Author Archives: Thad Curtz

SB6172

SB6172 – Revives B&O tax exemption for Bonneville funds utilities spend on low-income bill assistance or weatherization.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz & Lewis Counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 28th. Passed out of committee February 6th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 20th; passed out of Ways and Means February 28th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2505 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
A similar exemption was created by the Legislature in 2010 and expired in June 2015. In the 2018 session, Senator Hobb’s SB6323 proposed reviving it through 2029, but the bill died in the Ways and Means Committee. (At that point, the fiscal note estimated that the bill would reduce the general fund by $600,000 in the first biennium, and $1.2 million per biennium going forward.)

Summary –
The bill creates a permanent exemption from the B&O tax for funds utilities receive from the Bonneville Power Administration as credits against contracts or for energy conservation or demand-side management, provided that they use that money for bill assistance or weatherization for low-income customers, and that it’s an addition to what they would be spending in any case.

HB2311

HB2311 – Increases the State’s emissions reductions targets beyond the Paris Accords’.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue, Redmond, & Kirkland)
Current status –
In the House – (Passed)
A substitute bill passed the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 23rd. Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations; had a hearing there February 3rd. Passed out of Appropriations with a very minor amendment February 8th. Referred to Rules February 11th. Passed out of the House with a floor amendment February 16th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing February 20th; passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 28th. Passed out of committee March 2nd, and referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 5th.
Next step would be – To the Governor for his signature.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6272 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The bill would raise the State’s targets farther than last session’s HB2313, which has been reintroduced and which would set them to match the Paris Accords’.

The House substitute adds a section about the State’s intent, with items about environmental justice; supporting good jobs and creating economic benefits; and maintaining manufacturing and avoiding leakage. It specifies that the targets are about reducing anthropogenic emissions and includes the tonnes of reductions implied by the percentage targets. The amendment in Appropriations adjusted the language about carbon sequestration and added carbon storage to the goals for State agencies. The floor amendment specifies that agencies don’t have to maximize sequestration in their land-management activities, and only requires DNR to act in in cooperation with the landowners when it is promoting carbon sequestration on the private lands and trust lands that it supervises , not when it’s requiring it.

Summary –
The bill leaves the State’s current greenhouse gas emissions target of a reduction to 1990 levels by 2020 (which we will not meet) in place. It raises the next target from a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035 to a 45% reduction by 2030. It adds a target for 2040 of a 70% reduction, and it increases the target for 2050 from a 50% reduction from 1990 levels to a 95% reduction. It adds a requirement for achieving net-zero emissions state-wide by 2050.

The targets are about reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere; they don’t address removing CO2 by increasing sequestration. However, the bill also says that “separate and apart” from reducing emissions to meet the targets, it’s the policy of the State “to prioritize sequestration activities in amounts necessary to achieve the carbon neutrality goal established in RCW 70.235.020, and at a level consistent with pathways to limit global warming to one and one-half degrees.” It says the State should promote voluntary and incentive based sequestration on natural and working lands and recognize the potential for sequestration in products and product supply chains associated with working lands. It requires agencies to seek all practical opportunities to cost-effectively maximize carbon sequestration in their operations, contracting, and grant-making activities.

Details –
Commerce’s reports on emissions are now to include those from wildfires.

State agencies’ goals are increased to a 45% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, a 70% reduction by 2040, a 95% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050, and net zero emissions by state government as a whole by then as well. Agencies are now to report every two years to the efficiency and environmental performance office at the Department of Commerce on their plans for reaching these targets and Commerce is to report to the Legislature on those (and on the budget required to implement them).

HB2310

HB2310 – Reduces emissions from on-demand transportation.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & NW Seattle) (Co-sponsors Ramel, Macri, Doglio, Cody, Hudgins, Pollet)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 14th. Substitute bill passed out of committee January 28th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; a 2nd Substitute with a minor amendment passed out of committee February 8th, and was referred to Rules February 11th. Passed the House February 16th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 24th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6399 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – “Electrifying Ride-hailing: Part 1 – Six Reasons Why Uber and Lyft Must Go Electric”, by the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Research and Deputy Director for the Clean Vehicles Program, discusses a number of recent pieces of research that provide pretty impressive reasons for doing this.

In the amended Second Substitute, the bill only applies to passenger services; the Department of Ecology is now to consult with the companies and report to the appropriate committees on how to reduce emissions from the food and goods delivery services the original covered.

