Category Archives: Out of Initial Committee – Senate 2024

SB6052

SB6052 – Assessing petroleum products supply and pricing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsors Conway, Hasegawa, Keiser, Kuderer, Liias, Pedersen, Saldaña, Stanford, Valdez – Ds) By request of the Governor.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Scheduled for a hearing in Ways & Means at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2232 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
The substitute in the folder with materials for the executive session has a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of it. The amendment requires the fuels transition plan to evaluate the grid’s readiness to serve as the main source of energy for transportation and ton identify shortcomings where actions must be taken to strengthen its reliability.

Summary –
The bill would have the Utilities and Transportation Commission collect, analyze, and report on operational, pricing, and cost information from fuel suppliers, refineries, and other entities in the supply chain for transportation fuels sold in the state. It creates an independent Division of Petroleum Market Oversight with a director appointed by the Governor.

The Division would provide independent oversight and analysis of the transportation fuels markets to protect consumers by identifying market design flaws, market power abuses, and any other ways in which market participants act to harm competition or contrary to the best interests of consumers. It would be authorized to compel witnesses to testify under oath and to subpoena relevant material including current and historical pricing and sales data and industry contracts.It would provide guidance and recommendations to the Governor, as well as members and other divisions of the UTC on issues related to transportation fuels pricing and transportation decarbonization in Washington, and would report its findings and recommendations to improve market performance at least annually to the Legislature, the Governor, the UTC, the Attorney General, and the Department of Licensing.

Refiners, marketer, transporters, storers, pipeline operators, terminal operators, and ports through which transportation fuel is imported or exported would have to report a range of specified information to the UTC on a monthly or an annual basis. The Commission could require additional information needed to fulfill its responsibilities under the bill, and would create a quarterly public report summarizing the collected monthly data from refiners and major marketers, aggregated to preserve the confidentiality of protected information. Records of contracts, transactions and prices would have to be retained for three years so they would be available for review by the UTC. Importers of fuels by ship would have to notify the UTC of arrivals in advance and provide specified information about the delivery; refiners and nonrefiners entering into spot market transactions would have to provide monthly reports on those. Refiners would have to report on maintenance and turnaround activities. (The Legislature intends these to be carried out in a way that ensures that there are the minimum levels of fuels in production or reserves to adequately and affordably meet demand.) They would also have to report on unplanned maintenance events.

In consultation with the Department of Ecology, the UTC would adopt a method for refiners to use to quantify the volume-weighted fees or estimated costs associated with the clean fuels program that were embedded in various prices for wholesale transportation fuels. Those would be included in monthly reporting as well.

After notification, there’d be penalties between $5,000 and $20,000 a day for each day the submission of information was refused or delayed, up to a maximum of $500,000 per submission, as well as penalties for false statements or representations. There are provisions about protecting confidential information.

The UTC would analyze and interpret this information to explore:
(a) The nature, cause, and extent of any petroleum or petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply;
(b) The economic and environmental impacts of any petroleum and petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply;
(c) The demand and supply forecasting methodologies used by the petroleum industry in Washington;
(d) The prices charged by the industry, with particular emphasis on retail motor fuel prices including sales to unbranded retail markets; any significant changes in those; and the reasons for changes;
(e) The profits, both before and after taxes, of the industry as a whole and of major firms within it, and where in the supply chain these profits are realized, including a comparison with the profits, return on equity and capital, and price-earnings ratios of other major industry groups and major firms within them;
(f) A comparison of companies’ profits at their Washington refineries and at any other refineries they own in the United States;
(g) Emerging trends relating to the supply, demand, and conservation of petroleum and petroleum products;
(h) The nature and extent of the industry’s efforts to expand refinery capacity and to acquire additional supplies of petroleum and petroleum products; and
(i) The development of an information system that will enable the state to take action to meet and mitigate any petroleum or petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply.
The commission would also analyze the impacts of state and federal policies and regulations on the supply and pricing of transportation fuels. It would submit a quarterly public summary of its analysis and interpretation of the information it gathered to the Governor and the Legislature, and prepare a biennial assessment of it. (It could hire consultants to help with its work.)

