Category Archives: Senate Bills 2023

SB5766

SB5766 – Funding a new account and creating a system to provide refunds for purchases of fuels exempt from the requirements of the Clean Fuels Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Central King County) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee at 12:30 PM on Monday April 10th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a Climate Commitment Act Remittance account and direct $50 million of the 2024 cap and invest auction proceeds to it; in subsequent years it would be funded by appropriations. It would have the Department of Ecology create a system for to refund farm fuel users and freight haulers of agricultural products eight-tenths of one percent of their fuel costs, in order to reimburse them for the additional amounts they will pay at the time of purchasing fuels exempt from coverage under the cap and trade program. The system would include a portal allowing the electronic submission of applications for remittance and specified supporting documentation. The bill would prohibit businesses from including any separate charges or costs on billing statements indicating that those are being imposed or collected because of the cap and invest act.

It would also have Ecology convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to review the rules and processes developed for these and the other emissions exempted from coverage under the act and to develop recommendations for changes to laws, rules, policies, and practices to ensure the exemptions’ full use and benefit. The group would make recommendations and report on whether exemption processes have been responsive to markets’ reactions to the program; on whether the processes can be improved or alternatives developed to reduce the burdens on those seeking an exemption; on the adequacy of current guidance and tools to report them; on whether changes in the program for agricultural fuels created by the bill are needed; and on any other topics the group determines are needed to review the full use and enjoyment of the exemptions.

SB5760

SB570 – Creating a new process for acquiring up to five hybrid diesel-electric ferries.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsors King, Holy – Rs, Randall, Rolfes, Nguyen, Van De Wege, Hunt, and C. Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee at 4:00 PM on Monday March 20th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1846 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would allow acquiring up to five hybrid diesel-electric ferries using a using a one or two contract procurement approach. (This would replace the current three stage request for proposals process, which includes a requirement that the ferries be built in Washington.) The new contracts would be for a minimum of two vessels, with options for up to five. They could be acquired through a design-build or design-bid-build process, or leased with an option to buy. The evaluation criteria might include a credit between 5% and 10% of the proposal for vessels constructed in Washington, as well as adjustments for the additional costs of transport and owner oversight for construction at ship yards located at a greater distance from Seattle; for meeting state requirements about apprenticeships or other state or federal equivalents; and for meeting water pollution control requirements.

Contracts eligible for Federal funds would have to comply with Federal disadvantaged business enterprise targets as outlined by the awarding agency. The Department would have to contract with third-party experts with knowledge of and experience with inland waterways, Puget Sound vessel operations, the propulsion system of the new vessels, and Washington state ferries operations to perform project quality oversight and report to the transportation committees of the Legislature and to OFM twice a year on project schedule, risks, and project budget; to assist with the management of change order requests; and to advise on contract and technical matters.

SB5759

SB5759 – Creating a revolving loan program for specified clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the State Energy Office to make loans from a revolving fund for specified projects. They could be used to fund part or all of electric or hydrogen vehicle fleets, charging, or refueling stations; siting evaluations and permitting for energy generation or transmission projects that promote the energy reliability goals of the Clean Energy Transformation Act; installation of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydrogen infrastructure to assist with supplying the applicant’s energy needs; buildout of advanced nuclear reactor technology including small modular reactors; and promoting decarbonization of an applicant’s facility.

The bill would be null and void if specific funding for the program was not appropriated this session.

SB5728

SB5728 – Reimbursing users of some fuels exempt under the cap and invest program for any additional amounts they pay because of their suppliers’ compliance obligations. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Dozier (R; 16th District; Walla Walla & Benton County) (Co-Sponsor Schoesler – R)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB1780 addresses the same issue in a somewhat broader and less tightly drafted way.

Summary –
The bill would require the state to develop a process to ensure that users of the fuels for watercraft and agriculture that are exempted from complying with the cap and invest act are compensated for any additional amounts they end up paying for those because of their suppliers’ compliance obligations. (Ecology would consult with the Department of Revenue to develop a method to determine those amounts, and would be required to reimburse users for them within two weeks after completed applications for refunds were received.)

SB5688

SB5688 – Creating programs selling carbon offsets and other ecosystem services based on state and local government lands. (NTIB?)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Nguyen, Hunt, Liias, Rolfes, and Saldaña – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 10th, and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Still in Ways and Means at the fiscal cutoff. (May be NTIB.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB1789 is a different version of this bill, also requested by DNR. They have the same provisions for DNR’s activities. This bill also requires Ecology to create a program to help agencies and local governments develop carbon offset programs. That bill has a much more expansive findings section, and different definitions of “ecosystems services” and “ecosystem service marketplace” though it’s not clear to me that the differences have any practical significance.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to create a program to help agencies and local government develop carbon offset programs for lands they manage, including funding or technical assistance to assess projects’ technical feasibility, investment requirements, development and operational costs, expected returns, administrative and legal hurdles, risks, and pitfalls.

It would authorize the Department of Natural Resources to enter into contracts for up to 125 years based on providing ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and storage, air and water filtration, climate stabilization, disturbance mitigation, pollination, pest and disease control, waste decomposition and detoxification, and nutrient from land it manages. DNR could sell voluntary or compliance credits directly through established marketplaces, or contract with project developers or brokers to handle that, including paying them for determining projects’ feasibility; negotiating payments with an ecosystem service marketplace; and marketing and selling credits on one.

The Board of Natural Resources would develop rules for these contracts and set minumum payments covering periods of at least three months for them; it might also choose to set an actual price based on current markets. DNR would be required to report to the Board about each signed contract, including its term and projected revenues. (The bill says the Board could delegate its authority to approve “any credit sales that the Board is required by law to approve” to the Commissioner of Public Lands, but what sales those would be isn’t clear to me.)

Revenues from the sale of credits would be distributed to the Forest Development Account, the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account, counties, and school districts in the same way that revenues from forests and aquatic lands are currently distributed.

SB5611

SB5611 – Improving community preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience to wildfire impacts in areas of increasing density. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; Skagit & Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Shewmake, Hunt, Lovelett, Valdez, & Van De Wege – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1578 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to assess areas at significant risk for wildfire over the next ten years, to do a mid-term interim report and to repeat the process for at least two succeeding ten year periods. The assessment would include an analysis of predicted climate influence on wildfire risk and provide enough detail for stakeholders to develop strategies to address it. The Department would cooperate with local law enforcement, tribes, county emergency managers, and local fire protection districts to develop evacuation strategies for areas facing significant wildfire risks and provide support to incorporate those in existing emergency response plans. It would lead a project to provide public disaster and evacuation plan messaging and information at the recreation and outdoor access sites it manages, including signage at trailheads.

In addition, the Department would be required to expand its programming for community and property wildfire readiness, and the associated programs such as resilience grants and service forestry within areas of western Washington where it determined there were wildfire and smoke exposure risks. It would participate in cross-agency emergency management planning and response efforts related to wildfire smoke. It would share wildfire information online, and incorporate smoke readiness into community resilience programming, coordinating with other government agencies to share information and guidance (including providing online fire information) for communities affected by wildfire smoke. It would establish a smoke monitoring and predictive services team using a variety of tools to assess wildland smoke risks and impacts; work cross-agency to address public health concerns, smoke risk to transportation safety, and firefighter exposure to smoke; and conduct community engagement and outreach related to smoke risks and impacts, with particular emphasis on environmental justice issues.

It would also coordinate with state agencies, local fire protection districts, local governments, and Indian tribes to identify smoke respite areas in high-risk communities and promote the utilization of community buildings as clean air and cooling centers, with specific information strategies targeted to people who might not receive electronic communication. It would leverage community resilience programming to ensure residents and organizations are provided information about services and programs to improve home indoor air quality, such as low-income weatherization services.

It would implement a postwildfire debris flow program, identifying areas prone to hazards from flows, assessing burned areas to determine potential for increases in flow hazards, improving modeling to determine triggers to use in postwildfire debris flow early warning, and communicating information about preparedness and response to officials, stakeholders, and the public. It would have to establish the structure for a state sponsored burned area emergency stabilization and response program in consultation with stakeholders by December 30th, 2024, making recommendations about the funding to provide capacity-building for communities to establish local teams, the number of teams needed, and the funding to support their deployments and implement hazard mitigation. The teams would be responsible for determining needs for emergency postfire treatments to help provide public safety and resource protection.

SB5659

SB5659 – Allows gas utilities to develop a wide range of renewable energy projects, and creating a tax exemption for renewable gas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsor Liias – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 14th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill adds to the provisions of HB1619 in several ways.

Summary –
The bill would authorize gas companies to develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of natural gas delivered to in-state customers and from electricity generated from fossil fuels that’s used by retail electric customers in the state. They could seek to recover the cost of those investments in their rates through the UTC. Those investments might include residential and commercial rooftop solar, including battery storage and supplemental solar; community solar projects designed to offset carbon associated with the use of conventional natural gas; ground source heat pumps for district heating and targeted load reduction in new buildings used as a strategy for complying with the State’s cap and trade requirements; renewable gaseous fuels projects, including renewable natural gas and green electrolytic hydrogen, along with associated facility and pipeline infrastructure, upgrades, and improvements for industrial and heavy duty transportation; carbon capture and sequestration projects associated with natural gas projects and facilities; and research, development, and pilot efforts pertaining to nonemitting natural gas equipment and technologies. (Unlike HB1619, the bill would have the UTC consider purchases of energy derived from such projects outside the state and investments in them as being “in the state’s interest” if the carbon emissions from them were only booked and claimed in Washington. This bill also specifies that a gas company could claim investments in residential and commercial rooftop solar, including associated battery storage, and in community solar projects as reductions against its cap and invest carbon compliance obligations if it surrendered the renewable energy credits they produced.)

The bill would also create a ten year sales and use tax exemption for machinery and equipment used for generating renewable natural gas or connecting it to a pipeline. (The exemption would also apply to labor and services for installing that.) Renewable natural gas would be defined as what’s generated from “the decomposition of organic material in landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and anaerobic digesters.”

It would authorize gas companies to propose renewable natural gas programs for the UTC’s review. If approved, a company could supply renewable natural gas as part of the natural gas sold or delivered to their retail customers. The environmental attributes of that renewable natural gas would have to be retired using procedures established by the Commission, though it could also approve procedures for banking and transferring those. (The Commission could also approve the inclusion of other sources of gas if the gas was produced without consumption of fossil fuels. I think this probably includes green hydrogen.)

Unlike HB1619, the bill would provide exemptions from any state or local restrictions or limitations on the use of natural gas in buildings where the amount of gas consumed in the building was equal to an amount of renewable natural gas acquired by the utility serving the site; there was a real estate covenant on the building confirming that only renewable natural would be provided to it; and the utility had certified to the UTC that only renewable natural gas would be “provided to” the building. It would allow dual fuel heat pumps using both natural gas and electricity to be installed in any building for use as a peaking resource alternative under CETA when natural gas space and water heating supplements electric space and water heat pumps in a way that reduces the consumption of electricity when ambient temperatures fall below 40° F.

SB5636

SB5636 – Allows all cities in counties using GMA planning to regulate forest practices on land within their boundaries if they adopt standards equivalent to DNR’s. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hunt (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 10:30 AM Thursday February 9th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1689 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
Currently, counties with over 100,000 people planning under the GMA and local jurisdictions within them where at least 25 Class IV applications for timber harvesting or road construction on forestlands were filed from January 2003 through 2004 have to adopt DNR’s forest practices regulations for various classes of forestland. (Class IV applications cover logging and road building on forestlands that are being converted to another use; on lands that aren’t going to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development; and on lands within the urban growth area with some exceptions.)

