Category Archives: Transportation 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.

HB1846

HB1846 – Creating a new process for acquiring up to five hybrid diesel-electric ferries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 21st District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Lekanoff, Ramel & Tharinger – Ds; Barkis, Hutchins & Caldier – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Transportation Committee at 4:00 PM on Monday March 20th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5760 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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 vessels 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.

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.

HB1832

HB1832 – Creating a program for a road use fee which vehicle owners could choose to pay instead of the gas tax.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 30th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Mena, Doglio, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportation, and had a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Tuesday February 21st; continued to noon on Thursday February 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Licensing create a program for a road use fee of 2.5¢/mile which the owners of plugin vehicles under 10,000 pounds could choose to pay instead of the gas tax, beginning in 2030. The bill would waive the $175 in additional registration fees those owners currently pay, for vehicles in the program. The annual road use fee would be reduced by the DOT’s estimate of any gas tax a plug-in hybrid paid during the year, and would be limited to the amount of the waived additional registration fees any of these vehicles would have been subject to if they were not in the program.

Owners would be able to choose between reporting miles driven by submitting periodic odometer readings or using one or more means of automated reporting the Department would develop. (The State Transportation Commission and the Department would explore and report on the possibility of having reporting mechanisms drivers could choose to use built into vehicles by manufacturers.) The bill has various provisions for limiting the collection of information to what’s necessary to determine the fee, requiring the owner’s specific consent, providing data security, and limiting public disclosure of location information.

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.)

HB1780

HB1780 – Requiring Ecology to ensure that the price impacts of the cap and invest program are not experienced by users of fuels for aviation, watercraft, agriculture and other off-road equipment. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Schmick (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsor Dye – R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
SB5728 addresses the same issue in a somewhat narrower and more tightly drafted way.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology create a program refunding inappropriate cap and invest surcharges for fuels with emissions exempted by the bill to users. (These include aviation and watercraft fuels, as well as dyed diesel used exclusively for agricultural purposes and off-road purposes.) Remittances would have to be available at least once a month to users submitting valid documentation showing that the surcharges had been applied when they shouldn’t have been.

Far more sweepingly, the bill also says that any rules Ecology adopts for the cap and invest program “must ensure that the price impacts of the program are not experienced by users of exempt fuel.”

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.

HB1505

HB1505 – Supporting production and use of lower emission jet fuels, renewable fuels, and green electrolytic hydrogen. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Sixteen co-sponsors)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 7th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5447 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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 ration 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.

HB1517

HB1517 – Promoting transit oriented development. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reed (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Taylor, Ramel, Berg, Peterson, and Stonier – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Housing February 7th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5466 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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.

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.

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.

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

HB1472

HB1472 – Dedicating the sales and use taxes on motor vehicles to highways, in several stages.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce County) (Co-Sponsors Robertson, Hutchins, Walsh, Orcutt, Griffey, Goehner, Schmidt, Klicker, and Dent – Rs)
Current status – Referred to House Appropriations.
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 use tax revenue and the six and five-tenths percent sales tax revenue from new or used retail sales of a vehicle, including private-party sales, to be used for transportation projects, maintenance, and repairs, and for reducing the reliance on transportation-related debt obligations. (It would not include the revenue from car rentals.)

The bill would begin transferring an additional 25% of the sales tax revenue to a new account dedicated to these purposes in the 2027 fiscal year; then increase the percentages by 25% each year, beginning to transfer all the revenue in fiscal 2030. The use tax would be transferred in the same way, except that it’s described as the transfer of “additional” percentages. (I don’t see why, since it’s all going into a new account.)

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.

SB5452

SB5452 – Authorizing using impact fees for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Passed by both houses.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1135 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government March 14th, and passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules; passed by the House April 7th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs January 24th, and passed out of committee on the 2nd. Referred to Transportation, and had a hearing there February 13th. Passed out of Transportation February 16th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate February 28th.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current definition of the public facilities on which impact fees may be spent to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

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.

HB1372

HB1372 – Creates a study of cost and emissions tradeoffs in electrifying state vehicles. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; SE Washington) (Co-Sponsor Ybarra – R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Enterprise Services to publish an analysis of the cost asnd life-cycle greenhouse gas emission tradeoffs associated with state vehicle fleet purchases of electric vehicles every two years, beginning in 2024. It would include the purchase price of each type of electric vehicle added to fleet during the preceding two years, as compared to comparably sized internal combustion vehicles in the fleet; the average maintenance and fueling costs per mile for each type of vehicle; the purchase date and total number of miles driven for each type of vehicle and each vehicle during the period; an estimate of “the direct and indirect” greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of each type of vehicle during the periods, considering at least the number of miles they were driven during the period, the direct emissions from fuel use, the life cycle emissions of the embodied carbon in the vehicle’s components, and reasonable estimates of the vehicle’s useful life.

To help track whether the total cost to operate the fleet is declining or increasing as a result of electrification, the study’s to include a best estimate of the State’s cost for owning and operating the fleet for each of the preceding two years, including the total cost for the ownership and operation of all the vehicles, and specific ownership and operation totals for vehicles in the fleet that are fully electric, have internal combustion engines, or use another fuel.

