions could adopt rather than developing their own plans for source separation programs.

 

HB2051

HB2051 – Reducing emissions from small off-road engines.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at 8:00 AM January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would adopt California’s small off-road engine and equipment emissions standards for engines and equipment produced after January 1st, 2027. Those apply to engines with less than 25 horsepower, which are primarily used for lawn, garden, and other small off-road equipment, and are intended to reduce their emissions to zero by 2035 where that’s feasible. The Washington bill wouldn’t apply to chainsaws, generators, licensed on-road motor vehicles, off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, marine vessels, snowmobiles, or model airplane, cars, and boats. The bill would also allow the Department of Ecology to delay the start of restrictions for certain kinds of small off-road engines or equipment if it determined that suitable zero emissions technology was not yet available as a replacement.

The bill would require Ecology to create a five year program providing grants for local governments to replace working outdoor power equipment powered by liquid, gaseous or fossil fuels with zero emissions equipment. It would prioritize grants providing the greatest
benefits to vulnerable populations or reducing the most hazardous or frequent occupational exposures caused by outdoor power equipment. It declares the Legislature’s intent to provide $5 million a year for the program.

The bill would also create a sales and use tax exemption for zero emissions outdoor equipment producing less than 25 horsepower, and for push lawnmowers. It would add programs, activities, or projects that reduce and mitigate impacts from greenhouse gases and pollutants on vulnerable populations, including the outdoor power equipment grant program and transfers to the general fund to offset revenue losses from the tax preferences, to the list of things that can be funded using revenue from the Climate Commitment Act.

HB2039

HB2039 – Streamlining the appeals process for environmental and land use matters.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 23rd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it.

Summary –
Currently, a superior court can certify final decisions of the pollution control hearings board, the shorelines hearings board, and the growth management hearings board that meet certain criteria for direct review by a court of appeals, rather than reviewing them itself. In addition, if one of these boards decides that one of its final decisions involves urgent statewide or regional issues or that its appeal is likely to create significant precedents the board can submit the decision to a Court of Appeals to be considered for direct review. The bill would eliminate this second process and would authorize a superior court to transfer decisions that met those criteria to the higher court as direct appeals.

In land use cases under the bill, a superior court would no longer require the consent of all the parties in order to transfer a case to a court of appeals for review. It would be authorized to do that if it found that:
1) the transfer would serve the interest of justice,
2) it wouldn’t cause substantial prejudice to any party, including any unrepresented party, and,
3) the review could occur based on an existing record.

The bill authorizes the presiding officer for these boards and for the shorelines hearings board to consolidate multiple appeals that arise out of the same project when he or she finds that will expedite disposition of the appeals; avoid duplication of testimony; and will not prejudice the rights of the parties.

The bill adds a number of penalties, orders, and decisions to the list of those that can be appealed to the pollution control hearings board, and expands the current rules for the board about notice, appeals, and the use of penalty revenue to cover additional cases. It would provide for handing penalties for violations of the State’s standards for mercury and products containing flame retardant chemicals through this board’s procedures.

SB5876

SB5876 – Streamlining the application processes for state voluntary programs funding water and salmon ecosystem investments.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 15th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would require the Puget Sound Partnership, the Department of Ecology, the Recreation and Conservation Office, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Conservation Commission to work together to create a streamlined application process for state voluntary programs funding water quality, watershed restoration, and salmon recovery. They’d be required to work on improving grant application processes and streamlining management processes for recipients; improving connectivity and accountability between project proponents and agencies; streamlining and improving the accuracy of reporting of accomplishments by recipients; and improving collaboration and information sharing among grant managers. They’d agree on a biennial work plan selecting priority projects and deliverables; create working groups and identify agency staff to support projects, and identify representatives of the agencies to serve as a working group supporting coordination and communication between other working groups and agency leaders. (Agencies could make substantive changes to the work plan that they agreed on at any time.)

The agencies would be required to use an interagency forum for staff members making grants to share updates, develop common resources, leverage successes, and consider innovative approaches; maintain regular dialogue with applicants to identify administrative challenges, barriers, and gaps; engage agency leaders in prioritizing and implementing improvements to funding systems; and secure and mobilize resources to move a clear plan of work agreed on by the agencies forward.