The bill would authorize any city in a county planning under the GMA to regulate all forest practices within its limits if it used standards equivalent to DNR’s.

SB5542

SB5542 – Regulating the sale of metal components from EV charging equipment to help keep thieves from stealing or destroying it.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington) (Co-sponsors Rolfes, Shewmake, Hunt, Claire Wilson, Cleveland, Lovick, Valdez, Lovelett, Nguyen, and Salomon – Ds; Fortunato, Padden, Gildon, Braun, and Lynda Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Business March 15th and passed out of committee March 22nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law and Justice at 10:30 AM Tuesday February 7th. Replaced by a substitute making a minor change in the term used for charging equipment and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 27th.

Summary –
The bill would add electric vehicle charging equipment to the definition of “commercial metal property,” which includes things like catalytic converters and scrap wire, making it subject to a variety of existing regulations about sales procedures.

SB5362

SB5362 – Advancing the due date for the Department of Ecology’s report on the effects of the Clean Fuels program. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-sponsors Dozier, Short, Torres, and Lynda Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on February 3rd. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Given the emphasis in the bill’s findings on the increases in gas prices that might result from the program over its lifetime, it’s hard to resist the thought that its primary motivation might be the hope that an earlier report will be useful during the campaigns for the Fall 2024 elections.

Summary –
The bill would advance the date for the first report from Ecology on the activities of the Clean Fuels program, from May 1st 2025 to February 1st 2024. (An annual report would still be due in each subsequent year, but now in February rather than May.)

SB5620

SB5620 – Creating policy for recovering utilities’ costs providing distribution infrastructure for commercial customers installing electric vehicle supply equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-sponsor Boenhke – R)
Current status – Referred to Senate Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Utilities and Transportation Commission to create a policy by January 1, 2024 providing guidance to electrical companies on rate recovery for the costs of installing, maintaining, and operating distribution infrastructure for commercial customers installing electric vehicle supply equipment. It would have to treat this infrastructure and associated design, engineering, and construction as it treated other distribution infrastructure authorized for rate recovery. By July of that year, each company would have to file a proposed tariff for the recovery of those costs for the Commission’s review.

SB5594

SB5594 – Allowing fully autonomous vehicles with requestable remote intervention on public roads, with nearly the same rules as for human drivers’. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke, (R; 8th District; Kennewick) (Co-sponsors Nguyen, Liias, and King)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Transportation February 7th. Still in committee by cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 4:00 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill would allow a fully autonomous vehicle on all public roads without a human driver if:
1) It was licensed in the normal way, could carry out all the real-time operational and tactical functions required to operate in traffic (except for things like selecting a destination), and could comply with the traffic and vehicle safety laws and rules;
2) It would achieve “a minimal risk condition” to reduce the risk of crashes if a failure of the automated driving system rendered it unable to do everything needed to drive in traffic;
3) It would issue a request to intervene whenever the system wasn’t capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task, with the expectation that the person responsible for it would respond appropriately; and
3) It displayed the manufacturer’s label indicating that it complied with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, including reference to any exemption granted by the NHTSA, when it was manufactured.

Operating such a vehicle on a public road would require submitting a law enforcement plan to the State Patrol describing how to communicate with a fleet support specialist available when it’s in operation; how to safely remove it from the road and how to tow it; how to recognize whether it’s in autonomous mode; and any other information the manufacturer or owner deemed necessary about hazardous conditions or public safety risks associated with its operation. Until 2029, it would require the owner of the vehicle to submit the most recent voluntary self-assessment that’s been provided to NHTSA to the Department of Licensing, and to  provide notice to the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the area where the vehicle will be operating “within 14 days of operation” including the owner’s contact information and a copy of the interaction plan. The owner would have to register the vehicle in the usual way, and submit proof of financial responsibility that was satisfactory to the Department showing that vehicle was covered by insurance or proof of self- insurance that satisfied the requirements for other vehicles, as well as carrying an umbrella policy providing at $5,000,000 of coverage per occurrence for bodily injury, death, or property damage resulting from the operation of the vehicle.

On-demand transportation service networks using these vehicles would have to be permitted to operate under the standard state laws governing transportation network companies, taxis, and other ground transportation for-hire of passengers . Fully autonomous commercial vehicles would be allowed, under the provisions for other commercial vehicles. Provisions for other vehicles that reasonably applied only to a human driver would be excepted.

If one of these vehicles were involved in an accident or a collision it would have to remain on the scene when that would be required of other vehicles, and the owner would have to report the event in the usual way. By February each year until 2028, the owner would have to submit a report covering reported crashes or collisions from the previous year to the Department and all municipalities where the vehicle had operated for more than five days.

The bill would give the Department of Licensing exclusive responsibility for governing autonomous vehicles, automated driving systems, and on-demand autonomous vehicle networks and would prohibit all other agencies and jurisdictions from having taxes, fees, or other requirements limiting their operations.

SB5579

SB5579 – Allows Ecology to stop enforcing requirements for reducing hydrofluorcarbon emissions if supply chain problems might impair state businesses or consumers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz & Lewis County) (Co-sponsor Lynda Wilson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 14th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This would authorize Ecology to grant variances from the requirements in these situations rather than allowing the department to simply stop enforcing them.

Summary –
The bill would allow Ecology to stop enforcing the current requirements for reducing hydrofluorcarbon emissions if it determined that supply chain problems or similar
disruptions threatened to impair businesses or consumers in the state, and that suspending enforcement of a requirement would mitigate the problem.

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.

SB5551

SB5551 – Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors King, Warnick, Muzzall, Braun, Short – Rs; Wellman, Salomon, Van De Wege, Hasegawa, Nobles, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 6th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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

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

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

SB5562

SB5562 – Requiring steps to transition off natural gas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 1st. Replaced by a substitute to match the changes made in the companion bill by the House and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Ways and Means and had a hearing there on February 20th. Still in committee at fiscal cutoff. Reintroduced in Ways & Means for the 2024 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1589 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes made in the substitute to match the House’s changes are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the beginning of it. They include raising the threshold at which projects require labor standards from $1 million to $10 million, and requiring PSE to meet at least 2% of its annual load with conservation and energy efficiency resources, and to achieve “annual demand response” of at least 10% of its peak summer and winter loads, unless the UTC finds that higher percentages would be cost-effective.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit large gas companies serving more than 500,000 customers from providing gas service to new residential and commercial customers after June 30th 2023. (I’m pretty certain that Puget Sound Energy is currently the only company with this many customers.)

Every four years, the bill would require a large gas company to include a gas decarbonization plan for reducing its proportional share of the State’s greenhouse emissions reduction targets as part of its multiyear rate hearings with the Utilities and Transportation Commission. The plan would have to include programs to advance gas decarbonization measures for customers. It would have to prioritize investments that benefited low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; programs targeted to them; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would be required to include a portfolio of resources using alternative energy to the maximum practicable extent. It would have to meet a cost target which would be 2.5% of its approved revenue for each year of the plan. (It might include leak reductions approved by the commission if they demonstrated emissions reductions, whether or not those would produce the reduction targets in the plan.)

A plan would have to quantify the projected cumulative emissions reductions for each reduction period resulting from each portfolio presented; propose budgets resulting from each of those; quantify the cost of implementing each of them; project the annual emissions reductions that would result if each of them were extended through 2050; and describe the effects of the actions and investments in each one on the safety, reliability, and resilience of the company’s service. A plan would identify potential changes to depreciation schedules or other actions to align the large gas company’s cost recovery with statewide policy goals, including reducing greenhouse emissions, minimizing costs, and minimizing risks to the company and its customers. It would explain the company’s analysis of the costs and benefits of an array of alternatives, including the costs of emissions used in the calculations; describe the monitoring and verification methodology to be used in reporting; and include any other information the UTC required.

Starting in 2026, a combination utility providing both electric service to some customers as well as gas service to over 500,000 customers (ie. PSE) would have to file an electrification plan along with the gas decarbonization plan. It might include demand-side management strategies or transportation electrification plans, but it would have to include programs to advance electrification for customers, programs targeted to low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would have to include budgets; targeted numbers of installations; projected fuel savings; projected cost-effectiveness calculations, including the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and projected reductions in those; and other information deemed relevant by the UTC. It would have to meet the same cost target as the gas decarbonization plan would. It would have to provide documentation and data to show the plan was consistent with maintaining the reliability of the grid; and incentives to facilitate electrification, which might include programs for both new and existing buildings. (Products eligible for incentives would have to be Energy Star certified, if certification for that type of appliance existed.)

The bill would require these companies (ie. PSE) to calculate their reporting to the State about emissions from gas by including methane leaked from its transportation and delivery in distribution and service pipelines from the city gate to customer end use; emissions resulting from the combustion of gas by customers not otherwise subject to federal greenhouse gas emissions reporting (and excluding all transport customers); and emissions of methane resulting from leakage in the delivery of gas to other gas companies. They’d have to show their emissions baseline and projected cumulative emissions for the applicable emissions reduction period separately, and would have to show that the total reductions were projected to make progress toward achieving the reduction targets identified in the applicable decarbonization plan.

The UTC might approve, modify, or reject a proposed plan. It would take into account whether a gas decarbonization or electrification plan achieved reductions for each emissions reduction period; whether a plan demonstrated progress toward meeting its targets through maximizing the use of alternative energy resources; whether its investments prioritized serving low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; whether it resulted in a reasonable cost to customers; and whether it maintained system reliability. The commission would have to require a large gas company to achieve the maximum level of greenhouse gas emissions reductions practicable using alternative energy resources at or below the applicable cost target. (It might approve, or amend and approve, a gas or electric plan with greater costs if it found that the plan was in the public interest, costs to customers were reasonable, it included mitigation of rate increases for low-income customers, and its benefits including consideration of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions exceeded its costs.

Any combination utility with an electrification plan approved by the Commission would be required to get 40% of the total capacity and energy it needed to meet the requirements of the Clean Energy Transformation Act (aka the cap and invest bill) through power purchase agreements through which it bought energy, capacity, and environmental attributes from “resources” owned and operated by entities that were not affiliated with the utility, and that gave the utility rights to dispatch, operate, and control the resources in the same ways as the utility’s managing its own. [I think this subsection is supposed to read “renewable resources.] (The rest of the needed capacity and energy would have to come from resources owned and operated by the combination utility or an affiliate. Once the UTC approved a power purchase agreement included in an approved electrification plan, the utility would be allowed to set its rates to recover the operating expense of the purchases of “renewable resources” under the agreement as well as earning a return on those expenses at a rate no less than the authorized cost of its debt and no greater than its authorized rate of return.

The bill would require the UTC to start adopting depreciation schedules for any gas plant a combination utility had in service as part of considering a multiyear rate plan filed by a combination utility. The incremental depreciation for each year of the plan would be 1% of the utility’s gas revenue requirement for the preceding year. If the utility’s rate base for gas operations was less than or equal to 20% of the rate base for its electrical operations, and the utility chose to request the change, the Commission would merge the rate bases supporting gas and electric service in the next multiyear plan and adopt rates supporting recovery of the merged rate base. [I think this last provision means that if PSE’s gas business got small enough it could spread the costs of maintaining the gas system’s infrastructure over all its customers, not just the ones who were still using gas, and including the customers for electricity in the areas where it’s never sold gas.]

The bill would require a large gas company, with over 500,000 customers, to include community workforce agreements or project labor agreements, the payment of area prevailing wages, and apprenticeship utilization requirements in contracts with competitive bidding for projects costing over $1 million. It would encourage any entities providing retail electric service in the state to work with a large gas company providing service within their areas to identify opportunities for electrification and the provision of energy peaking service by the large gas company; to account for the costs of greenhouse gas emissions, set total energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals; develop and implement electrification programs in collaboration with large gas companies providing service in their area; and to include an electrification plan or transportation electrification program as part of a clean energy plan.

