Author Archives: Thad Curtz

HB2401

HB2401 – Managing refrigerant gases used in appliances or other infrastructure.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Ramel, Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Appropriations and scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
There’s a staff summary of the original bill and one of the substitute on the tracking page.

SB6052

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB2483

HB2483 – Regulating and encouraging biochar production from agricultural and forestry biomass.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Shavers & Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would add producing biochar using mobile units with reduced emissions relative to open burning, and consuming less than 150 green tons a month of clean cellulosic biomass, to the list of alternative forestry disposal practices DNR is currently supposed to encourage. Those materials are defined as residuals from agricultural and forest-derived biomass including green wood, forest thinnings, wood pellets and various kinds of waste; urban wood including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass; corn stover and other crops used specifically for the production of biofuels; bagasse and other crop residues; and wood collected from fire clearance, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, and clean biomass from land clearing. (Materials couldn’t contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass.)

You’d need a burning permit from DNR to produce biochar with biomass from forestry operations, and a burning permit from Ecology to produce it from agricultural waste. including a fee of $1 per ton of waste.

SB6304

SB6304 –Implementing recommendations of the transportation electrification strategy.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsors Nguyen & Kuderer – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 1:30 PM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
SB5945 would prohibit direct sales by EV manufacturers.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce develop recommended legislative language on maximum timelines for electric vehicle charging equipment project permitting and interconnection; streamlined utility requirements for reporting on transportation electrification; requirements for consumer information on EV chargers; extending right-to-charge policies to tenants and homeowners outside common interest communities; reliability standards for publicly available and shared use EV chargers; and other policies to implement the recommendations on improving EV chargers’ availability and use in the transportation electrification strategy. It would have Commerce develop a comprehensive and publicly available inventory of all electric vehicle supply equipment in Washington by the end of 2025, and require an update of the model regulations for local government on EV charging every five years. The bill would require all this work to be done in coordination with a specified list of stqkeholders.

The bill would have the Department of Transportation use Commerce’s inventory and various estimates developed by the Interagency Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council rather than having Transportation continue to be responsible for doing that work itself.

Public and private utilities’ outreach and investment in transportation electrification currently can’t increase net costs to ratepayers more than one-quarter of one percent. The bill would drop that limit, as well as the current 2% cap on the incentive rate of returns the UTC can authorize for private utilities’ investments in EV chargers. It would have utilities prioritize residential and fleet charging; demand management, including managed charging; and upgrades and expansions of grid infrastructure to deliver power to electric vehicle supply equipment. It would have them meet or exceed the equity investment requirements for the clean fuels program.

The bill would allow a manufacturer of zero emissions vehicles to own, operate, or control a new motor vehicle dealership that only sells its new vehicles; or to own, operate, control or contract with companies that provide finance, leasing, or service for its vehicles. (It would do this by exempting them from the current provisions which generally prohibit manufacturers from competing with dealers.)

The bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to establish and enforce energy efficiency standards for replacement tires for passenger cars and light trucks. Implementing this might include creating a database of replacement tires offered for sale or distribution in the state; requirements for reporting information about replacement tires; a rating system for the their energy efficiency; testing procedures in alignment with enacted regulations by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration; and minimum energy efficiency standards for replacement tires based on their rolling resistance. There’d be exemptions for various special use tires, and the rules could not worsen tire safety or longevity. The bill would authorize inspections and penalties of up to $10,000 per occurrence for repeat violations of the requirements.

The bill would have the Department of Ecology enforce the rules about the prevention of idling by medium and heavy vehicles required as part of our adoption of California’s vehicle emission standards.

The bill would have Ecology, in collaboration with OSPI and Commerce, identify target years for requiring all new public school bus purchases be for zero emissions buses and for requiring all the ones in operation to be zero emissions buses, with consideration of the modeling from the transportation electrification strategy, other cost analyses and bus availability projections. It would have them calculate the funding needed to cover higher purchase prices before cost parity, route planning, facility upgrades, charging infrastructure, and training. They would develop a funding process that doesn’t require districts to apply for state competitive grants separate from other direct funding, and that ensures a seamless transition from the clean diesel bus program. They’d develop an exemptions request and approval process that can be used if a district can demonstrate another bus is required by the route; and they’d coordinate with districts through regional transportation coordinators to implement these requirements.

The bill would require the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment at state facilities to be done by people certified by the electric vehicle infrastructure training program or a similarly accredited program.

HB2486

HB2486 – Extending the commute trip reduction tax credit program and increasing the benefits.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wylie (D; 49th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would extend the commute trip reduction business and occupation tax credit program for two years, until June 2026. It would drop the provision limiting the credit to 50% of what an employer spends on the program, and raise the allowable credit per employee from $60 to $100. It would reduce the maximum credit an employer could receive in a given year from $100,000 to $50,000, and raise the cap for the whole program from $2,750,000 to $4,300,000.

SB6303

SB6303 – Providing several fifteen year tax incentives to encourage energy storage system and component parts manufacturing in Washington.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Scheduled for executive session in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 8:00 AM on Friday January 26th. (The bill hasn’t ever had a hearing, as far as I can see; the sponsor is the committee chair, which may have something to do with that.). Passed out of committee the same day, and referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax on businesses selling, manufacturing, or processing energy storage system and component parts in the state at 0.275% through 2040. (This would include batteries, thermal storage systems, mechanical systems including pumped hydro, and electrical systems like super capacitors and superconducting magnetic energy storage.)

It would also provide an annual credit of $4,000 for each person employed in a permanent full-time position manufacturing any of these, and an additional $4,000 credit for each position that lasts over ten years.

It would make the construction of facilities to produce these eligible for the sales tax deferrals on materials and equipment, labor, or services currently available for a variety of green investment projects. (These allow you to postpone starting to pay the taxes until two years after the completion of a project, and to pay them gradually over ten years.)

There’d be a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee report on the program after five years evaluating average construction wages for eligible projects; the number of jobs created in the clean technology sector; the use of apprenticeship programs, and women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses by eligible projects; the degree to which the preference encouraged manufacturing and component production for technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; whether facilities benefiting from the preference would have been developed without the preference; and any other relevant metric. However, the bill specifies that the Legislature doesn’t intend to change the expiration of the preference based on the findings of the review…

HB2405

HB2405 – Integrating sustainability factors into the State Investment Board’s activities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr; (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Ramel, Berry – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the State Investment Board to integrate sustainability factors into its investment decision making, investment analysis, portfolio construction, due diligence, and investment ownership. Those would include specified corporate governance and leadership factors, and environmental factors that might have an adverse or positive financial impact on investment performance. They’d include social capital factors that impact relationships with outside parties, including human rights, customer welfare, customer privacy, data security, access and affordability, selling practices and product labeling, community reinvestment, and community relations. They’d also include human capital factors such as labor practices, responsible contractor and responsible bidder policies, employee health and safety, employee engagement, diversity and inclusion, and incentives and compensation. They’d include business model and innovation factors that reflect an ability to plan and forecast opportunities and risks, such as supply chain management, materials sourcing and efficiency, business model resilience, product design and life-cycle management, and physical impacts of climate change.