In addition to improving administrative processes for voluntary funding programs within their existing authority, they might develop policy recommendations about improvements for consideration by the Legislature; develop joint application forms; or establish other working groups including invited experts and stakeholders to support discussions, provide additional technical capacity, and improve coordination.

The agencies would be required to make an annual report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature on their actions and administrative improvements.

HB1981

HB1981 – Setting a preferential B&O tax rate for manufacturing fuel and/or fuel assemblies for nuclear reactors.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Stearns, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance  on  January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax rate on the manufacturing of nuclear fuel and/or assemblies at 0.25 percent. (Fuel assemblies are the collections of fuel rods or elements that make up the core of as reactor.) It would apply to the gross proceeds from sales for businesses selling these at retail or wholesale; it would apply to the value of the product for businesses manufacturing them; and it would apply to the gross income of the business activity for businesses paid to process them. These rates would apply for ten years.

HB1935

HB1935 – Creating a Washington State Green Schools Program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bergquist (D; 11th District; Renton) (Co-Sponsor McEntire, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Education January 15th and passed out of committee on the 29th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Superintendent of Public Instruction create a voluntary program to expand resource conservation practices in public schools, including waste reduction, energy reduction, water conservation, urban forestry education, and environmental preservation. It would provide education and leadership opportunities for students seeking to promote conservation practices in their schools. It would complement existing programs, provide opportunities for establishing new ones, support instruction on climate aligned with related state learning standards, and collaborate with DNR on schoolyard greening projects, schoolyard forests, and career learning opportunities within the National Forest’s school forest network and other urban forestry projects.

If money were appropriated for it, the bill would have OSPI create two grant programs. One would provide one year grants of up to $15,000 to to help create or expand these programs in schools; applications for these would have to demonstrate the involvement of a student-based team, group, or club in the selection and support of the projects proposed for funding. The other program would offer grants of up to $600 per school each year to support stipends for school-based advisors who assisted students in learning about, promoting, and implementing resource conservation practices in school facilities. School districts, charter schools and state-tribal education compact schools would be eligible to apply for either of these programs.

HB1936

HB1936 – Creating a B&O tax credit for farmers participating in conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment  January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute limiting the credit to participants in State conservation programs and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a tax credit for farmers receiving grant funds from the Washington State Conservation Commission or indirectly from it through a conservation district or other public entity; participating in a Conservation Commission or conservation district conservation program; or participating in a US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation program. It would allow them to treat 25 percent of their expenditures for purchasing new equipment, infrastructure, seed, seedlings, spores, animal feed, and amendments in the previous year as a credit against their business and occupation taxes.They’d be allowed to roll any unused credit over and apply it against their tax bills for the next two years.

HB1924

HB1924 – Including fusion technology in state clean energy policies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy Monday January 8th; amended to delete adding these facilities to the list of projects of statewide significance and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council’s annual report to the Governor and legislative committees to include a recommendation on whether and when fusion energy could be expected to be an appropriate category for which to develop a nonproject environmental impact statement.

It would also add fusion energy facilities or facilities manufacturing or assembling component parts for them to the list of projects of statewide significance that are supposed to get expedited permitting and review of various kinds so they can be completed more rapidly.

HB1900

HB1900 – Implementing strategies to achieve higher solid waste recycling rates.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Reeves, Walen, Rule, Chapman, Bronoske, and Wylie; Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at 8:00 AM January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
See also HB2049.

Summary –
The bill would expand the State’s current postconsumer recycled content requirements to cover more containers for household cleaning and personal care products; the caps and lids on beverage containers; polypropylene tubs; various single use plastic cups; and PET containers for consumable goods like clam shells and egg cartons and for durable goods. The new requirements begin on different dates for different products, and increase in steps. It would add the percentage of postconsumer recycled content they contain to the information required on the packaging of plastic trash bags. One way a producer can currently qualify for a de minimis exemption from the requirements is by having only a single category of a covered product for sale in the state with revenue less than $1 million a year; the amended law would require global gross revenue less than $5 million a year as well as annual total resin use less than a ton to qualify. (The current standard seems to have been left in the new definitions section at this point, though.)