SB5509

SB5509 – Creating a Washington State public infrastructure bank.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 21st District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services Gaming & Trade January 31st. Amended to change the bank’s capitalization from an appropriation to a five year loan from the State and passed out of committee February 16th.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a State infrastructure bank once that had been capitalized with sufficient State or Federal funds to allow it to issue competitive loans and various legal processes had been completed, including the approval of its organization by the local and tribal governments becoming members. The bank would be governed by an operating board of nine directors, serving without reimbursement; five of them would be elected local or tribal government officials chosen by those governments, three would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, and the State Treasurer would be a director. The Board would hire a salaried executive director, and the bank’s administration and operations would be carried out by the State Treasurer’s Office.

The bank would be authorized to engage in a lot of typical business activities, including buying and selling property, acquiring insurance, and issuing bonds (on its own behalf, not as State debt.) The State Treasurer and local or tribal governments would be authorized to invest in these bonds, in addition to private parties. The bank would make loans to state or local or tribal governments for infrastructure and economic development projects, and could collect fees or chargers it decided would help accomplish its activities from its member governments. (It would have a goal of providing 30% of its annual lending to support housing in low to moderate-income areas after it had been operating for five years.) The actual bill doesn’t list examples, but its findings list projects for the planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets and roads, bridges, water systems, storm and sanitary sewage systems, solid waste handling, communications systems, housing, and other public infrastructure and economic development projects. The bank could provide technical or financing assistance to state, local and tribal governments for helping to implement their financing programs, and it could distribute surplus funds to them if two-thirds of the Board approved. It could enter into agreements with other banks, including the National Cooperative Bank, or trust companies, to deal with its obligations relative to these bonds, or any matters relating to the exercise of its powers.

The bill would include the bank’s financial, commercial, and proprietary information in the current exemptions from disclosure in the Public Records Act

SB5466

SB5466 – Promoting transit oriented development. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Lynwood) (Twenty-one co-sponsors) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Housing March 16th. Replaced by a striker, amended twice, and passed out of committee March 28th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on the Capitol Budget March 30th, and passed out of committee on the 31st. Referred to Rules. Still in Rules at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1517 is a companion bill in the House.

Changes in the House –
The extensive changes made in the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it. One of the amendments specifies that the Growth Management Hearings Board has to give substantial deference to a finding by Commerce of substantial compliance with the density requirements; requires Commerce to grant an extension from the requirements for any areas at risk of displacement; and removes the use of the multifamily tax exemption from the criteria for prioritizing environmental grants. Others limit the grant eligibility of projects with at least 100 units of housing to those with rental, shelter, or permanent supportive housing and make units with at least 30 units of owner-occupied housing eligible for the grants. The covenant for the homeownership projects could allow incomes up to 80% of the area medium income instead of 60%. Additional changes in another amendment are summarized by staff at the end of it.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs January 31st. Passed out of committee February 7th, and referred to Transportation. Had a hearing there February 13th; replaced by a substitute; and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to make a few minor changes and passed by the Senate March 1st.

Comments –
Though Section 6(5)(b) of the bill says that certain of its restrictions on local development standards don’t apply to those contained in a shoreline master program, Section 9(3) seems to categorically exempt any multifamily, mixed-use or commercial development in areas near major transit from the State Environmental Policy Act.

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

Summary –
The bill would prohibit cities planning under the Growth Management Act from having any development regulations that would prohibit multifamily housing on any parcels where other residential uses were permitted within three-quarters of a mile from a major transit stop in an urban growth area. (The bill defines a major stop as one that is or has been funded for development as a ferry terminal, a stop for rail, for bus rapid transit or bus service that runs in HOV lanes, or for transit providing fixed route service every day at intervals defined by the local transit agency.) Any maximum floor ratio in these areas would have to include a 50% density bonus for housing for households at or below 60 % of area median income or for long-term inpatient care. Cities couldn’t enact new maximum residential densities in these areas. (They would be allowed to have higher or lower floor area ratios in parts of an area if the average maximum ratio of all the buildable land in it provided at least the required transit-oriented density, nothing had a floor area ratio less than 1.0, and nothing within a quarter mile of a rail station had a ratio less than 0.5.) These requirements wouldn’t apply to areas subject to a shoreline master program or critical area ordinance, to non-conforming parcels, or to those on a state or national heritage register, but even cities with existing regulations that didn’t meet them would have to enforce and apply those in a way that was “consistent with” the bill’s requirements. If these cities had not already adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of their mandatory housing element under the GMA, they’d have to take the steps that element specifies for identifying local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing with respect to these areas near major transit. They’d also be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition for permits in these areas, unless it was for the exclusive use of individuals with disabilities.

The bill would allow local jurisdictions to categorically exempt multifamily residential development, mixed-use development, and commercial development projects in these areas from the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, if a project wasn’t inconsistent with the applicable comprehensive plan, and didn’t clearly exceed the density or intensity of use called for in the plan. It would prohibit home owners’ associations and other similar organizations from adopting rules that weren’t consistent with the bill’s requirements.

The bill would have the Department of Transportation create a new division, or expand an existing one, to provide technical assistance and award planning grants to cities to implement its requirements, provide compliance review of any regulations adopted in accordance with those, and mediate or help resolve disputes between DOT, local governments, and project proponents about land use decisions and processing permit applications.

In consultation with Commerce, the department would create a competitive grant program to help finance housing projects in rapid transit corridors. Grants would be available for projects within a quarter mile of a rapid transit corridor that met specifications for floor area ratios or net density minimums, produced at least 100 units of housing; and included a covenant on the property requiring at least 20% of the units to remain affordable for households with incomes at or below 80 percent of area median income for at least 99 years. The grants could be provided for project capital costs, infrastructure costs, and for addressing gaps in financing that would prevent ongoing or complete project construction; they’d be available to agencies, local governments, and developers. The department would be required to prioritize projects by occupancy date, and would also have to consider a list of other criteria.

The bill would allow money that was appropriated to the Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Fund to facilitate transit oriented development to be used by Commerce for grants to support a variety of planning processes. It specifies a long list of criteria for prioritizing these awards; it also uses a somewhat different definition of “transit access” from that in other sections of the bill, including being within walking distance of a park and ride.

SB5484

SB5484 – Creating a network of sustainable farms and fields advisors & making minor revisions to the grants program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 6th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the State Conservation Commission, which oversees the conservation districts, develop a network of sustainable farms and fields advisors. Groups of conservation districts would hire, host, and share their services. They would provide consultations and develop sustainable farms and fields plans for interested farmers and food processors, helping them reduce their carbon footprint by increasing energy efficiency, utilizing more green energy, sequestering carbon, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The advisors would also inform them about funding opportunities to help achieve these goals, including the Sustainable Farms and Fields grant program. A new staff member at the Commission would coordinate the program, including disseminating information about energy efficiency, climate-smart practices, and funding opportunities; applying for grants; and writing progress reports.

The bill would revise the Sustainable Farms and Fields grant program, shifting from allowing grants for down payments and purchases of equipment to allowing cost sharing for equipment purchases, dropping some details about equipment purchased with grants; and expanding and broadening the current language about the services to farmers the grants might fund.

SB5471

SB5471 – Allowing the use of E-bikes on certain trails and roads by persons with disabilities. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Cleveland (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Jeff Wilson – R; Shewmake, Randall, Lovelett, Valdez, C. Wilson, Dhingra, Kuderer, Liias, and Van De Wege – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute amending a different section of the code to extend the current rules allowing this for two years or until local planning adopts rules addressing the issue. Passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Ways and Means, had a hearing there February 18th, and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules – sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Cleveland sponsored SB5452, a more expansive bill on this issue, in 2021; it was converted to a study and passed. This year, she and Senator Wilson are also sponsoring a new version of that bill, SB5314.

Summary –
The bill would require DNR and Fish and Wildlife to allow people with a current parking
placard for disabilities to use Class 1 and Class 2 electric-assisted bicycles on the nonmotorized natural surface trails and closed roads that are under their jurisdiction and allow bicycles.

SB5447

SB5447 – Supporting production and use of lower emission jet fuels, renewable fuels, and green electrolytic hydrogen.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Billig (D; 3rd District; Spokane) (Twenty-one co-sponsors)
Current status –  Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 13th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in House Finance March 28th. Amended there and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules and passed by the House April 14th.  Senate concurred in House amendments April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the House –
The changes made in the striker in Environment & Energy are summarized by staff at the end of it.

The Legislative tracking page for the bill says that then it was passed  “with amendment(s) but without amendment(s) by Environment & Energy in Finance. (I don’t understand this, since as far as I can see, the only amendment in Environment & Energy was the striker, and that seems to be what was adopted and then amended in Finance.) If I understand it correctly, one of those amendments would change the definition of the alternative jet fuels which are eligible for the tax credits from ones which met the current carbon intensity standard for the Clean Fuels Program as of the bill’s effective date to ones which had a lower carbon intensity than the conventional fuel for which they could substitute, according to a full life-cycle analysis done at the time of the application for the credits. The other would make alternative jet fuels produced at “a location that is either a historic cemetery or tribal burial ground” ineligible for the tax credits.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 20th. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor and passed by the Senate March 1st.

Substitutes
This would limit the carry over of credits to the next year, and make a number of other minor adjustments that staff summarizes at the beginning of it. There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the striker at the end of it.

Summary –
The bill defines “alternative jet fuels” as ones made from petroleum or nonpetroleum sources that can be blended with conventional jet fuels without the need to modify engines or the existing distribution infrastructure, and that have a lower carbon intensity than the applicable clean fuels standard for diesel and diesel substitutes. (That’s based on gradually increasing reductions from their carbon intensity in 2017.) The bill would also require Ecology to “amend the energy economy ratio for alternative jet fuel relative to conventional jet fuel from the value of 1.0 to 1.3” within ten years after a facility capable of producing at least twenty million gallons of alternative jet fuel began operating in the state. That ratio would then have to be reduced by 0.1% every three years until it was back to 1.0. (I’m not sure about the point of this, but I think it’s about creating a higher carbon intensity baseline for it under WAC 173-424-620, so it would be easier to get credits under the Clean Fuels Act for a given reduction in its carbon intensity.) Ecology would also be required to allow biomethane to be claimed as a feedstock for alternative jet fuel in the same way it was treated with respect to natural gas and hydrogen production.

Once the bill’s in-state production requirement was met, it would lower the B&O tax on its manufacturing and sales for ten years, from the standard B&O 0.484% tax rate on manufacturing to 0.275%. It would also provide businesses producing it in counties with fewer than 650,000 people or a business’s designated alternative jet fuel blender anywhere in the state with a credit of $1.00/gallon against the remaining B&O tax if the fuel had at least 50% lower CO2e emissions than conventional fuel. The credit would increase by 2¢/gallon for each additional one percent reduction in emissions, up to a limit of $2/gallon. Sales contracts with final consumers would have to “reflect” any bonus credits, and the bill would provide the same bonus credits for consumers using those fuels with additional emissions reductions for flights originating in the state. Credits could be carried over and used to offset taxes in later years.

The bill would require the Office of Clean Technology at WSU to convene an alternative jet fuels work group with various stakeholders to further the development of alternative jet fuel as a productive industry in the state.  It would provide a report including recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature by December of every even-numbered year until 2028.

