Category Archives: In Rules – house of Origin – 2024

HB2465

HB2465 – Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Goehner – R; Bateman – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 30th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 31st. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6291 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comment –
I’m no expert, but I think most of the bill simply codifies the Council’s current processes. The title says it “streamlines” adopting statewide amendments; I don’t see much about doing that in the bill.

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

Summary –
The bill would require the Council to review the new editions of the model codes it adopts by reference within 30 months of their publication. It specifies procedures for proposing and adopting emergency statewide amendments to the code at any time. It authorizes a majority of the Council to initiate an interim code adoption cycle between 12 and 18 months after the effective date of codes adopted in the regular three year cycle to correct errors and omissions, or eliminate obsolete, conflicting, redundant, or unnecessary regulations. It allows for off-cycle amendments, but only at the direction of the Legislature.

More generally, the bill specifies that substantive changes to the code must be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare; or clarifies the intent or application of the code; or be necessary for consistency with state or federal laws and regulations; correct errors and omissions; eliminate an obsolete or conflicting regulation; or be directed by the Legislature. Substantive updates will happen only once during the three year code adoption cycle, unless they happen though one of the exceptions above.

The bill also specifies some procedures for submitting proposed statewide amendments. It would require the Council to develop a process for meetings that allowed the public to understand amendments being proposed for adoption, including modifications to proposed rule text to be in writing, specify the reason for the amendment, and be available to the council and the public at least seven days before a vote on final adoption. The rules would have to encourage councilmembers and technical advisory group members to make proposed amendments and text changes available to other members and the public at least 48 hours before the meeting at which they would be discussed.

The bill specifies criteria for membership in a technical advisory group, and requires approval of a proposed amendment by a majority of a TAG for it to be considered by the Council. It eliminates the Council’s authority to contract for services, and specifies that it’s to hire a managing director. It would require its standing committees, ad hoc committees, and technical advisory groups to conform to the requirements of the open public meetings act.

SB6291

SB6291 – Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Central Washington) (Co-Sponsors Lovick – D; Dozier and Short – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections  January 26th. Replaced by a substitute 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.
HB2465 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
I’m no expert, but I think most of the bill simply codifies the Council’s current processes. The title says it “streamlines” adopting statewide amendments; I don’t see much about doing that in the bill.

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

Summary –
The bill would require the Council to review the new editions of the model codes it adopts by reference within 30 months of their publication. It specifies procedures for proposing and adopting emergency statewide amendments to the code at any time. It authorizes a majority of the Council to initiate an interim code adoption cycle between 12 and 18 months after the effective date of codes adopted in the regular three year cycle to correct errors and omissions, or eliminate obsolete, conflicting, redundant, or unnecessary regulations. It allows for off-cycle amendments, but only at the direction of the Legislature.

More generally, the bill specifies that substantive changes to the code must be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare; or clarifies the intent or application of the code; or be necessary for consistency with state or federal laws and regulations; correct errors and omissions; eliminate an obsolete or conflicting regulation; or be directed by the Legislature. Substantive updates will happen only once during the three year code adoption cycle, unless they happen though one of the exceptions above.

The bill also specifies some procedures for submitting proposed statewide amendments. It would require the Council to develop a process for meetings that allowed the public to understand amendments being proposed for adoption, including modifications to proposed rule text to be in writing, specify the reason for the amendment, and be available to the council and the public at least seven days before a vote on final adoption. The rules would have to encourage councilmembers and technical advisory group members to make proposed amendments and text changes available to other members and the public at least 48 hours before the meeting at which they would be discussed.

The bill specifies criteria for membership in a technical advisory group, and requires approval of a proposed amendment by a majority of a TAG for it to be considered by the Council. It eliminates the Council’s authority to contract for services, and specifies that it’s to hire a managing director. It would require its standing committees, ad hoc committees, and technical advisory groups to conform to the requirements of the open public meetings act.

SB6229

SB6229 – Allowing the Department of Transportation to set the matching requirement for a Green Transportation Capital Grant at the level it deems appropriate.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors King and Holy – R; Cleveland, Liias, Lovick, and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation  on January 23rd, 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.
HB2131 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would allow the Department of Transportation to set the matching requirement for a Green Transportation Capital Grant at the level it deems appropriate. (Currently, the law requires a match by the grantee of at least 20%.)

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.

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.