It now specifies that Ecology ‘s baseline estimates should take account of periods when data on a vehicle’s movement may be recorded even though it’s not being driven as part of providing service for customers; of situations in which a car is being driven for more than one company, and of passenger-miles provided by zero-emissions transportation or transit that’s been offered through a company’s digital network.

It delays the date for implementing these plans for a year, until 2024, and allows Ecology to adjust the required date for submitting plans. It now requires a plan to outline the actions that the company will take to ensure that it will not increase negative financial outcomes for drivers. The department may now allow plans to get credit toward their targets by providing, funding, or financially supporting electrification infrastructure used to support these vehicles’ charging. The bill now specifies that Ecology can’t release any information that would be an invasion of privacy under current law, including the identification of passengers. It requires a report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature every two years on the reductions in emissions and vehicle miles achieved under these plans, and on the efficacy and sufficiency of incentives created by the Legislature to support shifting to zero emission vehicles.

Summary – Requires companies scheduling rides or consumer food or goods deliveries through digital technology such as webpages or smartphone apps to provide data to create a baseline of their emissions, and to reduce them over time. (The bill exempts a variety of traditional transportation services like taxis and limousines, however.)

Details :
By July 1st, 2021, the Department of Ecology is to create a state-wide baseline for the 2018 greenhouse gas emissions from these companies’ vehicles per customer mile and per food or goods delivery mile. By July 1st, 2022, it’s to adopt requirements, beginning in 2023, for reductions of those emissions; they’re to include annual targets and goals for increasing the percentage of passenger-miles traveled and customer food delivery-miles traveled using zero emission vehicles.

Beginning in January 2023, each company must submit a plan for making these reductions that are acceptable to Ecology. They’re to include ways to increase the proportion of their trips and the proportion of their vehicle miles made by zero emission vehicles, ways to decrease their average greenhouse gas emission rates, and ways to increase the proportion of passenger-miles traveled or customer food delivery-miles traveled relative to overall miles traveled. Their plans also have to consider incentives to encourage increasing the share of miles traveled by passengers whose walking, biking, or other active or zero emission modes of transportation are facilitated by using the companies’ vehicles, and incentives to increase the total miles they cover delivering food by walking, biking, or other zero emission transportation modes.

Ecology’s to do its best to have the rules minimize negative impacts on low-income and moderate-income drivers and to support providing clean mobility for low-income and moderate-income individuals. The rules for ride-hailing companies are to support the goals of the Growth Management Act. Ecology’s authorized to collect a fee from the companies to cover the expenses of administering the program.

SB5412

SB5412 – Creates a low carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing on a proposed substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 16th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(HB1110 began as an identical companion bill in the House last session; it passed out of the House with amendments, and out of the Senate Environment Committee with further amendments, but didn’t get out of the Transportation Committee there before cutoff.)

2109 Legislative History
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 30th, 2019. Still in committee at the 2019 cutoff date; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Ecology to create rules to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels used in Washington to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and to 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (Fuels for aviation, shipping, and locomotives are exempted.)

Comments –
Governor Inslee’s 2020 budget proposal would provide $1.5 million for the Department of Ecology to implement the program.

Rep. Fitzgibbon’s LCFS bill, HB 2338, which passed out of the House Environment and House Transportation committees in 2018, would have created a standard at the same level. Carbon Wa’s testimony in support of that bill included quite a bit of useful analysis.

Climate Solutions has produced a flyer supporting the bill in 2019.

Details :

Standards –

Must be based on a full lifecycle analysis of the emissions associated with each fuel, including its production, storage, transportation, and combustion, as well as associated changes in land use.
Must measure the emissions from electricity for each electric utility based on its mix of power sources.
Ecology can require additional reporting from fuel distributors and utilities if it’s needed.
The department may create additional exemptions to avoid mismatched incentives among programs, fuel shifting among markets, or other unintended consequences.
It must decide whether or not emissions reductions under the clean fuels program will count toward meeting the requirements of the clean air rule, and vice versa.

– Credits and trading

Ecology must create a system for generating, banking, trading, and verifying credits for emissions reductions. Participation in this system is voluntary, and it’s also open to suppliers and users of aviation, shipping, and locomotive fuels who make reductions in their associated emissions. Credits may be awarded for producing, importing, or dispensing fuels for use in the state, and for other activities that reduce the emissions associated with transportation fuels. They may not be awarded for any fuels with emissions above 80% of the standard.