The bill would create a statewide Office of Renewable Fuels in the Department of Commerce to accelerate market development with assistance along the entire life cycle of renewable fuel projects; and support their research, development, and deployment, as well as the production, distribution, and use of renewable and green electrolytic hydrogen, and product engineering and manufacturing related to its production and use. It would drive job creation, improve economic vitality, and support the transition to clean energy; further the development and use of alternative jet fuels; enhance resiliency by using renewable fuels, alternative jet fuels, and green electrolytic hydrogen to support climate change mitigation and adaptation; and partner with overburdened communities to ensure communities equitably benefit from these efforts.

The office would coordinate with a range of parties to facilitate and promote collaborations to drive research, development, and deployment of alternative jet fuels and renewable fuels including green electrolytic hydrogen; review initiatives, policies, and public and private investments for these fuels; consider opportunities for coordinating public and private funding; assess opportunities for and barriers to deploying these fuels in hard to decarbonize sectors of the state economy; request recommendations from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals about national safety standards for them; develop a plan and recommendations regarding them for consideration by the Legislature and Governor, including project permitting, state procurement, and pilot projects; and encourage new and existing public-private partnerships to increase coordinated planning for them and their deployment. The Office could apply for Federal funds and other grants, as well as accepting donations. It would be required to collaborate with the work group and a long list of other agencies and interested parties. It might cooperate with other agencies to compile data on the use of renewable fuels and green electrolytic hydrogen in state operations.

SB5464

SB5464 – Broadening access to the information and tools needed to repair digital electronic equipment. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Nguyen, Keiser, and Conway – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 31st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1392 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill  says it would require manufacturers of digital electronic equipment that is sold or used in the state, (and parts for it) to make any parts, tools, and documentation required for the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of those available to any independent repair provider or owner, on fair and reasonable terms. (They could be available directly from the manufacturer or through an authorized repair provider.)  (However, a later section seems to limit this requirement to what’s available to authorized repair providers.) If equipment contained an electronic security lock or other security-related function, then any special parts, tools, and documentation needed to access and reset those when they were disabled during diagnosis, maintenance, or repair would need to be available.

If manufacturers sold any documentation, parts, or tools to any independent repair provider in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they’d be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included documentation or functionality that wasn’t available in a standardized format.

Manufacturers wouldn’t be required to sell service parts that were no longer available to authorized repair providers; or to divulge any trade secrets. They wouldn’t have any liability for services performed by independent repair providers, or provide any warranty for those. Stuff for modifying equipment and for working on public safety communications equipment would be excluded. Violations of the requirements would be considered unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act; they would only be enforceable by the Attorney General under that act.

SB5431

SB5431 – Requiring and funding purchases of zero-emission school buses after September 2035.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1368 is a companion bill in the House.

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.

SJM8001

SJM8001 – Resolution supporting a national infrastructure bank.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Kuderer, Wellman, Nguyen, Keiser, and Conway – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business March 17th, and passed out of committee March 22nd. Referred to Rules and passed by the House April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 24th; passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 8th.

Summary –
The bill would send a resolution urging the passage of a bill creating a national infrastructure bank to the President, the leaders of the House and the Senate, and each member of Congress.

SB5380

SB5380 – Consolidating and streamlining the siting of clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 24th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1216 is a companion bill in the House.

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

Summary –
The bill would create an Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Ecology, with participation by a long list of agencies. The chairs would assign staff in each agency to lead the Council’s work and provide ongoing updates to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature. The Council would identify actions to improve siting and permitting of projects for wind and solar energy, transmission, green electrolytic and renewable hydrogen, alternative jet fuels, battery and pumped storage of clean energy, and the manufacturing of clean energy products. Its work would include a through review of the recommendations of the 2022 Low Carbon Energy Facility Siting Improvement Study, creating implementation plans and timelines, and making recommendations for needed funding or policy changes. The Council would also track Federal efforts to improve clean energy project siting and permitting, including potential Federal funding; identify agency actions to improve coordination across state, local, and federal processes or to pursue supportive funding; conduct outreach to parties with interests in clean energy siting and permitting for ongoing input on how to improve agency processes and actions; and establish work groups as needed to focus on specific energy types or specific geographies for project siting. It might create advisory committees to inform this work; it would support the creation and annual updating by the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs of a list of contacts at tribes and tribal preferences regarding outreach about clean energy project siting and permitting. It would provide an annual report to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature summarizing progress on efficient, effective, and responsible siting and permitting of clean energy projects; areas of additional work; resource needs; and any needed policy changes.

The Council would also advise Commerce on contracting with an independent third party to evaluate state agency siting and permitting processes and related Federal and state requirements; identify successful models for siting and permitting projects in other states; develop recommendations for improving these processes, including potential policy changes and funding; and report on the evaluation and recommendations by July 1, 2024. The Council would develop a consolidated clean energy application similar to the joint aquatic resources permit application for at least the state permits for clean energy projects, and would explore developing a consolidated permit for them. Ecology would lead these efforts, with updates on them to the Governor and Legislature due by July 1, 2024. It would engage with Federal agencies and local governments to explore including various applications or permits in consolidated versions. It would be authorized to design a single application for multiple clean energy project types, separate applications for individual clean energy technologies, or an application for related resources. A consolidated permit process would have to identify criteria or conditions that had to be met for projects to use it, and Ecology would be authorized to analyze those conditions as part of a nonproject review.

The bill would create a way for applicants to apply to Commerce for designation as a clean energy project of statewide significance, and would have Ecology implement and assist with a fully coordinated permitting process for those as an alternative to applying for expedited permitting through the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Applications for the designation would have to include an explanation of how the project is expected to contribute to the state’s achievement of its greenhouse gas emission limits, and is consistent with the State Energy Strategy. They’d also need an explanation of any contribution it’s expected to make to other state requirements for clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions; an explanation of how it’s expected to contribute to the state’s economic development goals; a plan for meaningful engagement with tribes having interests on or near the site; a description of potential community benefits and impacts from the project, a plan for meaningful community engagement in its development, and an explanation of how the applicant might use a legal document specifying the benefits the developer agrees to fund or furnish in exchange for community support of a project. Commerce would approve or deny a one-time application for a project, assessing whether it provided the explanations above, had sufficient need for coordinated state assistance, had been reviewed through a nonproject environmental review process, or a least-conflict siting process for pumped solar that the bill establishes, and was consistent with the recommendations of those; and considering its anticipated positive or adverse impacts on environmental and public health. The department would have to consider information in an application demonstrating meaningful tribal outreach and engagement “favorably” in deciding whether to approve it.

Designated clean energy project of statewide significance would be assigned a Commerce staff navigator to assist with the initial project assessment and with the coordinated permitting process, if the project proponent chose to use that. The navigator would also convene appropriate partners from state and local government, private entities, nongovernmental organizations, and others to support successful completion of the project; and work with each of those to expedite their actions in moving the project forward.

Ecology would manage the coordinated permitting process. (The proponent of a designated project who chose to use this would have to reimburse the department for the costs of supporting its permitting.) It would conduct an initial assessment of the amount of coordination each project needed, considering its complexity, size, and the experience of those involved. It would address the expected type of environmental review; the anticipated state and local permits, approvals, forms and requirements; information needs and issues of concern of each participating agency; time required for the SEPA review and permit decisions by each participating agency given the greatest possible efficiencies achievable through any concurrent studies and with any consolidated applications, hearings, and comment periods. This would have to be provided to the proponent and the public within sixty days. Ecology would also ensure the proponent had been informed of all information needed to apply for permits; facilitate communication between proponents and staff to promote timely permit decisions and adherence to agreed schedules; verify completion of administrative review and permit procedures among agencies; assist in resolving any conflict or inconsistency among permit requirements and conditions; consult with potentially affected tribes and potentially affected overburdened communities according to the bill’s requirements; and coordinate with jurisdictions to assist with fulfilling their local permitting requirements. The Department would convene a work plan meeting for the project with the other parties relevant to its permitting, reviewing permitting processes and estimating timelines, with full attention to achieving the maximum efficiencies possible. It would create and maintain a shared coordinated permitting process schedule; parties would have to notify Ecology of the reasons for any delays and offer potential solutions or an amended timeline.

The bill requires early, meaningful, and individual consultation by Ecology with any affected tribe on a variety of potential project impacts on rights or resources, independent of and in addition to, any public participation process required by state law or a state agency. The department would also be required to identify overburdened communities that might be affected by a designated project participating in the process, and to verify that they’d been meaningfully engaged in a timely manner by participating agencies, and that their comments had been considered in determining potential impacts.

Counties and cities with designated clean energy projects of statewide significance in their jurisdictions would be required to enter into an agreement with Ecology and the project proponents for expediting the completion of projects. They’d have to expedite processing of permits for the project’s design and construction; environmental review; and requests for needed street, right-of-way, or easement vacations. They’d have to make local officials or planning staff available to serve on the navigator’s team to move the project forward; develop and follow a plan for consultation with potentially affected tribes; and carry out any other actions Ecology identified as needed for the coordinated permitting process. Local governments would not be allowed to require these applicants for these electrical energy projects to demonstrate their necessity or utility, other than as part of the public information required by Federal agencies as part of some applications.

The bill would have the WSU Energy Program conduct a least-conflict pumped storage siting process for the state, including ample opportunities for self-identified stakeholders to participate, to identify areas where there’s the least amount of conflict about sites. (It might include considering the colocation of pumped storage with wind or solar energy generation.) The project would develop a public map and associated GIS data layers by June 30th, 2025, highlighting those areas; it would not include any information tribes identified as sensitive, though that would be used to inform the project.

Ecology would be required to develop nonproject environmental impact statements, in consultation with various stakeholders, on the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen projects, and of solar projects in the Columbia Basin. These would include related mitigation measures. Proponents of such projects would have to incorporate these impact analyses in a coordinated project-level review process, and the lead agency conducting a project-level environmental review of one of those would have to adopt that nonproject impact statement to identify and mitigate project-level probable significant impacts, “where appropriate.” However, the agency would also have to review and update that analysis, if that were needed, and would have to address any probable significant impacts that were not analyzed in the nonproject statement and identify any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures specific to the project for those impacts.

SB5391

SB5391 – Requiring environmental reporting on materials for public construction. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim) (Co-Sponsors Schoesler – R, Mullet- D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 27th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1342 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Compare HB1282 and its companion bill…

Summary –
The bill would create requirements for the modeling, measurement, and reporting of embodied carbon emission reductions from structural concrete, reinforcing and structural steel, and engineered wood in state-funded projects, including municipal projects and Department of Transportation contracts. (Buildings under 50,000 sq. ft. wouldn’t be included. )

Designers would have to do life-cycle assessments over 60 years of the embodied carbon in materials they decided were eligible for a project, after considering its requirements, including “project program, financial budget, construction schedule, product availability, and overall constructability.”

Beginning in 2025, the successful bidder for a project would have to submit environmental project declarations for at least 90% of the covered structural materials by weight or volume to the contractor at least a month before the substantial completion of the project. The contractor would be required to forward those to the authority that had awarded the contract and the Department of Commerce. After January 1st, 2027 the process would include submitting these to the contractor when the bid was submitted, and updating the information about the declarations and the actual quantities used before substantial completion.

The project designer or its life-cycle assessment consultant would be required to calculate a baseline estimate of the industry average for embodied carbon emissions in the project’s eligible products, using the emissions intensity factors in the most recently published environmental product declarations, and to include those in the construction specifications used for bidding those eligible products. (If there weren’t published regional or national industry-average environmental declarations for a product, they’d need to use verifiable data from a life-cycle analysis practitioner to estimate the baseline.) When the project was completed, they’d do an estimate of the embodied carbon in the actual products and quantities used in it, and then calculate and report an embodied carbon reduction percentage comparing the actual embodied carbon to what it would have been if industry average materials had been used. They’d also estimate and report the carbon intensity of the project, as a ratio of the kilograms of CO2 equivalents in the covered structural materials to the area of the project in square meters.