HB2028

HB2028 – Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers’ ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Santos (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Robertson and Sandlin – Rs;  Reeves & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 17th. Passed out of committee January 31st, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5945 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit direct sales or leases of vehicles to retail customers. (Tesla sells directly to customers like this, without dealers, and Rivian and other new EV companies are adopting this model.)

The bill would prohibit offering consumers a subscription service for any vehicle feature that uses components and hardware that are already on the vehicle when it’s purchased or leased and that is typically offered to a consumer as an upgrade at that point, if it would function after activation without ongoing costs to or support by a dealer, manufacturer, distributor, or a third-party service provider. (The prohibition doesn’t apply to navigation system updates, satellite radio, roadside assistance, software-dependent driver assistance or driver automation features, or services that rely on cellular or other data networks.)

It would prevent manufacturers and distributors from creating programs or policies encouraging or requiring dealers to install direct current fast charging stations, unless those required public access to the stations and  they reimbursed the dealer for half of the cost of installing and maintaining them when the dealer gave them half the net income from charging. They wouldn’t be allowed to encourage or require a dealer to install DC fast charging if the dealer could obtain access to stations that satisfied the program or policy within five miles of the dealership. A program or policy would have to be reasonable in light of all existing circumstances including local conditions; supply and time constraints; and advances in vehicle technology and grid integration. They would have to allow a new dealer to purchase or lease goods or services of like kind and quality from an alternative vendor if goods or services are to be supplied by a vendor chosen by the manufacturer or distributor.

It would also prohibit manufacturers from implementing an incentive program that did not provide an equal opportunity for all dealers to qualify because of their location or sales volume, that predetermined the price of a vehicle, that limited eligibility based on nonvehicle product penetration, or that required use of specific software or service vendors to qualify. If manufacturers provided parts for repairs to dealers free or at a reduced rate, they’d be required to compensate the dealers for using those at the same rate that they’d have compensated them for parts supplied to do repairs under warranty. The bill also changes the method for calculating the rate at which manufacturers compensate dealers for the labor and diagnostic work involved in warranty repairs.

HB2156

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB6089

SB6089 – Eliminating certain minimum requirement equivalencies for becoming electrical inspectors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 34th District; Central Washington) By request of the Department of Labor & Industry.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce  January 18th, and passed out of committee January 22nd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The law currently makes some years of experience as a “journeyperson electrician” in a couple of different settings two ways to become qualified for these jobs. The bill would replace those with the same experiences as a “journeylevel electrician”. (I think this means that experience would no longer have to be in an apprentice program.) It would also eliminate two other ways you can currently qualify for the job through a combination of college work and installation work.

HB2199

HB2199 – Creating tax exemptions for amounts received through transactions involving the Climate Commitment Act’s allowances, offset credits, or price ceiling units.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Orcutt (R; 20th District; Kalama) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Reed, Doglio, and Leavitt, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance on  January 23rd 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 bill would exempt past and future amounts received from the receipt, generation, purchase, sale, transfer, or retirement of the Climate Commitment Act’s allowances, offset credits, or price ceiling units from the business & occupation tax and the public utility tax.

SB6047

SB6047 – Authorizing executive sessions by public natural gas utilities to allow them to comply with the Climate Commitment Act’s prohibition on disclosing auction participation plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Southcentral Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections  January 26th. Replaced by a substitute expanding the bill’s provisions to apply to all public agencies covered by the open public meetings act 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.
HB2173 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would add discussions of greenhouse gas allowance auction bidding information to the reasons that governing bodies are allowed to go into executive session. This would provide the governing bodies of public gas utilities, which are generally subject to the Open Meetings Act, with a way to comply with the provision of the Climate Commitment Act that prohibits disclosing information about their bidding plans.

HB2173

HB2173 – Authorizing executive sessions by public natural gas utilities to allow them to comply with the Climate Commitment Act’s prohibition on disclosing auction participation plans.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations  January 17th. Replaced by a substitute limiting the change to utilities authorized under Title 35 or 35A RCW, and passed out of committee January 31st. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6047 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary
The bill would add discussions of greenhouse gas allowance auction bidding information to the reasons that governing bodies are allowed to go into executive session. This would provide the governing bodies of public gas utilities, which are generally subject to the Open Meetings Act, with a way to comply with the provision of the Climate Commitment Act that prohibits disclosing information about their bidding plans.

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.

SB5945

SB5945 – Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers’ ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Conway (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade; passed out of committee January 9th (without ever having a hearing, as far as I know), and referred to Labor and Commerce. Had a hearing there on  January 25th 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.
HB2028 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
SB6304 would authorize direct sales by EV manufacturers.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit direct sales or leases of vehicles to retail customers. (Tesla sells directly to customers like this, without dealers, and Rivian and other new EV companies are adopting this model.)