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to produce a study by 2027 to allow the public to determine whether a particular material handled in curbside programs or other solid waste facilities is recyclable in the state and routinely becomes feedstock for the production of new products or packaging. (The study’s also to identify materials and forms that aren’t sorted for recycling and are considered contaminants.) The research is to be updated in 2030, and at least every five years after that. Material would be considered recyclable in the state if the material in that form was collected for recycling by jurisdictions with at least 60% of the state’s population, was sorted into defined streams for recycling by large volume transfer or by facilities that serve at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, and was sent on to be reclaimed to state standards. To count as recyclable, most packaging and products would have to be designed to avoid any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recycling. Demonstrating that at least 75% of a product or packaging sorted or aggregated in the state was reprocessed into new products or packaging would also qualify it as recyclable. Initially, a product or packaging that was not collected in curbside programs would be considered recyclable if at least 60% of it had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and transported to a facility to be sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material and form; that requirement would increase to 75% in 2033. (Products and packaging would also count as recyclable if they complied with a Federal or State program about their recyclability or disposal that was established after 2025 and Ecology’s director determined that including them wouldn’t increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive the public.)

Ecology would develop and publish a list of recyclable materials suitable for curbside collection and one of materials suitable for residential drop-off collection. The bill specifies ten materials to be included in the initial list for curbside collection, and two for drop-offs. It would require the department to update the lists at least every five years, after consulting with the advisory committee, and after considering a variety of factors the bill specifies.

The bill would raise the State’s goal for recycling of covered products to 60%. It would set a goal for a 50% reduction in the sale and use of packaging that was not recyclable under the law by 2030, and a 75% reduction by 2035. It would require tracking and reporting on progress toward those, and it would have Ecology hire a consultant to conduct a statewide study to determine the costs and investments needed to achieve a 60% overall recycling rate for the materials listed as suitable for residential collection by the department. The consultant would consider each jurisdiction planning under the solid waste management act, evaluating its current capacity and the gaps, needs and costs for it to achieve the bill’s performance targets. The final scope of the study is supposed to be determined after considering comments and recommendations from stakeholders, each jurisdiction, and the advisory committee, but Section 208 of the bill specifies several pages of factors that the study’s required to take into account.

If funding were specifically provided for it, Ecology would contract with with a research university or an independent consultant to study the plastic resin markets, analyzing market conditions and opportunities in the state’s recycling industry for meeting the bill’s minimum postconsumer recycled content requirements, and determining the data needs and tracking opportunities to support a more effective, fact-based public understanding of the industry.

The bill would add a committee with representatives from a long list of specified stakeholders to advise and make recommendations on the program to Ecology. After considering recommendations, the director of Ecology would appoint members, with as much diversity of various kinds as was practical.The committee would elect its own chair and vice-chair and create its bylaws.

Starting in 2028, the bill would prohibit consumer packaging and paper products from making any deceptive or misleading claims about their recyclability in the state through symbols like the chasing arrows or statements. (However, it doesn’t allow local jurisdictions to restrict the distribution or sale of covered products because of symbols or statements implying they’re recyclable if those were required by some other state or by Federal laws or regulations or Federal Trade Commission green guides; if they were part of some widely adopted third-party system; or if they incorporated by reference the ASTM standards for coding resins…)

The bill requires Ecology to establish annual fees paid by producers to cover the costs of administering the postconsumer recycled content program. It makes the other work it assigns to the Department eligible for funding from the cap and invest program. It requires the UTC to consult with jurisdictions and regulated collection companies, then report to the Legislature on how to improve processes for providing discounts for low-income customers, including ways to add customers and make administration easier.