The bill would allow analyzing these factors in a variety of ways, including considering direct financial impacts and risks; legal, regulatory, and policy impacts and risks; performance in relation to industry norms, best practices, and competitive drivers; and effects of stakeholder engagement.

It would have the Board develop and publish proxy voting guidelines that recognize climate change as a business and systemic risk, and use its authority as a stockholder to mitigate these risks. The bill says it should support shareholder resolutions that call for entities to reduce activities that contribute to climate change, and provide public, written comments explaining why the board chose not to support them when it didn’t.

The bill would require an annual report from the Board to the House Capital Budget Committee and Senate Ways & Means on the environmental sustainability of its investment decision-making process, focusing on its process for identifying climate change-related risks and assessing the financial impact those have on the Board’s operations. The report would have to include actions the Board is taking to manage the risks climate change poses to its investment portfolio and strategies; its operations, and Federal climate-related reporting requirements.

The bill would require the State Auditor to conduct a comprehensive biannual evaluation of the Board’s proxy voting guidelines on climate risks, including consideration of how well the Board was conforming to those and to the bill’s investment guidelines. It would report to the Legislature on proxy votes cast in ways that promoted emissions targets required for keeping global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius, instances where proxy votes cast were effective in directing or maintaining guidance to directors to pursue the goals in those guidelines, the overall efficacy of the proxy voting guidelines, and recommendations for improvements.

HB2465

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB6291

SB6291 – Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Central Washington) (Co-Sponsors Lovick – D; Dozier and Short – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections  January 26th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2465 is a companion bill in the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB6229

SB6229 – Allowing the Department of Transportation to set the matching requirement for a Green Transportation Capital Grant at the level it deems appropriate.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors King and Holy – R; Cleveland, Liias, Lovick, and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation  on January 23rd, and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2131 is a companion bill in the House.

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

SB6138

SB6138 – Promoting the establishment of thermal energy networks.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Nobles, Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on  January 24th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2131 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would authorize electrical and gas companies to own, operate, or manage nonemitting thermal energy networks piping fluids for transferring heat in and out of buildings to improve energy efficiency and/or eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions of current heating and cooling, domestic hot water or refrigeration. Investor owned projects would have to be reviewed and approved by the UTC, which could authorize the recovery of the costs in rates; public projects would be reviewed and approved by their governing bodies.

The bill would create a pilot project program, giving investor owned gas companies priority for developing projects in their service areas if they notified the UTC of their intention to do a project within a year after the bill took effect and deployed a project within 30 months. The bill would require the UTC to consider a considerable number of factors in deciding whether to approve projects, including the customers and low-income customers served, the use of the existing natural gas workforce and efforts to transition it to thermal energy work, maintaining infrastructure safety and reliability; its ability to meet 100 percent of the customers’ demand for space heating; public health benefits, coordination with any electric utility providing service to the area, and its potential to enable gas pipeline decommissioning and supplant the need for gas pipeline replacement and the associated costs. (There are other items, as well as a list of optional factors that the UTC might take into consideration.) Companies would have to include pilot projects in their RFP’s requests for energy resources, and if a company determined it could deploy a pilot project at the lowest reasonable cost itself instead of deploying one through a heat purchase or energy services agreement, it would be authorized to do that. The UTC might authorize merging a company’s rate bases for its gas and thermal network operations; if a company did that it would have to monetize any benefits it received from Federal and State incentives and use them to mitigate rate impacts on customers.

The bill would require the Department of Commerce to create a grant program to support gas company projects in the program, subject to the availability of amounts specifically appropriated for that. Grants would cover the difference between the company’s lowest reasonable cost resources under its current business practices and the costs of building and operating the pilot project. In reviewing grants, Commerce would consider the same factors that the UTC would be required to take into account in deciding whether to approve them.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would review the program and report on it to the appropriate committees of the Legislature.

HB2446

HB2446 – Providing increased funding for reforestation after wildfires and other destructive events.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Paul; (D; 10th District; Island County) (Co-Sponsor Dent – R)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill is nearly identical to SB6281. (However, that specifies that recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries; prioritizes direct reforestation, and specifies that funds could also be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program.)

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would have the Department of Natural Resources create a grant program for climate-informed reforestation after wildfires and other large scale events that damaged forest ecoservices. Grants would be available to tribal ownerships, nonprofit landowners and managers, industrial and nonindustrial private forestland owners, local governments, and other state agencies. Federal lands and lands directly managed by DNR would not be eligible, though recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries. The recipents’ share of the costs would be limited to 25%, including in-kind contributions. DNR would prioritize projects on private forest land where the owners weren’t required to replant; projects including reforesting riparian buffers, potentially unstable slopes, or other areas where state regulations restrict harvesting. The Department would set minimum and maximum sizes for the grants, and take environmental justice into consideration in making awards.

The bill would add the grant program and DNR’s own work reforesting after wildfires to the list of activities that can be funded by revenue from the Climate Commitment Act, and appropriate up to $10 million this fiscal year for each of these.

HB2444

HB2444 – Defining the legal liabilities associated with the operation of autonomous vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would define the legal liability of manufacturers of autonomous vehicles. They’d be responsible for the safety of occupants, other users of the road, and property to the same extent that an attentive and unimpaired human driver in similar circumstances would be. Breaches of the system’s duty of care would include operating in a way that would be negligent if a person did it; failing to obey motor vehicle laws, rules, and regulations; failing to make defensive driving maneuvers without undue risk, and requesting a person to take control of the vehicle in circumstances in which it was unreasonable to do that expeditiously and without creating an additional hazard. Such failures would count as ordinary or gross negligence, and manufacturers’ could be financially liable for losses resulting from them. They’d still be liable if intervention by a third party had contributed to a system’s failure to control the vehicle.

The bill would establish strict liability for autonomous vehicles being tested, were running without human supervision, or claimed to be capable of doing that. Manufacturers would be liable for damages to people or property regardless of whether the automated system or a person was in control of the vehicle immediately before the accident, and regardless of any failures on the part of the test driver. Unless you’d deliberately engaged in a malicious act, you could get paid for damages simply by showing that the car had caused them. Drivers who’d taken over partial or complete control of a vehicle from the system would not be responsible for any loss arising from their negligent acts or omissions during the first 10 seconds after the transfer of control; they might be liable if they didn’t respond within 10 seconds to requests from the system about taking over or shifting control of the vehicle.

However, people who were responsible for supervising the operation of a system might be liable for losses rather than the manufacturer if the loss happened more than ten seconds after they took over control of a vehicle, the loss was caused by a readily apparent hazard that could have been avoided or mitigated through reasonable intervention without unduly endangering the them, other individuals, or property; they knew or should have known that the system wouldn’t deal with the hazard adequately without intervention; and they had a reasonable amount of time to perceive, react to, and avoid the hazard.

Systems would have to shut down and stop at the first available safe location if they couldn’t continue operation of the vehicle without undue risk and a person was unwilling or unable to intervene in the vehicle’s controls or provide adequate remote supervision. If a vehicle had urgent-egress or demand-stop features, occupants wouldn’t be liable for using or failing to use them when the vehicle was operating fully autonomously. Manufacturer would have to have automated vehicles display appropriate and effective visual warnings to motorists and vulnerable road users while they were being tested on the road.