The bill extends the penalties for violations of the Clean Air Act to violations of this act. Ecology may charge a fee to cover the costs of the program; these and any penalties collected under the program go into a new clean fuels fund account, which can only be spent through appropriations.

– Cost containment mechanisms

These may include creating a credit clearance market to put a ceiling on prices by making credits available at a level Ecology sets, and/or some similar method to provide credits to participants who have not been able to attain them. (These mechanisms must be designed to financially discourage people from relying on them instead of reducing emissions.)

Ecology can create an entity to aggregate and use credits for emissions reductions made by parties that choose not to participate in the credit market.

– Relations with other states

Ecology should seek to adopt rules that work well with the systems in other jurisdictions that have adopted clean fuels standards (such as Oregon, California, and British Columbia), and in ones we import fuels from or export fuels to.

– Electric utility reinvestments

Half the revenue from credits earned by an electric utility must be reinvested in transportation electrification projects, and 60% of that (30% of the total) must be spent on projects in places where air pollution is bad enough so they’ve been identified as non-attainment or maintenance areas under the National Air Quality Act. Ecology may adopt requirements for the reinvestment of the other half of this revenue, in consultation with the utilities.

– Reporting
Requires an annual report about the program on Ecology’s website, and an annual report to appropriate committees of the Legislature, starting in 2022, including draft legislation for any recommended changes to achieve the program’s goals more efficiently.

Requires a fuel supply forecast by Commerce, in consultation with Ecology and the Department of Agriculture, at least 90 days in advance of each compliance period; this must include a prediction about whether sufficient credits from low carbon fuels (and banked credits) will be available to meet the program’s requirements.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee must report to the Legislature on the impacts, costs and benefits of the first five years of the program before the end of 2027.

– Removes “poison pill” provisions

In 2015, Republicans inserted provisions into the transportation package to transfer the state’s funds for bicycling and transit to highway projects if a clean fuel standard was created; the bill removes those.

SB6135

SB6135 – Adds more reporting on reliability to the 100% Clean Electricity Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sheldon (D-Caucusing with Republicans; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle & Short)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy, and Technology January 21st. Substitute by the prime sponsor passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 27th. Referred to Rules March 28th. Passed by the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The substitute adds findings, and completely replaces the original required reporting on the system with a requirement for an annual meeting of stakeholders to discuss the current, short-term, and long-term adequacy of energy resources, and to address specific steps the utilities can take to coordinate planning. The meetings are to be convened by the Department of Commerce and the UTC, and they’re to provide a summary of each of them, including any specific action items, to the Governor and the Legislature.

Summary –
The original bill required a report from the Department of Commerce to the Legislature on system reliability by January 1, 2022, two years ahead of the first full report on the system in the original legislation, and provides for updates every four years after that. (That is, there will now be a full report at least every four years, and an update every four years, in between each of the full reports.)

In addition, the bill would have required Commerce to provide specific recommendations for legislative action if it should determine that risks to the reliability of the system have developed.

SB6124

SB6124 – Develops K-12 field work experiences in environmental and sustainability education.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hunt (D; 22nd District; Thurston County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education January 15th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(There’s a Senate Bill Report.)
HB2811 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The list of requirements for the “qualified non-profit” eligible for funding under the bill essentially specify some particular organization, apparently the Pacific Education Institute.

Summary –
Subject to funding, the bill would have OSPI contract with a “qualified non-profit” to work with K-12 teachers and communities to develop local stewardship projects and work based learning opportunities in environmental science and engineering, natural resources, sustainability, renewable energy, agriculture, and outdoor recreation. The program’s supposed to integrate the state learning standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science with the FieldSTEM model of outdoor field studies and project-based and work-based learning opportunities. It’s supposed to provide models for integrating the history, culture, and government of the nearest tribe or tribes in the curriculum. It’s to prioritize schools that have been identified for improvement through the Washington framework and communities historically underserved by science education including tribal compact schools, ones with high free and reduced-price lunch populations, rural and remote schools, and schools serving migrant students, students in alternative learning environments, students of color, English language learner students, and students receiving special education services.