The bill would prohibit offering consumers a subscription service for any vehicle feature that uses components and hardware that are already on the vehicle when it’s purchased or leased and that is typically offered to a consumer as an upgrade at that point, if it would function after activation without ongoing costs to or support by a dealer, manufacturer, distributor, or a third-party service provider. (The prohibition doesn’t apply to navigation system updates, satellite radio, roadside assistance, software-dependent driver assistance or driver automation features, or services that rely on cellular or other data networks.)

It would prevent manufacturers and distributors from creating programs or policies encouraging or requiring dealers to install direct current fast charging stations, unless those required public access to the stations and  they reimbursed the dealer for half of the cost of installing and maintaining them when the dealer gave them half the net income from charging. They wouldn’t be allowed to encourage or require a dealer to install DC fast charging if the dealer could obtain access to stations that satisfied the program or policy within five miles of the dealership. A program or policy would have to be reasonable in light of all existing circumstances including local conditions; supply and time constraints; and advances in vehicle technology and grid integration. They would have to allow a new dealer to purchase or lease goods or services of like kind and quality from an alternative vendor if goods or services are to be supplied by a vendor chosen by the manufacturer or distributor.

It would also prohibit manufacturers from implementing an incentive program that did not provide an equal opportunity for all dealers to qualify because of their location or sales volume, that predetermined the price of a vehicle, that limited eligibility based on nonvehicle product penetration, or that required use of specific software or service vendors to qualify. If manufacturers provided parts for repairs to dealers free or at a reduced rate, they’d be required to compensate the dealers for using those at the same rate that they’d have compensated them for parts supplied to do repairs under warranty. The bill also changes the method for calculating the rate at which manufacturers compensate dealers for the labor and diagnostic work involved in warranty repairs.

HB2069

HB2069 – Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; South Central Washington) (Co-Sponsor Doglio; D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute also allowing sales to end-use customers and including CO2 byproducts of biological processes in industrial or manufacturing facilities as “biogenic CO2”. Passed out of committee January 30th, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5919 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would authorize public utility districts to wholesale biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of processing biogas from landfills, anaerobic digesters, and wastewater treatment facilities. (Capturing CO2 from biogas can result in a negative CO2 emission, depending on the situation and how you do the calculations.)

SB5919

SB5919 – Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; South Central Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 16th. Replaced by a substitute also allowing sales to end-use customers and including CO2 byproducts of biological processes in industrial or manufacturing facilities as “biogenic CO2”. Passed out of committee January 26th, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2069 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would authorize public utility districts to wholesale biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of processing biogas from landfills, anaerobic digesters, and wastewater treatment facilities. (Capturing CO2 from biogas can result in a negative CO2 emission, depending on the situation and how you do the calculations.)

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.

HB1976

HB1976 – Allowing the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fosse (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Appropriations; sent on to Rules January 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.

HB1948

HB1948 – Ensuring that methods for calculating a utility’s load under the Energy Independence Act don’t discourage voluntary investments in renewables.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th, 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 –
Under the bill, when retail customers chose to participate in a program in which a utility covered by the Energy Independence Act purchased power for delivery to its system from sources that the Act counted toward meeting its requirements for increased use of renewables, and then retired the associated renewable energy credits on behalf of the customer, that power would not count as part of the utility’s load. It also wouldn’t count toward meeting its requirements.

(If those voluntary purchases by customers are counted as part of the utility’s load they raise its requirements, which are defined as a percentage of its load, but if the customer is claiming the credit for the renewable characteristics of the purchases, they don’t contribute to meeting that increase in the utility’s requirements. The bill would avoid that problem by excluding this power from the Act’s calculations.)

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.

SB5812

SB5812 – Requiring a study of best practices for responding to electric vehicle fires.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation on January 18th. Replaced by a substitute adding consultation with “a representative of the towing and recovery industry, and other entities” to the study, 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.

Summary –
The bill would have the Washington State Patrol do a study of electric vehicle fires in consultation with the Department of Ecology and local fire protection districts. It would cover impacts to the environment and nearby residential areas; health impacts to responding firefighters; best practices for fire response; and best practices for clean-up and disposal. A report on its findings and policy or legislative recommendations would be due to appropriate committees of the Legislature by January 1st, 2025.