SB6278

SB6278 – Creating an organic and regenerative agriculture action plan for the State.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsors Muzzall – R; Billig, Nobles, Saldaña, and Valdez – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 25th. Replaced by a substitute adding one or more historically underserved farmers or ranchers to the task force and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Thw bill would have the Department of Agriculture create and chair an organic and regenerative agriculture task force, including representatives from 15 specified interests, organizations, and state agencies. It would be required to include representatives from large farming operations with gross receipts above $250,000 a year and from smaller operations with receipts below that as well as from farming operations on both sides of the Cascades.

The Department would be required to consult with the task force in developing an organic agriculture action plan, a guide to leveraging organic and regenerative agriculture to address economic, social, and environmental challenges, create opportunities for farmers wishing to transition to organic farming, increase resiliency in agricultural methods, and build a robust regional food system. The plan would include and provide recommendations on
(a) Identifying barriers to achieving organic certification and expanding organic markets;
(b) Defining regenerative agriculture and considering how and where it overlaps and interconnects with organic agriculture;
(c) Providing education to support job creation and retention in the organic sector;
(d) Ways to increase Washington’s certified organic acreage to 25% of agricultural land by 2035, and to increase the number of farmers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers transitioning to organic farming production and sales;
(e) Ways to support entry to organic farming, particularly among youth, overburdened communities, and black, indigenous, and other people of color;
(f) Ways to improve coordination of organic farming with food processing and distribution infrastructures;
(g) Options to increase revenue for organic farms, processors, wholesalers, and retailers, and enhance their sustainability;
(h) Ways to enhance soil health, water and air quality, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and improve on-farm resilience through organic or regenerative farming; and
(i) Research on topics specific to or relevant to organic and regenerative farming, including increasing crop productivity and quality, genetic biodiversity, and alternatives to synthetic pesticides.

The Department would provide a progress report on the development of the plan to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by November 2024, and submit the finished plan to them by the next November, including recommendations for legislative, administrative, or budgetary actions necessary to implement it, and on whether or not to continue the task force.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would also authorize the Department to reduce the fees for organic certification to decrease the financial burden of achieving or maintaining that and increase participation in organic agriculture.

SB6281

SB6281 – Increasing funding for reforestation after wildfires and other destructive events.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Warnick, Dozier & Short – R’s; Mullet – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 25th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
The bill is nearly identical to HB2446. (However, that does not specify that recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries; prioritize direct reforestation, or specify that funds could also be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program.)

In the Senate –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that. The amendment removed the provision allowing funding form the Climate Commitment Act to be used for the grant program or DNR’s wildfire reforestation programs.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would have the Department of Natural Resources create a grant program for climate-informed reforestation after wildfires and other large scale events that damaged forest ecoservices. Grants would be available to tribal ownerships, nonprofit landowners and managers, industrial and nonindustrial private forestland owners, local governments, and other state agencies. Federal lands and lands directly managed by DNR would not be eligible, though recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries. The recipents’ share of the costs would be limited to 25%, including in-kind contributions. DNR would prioritize projects on private forest land where the owners weren’t required to replant; projects including reforesting riparian buffers, potentially unstable slopes, or other areas where state regulations restrict harvesting; and direct reforestation. (Funds could be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program, though.) The Department would set minimum and maximum sizes for the grants, and take environmental justice into consideration in making awards.

The bill would add the grant program and DNR’s own work reforesting after wildfires to the list of activities that can be funded by revenue from the Climate Commitment Act, and appropriate up to $10 million this fiscal year for each of these.

HB2429

HB2429 – Making procedural changes in the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s consideration of applications for site certifications.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Pollet – D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 29th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
When the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council holds the required public hearing, conducted as an adjudicative procedure, before submitting its recommendation about a site application to the Governor, the bill would require the attorney acting as counsel for the environment to state full support for the application for certification; qualified support for it with recommended modifications; or opposition to its approval. It specifies that people testifying at the hearing in support of approval or in opposition to it have the right to call any witness with relevant information except for members of the Council and its staff.

The bill specifies that majority consensus by a quorum of the Council is required to conduct the its business, and that the Chair cannot conduct it unilaterally. It also specifies a few other minor procedural points, including stating that applications for facility site certification have to contain sufficient information for the Council to evaluate all their potential impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act.

HB2417

HB2417 – Creating a revolving loan fund to support developing clean energy in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Pasco) (Co-Sponsor Hackney – D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it in this session, the bill would create a revolving loan fund to support developing clean energy in the state. It could make loans to public or private entities for electric vehicle or hydrogen vehicle fleets, charging, or refueling stations; siting evaluations and permitting for generation or transmission projects promoting energy reliability; installation of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydrogen infrastructure to assist with supplying the applicant’s energy needs; the buildout of advanced nuclear reactor technology including small modular reactors; and decarbonization of facilities. It would be managed by the State Energy Office, and the bill has a few provisions about due diligence, conflicts of interest, and canceling loans for ethics violations.

SB6240

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

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

HB2410

HB2410 – Providing the reduced B&O tax rate for producing alternative jet fuel to much smaller companies in distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Caldier – R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6240 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

SB6256

SB6256 – Creating consumer protections for purchasers of solar energy systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell)  (Co-Sponsors Conway, Hasegawa, Kuderer, Nobles, Saldaña, and Valdez – Ds) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce January 25th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2156 is a companion bill in the House.

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

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

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

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

SB6243

SB6243 – Exempting clean technology manufacturing from the business and occupation tax for ten years.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status –
Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade at 10:30 AM on Thursday, January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
THe bill would exempt manufacturing of clean technology in the state from the business and occupation tax. It would apply to manufacturing tangible property exclusively or primarily used in vehicles, vessels, and other modes of transportation that emit no exhaust gas other than water vapor; charging or fueling infrastructure for those; generation of renewable or green electrolytic hydrogen; production of energy from alternative resources; retrofitting megawatt-class diesel vehicles, vessels, and other modes of transportation to hybrid diesel-electric; production of clean fuels; and storage facilities for electricity, renewable hydrogen, green electrolytic hydrogen, or a green hydrogen carrier for subsequent delivery or consumption.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would measure the exemption’s effectiveness after eight years, evaluating the average construction wages for eligible projects; the number of jobs created in the clean technology sector; the use of apprenticeship programs and women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses by eligible projects; the degree to which the exemption encouraged manufacturing and component production for technologies reducing greenhouse gas emissions; whether facilities benefiting from it would have been developed without it; and any other relevant metric.

HB2376

HB2376 – Adjusting the Climate Commitment Act’s provision of free allowances to municipal gas utilities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Robertson (R; 31st District; Sumner) (Co-Sponsors Stokesbary, Dent, Ybarra, and Caldier – Rs)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the free Climate Commitment Act allocations that municipal gas utilities receive to cover their emissions decline by 2% each year, rather than declining in proportion to the reductions in the cap needed to meet the State’s climate goals. It would increase the percentage of their free allowances they had to auction to provide rate reductions for customers by 2% a year, leaving the increases for other utilities at the current rate of 5% a year.