Commerce would have to create a new public database to inform project stakeholders of the achievable reductions in embodied carbon for specific markets, products and structural systems, and to inform future reduction targets and stretch goals. The database would include names and types of project, the awarding authority; project dates and zip codes, the type of eligible products in the project; the primary eligible products and primary types of structural systems actually used; a summary of the life-cycle assessment of the structural systems with the range of possible outcomes disclosed; the gross project area, excluding the site outside a building’s footprint; the project’s embodied carbon emissions as calculated with estimated quantities prior to bidding, and the estimate of those with with actual quantities at substantial completion; its estimated embodied carbon intensity prior to bidding; its as-built embodied carbon emissions, embodied carbon reduction percentage; and embodied carbon intensity; and a few other details.

The bill would also require the Department of Commerce to reimburse Washington manufacturers for half the costs of producing environmental product declarations, with limits of $15,000 per manufacturing location or batch plant and $45,000 for each manufacturer and associated companies. (They’d have to be product-specific, third-party reviewed, and completed by the end of 2025 to qualify.)

SB5390

SB5390 – Authorizing safe harbor agreements about northern spotted owl habitat with forest owners.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Warnick – R; Rolfes and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources March 21st and passed out of committee March 22nd. Had a hearing in Appropriations March 31st, and passed out of committee March 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks  January 26th. Passed out of committee February 2nd, referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 14th. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules; passed by the Senate unanimously March 6th.

Summary –
The Endangered Species Act allows property owners to voluntarily enter into a safe harbor agreement, in which they undertake activities to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting listed species and regulators agree not to impose any additional restrictions based on the Act on their land without their consent. (I’m not sure whether landowners are safe from any further ESA restrictions on the use of the land, or only from those that might otherwise result from changes in it because of the steps they’ve chosen to take..)

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to utilize the delegated Federal authority that’s available to enter into and administer these agreements about northern spotted owls. Ecology would get technical assistance from Fish and Wildlife in habitat assessments of candidate parcels and implementation of a programmatic safe harbor agreement. It would be able to provide landowners with technical assistance about the program. (Its decisions administering  the program would be subject to review through the process in the Forest Practices Act.)

SB5345

SB5345 – Exempting school districts from the Clean Buildings Act’s energy performance standards. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Schoesler (R; 9th District; SE Washington) (Co-Sponsors Padden, Dozier, Fortunato, Short, Braun, Wagoner, Warnick, Torres, and Lynda Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would exempt public school buildings from the energy performance requirements of the State’s Clean Buildings Act if:
1) They were in a district in which half or more of enrolled children had qualified for free or reduced-price lunch in any of the previous five years, or,
2) The district had a state funding assistance percentage of 50 percent or more in any of the previous five years, or,
3) The district “uses or purchases electricity generated from renewable resources or nonemitting electric generation electricity.”

Since I think every district in the state uses or purchases at least some electricity generated by hydropower or other nonemitting resources, the current bill would apparently exempt all public school buildings from the requirements.

SB5325

SB5325 – Improving access to renewable hydrogen for public transportation. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Boehnke – R: Keiser, Lovelett, Randall, & Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 18th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1236 is a companion bill in the House..

Summary –
The bill would authorize public transportation benefit areas to produce, distribute and sell green electrolytic hydrogen and renewable hydrogen wholesale or directly to a user in addition to using it for their own operations. If it were for use as a transportation fuel, they’d be allowed to sell it through facilities that distributed, compressed, stored, liquified, or dispensed it. They’d be authorized to own and operate pipelines to deliver it for use as a transportation fuel if those were in an area in which they were authorized to provide public transportation, a county in which they were authorized to do that and in which they were service connected or providing it through partners. (I’m not sure if the bill’s language intends to limit all their authority to hydrogen for transportation, but I don’t think it’s supposed to authorize them to produce and sell it for other uses through some other organization that distributes it.) They wouldn’t be allowed to deliver it by pipeline to customers of a gas company.

SB5322

SB5322 – Requiring environmental and labor reporting on materials for public building construction and renovation.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Keiser, Valdez, Claire Wilson – Ds)
(By request of the Department of Commerce.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 27th, and passed out of committee that day. Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 31st. Replaced by a substitute making some minor changes and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Ways & Means, and had a hearing there on February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1282 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
This is a somewhat revised version of Senator Stanford’s SB5366, which was introduced in 2021 and then in 2022 as a companion bill to Representative Duerr’s bills in those sessions, but wasn’t heard.

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

Summary –
The bill would require public institutions of higher educations’ and state agencies’ contracts for construction and renovation projects to require reports of environmental information by cost of certain construction materials for buildings over 50,000 sq.ft., and additional information about labor standards in producing the materials for buildings over 100,000 sq ft. It would cover structural concrete, reinforcing and structural steel, and engineered wood products; they’d be due before substantial completion of a project. Firms that were selected for projects would have to provide data on quantities of covered products, current environmental product declarations for at least 90% of the value of those; any completed health product declarations; manufacturers’ names and locations; any supplier codes of conduct, and any certifications of firms by the Office of Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises. They’d have to ask their suppliers of each covered product in the larger projects for the names and locations of the actual production facilities and a specified report on working conditions for all employees at those, or the steps taken to reasonably obtain that data. (However, they wouldn’t be required to verify any information provided by suppliers, and they’d be exempted from requesting information about working conditions that would cause a significant delay in completion, a significant increase in overall project cost, or result in only one supplier being able to provide the product.)

By July 1, 2024, specifications for a project contract would only be allowed to include performance-based specifications for structural concrete unless that wasn’t practicable. The bill would continue the public database of provided data that was funded in the 2021-2023 budget, and publish the global warming potentials reported in the environmental product declarations. Commerce would have to further elaborate covered product definitions; develop measurement and reporting standards to ensure that data was consistent and comparable; as well as creating model language for specifications, bid documents, and contracts to support the implementation of the reporting requirements. The department would also produce an educational brief providing an overview of embodied carbon; describing the appropriate use of environmental product declarations, including the preconditions needed for them to be comparable; outlining reporting standards, including covered product definitions, standards for reporting quantities, and working conditions; describing the data collection and reporting required by the bill; providing instructions for the use of the database; and listing applicable product category rules for covered products.

If funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Commerce would be authorized to provide financial assistance to small businesses to help offset the costs of producing environmental product declarations and reducing embodied carbon in the built environment, while ensuring they weren’t put at a competitive disadvantage in state contracting as a result of the bill’s requirements.

It would require Commerce to convene a Buy Clean and Buy Fair workgroup with representatives from a specified list of stakeholders to identify opportunities for and barriers to growing the use and production of low carbon materials, promoting high labor standards in manufacturing, and preserving and expanding low carbon materials manufacturing in the state. The group would consider state and domestic supply of raw materials and other supply chain challenges, regulatory barriers, competitiveness of local and domestic manufacturers, costs, and data availability from local, state, national, and foreign product suppliers. It would identify opportunities to encourage the continued conversion to lower carbon cements. By September 2025, it would submit a report on policy recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor. The report would summarize data collected through the bill and other previous projects, make recommendations for improving environmental production declaration data quality and for ways of mitigating Scope 2 emissions through green power purchases, identify barriers and opportunities to the effective use of the database and collected data, and survey the regulatory landscape to identify areas of alignment and discrepancy between local, state, federal, and private policy on embodied carbon and identify opportunities to promote consistency across policies, rules, and regulations.

SB5314

SB5314– Allowing E-bikes on certain trails and closed roads where other bicycles are allowed. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor Cleveland – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee January 23rd. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Cleveland sponsored SB5452, a similar bill on this issue, in 2021; it was converted to a study and passed.

Summary –
The bill would require state agencies and local jurisdictions to allow all classes of electric-assisted bikes on trails that are designated as nonmotorized, have a surface made by clearing and grading the soil with no added materials, and are open to bicycles. It would now authorize closing the trail to all bicycles thorough a public process to protect wildlife or natural resources or to preserve public safety. An agency with jurisdiction over a road that’s closed to motorized vehicles but allows bicycles would have to allow E-bikes as well. E-bikes on these trails and roads. People riding an E-bike on these trails or closed roads would have to obey all speed limits, yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and carry an electric-assisted bicycle pass.

These would cost $5 and be valid for a year. They’d be available from the Department of Licensing, or from vendors under contract with Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, or the Parks and Recreation Commission. There would be a $99 penalty for failing to have a valid license, though it would be reduced to $59 if someone provided proof of purchase of a pass to the court within 15 days after the imposition of the fine. 75% of the money from fines and from the sale of passes would go into a new electric-assisted bicycle account, and be divided equally among those agencies. It could only be spent on maintaining those roads and trails, on signs about speed limits and other rules for E-bikes on them, and
on educational materials about using E-bikes on them.

SB5312

SB5312 – Creates a residential property assessed clean energy and resiliency (R-PACER) program. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Jeff Wilson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs January 31st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a residential property assessed clean energy and resiliency program (an R-PACER program) that jurisdictions could choose to implement. These would allow loans for improvements to be repaid through a lien on the property assigned to a capital provider; the obligation to repay the debt would remain with the property if ownership was transferred. They’d be available to owners of single-family residences, and multifamily residential properties with four or fewer dwelling units, for improvements including energy efficiency, water conservation, clean and renewable energy, and resiliency projects. (The state has already established a C-PACER program for commercial property.)

Counties could choose to participate in a statewide program that the Department of Commerce would establish, or create their own programs. Programs might make any services the program may chose to offer to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers; make properties participating available for offers of impartial terms from qualifying third-party capital providers; allow financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers; and work in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop the program.

Programs would be required to set uniform criteria for determining whether projects qualified for the loans, including determining if investments would reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reduce energy demand or replace nonrenewable energy with renewable energy; be appropriate to meet seismic risks; reduce stormwater or pollution to provide significant public benefit; or reduce the risk of wildfire, flooding, or other disasters. There are detailed requirements for creating guidebooks about programs. Loans could cover fees and interest as well as the costs of material and labor. Commerce would be authorized to provide grants to counties to assist in developing and implementing programs.

Applicants would have to demonstrate that a project would provide a public benefit in the form of energy or water resource conservation, reduced public health risk, or reduced public emergency response risk. If energy or water usage improvements were proposed for existing buildings, a licensed professional engineer, registered architect, or other professional would have to certify that the proposed improvements would result in more efficient use or conservation of energy or water, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the addition of renewable sources of energy or water; or result in improved resilience. For new construction, a professional would have to certify that the proposed improvements would enable the project to exceed the energy efficiency, water efficiency, renewable energy or renewable water, or resilience requirements of the current building code. Programs could charge an application fee to cover the costs of establishing and conducting the application review process. Applicants would have to provide written verification, as defined in the guidebook, stating that projects were properly completed and operating as intended.

The bill includes procedures counties would follow in adopting a program and in recording liens, and detailed provisions about the legal status of the liens and provisions for enforcing them without the direct involvement of the counties, designed to avoid potential conflicts with the Washington Constitution’s provisions.

SB5309

SB5309 – Eliminates the public utility tax exemption for the instate portion of interstate oil shipments.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Rolfes – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance March 14th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in Ways and Means on January 24th, and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules, replaced by a striker, and passed by the Senate March 2nd.

Senate Striker –
This specified that these shipments don’t qualify for certain public utility tax deductions, provided a method for calculating the proportion of a company’s gross income from shipments that would be subject to the tax, and added some definitions and technical clarifications.