Producers of covered products would have to register their products and brand names with Ecology individually or through a group’s representative, and would have to report annually on the pounds of covered products they’d sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state. The bill would require reports from producers to the State including certification of compliance by a nationally recognized independent third party with the names, locations, and contact information of all their sources and suppliers of postconsumer recycled content, the quantities and dates of their purchases, and how that material was obtained. It would allow producers to petition Ecology to review and adjust the required content percentages for a type of container or product or category for the following year; Ecology would have to consider a number of factors in the process, and the producers would have to supply the department with the information needed for the review.  After providing two written warnings, the department would be authorized to fine producers that were out of compliance with the bill’s registration or labeling requirements up to $1,000 a day. Each year it would be authorized to penalize producers twenty cents a pound for any difference between the required minimum percentage of postconsumer recycled plastic in a given product and the percentage actually used in the previous year, though it could grant producers a reduction in the penalty given certain conditions.

HB1887

HB1887 – Loosening the cap & invest program’s requirements, expanding its biofuels exemption, providing refunds for exempted fuel purchases, & temporarily lowering license fees.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5783 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –

The bill would exempt all biomass fuels from coverage under the Climate Commitment Act, dropping the current requirement that exempted biofuels have to have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% lower than those of the fossil fuels for which they’re substituted.

It would replace the current requirement for future reductions in the cap sufficient to achieve the covered entities’ share of what’s necessary to achieve the state’s climate targets with annual 3.6% reductions for 2024 through 2040, and 3.1% reductions for 2041 through 2049.

It would require the Department of Ecology to put an additional 5% of the allowance budgets for the twelve years from 2031 through 2042 into the price containment reserve account and to auction all of those additional allowances in separate auctions during 2024.

The bill would use any revenue above the October 2022 estimates from the cap and trade auctions in 2024 and 2025 that was not otherwise appropriated by the Legislature to reduce or replace the license fees for light and heavy vehicles in fiscal 2025 and 2026.

It would create a work group to examine consumer fuel pricing in the state including members of the transportation committees; academic experts; and the representatives of various agencies, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocacy organizations. The group would review:
a) Issues including previous studies and evaluations of fuel pricing, trends in that, factors causing Washington prices to be higher than the national average and how those factors have changed over time; and margins and profits at the fuel production, distribution, and retail levels,
b) State tax policies, environmental protections, and regulatory factors that may impact fuel pricing and make the state’s marketplace more or less competitive,
c) Supply dynamics affecting the fuel markets in the state, and,
d) Potential reporting and audit requirements that would make fuel pricing more transparent to consumers.
This work group would provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature.

The bill would require Ecology to create an on-line portal allowing the farm fuel users and freight haulers of agricultural products that are exempted from the bill’s coverage to submit documentation each quarter applying for a remittance based on any covered fuels they purchased during that quarter. (If they chose to use it, this would offer an alternative to the current system, which provides them with exemption certificates to be used when purchasing fuel.) The remittance would be equal to 0.008% of the auction price for that quarter for each gallon. (To illustrate roughly how this is supposed to work, as I understand it – since covered fuels emit something like 21 pounds of CO2e/gal, 100 gallons of fuel would emit about a metric ton of CO2e. Suppose the auction price were $50/metric ton, and all the cost for the credits to cover the emissions were passed on to the exempted buyer; they’d pay an extra $50. However, 0.008% of $50 is $0.40; and the rebate for the 100 gallons of fuel would be about $40. It’s not going to be exact, since various fuels with different emissions per gallon are getting lumped together and there will be various lags between the auction prices and whatever their effects on consumer prices turn out to be.)

The bill would provide $25 million for remittances in 2024; in fiscal 2025 and 2026 it would provide what was appropriated, and specifies that the climate investment account and the air quality and health disparities improvement account that get the money for investments from the Climate Commitment Act have to be appropriated at least as much as they were expected to get in the 2022 estimate. In subsequent years those would get the remaining revenue after specified funding for the carbon emissions reduction fund, which is dedicated to reducing transportation emissions, and whatever was appropriated for remittances.)

Those exempted users might choose to have remittances held by the department as credits based on the auction settlement price instead, and would be able to trade them with covered entities that needed credits to meet obligations under the bill through a mechanism the department would create and manage . The department would be allowed to develop other alternatives for handling these exemptions as well. Ecology would also be required to convene a work group with a variety of stakeholders to review the rules and process for handling these exemptions and to develop recommendations for the Legislature to ensure their full use and benefit.