The bill would also authorize public entities subject to the CCA to go into executive session to discuss financial, proprietary, or other market sensitive information related to their participation in its markets. (The Act already exempts records about these, but it doesn’t exempt discussions of them.)

SB6112

SB6112 – Creating a ten year B&O tax credit for food donated by grocery stores and other retailers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Kuderer, Nguyen, Randall, Shewmake, Van De Wege, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Ways & Means on  January 18th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The buill would create a ten year business & occupation tax credit for 100% of the purchase price of food donations and 50% of the cost of fuel used by a distributor for transporting them to a food bank. It would be available to businesses retailing a general line of groceries, and they would be able to carry credits over for one year.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would evaluate the year-to-year change in the number of taxpayers claiming the credit and the amount claimed. The bill declares that the Legislature intends to extend the credit if the total value of donations has increased over the period of evaluation. (There’s no mention of a correction for inflation.)

SB6180

SB6180 – Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Torres, Warnick, and Jeff Wilson – Rs; Keiser, Nguyen, Salomon, and Valdez – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2301 is a companion bill in the House.

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

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology’s Center for Sustainable Food Management to develop and administer new grant programs in consultation with the Department of Agriculture; some of these would support activities reducing emissions by diverting organic materials from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities, or through food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery. They would be administered to prioritize maximizing greenhouse gas emission reductions; eliminating barriers to the rescue and consumption of edible food that would otherwise be wasted; developing stable funding programs for potential recipients to be aware of; and preferring options according to a specified management hierarchy. If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the grants could be used for projects to prevent the surplus of unsold, uneaten food from food businesses or to improve procedures for food donations; projects to improve and reduce the transportation of donated foods and management of cold chains; programs to support the establishment and expansion of wasted food reduction programs to benefit vulnerable communities; and food waste tracking and analytics pilot projects. The Department could award these grants competitively or non-competitively, and would have to prioritize projects benefiting overburdened communities.

The Center would also be required to develop and administer grants to support the implementation of the bill’s requirements and those of chapter 180, Laws of 2022, which is about waste management and organic materials. Priority would be given to grants implementing source separated organics collection and programs for businesses that are required to arrange for organic material management. The Department would have to provide assistance to each local government that demonstrated eligibility for these grants, and would not be allowed to require matching funds from them.

The Center would convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to address mechanisms to mandate or otherwise improve the rescue of edible food waste from commercial generators, including food services, retail establishments, and food processors. It would consider timelines, exemptions, administration, enforcement, and other logistics to phase in edible food donation programs, incentives, or requirements; as well as the systems needed to support increased donations by commercial generators and whether that certain system components wewre in place before requiring any commercial donations. It would assess asset gaps and food infrastructure development needs, facilitate the creation of networks and partnerships to address those and develop innovative partnerships and models where appropriate. It would consider actions taken, costs, and lessons learned by other US jurisdictions with policies for reducing edible commercially generated food waste and through voluntary pilot projects carried out by commercial generators of food waste. Ecology would submit a report to the legislature by September 1, 2025, with the recommendations of the work group.

The bill would have the Department of Agriculture create a commodities donation grant program for one or more nonprofit food cooperative organizations to acquire food at risk of being wasted directly from food producers for distribution to hunger relief organizations. It would rely on existing infrastructure and similar current programs to maximize short term benefits and expedite grants; be designed to achieve efficiencies of scale, and give priority to organizations that have at least five years doing similar work. It would compensate producers for production costs and postharvest logistical and administrative costs that facilitated the acquisition and distribution of the food. The bill declares the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $25 million per biennium to this program.

The bill would double the size of the school awards in the Waste Not program, to $10,000 a year, and declare the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $1 million per biennium to that program.

After March 2027, jurisdictions accepting food waste in their source separated organics collection programs would be required to collect every week instead of 26 weeks a year, unless they reduced the volume or odor of the waste somehow and got a waiver from Ecology. Beginning in April 2030 jurisdictions would have to provide source-separated organic solid waste collection services to all customers, and accept food waste. With a few exceptions, everyone would have to use the curbside program to dispose of organics. The bill shifts the rules about exempted areas in various ways. It requires at least ten hours a year of independent training in organic materials management for compost and anaerobic digester facility managers and supervisors. Starting in 2026 it would require a business that generates at 96 gallons of organic waste a week to have management services for it. (Currently, this isn’t required unless you have at least 4 cubic yards a week.) It would require uniform color coding and labeling on collection bins across the state. It would prohibit using organic wastes contaminated with clopyralid, aminopyralid, or other picolinic acid herbicides as inputs or feedstocks in an organic materials management facility.

The bill would require packaging labels about food quality to say “Best by…” and those about food safety to say “Use by…”. It would prohibit labels saying “Sell by”, and labels saying “Pull by” or “Pull date” on perishable food packaging, though that information could be displayed in a date and month format that consumers couldn’t decipher readily. (You could still have labels indicating when food was packaged or processed, or saying it was best consumed within a certain number of days after being opened.) There’d be required signs about the new labeling in stores over 10,000 sq. ft. Authority to enforce the requirements could be delegated to local health jurisdictions, and would be required to primarily be in response to complaints; there’d be penalties of up to $500 a day for violations. The bill would also have the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology provide education and outreach activities, as well as technical assistance and guidance on request for businesses required to communicate a quality or safety date on food packaging. After two notices including information, violations of the bill’s labeling requirements would be subject to fines of up to $500 a day.

The bill would prohibit plastic stickers on produce, and add new specifications for when wood or fiber-based materials can be labeled “compostable”, and for coloring film plastic bags to help customers tell which are compostable and which need to be discarded as waste. It specifies requirements for labeling products as “home compostable.” It requires jurisdictions to notify Ecology if they choose to enforce the current prohibitions against claiming plastic products are “compostable” or “biodegradable” when they’re not.

It would authorize local jurisdictions to amend the State building code to provide adequate space for locating organic waste and recycling containers with garbage containers, or require posting of signs notifying residents where those containers are.

HB2301

HB2301 – Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Ormsby, Peterson, Pollet, Macri, Cortes, Shavers, Leavitt, and Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Appropriations; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6180 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology’s Center for Sustainable Food Management to develop and administer new grant programs in consultation with the Department of Agriculture; some of these would support activities reducing emissions by diverting organic materials from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities, or through food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery. They would be administered to prioritize maximizing greenhouse gas emission reductions; eliminating barriers to the rescue and consumption of edible food that would otherwise be wasted; developing stable funding programs for potential recipients to be aware of; and preferring options according to a specified management hierarchy. If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the grants could be used for projects to prevent the surplus of unsold, uneaten food from food businesses or to improve procedures for food donations; projects to improve and reduce the transportation of donated foods and management of cold chains; programs to support the establishment and expansion of wasted food reduction programs to benefit vulnerable communities; and food waste tracking and analytics pilot projects. The Department could award these grants competitively or non-competitively, and would have to prioritize projects benefiting overburdened communities.