Before July 2026, and every three years after that, the Commission would submit an assessment to the Governor and the Legislature, developed in a public process, that:
(i) Identified methods to ensure a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in Washington, including considering the potential benefits to consumers of creating estimates for the fuels that should be held in reserve by refiners to prevent shortages that result in sharp price increases, and,
(ii) Evaluated the price of fuels and other refinery products, consideringh market demand at three, seven, 10, and 20-year intervals, and examined whether branded fuel additives have any impact on fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions, and if so, how much.

It would also assess the presence and availability of retail outlets, including monitoring changes in their availability that contribute to increasing retail prices in local and regional areas; consider different levels of supply conditions and assess the impact of potential refinery closures in Washington; and include an analysis of the impacts on production of planned refinery maintenance, unplanned maintenance, and turnaround. In consultation with the Department of Labor and Industries and stakeholders, the UTC and the Division would consider ways to manage necessary turnarounds and maintenance that would protect the health and safety of employees and the public, and minimize the impact of maintenance-related production losses on fuel prices. It would evaluate the utility and feasibility of alternative methods to maintain adequate supplies of transportation fuels, including delivery alternatives for fuel and components of fuel, such as delivery by rail, a publicly maintained strategic fuel reserve, and other solutions beyond the activities of refineries and petroleum market participants. It would propose solutions to mitigate any impacts, including an assessment of the employment impacts and the cost and cost-effectiveness of any proposal. The assessments would have to include recommendations and alternatives, and the first one would have to include the evaluation of transportation fuels refining.

By 2026, the UTC and Ecology, would prepare a transportation fuels transition plan, taking into account findings of the assessment. It would have to include include a discussion of how to ensure the supply of transportation fuels is affordable, reliable, equitable, and adequate to meet demand. It would have to be prepared in consultation with a multistakeholder, multiagency work group they convened to identify mechanisms to plan for and monitor progress toward the state’s reliable, safe, equitable, and affordable transition away from petroleum fuels in line with declining demand and its climate goals. (The bill specifies a list of stakeholders that would have to be included in the work group.)

The bill would make it unlawful for a person to make deceptive environmental marketing claims about transportation fuels, whether they were explicit or implied, and authorizes enhanced penalties under the consumer protection laws for violations.

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.

SB6240

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

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

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.

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.

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…

SB6058

SB6058 – Facilitating linkage of Washington’s carbon market with the California-Quebec market.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) By request of the Department of Ecology.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Scheduled for a hearing in Ways & Means at 1:30 PM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2201 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 it; it’s in the folder of materials for the Executive session.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to synchronize Washington’s compliance periods with those of a linked jurisdiction or jurisdictions, and it takes steps in that direction by defining them as a first period, a second period, and so on, as well as by no longer specifying their starting dates or their lengths in years.

It would allow Ecology to require electric power entities to report emissions of greenhouse gases from all electricity that is purchased, sold, imported, exported, or exchanged in Washington. It would eliminate a current exemption from the program’s requirements for the importers of power from unspecified sources with associated exemptions below 25,000 metric tons a year. It would also eliminate an exemption for imports of unspecified power that are balanced by exports of unspecified power by the same entity within the same hour to a jurisdiction that’s not covered by a linked program. It would remove Ecology’s authority to adjust the amount of monetary penalties or the number of penalty allowances in the first compliance period. (It would also specify that the Department is required to establish greenhouse gas emission reporting methodologies for covered entities.)

The bill would allow a general market participant to own more than 10 percent of total allowances to be issued in a calendar year if we linked with a jurisdiction that allowed that.