Summary –
The law currently exempts the gross income from certain interstate shipments of petroleum products and crude oil from the state public utility tax. The bill would eliminate that exemption for the in-state portion of those shipments.

SB5233

SB5223 – Creates a state run financial insurance program for owners and operators of underground petroleum storage tanks.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors MacEwen – R; Lovelett, Nguyen, Salomon, Shewmake – Ds) (By request of the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency.)
Current status – Cancelled hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 8:00 AM on Friday February 10th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1175 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would shift from the current State reinsurance program for underground storage tanks, which assumes part of the risk of private insurance companies’ policies, to a program the State runs itself. The Department of Ecology would manage the program, which would cover owners and operators who registered tanks with the department and complied with its eligibility requirements. The program would provide up to $2 million per release for remedial action and for compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage while the tank was registered, and up to $1 million for remedial action on releases before registration. Compensation would be limited to $3 million a year for releases from a single tank. Ecology would give preference to covering remedial costs, and could prioritize reimbursement based on the threats posed to human health and the environment; whether the people threatened might include a vulnerable population or an overburdened community; and other factors it chose. It would collect an annual fee for the costs of administering the program, which could not exceed $25,000 per participant.

The bill would return the tax on the wholesale value of petroleum products which funds claim payments through the Pollution Liability Insurance Program Trust Account to thirty one-hundredths of one percent from its reduction to half that in 2021. (The tax isn’t collected in a quarter if that account contains more than a set minimum or maximum; the bill doubles those amounts, to keep the account between $15 million and $30 million.) If there were not enough money in that account to pay claims, they’d be prioritized for future payment in the order they were filed, except that any creating an imminent threat to health or the environment would come first.

The bill includes allowing Ecology to assess tanks to determine program or cost eligibility, recover overpayments, and investigate or clean up a release with the owner or operator’s permission. It could deal with releases from tanks that weren’t in the program if they created risks to drinking water or were necessary to protect health and the environment in marginalized, overburdened, and underserved communities; and the owner consented and agreed to repaying the costs.

SB5287

SB5287 – Requiring a study of the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor – Nguyen – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Environment March 14th. Amended to specify that the report should include options for reuse, repurposing, and recycling; passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th. Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 20th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 27th.

Summary –
Subject to appropriations for this particular project, the bill would require the WSE Energy Program to conduct a study on the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state. It would include information and recommendations on:
(1) The cost, feasibility, and environmental impact of various disposal methods;
(2) The availability of recycling and processing facilities for them in Washington and other states;
(3) Potential incentives for the creation of blade recycling facilities in the state;
(4) Mechanisms for establishing recycling requirements, or recycled content standards, for blades;
(5) Considerations and options for designing a product stewardship program for them, and
(6) The feasibility of including all the blades installed, now and in the future, in a recycling program.

A report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature would be due by December 1st, 2023.

SB5269

SB5269 – Assessing opportunities for Washington to capture new and emerging industries and strengthen its manufacturing base while responding to climate change.
Prime Sponsor –  Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Passed by both houses. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community, Economic Development, and Veterans March 17th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Appropriations April 1st. Amended to make some changes strengthening the role of the State Manufacturing Council in the development of the State’s industrial strategy which are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 7th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 19th. Replaced by a substitute clarifying the implementation timeline and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 20th; amended to add a couple of additional topics to the study and passed out of committee February 23. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 8th.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce commission an independent assessment of opportunities for Washington to capture new and emerging industries and strengthen its manufacturing base. It would be due by October 2024.

The study would assess how the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050 will impact the potential futures of manufacturing in Washington, including identifying specific opportunities for seeking investment in new and emerging industries, as well as transforming and strengthening the state’s manufacturing to meet the needs of a net-zero economy. It would assess the needs of existing manufacturers, including supply chain challenges and resources required to meet the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets. It would identify opportunities to build and maximize the environmental and economic benefits of a circular economy. It would identify what’s needed to attract new investment and strengthen manufacturing, considering transportation and port infrastructure; supply chains; workforce; and energy. It would identify opportunities to support minority and women-owned firms and small and medium-sized firms in capturing new and emerging industries.

The workforce assessment would examine how to maximize the use of the existing workforce’s transferable skills; address any remaining skills gaps and identify opportunities to build a workforce pipeline that ensures current and future Washingtonians have fair access to a manufacturing career by sector; and to ensure equitable and accessible pathways and advancement opportunities in manufacturing by sector. The energy assessment would include the quantity, price, and location of electricity needed to decarbonize and grow Washington’s existing manufacturing and capture new and emerging industries.

The bill would require Commerce to appoint an industrial policy advisor who would alert manufacturers to relevant funding opportunities and assist them in applying and in completing required reporting; work to ensure that the state’s pursuit of its goals for developing a strong manufacturing and research and development base in every area of the state and its greenhouse gs emissions goals are aligned and mutually reinforcing; foster interagency and intraagency coordination and collaboration on manufacturing-related policymaking and activities, including both climate and economic development policymaking; coordinate with the workforce innovation sector lead, particularly with respect to building the workforce pipeline; and provide quarterly reports to the Manufacturing Council.

The advisor might also form expert committees with industry representatives to develop sector-specific strategies for attracting new investment and transforming and strengthening existing manufacturing consistent with the bill’s industrial strategy; assist local governments with economic plans for moving toward those goals; support communities negatively impacted by the closure or relocation of manufacturing facilities through efforts to attract new investment consistent with that strategy; and facilitate the movement of existing skilled manufacturing workers into new industrial sectors.

SB5247

SB5247 – Creating a Washington Climate Corps and evaluating climate and energy transition workforce needs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nobles (D; 28th District; Fircrest) (Co-Sponsors Saldaña, Lovelett, Randall, Shewmake – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed out of the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 13th; had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Higher Education & Workforce Development January 18th; passed out February 1st. Referred to Senate Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1176 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would establish a Washington Climate Corps to provide climate-related service opportunities for young adults and veterans, with the objective of building low-carbon and climate-resilient communities and ecosystems while providing education, workforce development, and career pathways to service members. It would be administered by Serve Washington, which also manages the Americorps program, with administrative support from OFM, and would prioritize service in  overburdened communities. It would develop new service opportunities, and establish common requirements for participating service programs. In coordination with a range of stakeholders, it would develop and run a program for Climate Corps members during their service to provide leadership training, foster environmental stewardship and civic engagement, and expose them to climate related professional and educational opportunities. It would administer grants to support equitable access to participation in the Corps, reduce the cost of hosting members for service programs in the network, and support the development of new programs in geographic and topical areas that lack them.

The bill would have the Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board establish a clean energy technology advisory committee to evaluate clean energy technology workforce needs and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature. It would review workforce and business issues in the energy sector and its supply chain, and the impacts of the transition to clean energy on dependent sectors. It would recommend strategies to prevent workforce displacement, support job creation in clean energy technology, and provide support in dealing with workforce changes to businesses and adversely impacted workers. (The bill isn’t explicit, but apparently the Board would select the committee members from all interested parties, but including business and worker representatives from sectors affected by the transition.)

Each biennium, the Board would evaluate the workforce impact of Washington’s climate policies in consultation with the the advisory committee, the Department of Commerce, and Employment Security. It would do a literature review, in addition to its own research, on labor market trends and workforce demand in traditional and clean energy professions; demographics of the sectors; restructuring of jobs and skill sets associated with climate change mitigation policies; the wages and benefits of jobs in clean energy and the skills needed in them, an analysis of how the skills and training of the existing workforce can fill those needs; additional workforce development needs; and challenges that could emerge under multiple future decarbonization scenarios.

It would also make recommendations each biennium for necessary steps to support workforce training for clean energy technology occupations, consulting with postsecondary training partners, and considering the occupational training and skills already covered in existing programs; new skills that could be integrated into those; occupations and skill sets that require developing new programs; and resources needed to deliver training programs and support workers in the transition to clean energy technology.

The board would conduct a study of the feasibility of a program to preserve income and benefits for workers close to retirement who face job loss or transition because of energy technology sector changes. It would report at least every two years to the Governor and committees of the Legislature with recommendations on how the state can support worker and employer needs in response to changing workforce requirements for clean energy technology, including the recommendations of the advisory committee and the Board’s own work.

(The bill would also repeal the legislation establishing several earlier programs about workforce development in green industries.)

SB5154

SB5154– Improving solid waste management outcomes. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Bainbridge Island) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen)
Current status – Completed a continued hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 18th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Ways and Means. Did not have a hearing by the fiscal cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1131 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments – The bill is 143 pages long, so trying to summarize the details seems ill advised. I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Amended Substitute –
Staff summarized the changes made by the substitute in four pages at the beginning of it. The amendment struck and replaced all the sections about the optional beverage deposit return program. (I think all these changes replicated the ones made earlier in the House companion bill;  the staff summary of the changes in the House beverage deposit provisions is at the beginning of that..)

Summary –
The bill would create a system funded and managed by the producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use. It would create requirements for postconsumer recycled content. It would create a deposit program as an optional alternative for managing beverage containers.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program, and meet performance targets improving over time for reducing the production of plastic components, the reuse of collected materials, and their recycling (but not for simply collecting materials, I think.). Producers would also fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues and the ongoing work of a new solid waste advisory council. Detailed plans for managing covered materials, meeting a long list of requirements, would be due by July 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology); reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2028. (Products couldn’t be labeled as recyclable unless they were covered by a program.)

A consultant would do the needs assessment, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The consultant would also recommend performance targets designed to be reachable statewide by 2032. (As far as I can see, organizations would establish their own targets in their plans.) The advisory council and stakeholders would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Plans would have to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and the advisory council. Plans would include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing them. and consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Plans would include ways to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging. They’d have to eco-modulate setting the fees for producers to encourage the use of packaging designs that reduce products’ environmental impacts. They’d have to be updated regularly.

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

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There are detailed requirements for collection and management of materials, and for reporting by producer organizations and processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to household cleaning product containers; personal care product packages, most beverage containers; tubs; thermoform containers; single-use cups; and cannabis containers or packaging materials that were made of plastic. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2024 and 2036. The producer responsibility organizations representing the producers of these products would report to Ecology annually on their performance. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet the requirements. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic.

Beverage Container Deposit Program –

Producer responsibility organizations would be allowed to create a 10¢ deposit return system for glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans as an alternative to managing beverage containers through the recycling requirements. (Cartons, foil pouches, drink boxes, metal container that need a tool to open, and containers for dairy milk or formula wouldn’t be included.) This system would be created if distributors of the majority of beverages in qualifying containers formed a distributor responsibility organization; in that case, all the distributors of those containers would have to join that organization, or meet the requirements for an organization themselves. Ecology would implement, administer, and enforce the program, and collect a fee covering those costs; the distributors would pay for operating the system, and for half the costs of the advisory council and the needs study. Organizations would have to submit detailed plans for deposit return programs for Ecology’s approval, meeting a variety of requirements. Plans would have to include education and outreach; stakeholder consultations; methods for paying the refund to consumers, governments, and processing facilities returning containers; an additional premium for containers returned by non-profits serving very low income individuals who rely on refunds; and at least 270 free convenient bulk drop-off locations for bagged containers around the state, convenient to places selling beverages in containers. Dealers wouldn’t be required to accept bags or provide drop-off sites, though. If organizations contract with service providers to meet their obligations, there are labor and social justice standards for those. Unclaimed refunds would have to be invested in operations and infrastructure supporting the reuse and recycling of qualifying beverage containers. By 2031, an organization would have to demonstrate that all the containers in its program were designed to be reusable or recyclable, and there would be specified gradually increasing requirements for the percentages of containers that were actually recycled or reused between 2028 and 2035. There would be detailed reporting requirements. Ecology would also collect funds from distributor organizations for a five year program to reimburse curbside collection programs for revenue losses resulting from reductions in the number of containers in those bins.