The Center would also be required to develop and administer grants to support the implementation of the bill’s requirements and those of chapter 180, Laws of 2022, which is about waste management and organic materials. Priority would be given to grants implementing source separated organics collection and programs for businesses that are required to arrange for organic material management. The Department would have to provide assistance to each local government that demonstrated eligibility for these grants, and would not be allowed to require matching funds from them.

The Center would convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to address mechanisms to mandate or otherwise improve the rescue of edible food waste from commercial generators, including food services, retail establishments, and food processors. It would consider timelines, exemptions, administration, enforcement, and other logistics to phase in edible food donation programs, incentives, or requirements; as well as the systems needed to support increased donations by commercial generators and whether that certain system components wewre in place before requiring any commercial donations. It would assess asset gaps and food infrastructure development needs, facilitate the creation of networks and partnerships to address those and develop innovative partnerships and models where appropriate. It would consider actions taken, costs, and lessons learned by other US jurisdictions with policies for reducing edible commercially generated food waste and through voluntary pilot projects carried out by commercial generators of food waste. Ecology would submit a report to the legislature by September 1, 2025, with the recommendations of the work group.

The bill would have the Department of Agriculture create a commodities donation grant program for one or more nonprofit food cooperative organizations to acquire food at risk of being wasted directly from food producers for distribution to hunger relief organizations. It would rely on existing infrastructure and similar current programs to maximize short term benefits and expedite grants; be designed to achieve efficiencies of scale, and give priority to organizations that have at least five years doing similar work. It would compensate producers for production costs and postharvest logistical and administrative costs that facilitated the acquisition and distribution of the food. The bill declares the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $25 million per biennium to this program.

The bill would double the size of the school awards in the Waste Not program, to $10,000 a year, and declare the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $1 million per biennium to that program.

After March 2027, jurisdictions accepting food waste in their source separated organics collection programs would be required to collect every week instead of 26 weeks a year, unless they reduced the volume or odor of the waste somehow and got a waiver from Ecology. Beginning in April 2030 jurisdictions would have to provide source-separated organic solid waste collection services to all customers, and accept food waste. With a few exceptions, everyone would have to use the curbside program to dispose of organics. The bill shifts the rules about exempted areas in various ways. It requires at least ten hours a year of independent training in organic materials management for compost and anaerobic digester facility managers and supervisors. Starting in 2026 it would require a business that generates at 96 gallons of organic waste a week to have management services for it. (Currently, this isn’t required unless you have at least 4 cubic yards a week.) It would require uniform color coding and labeling on collection bins across the state. It would prohibit using organic wastes contaminated with clopyralid, aminopyralid, or other picolinic acid herbicides as inputs or feedstocks in an organic materials management facility.

The bill would require packaging labels about food quality to say “Best by…” and those about food safety to say “Use by…”. It would prohibit labels saying “Sell by”, and labels saying “Pull by” or “Pull date” on perishable food packaging, though that information could be displayed in a date and month format that consumers couldn’t decipher readily. (You could still have labels indicating when food was packaged or processed, or saying it was best consumed within a certain number of days after being opened.) There’d be required signs about the new labeling in stores over 10,000 sq. ft. Authority to enforce the requirements could be delegated to local health jurisdictions, and would be required to primarily be in response to complaints; there’d be penalties of up to $500 a day for violations. The bill would also have the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology provide education and outreach activities, as well as technical assistance and guidance on request for businesses required to communicate a quality or safety date on food packaging. After two notices including information, violations of the bill’s labeling requirements would be subject to fines of up to $500 a day.

The bill would prohibit plastic stickers on produce, and add new specifications for when wood or fiber-based materials can be labeled “compostable”, and for coloring film plastic bags to help customers tell which are compostable and which need to be discarded as waste. It specifies requirements for labeling products as “home compostable.” It requires jurisdictions to notify Ecology if they choose to enforce the current prohibitions against claiming plastic products are “compostable” or “biodegradable” when they’re not.

It would authorize local jurisdictions to amend the State building code to provide adequate space for locating organic waste and recycling containers with garbage containers, or require posting of signs notifying residents where those containers are.

HB2028

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

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

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

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

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

HB2333

HB2333 – Assessing the potential of state-owned natural and built assets to generate offset credits for carbon markets.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way)  (Co-Sponsors Walen, Chapman, Springer, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 22nd, amended to extend the due date for the assessment by six months, drop Ecology from the process of carrying it out, and allow linkage before it’s completed. Passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to the Committee on the Capital Budget.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Natural Resources, in collaboration and coordination with other specified agencies, assess state-owned natural and built assets with the potential to generate offset credits for the state’s carbon market. The study would also analyze their offset credit potential under protocols that the state might adopt by rule in the future, including those in voluntary carbon markets. DNR would report the results and any related recommendations for future coordination with local governments to the Legislature by July 2025; the bill would prohibit any linkage agreements before the assessment was completed.

HB2156

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB2341

HB2341 – Studying the potential effects of offshore wind development on the oceanographic processes of the Pacific and marine life.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Stokesbary – R; Chapman, Morgan, Timmons, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 19th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the University of Washington School of Oceanography conduct a comprehensive scientific study on the cumulative effects, both positive and negative, of offshore wind development on oceanographic processes such as tides, waves, and currents, and of how changes in those could affect the broader marine ecosystem. It would have to at least address the impact full projected build-out of offshore wind generation along the West Coast is likely to have on ocean upwelling;
wind turbines’ capacity to attract and/or repel fish and marine life; and the physical effects associated with turbines’ construction and operation, including water cloudiness, noise, vibrations, and disruptions to electromagnetic fields. The UW would submit a copy of its study to the Governor and to the committees of the Legislature with jurisdiction over energy and fishing by June 30, 2026.

HB2336

HB2336 – Assessing the suitability of state-owned lands for agriculture and renewable energy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Morgan (D; 29th District; Spanaway) (49 bipartisan co-sponsors)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on January 17th. Amended and passed out of committee January 24th. Scheduled for a hearing in the Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
The amendment in committee would include land that could be used for grazing as land suitable for agriculture; would require an agency to already be considering land for sale or surplus for it to count as underutilized; and would include land that could be used for agrivoltaics as land that’s suitable for renewable energy.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to assess unused and underutilized state-owned lands in consultation with the State Conservation Commission, determining their suitability for agricultural purposes. It would report the results to specified government recipients by June 30th, 2025. The Department would run a campaign to promote agricultural production on suitable land, with an emphasis on reaching communities that might have lacked access to opportunities as agricultural producers historically. It would also assess and evaluate land utilization in the state for agricultural purposes on an ongoing basis, identifying and mapping agricultural uses and water resources, including data on surface water, groundwater resources, and water quality. It would use this data to support and expand agricultural opportunities throughout the state.

The Washington State University Energy Program would use data from Agriculture’s study to identify lands that weren’t suitable for agriculture and assess their suitability for producing renewable energy. It would report its results to the same specified recipients by June 30, 2026.