 

HB1870

HB1870 – Providing local communities with technical support and matching funds for federal grant applications.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Ryu; D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development January 9th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Appropriations; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
To the extent funding was specifically made available for it, the bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to provide technical assistance to local communities developing competitive applications for federal funding (or to contract for providing it), and would prioritize grants from Commerce’s current program supporting associate development organizations in recruiting, hiring, and retaining grant writers to support applications for Federal funds.

The bill would have Commerce create a resource guide for applicants for federal grants, including links to federal applications and relevant resources, and contact information for departmental assistance. It would require Commerce to create a state pool of matching funds for local communities competing for Federal grants, and to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the program every two years.

HB1868

HB1868 – Restricting new gas outdoor lawn equipment and providing grants and tax breaks for electric alternatives.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to adopt rules to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from outdoor power equipment with less than 25 horsepower produced on or after January 1, 2026 (or as soon after that as was feasible). Equipment used by governments or their contractors for emergency management or emergency response and equipment for which a suitable zero emission alternative didn’t exist would be exempted.

The bill would create a six year sales and use tax exemption for zero emissions versions of the equipment, and encourage retailers to publicize that. It would add any programs, activities, or projects that reduce and mitigate impacts from greenhouse gases and pollutants on vulnerable populations  (including the bill’s outdoor power equipment grant program and transfers to the general fund to offset revenue losses from the tax preferences) to the list of what might be funded by revenue from the cap and invest program.

It would also create a grant program to replace the fossil fueled outdoor power equipment used by local governments with zero emission alternatives. This would be funded with $5 million a year from the cap and invest program for the next five years; Ecology would be required to prioritize grants that resulted in the greatest benefits to vulnerable populations or reduced the most hazardous or frequent occupational exposures caused by the existing equipment.

SB5783

SB5783 – Loosening the cap & invest program’s requirements, expanding its biofuels exemption, providing refunds for exempted fuel purchases, & temporarily lowering license fees.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Central King County) (Co-Sponsors Van De Wege, Conway, and Cleveland – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1887 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

The bill would exempt all biomass fuels from coverage under the Climate Commitment Act, dropping the current requirement that exempted biofuels have to have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% lower than those of the fossil fuels for which they’re substituted.

It would replace the current requirement for future reductions in the cap sufficient to achieve the covered entities’ share of what’s necessary to achieve the state’s climate targets with annual 3.6% reductions for 2024 through 2040, and 3.1% reductions for 2041 through 2049.

It would require the Department of Ecology to put an additional 5% of the allowance budgets for the twelve years from 2031 through 2042 into the price containment reserve account and to auction all of those additional allowances in separate auctions during 2024.

The bill would use any revenue above the October 2022 estimates from the cap and trade auctions in 2024 and 2025 that was not otherwise appropriated by the Legislature to reduce or replace the license fees for light and heavy vehicles in fiscal 2025 and 2026.

It would create a work group to examine consumer fuel pricing in the state including members of the transportation committees; academic experts; and the representatives of various agencies, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocacy organizations. The group would review:
a) Issues including previous studies and evaluations of fuel pricing, trends in that, factors causing Washington prices to be higher than the national average and how those factors have changed over time; and margins and profits at the fuel production, distribution, and retail levels,
b) State tax policies, environmental protections, and regulatory factors that may impact fuel pricing and make the state’s marketplace more or less competitive,
c) Supply dynamics affecting the fuel markets in the state, and,
d) Potential reporting and audit requirements that would make fuel pricing more transparent to consumers.
This work group would provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature.

The bill would require Ecology to create an on-line portal allowing the farm fuel users and freight haulers of agricultural products that are exempted from the bill’s coverage to submit documentation each quarter applying for a remittance based on any covered fuels they purchased during that quarter. (If they chose to use it, this would offer an alternative to the current system, which provides them with exemption certificates to be used when purchasing fuel.) The remittance would be equal to 0.008% of the auction price for that quarter for each gallon. (To illustrate roughly how this is supposed to work, as I understand it – since covered fuels emit something like 21 pounds of CO2e/gal, 100 gallons of fuel would emit about a metric ton of CO2e. Suppose the auction price were $50/metric ton, and all the cost for the credits to cover the emissions were passed on to the exempted buyer; they’d pay an extra $50. However, 0.008% of $50 is $0.40; and the rebate for the 100 gallons of fuel would be about $40. It’s not going to be exact, since various fuels with different emissions per gallon are getting lumped together and there will be various lags between the auction prices and whatever their effects on consumer prices turn out to be.)