HB1433

HB1433 – Adopting a standard method for use in programs for the energy labeling of existing residential buildings.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Ramel, Fitzgibbon, Berry, Reed, and Doglio – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd and March 24th. 2nd Substitute returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session. Amended to make labeling a local option and remove the licensing of home energy assessors; passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2024 – Passed
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the Energy & Environment.

In the House 2023 – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 24th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 13th. Replaced by a second substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 21st. Referred to Rules and passed by the House March 1st.

Substitutes –
This extended various deadlines by a year or eighteen months and specified that score reports to Commerce wouldn’t include the addresses of individual residences or the owner’s names. The second substitute in Appropriations made a few minor changes, and removed the language specifying that nothing in the bill prohibited jurisdictions requiring HERS scores at time of sale, or prohibiting requiring them as a condition for receiving efficiency incentives from Commerce.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Commerce to create rules for using the US Department of Energy’s Home Energy Scores as the primary system for assigning residential buildings scores evaluating their energy efficiency. (These DOE scores are based on an assessment of the building’s characteristics by a trained and certified rater, rather than on the energy used by its current occupants.) Cities and counties could promote or administer home energy score programs, require a score when a residential building is advertised for sale; or require a score to be eligible for Commerce’s financial incentives for efficiency improvements, but the bill itself wouldn’t require buildings to have scores.

The report on a building would have to include its home energy score, on a relative scale of one to 10, with 10 being best; its energy use per year by fuel type; the unit prices for each fuel used to calculate energy costs;  the kilowatt hours per year of renewable energy it generated, if there were any; the annual cost of energy by fuel type and altogether; and its estimated current carbon emissions in tons/per year, which  would have to be shown on a  graphic scale from zero to 15 so a reader could visualize how a building compared to the worst and best possible greenhouse gas outcomes.

The report would also have to include itemized recommendations for priority energy saving improvements that had an expected payback of 10 years or less, as well as for additional improvements. (Recommendations might include upgrades to windows, and wall, roof, attic, and floor insulation.) The report would estimate the home energy score and the expected annual reduction in energy bills after itemized priority improvements were completed. (Reports would also include the building’s floor area, address, and year of construction; the date of the assessment; the assessor’s name, contact information, license number, and employer; a statement indicating that the report met Washington state standards for energy score assessments; and other energy efficiency and green building certifications for which the building had qualified.)

The Department of Licensing would create requirements for licensing home energy assessors by December 31st, 2023, and they would have to be licensed by the next September. (I’m not sure whether the bill’s language would require someone doing assessments using some other system to have a license or not.) The requirements for a license would include standards for training, including provisions for recognizing training provided by other organizations, as well as standards of professional conduct, practice, and ethics.

HB1368

HB1368 – Requiring and funding purchases of zero-emission school buses after September 2035.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Senn (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Fey, Berry, Doglio, Peterson, Chapman, Fosse, Slatter, Gregerson, Callan, Lekanoff, Ramel, Stonier, Street, Santos, Fitzgibbon, and Berg – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education. Redirected to the House Committee on Environment & Energy; had a hearing there February 7th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Appropriations, and died there. Reintroduced in 2024, and had another hearing in House Appropriations on January 11th. Replaced by another substitute 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.
SB5431 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Substitutes –
The 2023 substitute changed the requirement to purchasing 70% zero-emission buses by 2030 and all zero-emission buses by 2033, as well as specifying environmental justice priorities and making some other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. The folder with materials for the 2024 executive session has the next substitute and there’s a staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require purchasing zero-emission school buses after September 1, 2035. It would create a grant program using any specifically appropriated funding to support school districts, charter schools, and state-tribal education compact schools purchasing them, and to support purchasing and installing charging stations and associated infrastructure and equipment. To be eligible for grants, buses powered by fossil fuels would have be at the end of their depreciation schedule and eligible for replacement under the current state law about reimbursing districts for the cost of student transportation vehicles. Grants for buses would not be allowed to exceed the purchase price minus any salvage value of the bus being replaced.

There would be a competitive application process, prioritizing grants that provided the greatest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the amount of state support, and considering expected improvements in health equity for communities of color and low-income communities; and the age of applicants’ fleets. OSPI would also be allowed to consider other factors such as air quality improvements in areas with high traffic congestion. (At the time of an award, a grantee would have to have enough charging infrastructure in place to operate the replacement bus; or have secured enough funding in addition to the grant to purchase and install that.) OSPI would also publish an annual list of Federal grant opportunities pertinent to replacing nonzero emission school buses.

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.