SB5961 – Requires state agencies and local governments to use biochar products in projects when it’s feasible, with various exceptions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sefzik (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsor Warnick – R)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House 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 State Government & Tribal Relations February 21st; passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to limit the requirements to public works projects; specify that the biomass must come from various waste materials; and to not require using it if any of the criteria for exceptions apply rather than all of them. Passed by the House.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 5th; passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 10th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would require the Department of Natural Resources to implement a pilot project to evaluate the costs and benefits of marketing and selling forest products to a biochar facility. It would determine if revenues cover the costs of preparing and conducting the sales, and identify and evaluate factors impacting those, including regulatory constraints and staffing levels. The project would have to include sales in the Olympic region, and be completed by June 30, 2024. DNR would work with stakeholders and report the results and any recommendations to the appropriate committees of the Legislature By November 1, 2024.

Original bill –
The bill would require state agencies and local governments to use biochar products in projects when they can be utilized. It wouldn’t be required if they weren’t available within a reasonable period; if the available products didn’t comply with purchasing standards;  if they didn’t meet Federal or State health, quality, and safety standards; or if the  prices weren’t reasonable or competitive. It wouldn’t be required of a state agency if the total cost of using it were prohibitive; if applying it would have detrimental impacts on the physical characteristics and nutrient condition of the soil as it is used for a specific crop; or if the project was growing trees in a greenhouse.