The bill would provide $25 million for remittances in 2024; in fiscal 2025 and 2026 it would provide what was appropriated, and specifies that the climate investment account and the air quality and health disparities improvement account that get the money for investments from the Climate Commitment Act have to be appropriated at least as much as they were expected to get in the 2022 estimate. In subsequent years those would get the remaining revenue after specified funding for the carbon emissions reduction fund, which is dedicated to reducing transportation emissions, and whatever was appropriated for remittances.)

Those exempted users might choose to have remittances held by the department as credits based on the auction settlement price instead, and would be able to trade them with covered entities that needed credits to meet obligations under the bill through a mechanism the department would create and manage . The department would be allowed to develop other alternatives for handling these exemptions as well. Ecology would also be required to convene a work group with a variety of stakeholders to review the rules and process for handling these exemptions and to develop recommendations for the Legislature to ensure their full use and benefit.

HB1574

HB1574 – Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Rule (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Dye & Walsh – Rs; Duerr, Doglio, Lekanoff & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Still in committee by 2023 cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and had a hearing in that committee on January 24th. Passed out of committee January 31st and referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would shift the current grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program for equipment purchases to grants for cost-share purchases; and shift recipients of its grants from land-owners to agricultural producers. It would shift the intended distribution of funds from one across crop types and soil management to one across commodities. It would allow conservation districts and other public entities to apply for grant funds to operate equipment sharing programs.

The bill would spell out that the current allowable uses of the grants include practices that reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that increase soil carbon, practices that collect, treat, and store manure and agricultural waste to reduce emissions; practices that “increase sequestration in standing vegetation” as well as ones that increase it in soils; and practices that reduce the intestinal emissions of livestock.

It would require funds appropriated through the program for the specific purpose of improving and encouraging climate-smart agricultural waste management and climate-smart livestock management to be used for:
1) Cost-share grants for anaerobic digester development, including projects that codigest manure with other organic waste;
2) Technical and financial assistance for climate-smart livestock management practices;
3) Grants to research institutions for innovative research and for demonstration projects with greenhouse gas emissions reduction benefits, including dairy nutrient management projects;
4) Creating an ongoing advisory committee including specified stakeholders and administered by the State Conservation Commission and Department of Agriculture to inform the agricultural community about opportunities to participate in carbon emissions reduction programs, inform researchers and policymakers of practical implementation challenges, and guide these grant awards, and
5) Creating at least one position at the Commission and other positions as needed with expertise in livestock nutrient management and carbon markets to disseminate information and provide support to agricultural producers applying for funding opportunities.

HB1283

HB1283 –Requiring some ESG reporting and increased ESG investment options in the State’s retirement system.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 11th District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Berry, Ramel, Macri, Doglio, Reed, and Pollet- Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Appropriations Committee in 2023. Died in committee; reintroduced there in 2024.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the State’s Investment Board to report on the climate-related financial risk, the social responsibility, and the establishment and use of proxy voting and corporate governance policies in its private and public portfolios by January 1st 2024, and every three years after that. By 2024, it would have to provide at least three investment options consistent with its environmental, social, and governance policies for individuals participating in self-directed funds. (The options would reflect a range of policy preferences and investment objectives consistent with those ESG concerns to the extent that was consistent with the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities.)

HB1185

HB1185 – Updating and expanding the state’s producer stewardship program for lighting products.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Fitzgibbon, Doglio, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy  January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Died in Rules 2023. Returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session. Had a hearing January 18th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
The substitute in 2023 prohibited disposing of lights in most solid waste and recycling containers, and made some other small changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. In the folder with materials for the executive session, there’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute in 2024 at the beginning of it; they mostly dealt with lights containing mercury.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit the sale of lights containing mercury starting in 2026, with some exceptions for special purpose lights, and create penalties for violations. It would expand the current product stewardship program for lights containing mercury to include the end of life management of most lights by the same date.