HB1368

HB1368 – Requiring and funding purchases of zero-emission school buses after September 2035.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Senn (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Fey, Berry, Doglio, Peterson, Chapman, Fosse, Slatter, Gregerson, Callan, Lekanoff, Ramel, Stonier, Street, Santos, Fitzgibbon, and Berg – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education. Redirected to the House Committee on Environment & Energy; had a hearing there February 7th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Appropriations, and died there. Reintroduced in 2024, and had another hearing in House Appropriations on January 11th. Replaced by another substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5431 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

HB1342

HB1342 – Requiring environmental reporting on materials for public construction. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Steele (R; 12th District; Chelan) (Co-Sponsors Stokesbary – R; Leavitt & Lekanoff – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget February 2nd. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB 5391 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

HB1236

HB1236 – Improving access to renewable hydrogen for public transportation.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Abbarno – R; Senn, Reed, Doglio, Ramel, and Lekanoff – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5325 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 30th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 16th.

Substitute –
The substitute extends the bill’s provisions to include other types of public transit agencies.

HB1183

HB1183 – Prohibiting Washington from adopting California vehicle emissions standards. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would repeal the laws authorizing the Department of Ecology to adopt rules to implement California’s motor vehicle emission standards and to adopt rules for the disclosure of the greenhouse gas emissions of new vehicles. It would specify that the Department has no authority to adopt any California vehicle emissions standards.

HB1135

HB1135– Authorizing using impact fees for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Walen – D)
Current status – Passed out of the House Committee on Local Government January 20th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Commitee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5452 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current definition of the public facilities on which impact fees may be spent to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

HB1084

HB1084 – Having the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board make project recommendations to the Legislature rather than making grants itself.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Ramos, Ryu – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation March 27th; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 12th.
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 Transportation January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously on March 7th.

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

Summary –
Under the bill, the State’s Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board would no longer be responsible for approving grants for public projects in designated strategic freight corridors. It would make recommendations about grants to the Legislature instead.

The Board would consult with various stakeholders and recommend a six-year investment program for the highest priority freight mobility projects in the state, including priority projects eligible for Federal grant funding for the Infrastructure Act; monitor the implementation of projects included in the program; identify critical emerging freight mobility issues not yet addressed by investments; and report to the Governor and the Legislature on its work by December 2024, and at least every two years after that. The Board would be authorized to provide technical assistance to project sponsors, not just to grant applicants, and to work with stakeholders on developing projects to address critical emerging issues.

The bill would discard the Board’s current rules for prioritizing project grants, and eliminate the current rules for allocating funds among projects, which have the first 55% of the funds go to the highest projects prioritized using criteria the law specifies, and then divide the rest equally among the Puget Sound region, Western Washington, and Eastern Washington. Instead, applicants would have to demonstrate a plan for “sufficient engagement” with overburdened communities impacted by the project, and for evaluation of project alternatives and mitigation measures addressing the impacts on these communities to the greatest extent possible. The Board would adopt other evaluation criteria for the six-year program of investments, including benefits to the state’s freight system, how much funding has already been secured for a project, readiness for construction, and regional distribution of projects. It would recommend appropriate levels of state funding for each project, ensuring funding is allocated to leverage the most partnership funding possible and that projects aren’t more appropriately funded by other sources. It would not recommend projects that appear to improve overall general mobility with limited enhancement for freight mobility.

The Board would be required to contract for a study of best practices for preventing or mitigating the impacts of freight systems in overburdened communities. The bill would add three members to twelve now on the Board – one for the package delivery industry; one for environmental protection interests; and one for overburdened communities. It would have the Department of Transportation coordinate with the Board in developing the periodic updates of the marine ports and navigation plan and the freight mobility plan that are parts of the multimodal transportation plan. It would add stronger environmental justice language and language about the climate benefits of enhanced freight mobility to the current law’s findings.

SB5092

SB5092 – Expanding the sales and use tax exemption for plug-in vehicles to include regular hybrids.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The current sales and use tax exemption applies to new and used cars, light duty trucks, and medium passenger vehicles that are exclusively powered by a clean alternative fuel (ie battery full-electrics and fuel cell vehicles). It also applies to plug-in hybrids that can go at least 30 miles on the battery. The bill would remove the thirty mile requirement. It would add a provision which says that the exemption would also apply to “vehicles that are classified as hybrid electric and gasoline vehicles but not plug-in hybrid vehicles.”

The bill says the exemption would apply to vehicles in the expanded current category “or” vehicles in this new second category. That second category isn’t very clear. It sounds as if it’s excluding plug-in hybrids from the exemption. However, since the expanded current category still clearly includes those, I think the phrase I quoted is just a clumsy way of trying to make it clear that the expanded exemption would also apply to regular hybrids, like the Prius, not just plug-in hybrids.

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.

SB5018

SB5018 – Transferring estimated sales and use tax revenue from expenditures by the Department of Transportation from the general fund to the motor vehicle fund.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
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 transfer the estimated sales and use tax revenue from expenditures by the Department of Transportation from the general fund to the motor vehicle fund. It would apply to any revenue from the Department’s expenditures on purchases of “any tangible personal property, digital products, or labor.”

SB5017

SB5017 – Dedicating the sales and use taxes on motor vehicles to highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
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 use tax revenue and the six and five- tenths percent sales tax revenue from new or used retail sales of a vehicle, including private-party sales, to be used exclusively for highway purposes. (It would not apply to the revenue from car rentals.)

SJR8200

SB5030 – Placing a Constitutional amendment on the ballot requiring revenue from road use charges and similar measures to be used for highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would propose a Constitutional amendment to voters on the November 2023 ballot. If adopted, it would require “any state revenue collected from a road usage charge, vehicle miles traveled fee, or other similar type of comparable charge” to be used exclusively for highway purposes.