It would require offsets from a linked jurisdiction to have been generated from projects within that jurisdiction. It also revises the language about the use of offsets from projects on tribal lands. As I read the changes, they simply rephrase the current rules to make it clear that if you use some offsets from projects on tribal lands as part of your basic allowance for offsets, you still can use the additional tribal offsets in the option that allows you to cover some more obligations with those.

The bill also includes a provision to ensure it won’t be put on the ballot as an alternative to Initiative 2117, which would eliminate the cap and invest program.

SB6016

SB6016 – Creating a green energy community fund to support schools and nonprofits in communities where public utilities’ renewable energy projects are located.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 16th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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

Summary –
The bill would allow public utilities to get annual tax credits on the business and occupation taxes and the public utility taxes for their renewable energy projects; each credit would be equal to 75% of a contribution they made to the school district where a project was located or a non-profit operating there. A utility’s credits would be capped at $250,000 a year, and the program’s credits would be limited to $5 million a year.

Utilities would apply for credits in the first half of the year, specifying recipients to which they intended to contribute. If an application were approved, and they actually made the contribution by October, they’d receive the credit.

SB6039

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5973

SB5973– Guaranteeing owners of units in common interest communities opportunities to install their own heat pumps.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice on January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute which would have several sections making changes to the current common interest communities statutes expire if SB5796, which replaces those, passed. Out of committee on January 25th; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would prohibit an association of apartment owners, a condominium owners’ association, a homeowners’ association, or other associations with the power to create rules for the members of common interest communities from effectively prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the installation or use of a heat pump for a unit owner’s personal use. They might require applications for approval which would be handled in the same way as applications for architectural changes. They’d be prohibited from charging a fee for the installation, and would have to approve applications if the installation was reasonably possible, complied with the association’s reasonable relevant architectural standards, and would be installed by a qualified HVAC contractor. The owner would have to have a permit, comply with local building codes, meet applicable health and safety standards, and pay for the installation. The owner and subsequent owners would be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the heat pump, as well as any damages resulting from its installation, use, or removal. They’d be responsible for removing equipment if that was reasonably necessary for work on aspects pf the property in which the residents held a common interest. An association that willfully violated the bill’s requirements would be liable for actual damages, as well as paying attorneys’ fees and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 if an owner prevailed in court.

SB5570

SB5570 – Authorizing electric utilities to establish revolving energy efficiency loan programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Trudeau, Hasegawa, Keiser, Nguyen, Nobles, Pedersen, Randall, Rolfes, Saldaña, Valdez, and C. Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a 2023 hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 8th. Died in committee at cutoff. Apparently reintroduced in 2024, and had a hearing in that committee January 9th. Amended and passed out of committee that day; referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2024 –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the amendment.

Summary –
The bill would create an Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Capitalization Grant program in the Department of Commerce, if funds were specifically appropriated for it. Electric utilities would be able to apply to the Department for funding to establish a revolving loan program making loans to low and middle income households for energy efficiency and weatherization projects, including repairs needed to achieve energy savings. A list of participating contractors would be provided as part of the loan application process, and a separate billing system or an on-bill repayment program would be provided. The loans would be interest free and secured with a lien on the property, and priority in awarding them would be given to properties in overburdened areas. The funds would be exempt from the public utility tax, and all loan repayments would have to be deposited into the revolving loan account.

Deferred loans for income-qualified customers owning and occupying their home could cover the full cost of a project. They’d have to allow repayment to be deferred until the home is sold, when the loan balance would be paid as part of the sales transaction; and would have to allow customers to qualify based on their payment history with the utility.

Forgivable loans could be made to property owners with income-qualified tenants. These would require an energy audit of the property. It would have to be continuously occupied by income-qualified tenants for five years after the upgrades; and the owner would have to keep the rent during that period within the fair market rent determined by HUD. If the owner failed to meet those requirements, the loan balance would be transferred to a new loan and become due on the sale of the home.

A utility could contract with a third party to implement the program, and could apply energy savings from cost-effective measures financed through a loan program toward achieving its conservation acquisition targets under the Energy Independence Act.