HB2232

HB2232 – Assessing petroleum products supply and pricing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Mena, Berry, Bateman, Ramel, Ormsby, Reed, Fosse, Macri, Pollet, Peterson, Duerr – Ds) By request of the Governor.
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6052 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB6121

SB6121 –Regulating and encouraging biochar production from agricultural and forestry biomass.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Nobles and Randall – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2483 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
The substitute removes the $1/ton cap on the fee for burning agricultural waste and substitutes language about flame cap kilns for the biochar micro and macro units in the original.

Summary –
The bill would add producing biochar using mobile units with reduced emissions relative to open burning, and consuming less than 150 green tons a month of clean cellulosic biomass, to the list of alternative forestry disposal practices DNR is currently supposed to encourage. Those materials are defined as residuals from agricultural and forest-derived biomass including green wood, forest thinnings, wood pellets and various kinds of waste; urban wood including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass; corn stover and other crops used specifically for the production of biofuels; bagasse and other crop residues; and wood collected from fire clearance, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, and clean biomass from land clearing. (Materials couldn’t contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass.)

You’d need a burning permit from DNR to produce biochar with biomass from forestry operations, and a burning permit from Ecology to produce it from agricultural waste, including a fee of up to $1 per ton of waste.

HB2298

HB2298 – Establishing a climate resilience and environmental equity campus.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Postsecondary Education & Workforce.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources and Highline Community College to establish and administer a climate resilience and environmental equity campus as a joint operating agency. The campus would provide workforce training for postsecondary students pursuing careers in climate-focused science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through on-site training and a variety of internships. It would develop a climate-focused program and curriculum including training in those disciplines as well as social justice, collaborative decision making, ethical climate engagement, and community and civic engagement. It would provide informational exhibits exploring careers in those disciplines. The campus might be “made available” to the State’s public universities and colleges.

The campus would be governed by a Board of Directors with nine members appointed by the Governor and representing Highline, DNR, and specified institutions and stakeholders. It would work with industry to develop opportunities to offer students direct experience providing career and skills training, promote faculty collaboration with industry; encourage projects ranging from small scale research to large multipartner projects; work with industry to market in-state career opportunities in the specified disciplines, diversify the workforce, and educate the public on the pathways to success in those fields. It would work with colleges, universities, and industry to develop an industry-recognized certificate for students who completed training at the campus.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it the bill would have the DNR acquire Weyerhaeuser’s former corporate headquarters as a site for the new campus.

HB2297

HB2297 – Requiring solar systems on certain new school buildings over 50,000 sq.ft. when the State provides the funding.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Orwall (D; 33rd District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Hackney, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Goodman, Riccelli, Simmons, Pollet, and Doglio, Ds.)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday January 18th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
It seems to me that the bill currently says schools must notify OSPI about “qualifying systems”, but they won’t be able to know if they’re actually considering a qualifying system until after the agency does a cost benefit analysis, and OSPI isn’t supposed to do that analysis until after it’s notified of a project.

Summary –
The bill would have public schools planning to construct a building that was over 50,000 square feet (and that the building code required to have a solar zone) notify the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; they’d provide the estimated cost of permitting, purchasing, and installing a qualifying solar energy system, a comparison of the proposed system’s capacity to the school campus’ anticipated electrical consumption. and the electrical consumption of investments in their 10-year capital plans and anticipated improvements required to comply with the State’s energy-related building standards. (A qualifying system would have to maximize buildings’ or sites’ solar potential without exceeding the school campus’ anticipated electrical consumption and have an estimated positive net present value.)

OSPI would provide technical assistance to public schools for estimating a project’s costs and scope, and perform a cost-benefit analysis for each project included in a notification, comparing the state’s investment to the value produced by the project over a period of at least 25 years, and estimating whether it would result in a positive net present value over the period of analysis.

OSPI would develop a program to provide grants to cover the costs of installing systems on buildings that were required to provide solar zones by the building code. The agency would also estimate the cost of implementing the bill before each fiscal biennium, and request appropriations for the cost estimates. The first of these requests would be due by September 30, 2024. The Superintendent would award these grants if funds were specifically appropriated for them.

HB2262

HB2262 – Creating and enforcing energy efficiency standards for replacement tires.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Slatter, Kloba, Ortiz-Self, Ramel, Peterson, Doglio, Thai, Ryu, Cortes, Pollet, Morgan, Simmons, and Macri, Ds.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment on January 24th.Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce establish and enforce energy efficiency standards for replacement tires for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. (The findings say that an analysis by the Department’s energy policy office estimates adoption of reasonable standards could result in a cumulative reduction of 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline and 1,500 gigawatt hours of electricity over the next ten years.) Commerce might implement any combination of a database of replacement tires in production, a system for rating the energy efficiency of replacement tires based on their rolling resistance coefficient, minimum energy efficiency standards for replacement tires, testing procedures aligned with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration regulations when the bill became effective, and requirements for reporting information needed to implement it. The bill would authorize Commerce to prohibit the sale of replacement tires that didn’t meet the minimum efficiency standards.

The rules couldn’t adversely affect tire safety or tire longevity, as demonstrated by independent testing of wet grip or traction and treadwear done by an analyst for the department or another State energy office and verified by the department. They’d have to provide exemptions for snow tires, spare use tires, tires manufactured specifically for use in vehicles with three or fewer wheels, or tires manufactured specifically for use in an off-road recreational or agricultural vehicle.

Commerce or another agency it designated would be authorized to inspect tires sold or offered for sale, and after a first warning violations of the rules would be subject to civil penalties ranging from $100 to $10,000 per occurrence.

HJM4003

HJM4003 – Advocating a Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (There’s a long list of co-sponsors.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment  on January 25th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Memorial would urge the US government to participate in developing a Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty as an international mechanism to manage a global transition away from coal, oil, and gas; and affirm the need for a plan to phase out fossil fuel production that prioritizing the most impacted workers and local government services with short-term and long-term investments including enforceable labor standards to protect workers and communities.

SB6113

SB6113 – Providing fair access to community solar.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Dhingra, Hunt, Kuderer, Lovelett, Saldaña, & Shewmake, Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment & Energy & Technology at 8:00 AM on Friday January 19th.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2253 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would raise the maximum size of community solar projects from 1,000 kW to 5,000 kW and allow larger projects with a utility’s approval.  (Projects larger than 1,000 kW would have to be built with prevailing wage labor.) On a sizable list of preferred sites, including rooftops, impervious surfaces, and industrial areas, projects could be built on the same parcel as another community solar project. They’d have to have at least three subscribers, and a single customer couldn’t own or subscribe to more than 49% of a project’s capacity. At least half of a project’s capacity would have to be taken by low-income subscribers, low-income service provider subscribers, or both. After 10 years the UTC or a public utility’s governing board could lower the required percentage of low -income subscribers provided it wasn’t made lower than the utility’s percentage of low-income ratepayers. (“Low income” would be defined by the UTC, but could not be more than 80% of area median household income or 200% of the Federal poverty level, adjusted for household size. The bill allows using a number of methods like subscribers’ enrollment in other low income programs to simplify certifying their eligibility.) Low income subscribers would be exempt from any program administrative fees. Any renewable energy credits generated by a project would have to be retired for the benefit of the subscribers.