Details –
The bill specifies that any “qualified non-profit” contracted to develop these programs must be physically located in Washington; have at least fifteen years of experience collaborating with school districts across the state to provide professional development to K-12 educators about teaching students real-world environmental science and engineering outside the classroom; must deliver project-based learning materials and resources that incorporate career connections to local businesses and community-based organizations, contain professional development support for classroom teachers, have measurable assessment objectives, and have demonstrated community support; and that its materials must align with the State’s learning standards and emphasize the next generation science standards…

SB6091

SB6091 – Continues the work of the Washington Food Policy Forum
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; parts of Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln, and Yakima County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
A substitute bill with very minor changes passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd; referred to Senate Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 3rd; passed out February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate February 12th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources. Had a hearing February 21st; passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of Appropriations March 2nd and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The Legislature set up the Food Policy Forum (Forum) in 2016 to make recommendations for improving the state’s food system. (Some of these are about supporting small farms and local food in various ways.) The Washington State Conservation Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and the Office of Farmland Preservation convened a group of food system stakeholders to do this work. They produced several reports, and in 2019 the Legislature provided further funding for them to develop a report on preferred implementation approaches for their recommendations.

Summary –
The bill thoroughly rewrites the language of HB1562, the previous extension of the Forum, with ongoing minor shifts in emphasis and focus, but almost no fundamental change in the setup or functioning of the Forum, as far as I can see. (There’s somewhat less language about urban diet issues and somewhat more about rural agricultural issues, unsurprisingly, since the prime sponsor of the previous bill was Representative Gregerson, from SeaTac.) The Director of the State Conservation Commission now has to have the agreement of the Director of the Department of Agriculture in appointing the participants for the next round of the Forum, and staff is now to come from both agencies, but it’s to continue to make recommendations on pretty much the same wide range of food issues, and it’s to produce another report to the Legislature by the end of October, 2021.

Governor’s Proposal – 2020 Supplemental Budget

Governor Inslee has released his proposal for the 2020 supplemental budget. His proposals for reducing emissions propose funding for:

Raising the State’s emission reduction targets to match the Paris Accord’s – in the form of a 45% reduction from 2010 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050.
A study of ways to increase sequestration on state forest, agricultural, and aquatic lands. ($1.4 million)
Implementing a Clean Transportation Fuels Standard (1.5 million).
Additional EV charging at State facilities ($4.1 million).
Implementing Zero Emission Vehicle legislation.
Requiring ride hailing companies like Lyft and Uber to reduce their emissions.
A comprehensive analysis by Commerce to develop a 2050 Energy Vision identifying the most effective strategies to reduce emissions for key energy users and customers.
A $20 million extension of the renewable energy system tax incentive for community solar projects.
Developing new rules that he directed Ecology to adopt by September 2021 to “strengthen and standardize the consideration of climate change risks, vulnerability, and impacts” in State Environmental Policy Act assessments for major industrial and fossil fuel projects. (These are to include upstream and downstream emissions.)
Continuing to implement last session’s 100% Clean Electricity bill.

HB2248

HB2248 – Enhances opportunities to participate in community solar projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County)
Current status – Vetoed by the Governor.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 16th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 10th; passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules; returned to Rules on February 26th. Replaced with a striker by the prime sponsor on the floor and passed out of the House February 27th. House concurred in Senate changes March 12th.

In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means; had a hearing there on March 2nd. Replaced by a striker and voted out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 11th and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence in the changes.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB6223 is a companion bill in the Senate.)

Comments –
There’s a staff summary of the changes on page 7 of the House Bill Report on the substitute.

Interestingly, Republican Representative DeBolt, from Lewis County, is a cosponsor of this bill. (Transalta plans to put a 180MW solar project on their reclaimed coal mine site near Centralia, in his district, to complement its nearby Skookumchuck wind project, and there’s now considerable local interest in developing other renewable energy projects.)

The amended House substitute provides participating utilities an additional credit against their taxes each year of the larger of 0.0025% of their sales or $50,000.

There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the House striker on its last page. They include extending the enrollment period for the program by five years, to 2031; expanding potential subscribers to include tribal and public agencies serving low-income communities; creating a biennial cap of $5 million to spread the available funding out over time, distributed among utilities in proportion to their retail sales; and establishing a target cost of $3/watt for projects, which the WSU extension service administering the program can review and adjust each biennium. It also drops the net metering provisions.