In addition –
By December 2025, Ecology would have to complete a study of options for improving the convenience of state product stewardship, takeback, and producer responsibility programs, including establishing centralized takeback centers for consumers; and make policy recommendations to the Legislature about improving the environmental end of life management of products covered by these. Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

The bill also amends details of some existing laws, including ones about solid waste in general, ones about the regulation of some solid waste companies by the UTC, and ones about cannabis packaging, to take account of the additional activities of producer responsibility organizations and beverage distributors that the bill envisions.

SB5146

SB5146 – Allowing power from new and recent hydropower infrastructure to be used to comply with the Clean Energy Act from 2030 through 2045. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would remove certain restrictions on the hydropower that can be used from 2030 through 2044 to comply with the greenhouse gas neutral requirements of the Clean Energy Act. That would be changed to allow power from new diversions, impoundments, bypass reaches, and expansions of existing reservoirs constructed after May 17, 2019.

The current law allows the use of power from new diversions, impoundments, and bypass reaches if they’re needed for the operations of a pumped storage facility that doesn’t conflict with existing state or federal fish recovery plans; and that complies with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations. (I think that the bill’s removal of this provision might imply that you could use power from these regardless of the effect on fish recovery and compliance with other laws and regulations, but there may be other laws that would prevent that.

SB5165

SB5165 – Improving electric power system transmission planning.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsor Mullet – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 13th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 5th. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1192 is a companion bill in the House.

Changes in the House –
The changes made by the committee striker in the House are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment would make the avoidance of burdens to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities as well as their reduction part of the analysis of cumulative impacts in utilities’ IRPs.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 18th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Passed out of committee February 24th, referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 2nd.

Substitute –
The substitute specifies that projects with nominal ratings of at least 500,000 volts AC or 300,000 volts DC have to seek Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification, and that projects that aren’t subject to the Council’s jurisdiction still have the option to use local government permitting processes. It clarifies that transmission assessment in an IRP has to include opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through improved operating practices and non-wires solutions, and that a clean energy action plan has to document a utility’s efforts to use existing capacity more effectively.

Summary –
The bill would require the assessment in each utility’s integrated resource plans of its future needs for regional generation and transmission capacity, and of the availability of those, to be based on forecasts over twenty years rather than ten. The assessments would have to take into account the state’s emissions reduction limits and the requirements of the Clean Energy Act; opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through energy efficiency, demand response, grid modernization, and other programs; and the electrification of transportation and other end uses historically met using fossil fuels. The assessment would have to identify the utility’s expected need to develop new or expanded bulk transmission facilities.

The bill would expand the current requirement for developing 10 year Clean Energy Action Plans to include all utilities, not just investor owned ones. Those plans would now also have to document existing and planned efforts by the utility to secure the additional transmission capacity it anticipated needing in its IRP. They would have to give reasonable consideration to energy resources that would use conditional firm transmission services, where their reserved service might be curtailed under specific limited conditions. Utilities would be encouraged to do statewide, multiutility, and interstate transmission planning. They’d be required to seek the support of a variety of industry and public interest organizations in improving the planning and development of transmission capacity.

The bill would add the construction, reconstruction, or enlargement of new or existing electrical transmission facilities of at least 500,000 volts; located in more than one county; and located in the Washington service area of more than one retail electric utility to the facilities required to apply for siting through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The bill would have the Director of the Council coordinate state agency participation in environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of transmission projects proposed or sited by a Federal agency.

SB5167

SB5167 – Prohibits solar and wind projects on commercial agricultural lands from getting expedited review through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Kennewick)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit solar and wind facilities sited on agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance from being eligible for expedited review before the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. (Currently, a project can get expedited processing if the Council finds its environmental impact is not significant or will be mitigated to a non-significant level, and finds it’s consistent and in compliance with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances.) The bill’s findings maintain that process undermines opportunities for local review of solar and wind facilities

SB5168

SB5168 – Eliminating the Energy Independence Act’s requirements for renewable power. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Kennewick)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 14th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Energy Independence Act (passed by the voters in 2006 as I-937) requires utilities in the state with more than 25,000 customers to obtain fifteen percent of their electricity from new renewable resources such as solar and wind in each year after 2020 (or to purchase certain qualifying renewable energy credits covering that obligation.) The bill would eliminate these requirements.

Its findings maintain that “This will not create a gap in Washington’s energy laws because the requirements of the Clean Energy Transformation Act continue to set the policy direction for the state.” The Clean Energy Act’s actual requirements provide for the elimination of coal power by 2025; the limit on power from natural gas that’s offset through various options to 20% of portfolios by 2035, and the prohibition on power from other than renewable or non-emitting sources by 2045.

SB5203

SB5203 – Updating planning requirements to improve the State’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Liias – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing on a substitute in the Senate Committee on Local Government, January 17th. Replaced by a new substitute and passed out of committee February 9th; referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1181 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
There’s a staff report on the substitute which was heard in committee.The changes in the substitute which was voted out of committee are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the beginning of it.

Summary –

The bill would add a climate change and resiliency goal to the fourteen others that are to guide the development of comprehensive plans, and have that also apply to the countywide planning process and regional transportation planning. The new goal would have planning adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice. The bill would add consideration of climate impacts to shoreline master planning. However, jurisdictions would not be obliged to comply with these amendments until the state had provided funding for that.

It would specify that the land use element of comprehensive plans must give special consideration to achieving environmental justice in its goals and policies, including efforts to avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities; should consider using approaches that reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled; must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed by wildfires with measures like reducing residential development pressure in the wildland urban interface area, creating open space buffers between development and wildfire prone landscapes, and protecting existing development through community preparedness and fire adaptation.

It would expand the kinds of transit routes that should have level of service standards to help to achieve environmental justice goals, and expand transportation forecasts to include multimodal and rural demand. It expands language about bicycles and pedestrians to include other forms of active transportation. It would prohibit denying approval to a development that failed to meet traffic level of service standards if its transportation needs might be met through improvements for active transportation, enhanced public transportation, ride-sharing programs, demand management, or other strategies funded by the development.

It would require comprehensive plans to include a climate change and resiliency element designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, enhance resiliency, and avoid the adverse impacts of climate change. This would have to include efforts to reduce local emissions and avoid creating or worsening local climate impacts on vulnerable populations and overburdened communities. Countries with over 100,000 people or specified densities or growth rates and planning under the Growth Management Act would be required to include a greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement, and other jurisdictions would be encouraged to. The resiliency subelement would be required for all jurisdictions planning under the GMA and encouraged for others. These required updates would have to be part of the 2024 planning cycle.

The Department of Commerce, in collaboration with various other agencies, would publish guidelines specifying a set of measures counties and cities could take through updates to their comprehensive plans and development regulations that have a demonstrated ability to increase housing capacity within urban growth areas, reduce emissions, or reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled, allowing for consideration of the emissions reductions achieved through the adoption of statewide programs, and prioritizing reductions in overburdened communities. The bill would exempt from SEPA appeals the adoption of ordinances, amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations, and other nonproject actions taken to implement measures for reducing emissions or per capita miles traveled that were in the department’s guidelines.

The emissions reduction subelement and related development regulations would have to identify the actions the jurisdiction will take, in accordance with Commerce’s guidelines, to:
1) Reduce transportation and land use emissions within the jurisdiction without increasing them elsewhere in the state;
2) Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction without increasing emissions elsewhere in the state; and,
3) Prioritize reductions in overburdened communities to maximize the combined benefits of reduced air pollution and environmental justice.
Actions that weren’t specifically identified in the guidelines could only be considered to be consistent with them if they were projected to achieve reductions in emissions or per capita vehicle miles traveled equivalent to what would be required under the guidelines, and if they were supported by scientifically credible projections. Jurisdictions would not be allowed to restrict population growth or limit population allocation to achieve the requirements. The guidelines could not include road usage charges, or regulations and taxes on transportation service providers, delivery vehicles, or passenger vehicles.

The resiliency subelement would be required to equitably enhance resiliency to climate change in human communities and ecological systems, and avoid or substantially reduce its adverse impacts through goals, policies, and programs consistent with the best available science and scientifically credible climate projections. It would have to prioritize actions in overburdened communities that will disproportionately suffer from environmental impacts and be most impacted by natural hazards due to climate change. Its goals, policies, and programs would have to include those designed to:
1) Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas and areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration to foster resiliency to climate impacts;
2) Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to impacts, including social, economic, and built factors that support adaptation consistent with environmental justice; and,
3) Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation.
Jurisdictions might adopt an existing natural hazard mitigation plan by reference if it met the bill’s requirements, or modify one to do that, and might apply to the Department for an extension of the deadlines to do that. In collaboration with tribes and various agencies, the department would develop a model climate change and resiliency element that could be used by jurisdictions in developing the required plans and policies.

The bill includes provisions for public comment on these subelements, for review and approval of them by the department, and for appeals. The bill would add the presence of overburdened communities to the department’s priorities for providing planning assistance, and require it to establish funding levels for grants to community-based organizations to advance participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities in planning.

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to update its guidelines to require shoreline master programs to address the impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, shoreline natural resources, and the environment. It would require flood control management plans to include consideration of climate change impacts, including the impacts of sea level rise and increased storm severity.

SB5144

SB5144 – Requires battery producers to participate in and fund a stewardship program providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Passed by both houses. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be –
To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a staff report on the bill.
HB1553 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed

Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 14th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Appropriations March 30th. Replaced by another striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor, and passed by the House April 7th.
The changes made by the striker are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the end of it. The changes made by the second striker are summarized by staff at the end of that. The amendment removed Ecology’s authority to adopt rules by 2030 establishing a stewardship program for several other kinds of batteries, including large format ones. The floor amendment dropped various references to fees and civil actions about those batteries.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 24th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Replaced by a second substitute; passed out of committee and referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 7th.

Changes in the Senate –
The changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. An amendment exempted the improper disposal of covered batteries in a noncommercial or residential setting from the penalties. The second substitute made some minor changes in the definitions and the treatment of producers.  The changes made by the amendment on the Senate floor are summarized by staff at the beginning of that.

Comments –
A similar bill, HB2496, was introduced in the 2020 session and had a hearing in the House, but did not advance beyond that. A slightly revised version, HB1896, was introduced in 2022, eventually amended to create a study of the program rather than implementing it, and died in Rules. There are roughly 25 pages of details in the bill, and I haven’t tried to get all of them into the summary. (I’ve noted some of the changes from the 2022 bill in passing.)

Changes in the Senate –

Summary –
The bill would make producers responsible for creating and funding a product stewardship system for dealing with all used batteries under twenty-five pounds (with a few exceptions, including batteries in devices covered by the State’s electronics recycling program, ones that aren’t intended to be removed from products, and lead acid vehicle batteries). The bill would have people drop them off at “free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible” collection sites, and prohibit putting them in containers for landfills, incinerators, or waste-to-energy plants. (It would now allow them in mixed recycling.) The system would include education and outreach to encourage participation, but would now make retailers’ use of the materials producer organizations would have to make available voluntary. Batteries from producers who weren’t participating couldn’t be legally sold in the state.