The bill would provide net-crediting for community solar, including both the community solar subscription cost and a community solar bill credit on the subscriber’s electric bill. (An electric utility could impose a net-crediting fee on the community solar project manager, capped at one percent of the subscription fee.) It would shift the management of projects from “community solar companies” to “community solar project managers”, allowing nonprofits, individuals, and small businesses to fill that role, and would remove the current provisions allowing the UTC to not enroll companies without adequate financial resources or adequate technical competency to provide the proposed service as project managers. There’d still have to be a performance bond of a suitable size for the project, but it couldn’t be set “in such a manner as to preclude” these new managers from participating. The bill would no longer require projects on tribal lands or Federal tribal trust lands to be administered by tribal housing authorities.

The UTC would set the value of credits, taking into account:
(i) The value of the electricity;
(ii) The value of the project to transmission and distribution capacity, deferred transmission and distribution investments, deferred generation investments and added generation capacity, voltage, reduced system losses, reduced line losses, and ancillary services;
(iii) The value of the project to grid reliability and resilience;
(iv) The value of environmental attributes, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, methane leakage reductions, public health, and energy security; and
(v) Other factors the commission determined were associated with locally produced electricity.
The UTC would be required to add some unspecified additional value for community solar projects when the majority of the project’s capacity was subscribed by low-income subscribers or low-income service provider subscribers; the project was owned by or served tribal communities; and it incorporated energy storage. The value  of credits would have to be updated biannually or annually, and would include an annual escalator. Credits would be carried forward on a customer’s bill as long as the account existed rather than expiring at the end of each year. However, the UTC or a public utility’s governing body would be able to adopt a different rate for crediting a subscriber’s bill if they had good cause to do that. As far as I can see, the subscription rates will be up to the project managers.

The UTC would develop other specified rules for community solar projects in private utility areas including modifying existing interconnection standards, fees, and processes as needed to facilitate their efficient and cost-effective interconnection,  ensure that the interconnection customer pays the reasonable costs, and ensure that interconnections are designed, engineered, and completed in accordance with good utility practice. The rules would also require each investor-owned utility to efficiently connect a community solar project to its electrical distribution grid, not discriminate against facilities or subscribers, and  provide for subscribers that receive utility allowances. The Commission would have to have at least two meetings with representatives of specified stakeholders before adopting the rules. Public utilities could adopt the UTC’s rules, create their own if they were compatible with the bill’s requirements, or decide not to participate in the program.

Unsubscribed energy would be carried on the project’s account until the end of the following calendar year and could be allocated to subscribers at any time during that period. After that any undistributed bill credit would be compensated to the project manager.

There’d be reviews of the program by the UTC after five and ten years, with reports to the Legislature.

SB6092

SB6092 – Requiring large businesses to report all their associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen)
Current status – Had a hearing in the the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 17th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Senator Nguyen’s substitute removed the reporting requirements and replaced them with a report on the SEC’s climate-related disclosure rules and whether those disclosures would be sufficient to assess compliance with Washington’s policies.

Summary
The bill would require entities doing business in the state and having total annual revenues over $1 billion to report their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to Ecology, beginning in October 2026. (Scope 1 emissions are defined as the direct emissions from any sources they own or directly control, regardless of location, and including emissions from fuel combustion. Scope 2 emissions would be the indirect emissions from electricity they purchased and used anywhere.) Starting in October 2027, they would have to report their Scope 3 emissions, the other indirect emissions associated with their activities regardless of location, including emissions associated with their supply chains, business travel, employee commutes, procurement, waste, and water usage. This would include the emissions from the use of products sold by the oil, gas, coal, and natural gas industries.

Ecology would adopt guidelines for the reporting, incorporating the greenhouse gas accounting and reporting standards and the methods developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to the extent that was practical. (Those include provisions for using industry averages and proxy data for Scope 3 emissions.) The Department would consult with stakeholders and other reporting entities that have demonstrated leadership in the disclosure and reduction of full-scope greenhouse gas emissions. It would have to investigate the availability of data and generally accepted protocols for estimating the carbon intensity of reporting entities’ operations, and if sufficient data and accepted protocols for estimating those were available, it would have to amend the guidelines to require including that information after October 2028. (It would be required to align the reporting timelines and required information with those of other Federal and state emissions reductions laws and policies to the extent that was possible; it might revise the guidelines from time to time to be consistent with protocols that entities follow for reporting in other jurisdictions. A report would have to be accompanied by an analysis from an independent, third-party auditor who had found it to be complete and accurate, or by a filed emissions disclosure under Section 38532 of California’s health and safety code, which includes an audit. (The bill currently has a typo with an incorrect section number.) Ecology would develop a website to make them easily accessible by the public.

Where a reporting entity failed to provide a required report on time, provided an incomplete report, or provided a report containing inaccurate information as determined by the independent auditor, the department would post a notice about that on the program’s website. The bill doesn’t say anything about penalties for these problems, though it would add a chapter to the Environmental Health and Safety laws so it’s possible something in those would cover that…

SB6089

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

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

HB2253

HB2253 – Providing fair access to community solar.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Ryu, Orwall, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Paul, Springer, Macri, Bergquist, Pollet, and Tharinger, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 16th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6113 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would raise the maximum size of community solar projects from 1,000 kW to 5,000 kW and allow larger projects with a utility’s approval.  (Projects larger than 1,000 kW would have to be built with prevailing wage labor.) On a sizable list of preferred sites, including rooftops, impervious surfaces, and industrial areas, projects could be built on the same parcel as another community solar project. They’d have to have at least three subscribers, and a single customer couldn’t own or subscribe to more than 49% of a project’s capacity. At least half of a project’s capacity would have to be taken by low-income subscribers, low-income service provider subscribers, or both. After 10 years the UTC or a public utility’s governing board could lower the required percentage of low -income subscribers provided it wasn’t made lower than the utility’s percentage of low-income ratepayers. (“Low income” would be defined by the UTC, but could not be more than 80% of area median household income or 200% of the Federal poverty level, adjusted for household size. The bill allows using a number of methods like subscribers’ enrollment in other low income programs to simplify certifying their eligibility.) Low income subscribers would be exempt from any program administrative fees. Any renewable energy credits generated by a project would have to be retired for the benefit of the subscribers.

The bill would provide net-crediting for community solar, including both the community solar subscription cost and a community solar bill credit on the subscriber’s electric bill. (An electric utility could impose a net-crediting fee on the community solar project manager, capped at one percent of the subscription fee.) It would shift the management of projects from “community solar companies” to “community solar project managers”, allowing nonprofits, individuals, and small businesses to fill that role, and would remove the current provisions allowing the UTC to not enroll companies without adequate financial resources or adequate technical competency to provide the proposed service as project managers. There’d still have to be a performance bond of a suitable size for the project, but it couldn’t be set “in such a manner as to preclude” these new managers from participating. The bill would no longer require projects on tribal lands or Federal tribal trust lands to be administered by tribal housing authorities.