The producers of lights for sale in the state would have to continue to manage and fund the current product stewardship program, expanded to cover collecting, transporting, reuse, recycling, processing and final disposition of all types of lights, including the special purpose ones containing mercury which could still be sold. The bill would eliminate the environmental handling charge which is currently added to the price of lamps containing mercury to fund the program; it would be directly funded by the producers. (However, they still wouldn’t be responsible for the costs of curbside or mail-back collection programs, except for transporting and processing the lights from those. They would still have to fund and manage free collection sites and pay for the transportation and processing of lights from those.

At least 90% of the state’s residents would have to have a permanent collection site within 15 miles, and an additional site would be required for every 30,000 residents in urban areas. The program would have to provide reasonable opportunities for people in rural areas farther from the required sites to drop off unwanted lights at collection events. The bill specifies additional requirements for outreach and consumer education about the expended program, including a survey about public awareness of it at least every five years. It adds specifications about the safe handling of lights containing mercury, and specifies that plans have to prioritize recycling of other materials to the extent that’s practicable. It would now require programs to include contingency plans to keep providing services if a stewardship organization stopped.

Stewardship programs would be required to design their charges to producers to encourage the use of recycled content and discourage the use of undesirable materials. They’d have to reimburse local governments for the costs when a local government facility or solid waste handling facility served as a collection location. The bill also adds provisions for Ecology’s review and approval of stewardship organization’ plans, and revises Ecology’s procedures for dealing with violations to adjust them to the expanded system. It drops the current law’s provisions for reporting on the availability and purchasing of energy efficient lights in the state.

HB1078

HB1078– Requires local urban forestry ordinances to include a tree bank provision for replacing trees, in order to avoid blocking development that involves removing them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor – Doglio – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 11th; replaced by a substitute, amended and passed out of committee February 3rd. Died in Appropriations in 2023. Reintroduced there in 2024; had a hearing on January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. (It dropped requirements for providing tree bank provisions as an option, and made other minor changes; the amendment simply revised language in the findings.)

Summary –
Tree banks are designated areas where trees can be planted to compensate for the removal of trees elsewhere in order to enable development. The tree bank provisions required in local urban forestry plans would have to conform to guidelines established by the Department of Natural Resources. Those would create criteria for designating areas to be used as tree banks. (They would have to be located in priority areas the Department identified using canopy analysis and inventories, mapping tools that identify highly impacted communities, data on habitat for salmon recovery, and DNR’s 20 year forest health strategic plan.)

The required guidelines would include the appropriate ratios of trees planted within the tree bank to trees removed elsewhere within the community; the appropriate species of trees to be used; and how to effectively support urban forest management plans through the use of a tree bank.

HB1012

HB1012 – Creating an extreme weather response grant program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Leavitt (D; 28th District; SW Pierce County) (Co-Sponsor Rep. Robertson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections March 14th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Reintroduced in the House for the 2024 Session, sent to Rules, and passed by the House on January 8th. Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House  2024 – Passed

In the House  2023 – Passed
Passed out of the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans January 13th ; had a hearing in Appropriations on January 30th. Amended and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Changes in Appropriations –
The amendment would narrow eligibility for the grants to areas where populations face “combined, multiple environmental harms and health impacts”,  and widen the definition of the people they might be used to benefit from those who are “socially vulnerable” to those who are “vulnerable” more generally.

Summary –
Subject to appropriation, the bill would have the State Military Department create a grant program to help cities, counties and towns that have emergency management organizations, and tribes, meet the costs of responding to community needs during periods of extremely hot or cold weather or in periods with severe poor air quality from wildfire smoke. Recipients would have to demonstrate that they lacked the local resources to address these needs and that the costs were incurred for the benefit of vulnerable populations.

Grants could be awarded for establishing and operating warming and cooling centers, as well as transporting people and their pets to them, and providing facilities for pets in them; purchasing fans or other supplies for cooling congregate living settings; providing emergency temporary housing such as rented hotel rooms; and other activities the department determined were necessary for life safety during these periods.