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans would have to include collection goals for their first three years “based on” the past three years of battery sales in the state by  the producers participating in the plan, and a target to recycle at least 60% of the weight of collected rechargeable batteries and 70% of others. (These are ten percent reductions from the previous bill.) Plans have to include a system to collect charges from participating producers to cover the costs of the system, and structure the charges to encourage designs that reduce the environmental impacts of products. (They’d no longer be required to adjust the financial obligations of producers in proportion to their use of recycled content in batteries.) They’d have to indicate how facilities for dealing with the batteries would be managed with health and environmental justice standards broadly equivalent to those in the US.

There’d have to be collection sites for batteries under 11 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. Collection sites have to operate on a free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible basis for any person, business, government agency, or nonprofit organization. Programs have to use the collection sites of any retailer, wholesaler, municipality, solid waste management facility, or other entity that meet the requirements for sites and request it, but retailers don’t have to provide collection. Programs have to reimburse local governments for the costs of any facilities of theirs used as battery collection sites for the program.

Plans have to include safety training procedures for collection sites about reducing risks of spills or fires, and protocols for responding to those, for managing damaged batteries, and for collecting them at specified sites or events in each county . There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for rechargeable batteries between eleven and twenty-five pounds and other batteries between 4.4 and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people. (They have to be certified to handle and ship hazardous materials. )

Plans have to manage batteries by prioritizing prevention and waste reduction first, then reuse when that’s appropriate, and then recycling. They can only deal with batteries in other ways, like landfilling them, after demonstrating to Ecology that these other higher priority options aren’t technologically feasible or economically practical.

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2027, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

After issuing a warning, Ecology can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for violations of the law and of up to $10,000 a day for intentional, knowing, or negligent violations. In addition, management organizations can sue producers that fail to join a stewardship organization or other battery stewardship organizations that fail to meet their obligations under the act to recover the costs of dealing with those additional batteries.

Details –
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; products containing batteries would have to certify they were labeled.

Plans have to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology, which is to collect a fee from producers to cover the cost of administering the program. It’s to maintain a public list of producers and brands that can be legally sold because they’re in the program.

The bill allows manufacturers to request that submitted information be exempted from public records requests, and has the Director of the Department do that if it isn’t detrimental to the public interest and is consistent with the public records law. It authorizes the Pollution Control Hearings Board to deal with appeals.

SB5129

SB5129 – Planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Hunt & Mullet – Ds; Fortunato, Holy, McCune, and Short – R’s)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th. Reintroduced in 2024 and placed on 2nd reading January 17th.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill’s findings declare that planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology aligns with the Legislature’s goals for a comprehensive energy strategy and that the strategy should include consideration of measures to promote its development. They say it can help the state meet its long-term electricity emission reduction goals, and that the state should examine the various ways the rapidly evolving technology will support our future energy infrastructure and economy.

The bill would add advanced nuclear reactor technology to the strategy’s list of more efficient and cleaner energy sources to use in reducing dependence on fossil fuel energy sources. It would add the management of spent nuclear fuel to the list of technologies that the Department of Commerce is to actively seek to maximize federal and other nonstate funding and support for.

SB5117

SB5117 – Altering the State Building Code Council’s procedures and authority. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1404 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would create a variety of new procedural rules for the Council. It would be required to discard any proposal that doesn’t include all the requested information, doesn’t have sufficient detail to be acted upon as of a deadline the Council sets, or that “exceeds the specific delegation of authority provided by the Legislature”. (It would not be allowed to rely solely on the broad delegation of authority in the current law.) A member of the Council would have to sponsor a proposal for it to move forward. The proposed text would have to be put in the Code Reviser’s format for finalized rules, and any proposed changes to that would have to be in writing, specify the legal authority for the amendment, and be available to all councilmembers and the public before a vote on a change could be taken. (The current process, in which members discuss and agree to many adjustments in phrasing and details in a draft during one or more meetings, would be explicitly prohibited.) The Council would be required to adopt policies to ensure it adheres to all of the requirements for rule making in the Administrative Procedures Act.

The bill says that if there’s “a concern” that the information provided in a proposal isn’t sufficient, inaccurately represents the actual impacts or costs, or if the assertions in the proposal “are questioned” by experts with knowledge of the industry or circumstances the Council “should” supplement the cost estimate information provided in a petition with independent research. At least two weeks before final adoption of nonemergency changes to the Code, the Council would have to make available for public comment:
(1) the currently required small business economic impact statement;
(2) the currently required cost-benefit analysis and the supporting information, for members to determine if the proposed rule is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply with it and if the probable benefits of the rule are greater than its probable costs;
(3) any independent, third-party analysis the Council commissioned;
(4) any supplemental cost estimate information and industry specific information provided in the process; and,
(5) any findings, determinations or recommendations of the Council’s economic impact work group, consultants, or employees.
The bill says all this information should be available for review and vetted by Council members prior to a final vote adopting any rule modification. If someone working in an industry subject to regulation under a proposed rule raised an economic or cost-related protest or provided a cost or economic analysis that was different, the protestor could request that the Council provide a substantive response to raised concerns, including an explanation of provisions in the rule addressing, mitigating, or reducing the cost or economic impacts of the rule.

The bill would specify various criteria for appointments to technical advisory groups. If a member represented a specific interest or group, it would allow any person of that group to petition the Council to have that member removed from the TAG on the grounds that the person doesn’t have the qualifications or characteristics necessary to represent the interest or group. The Council would be required to remove any technical advisory group member it found lacked the characteristics and qualifications necessary to fill the position.

The Council would be required to identify the sources of information it reviewed and relied upon in the course of adopting changes to the Code, to include that information in the rule-making file, and to post the materials it considered or relied upon on its website for at least a year. It would be required to create a distribution list to notify specified agencies about proposed rules and the associated materials before public hearings on them. It would also be required to notify individuals involved in providing state subsidized housing that the proposed rule would increase the cost and complexity of building construction and identify when public comment will be taken. If a proposal would change the design of school buildings, OSPI would have to be notified. Every three years, the Council would have to submit a report to the Legislature identifying provisions in the adopted codes that generated conflict, summarizing the different perspectives brought before the Council related to the conflict, and how the Council addressed it.

The bill would make the appointment of the managing director of the Council subject to confirmation by the Senate, and prohibit anyone registered as a lobbyist from serving on it. It would add a representative from a utility to the Council. It would require training on ethics in public service and the Council’s rules of procedure for anyone serving on it.

SB5094

SB5094 – Adding a climate resilience element to water system plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 20th and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 30th. Replaced by a substitute delaying the requirement by a year and passed out of committee February 2nd; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 22nd; passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 7th.

Summary –
After June 30th 2024, water system plans for Group A community public water systems serving 1,000 or more connections would have to include a climate resilience element. These systems would be required to determine which extreme weather events pose significant challenges to their system and build scenarios to identify potential impacts; to assess critical assets and the actions necessary to protect the system from the consequences of extreme weather events; and to develop reports on the costs and benefits of the system’s risk reduction strategies and its capital project needs.

The Department of Health would update its water system planning guidebook to assist water systems in implementing the requirement, and would provide technical assistance to systems based on their size, location, and water source, by providing references to existing State or Federal risk management, climate resiliency, or emergency management and response tools that might be used to satisfy the requirements. (If funds were appropriated, the University of Washington climate impacts group would assist the department in the development of such tools.)

The bill would also amend the water system acquisition and rehabilitation program, dropping the Public Works Board and the Department of Commerce as joint administrators with the Department of Health. The program would now be allowed to make loans as well as grants. Climate readiness projects, including the planning the bill requires and actions to protect a water system from extreme weather events, including infrastructure and design projects, would be eligible for financial assistance from the program.

SB5093

SB5093 – Updating the State’s climate resilience strategy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 13th, and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1170 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes match the ones made earlier in the House companion bill. They would require a workgroup on improving the coordination of funding for climate resilience; require Ecology to estimate agency costs for implementing the updated strategy; report on those to the Governor and Legislature by September 30, 2024; report every two years on appropriated funding for implementing the strategy. One specifies that agencies can only consider climate change impacts in their policies and programs to that extent that’s allowed under their statutory authority.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Ecology update and modernize the 2012 Integrated Climate Response Plan with the assistance of other state agencies. It amends the legislation for creating that plan to include a number of additional agencies, tribal governments, and the UW climate impacts group in the process. (The plan would now be updated every four years, with biannual reporting.) The bill would no longer require Ecology to serve as a “central clearinghouse” for relevant scientific and technical information about the impacts of climate change on the state. It would add explicit requirements for collaboration and engagement with various parties on environmental justice issues. It adds consideration of various time scales to the planning scenarios, and strengthens the language requiring agencies to prioritize climate resilience and adaptation in their planning. The bill would have Ecology recommend a durable structure for coordinating and implementing the state’s climate resilience strategy, including a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding across agencies, and work with OFM and other agencies on coordinating state responses to Federal funding opportunities for climate resilience.

The bill would rewrite and expand the requirements for the plan, dropping several topics, and now including:
(1) A summary of each agency’s current climate resilience priorities, plans, and actions;
(ii) Strategies and actions to address the highest climate vulnerabilities and risks to Washington’s communities and ecosystems;
(iii) A lead agency or group of agencies assigned to implement actions; and
(iv) Key gaps to advancing climate resilience actions, including in state laws, policies, regulations, rules, procedures, and agency technical capacity.

The expanded strategy is supposed to:
(i) Prioritize actions that both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate preparedness;
(ii) Protect the state’s most overburdened communities and vulnerable populations and provide more equitable outcomes;
(iii) Prioritize actions that deploy natural solutions, restore habitat, or reduce stressors that exacerbate climate impacts;
(iv) Prioritize actions that promote and protect human health; and
(v) Consider flexible and adaptive approaches for preparing for uncertain climate impacts.

Ecology would work with other agencies on identifying best practices and processes for prioritizing resilience actions and assessing the effectiveness of potential actions; developing a process for measuring progress and success towards statewide resilience goals; analyzing opportunities and gaps in current agency resilience efforts; and identifying other issues involved in developing policies and actions for the climate resilience strategy.

SB5091

SB5091 – Expanding tax incentives for hydrogen fuel cells.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing March 9th. Replaced by a second substitute specifying that the incentives are for green electrolytic hydrogen; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Returned to Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade for the 2024 Session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This made changes in dates, eligibility, and other details that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would create and expand 10 year tax incentives for the research, development, production, and sale of hydrogen fuel cells in the state. It would reduce the B&O tax on businesses manufacturing or selling fuel cells in the state to 0.2904 percent. It would provide a B&O tax credit for 1.7% of a business’s expenditures on fuel cell research and development each year. It would provide a credit eliminating the property or leasehold excise taxes on land used for manufacturing fuel cells. In addition, it would provide a credit eliminating the property tax on the machinery and equipment for manufacturing, research and development, and testing that’s already exempted from the sales tax, if the machinery and equipment were used in manufacturing fuel cells.

(It also says that the Legislature intends to extend the incentives if what seem like inevitable outcomes occur.)

SB5068

SB5068 – Dedicating gradually increasing amounts of the sales and use taxes on motor vehicles to transportation projects and reducing existing transportation project debt.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See the Transportation section of the Topics index for several similar proposals this session.

Summary –
The bill would require the current use tax revenue and sales tax revenue from new and used retail sales of a vehicle, including private-party sales, to be diverted over time to a new transportation and maintenance account. (It would not include the tax on car rentals.) The bill would require that these funds be used for for “transportation projects, programs, and activities”, including reducing existing debt obligations for transportation projects and infrastructure. It would prohibit using them in any sort of new debt financing.

The bill would divert 10% of this revenue to the new fund starting in the 2025 fiscal year, and would increase the amount diverted by 10% in each subsequent year, diverting 100% of it beginning in 2034.