The UTC would set the value of credits, taking into account:
(i) The value of the electricity;
(ii) The value of the project to transmission and distribution capacity, deferred transmission and distribution investments, deferred generation investments and added generation capacity, voltage, reduced system losses, reduced line losses, and ancillary services;
(iii) The value of the project to grid reliability and resilience;
(iv) The value of environmental attributes, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, methane leakage reductions, public health, and energy security; and
(v) Other factors the commission determined were associated with locally produced electricity.
The UTC would be required to add some unspecified additional value for community solar projects when the majority of the project’s capacity was subscribed by low-income subscribers or low-income service provider subscribers; the project was owned by or served tribal communities; and it incorporated energy storage. The value  of credits would have to be updated biannually or annually, and would include an annual escalator. Credits would be carried forward on a customer’s bill as long as the account existed rather than expiring at the end of each year. However, the UTC or a public utility’s governing body would be able to adopt a different rate for crediting a subscriber’s bill if they had good cause to do that. As far as I can see, the subscription rates will be up to the project managers.

The UTC would develop other specified rules for community solar projects in private utility areas including modifying existing interconnection standards, fees, and processes as needed to facilitate their efficient and cost-effective interconnection,  ensure that the interconnection customer pays the reasonable costs, and ensure that interconnections are designed, engineered, and completed in accordance with good utility practice. The rules would also require each investor-owned utility to efficiently connect a community solar project to its electrical distribution grid, not discriminate against facilities or subscribers, and  provide for subscribers that receive utility allowances. The Commission would have to have at least two meetings with representatives of specified stakeholders before adopting the rules. Public utilities could adopt the UTC’s rules, create their own if they were compatible with the bill’s requirements, or decide not to participate in the program.

Unsubscribed energy would be carried on the project’s account until the end of the following calendar year and could be allocated to subscribers at any time during that period. After that any undistributed bill credit would be compensated to the project manager.

There’d be reviews of the program by the UTC after five and ten years, with reports to the Legislature.

HB2249

HB2249 – Studying the impact of including general market participants in all the auctions of allowances for the Climate Commitment Program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Pomeroy)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy  on January 25th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Washington State Institute for the Study of Public Policy to publish a report on any impacts that including general market participants in the auctions has on allowance prices. (These are the 40% of current participants in the market that don’t actually have any covered emissions or compliance obligations. They can be buying allowances and retiring them to voluntarily offset emissions that the program doesn’t cover, for example, or trading them to speculate on prices.) The Institute would update its evaluation and report again to the Legislature every other year as long as general market participants were allowed in the auctions.

After each auction Ecology would have to publish the number of allowances purchased by each entity registered with the department as a general market participant. It would also publish
the percentage of the auctioned allowances purchased by general market participants, and the percentage of the auctioned allowances they’d purchased over that compliance period. After the conclusion of each compliance period, the department would also publish:
(i) The total number of retired compliance instruments that were, at one time during the compliance period, held by general market participants;
(ii) The proportion of compliance instruments that were, at one point prior to retirement, held by a general market participant, relative to the total number of allowances retired during that compliance period;
(iii) The number of transactions of compliance instruments involving at least one general market participant as a buyer or seller;
(iv) A rank-ordered list of the most active general market participants, numbered in descending order based on the number of transactions each general market participant participated in during the preceding compliance period; and
(v) The average gross profit margin, positive or negative, of the compliance instrument sales by each general market participant during the preceding compliance period.

(I’m quoting this list, because I’m not sure whether “at one time” is supposed to mean the number at the point in time when the total was largest or the cumulative total of those held at any time during the period. I’m also not sure if “compliance instruments” just means allowances here; offsets are “compliance instruments” too, but I don’t think they’re traded in the auctions… I think that (i) is simply supposed to mean the number of allowances that general market participants bought and then retired during the period, and that (ii) is simply supposed to mean the percentage of the allowances retired during the period that a general market participant held at some point, but I wouldn’t swear to either of those readings.)

The bill also authorizes Ecology to release confidential information needed for the study to the Institute, but it requires the Institute to treat it as confidential too.

HB2234

HB2234 – Revising the utility energy assistance programs for low-income households.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Couture, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would specify that utilities with over 25,000 customers have to have two or more programs for providing energy assistance to low-income households and that other utilities have to have at least one. It would shift from requiring priority for households with a high energy burden to allowing that. Programs could include direct bill assistance, support for energy efficiency and space conditioning measures, support for on-sight generation or energy storage systems or both, or other mechanisms that reduce the amount those households spend on energy.

The law currently requires utilities to assess the energy assistance that would be needed to fund the greater of meeting 60% of current needs by 2030 or increasing assistance by 15% over 2018 levels by then, as well as assessing the assistance needed to meet 90% of the current need by 2050. This bill would change that to simply assessing what would be required to meet 60% and 90% of the current needs for assistance. It would also require an assessment of the average amount that the monthly energy bills of non low-income households would have to increase to fund the utility’s providing assistance at those levels.

HB2199

HB2199 – Creating tax exemptions for amounts received through transactions involving the Climate Commitment Act’s allowances, offset credits, or price ceiling units.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Orcutt (R; 20th District; Kalama) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Reed, Doglio, and Leavitt, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance on  January 23rd and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would exempt past and future amounts received from the receipt, generation, purchase, sale, transfer, or retirement of the Climate Commitment Act’s allowances, offset credits, or price ceiling units from the business & occupation tax and the public utility tax.

HB2198

HB2198 – Mitigating the impact of rising school temperatures resulting from climate change.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint an advisory committee to develop recommendations for public school facilities’ indoor temperature standards, including a maximum temperature recommendation. The committee would include representatives from specified government bodies and other stakeholders, and it would submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature, including draft legislation to implement its recommendations. The Superintendent would also develop and report on estimates of the associated costs, and might request appropriations and the establishment of grant programs to assist schools with those.

Currently, a district’s schools have to be open for 180 days a year in order for it to receive its state education funding. However, the Superintendent is authorized to create rules for some exceptions, including allowing districts to still receive their full funding if one or more of their schools fail to be open long enough due to some specified unexpected natural events like floods or epidemics. The bill would add “excessive heat” in buildings to that list; the temperature or heat index that counted as excessive would be consistent with the National Weather Service’s guidance, and would be established by the Superintendent.

SB6047

SB6047 – Authorizing executive sessions by public natural gas utilities to allow them to comply with the Climate Commitment Act’s prohibition on disclosing auction participation plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Southcentral Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections  January 26th. Replaced by a substitute expanding the bill’s provisions to apply to all public agencies covered by the open public meetings act and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2173 is a companion bill in the House.

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

SB6058

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB6016

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

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

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

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

HB2201

HB2201 – Facilitating linkage of Washington’s carbon market with the California-Quebec market.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon) By request of the Department of Ecology.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 15th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6058 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB2189

HB2189 – Exempting regular hybrids, which can’t be charged with an external electrical power source, from the additional $75 registration fee they and plugin vehicles currently pay.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportatiom.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would exempt regular hybrids, which can’t be charged with an external electrical power source, from the additional $75 vehicle transportation electrification registration fee that they and plugin vehicles are currently charged.

HB2173

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

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