There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the Senate Ways and Means striker on its last page. (It’s in the folder for the bill on the page with the committee materials for the meeting.) As I read the striker’s new language about compensation, on p. 19:
It limits the portion of the one-time initial payment for administrative costs to the startup costs for the qualifying subscribers rather than paying for all the costs of administering those memberships.
It now says that the other portion of the initial payment is “not to exceed” the cost of the proportion of the project providing benefits to qualifying subscribers rather than saying it’s to equal that.
It reintroduces net metering for community solar projects of up to 100 kWs behind the meter, but only for the customer being billed for that meter, rather than providing virtual net metering for all subscribers.
It says that “For all other community solar projects, compensation must be determined at a value set by the participating utility and paid to the administrator or subscribers according to the agreement between the project and the utility.”
It also requires the Energy Office to allocate the incentive funds among participating utilities in an equitable way, and clarifies a few other details.

Summary –
The bill extends the expiring community solar incentive program, retaining many of its provisions, but it would allow subscribers who invest in a project to get net metering payments from their share of it in the same way they would if the panels were on their own roofs. (With net metering, you get a credit at the retail rate on your bill each month for the electricity your share of the project produced, so it’s as if the utility was not charging you for that power, and you can carry that credit forward if you have a surplus and use it to reduce later bills. (The credits are only good until the end of each year, though, so you don’t want to subscribe for more power than you’ll use in that time.)

The bill would also extend the $0.10/kWh production incentive credit that the current program ended with to all the subscribers of projects that had at least 40% of their subscriptions from any combination of low-to-moderate-income households and low-to-moderate-income service providers like housing authorities and food banks. The incentives would last for eight years; subscribers could receive up to 50% of the cost of their share of the project from them. However, the bill would provide an additional $0.10/kWh incentive credit to the low-to-moderate-income households; they would also be eligible to get production incentives for up to 100% of their costs. (These are defined as customers with up to 115% of the household median in their area. Average household median income for the state is about $64,000, though it varies a lot.) (In addition, the bill would also allow utilities that created community solar projects to meet requirements for energy assistance to low-income households under the Clean Energy Transformation Act by not charging for or discounting part or all of the costs of those subscriptions; they could also retain the RECs associated with the production of power from these shares of a project.)

As I read the bill, service providers can subscribe to projects, but aren’t eligible for the additional incentive. One of these organizations has to certify the income status of each of the low-to-moderate income households subscribing, which sounds as if it may not be attractive to people in that category who aren’t currently depending on those services. Projects can’t be bigger than one thousand kilowatts; at least 40% of all the subscriptions have to be for less than twenty kilowatts; and no customer can subscribe to more than 40% of a project. (However, customers can subscribe to more than one project, but not for more than their total estimated annual usage, or for more capacity than 100 kW AC.)

Details –

The bill would stop certifying projects under the current incentive program at the end of June 2020. Projects could apply for precertification under the new program for six years, between the first of July 2020, and the end of June 2026. (They’d get another two years to complete them; but as I read the bill they wouldn’t be eligible for the incentives. The previous two sentences may not be right; I don’t think the bill’s current language is consistent about how the timetables for projects and incentives relate toward the end of the period.)

Utilities can currently receive annual tax credits (up to the greater of 1.5% of their 2014 sales or $250,000) for community solar production incentives if they choose to provide them; for projects under the new program that are certified by the end of June 2026, the bill increases that to the greater of 1.75% of sales or $300,000. Total incentives under the new program are capped at $20 million.

SB6108

SB6091 – Cancels Sound Transit 3 funding (and future Sound Transit funding) within Pierce County.
Prime Sponsor – Senator O’Ban (R; 28th District; Pierce County)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation February 4th at 3:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator O’Ban also has four bills from last session (SB5044, SB5043, SB5042, and SB5037) proposing various reductions in Sound Transit’s funding.

Summary –
Within Pierce County, the bill cancels any taxes approved by regional transit authority voters after January 1, 2015 (ie in the measure for funding Sound Transit 3). It cancels any bonds issued under that authority that contain a clause allowing it, and it restricts the spending of any revenue already collected to legal expenses for cancelling bonds or refunds to voters.

It also cancels, within Pierce County, any taxes approved in the future by the regional transit authority voters.

HB2206

HB2206 – Allows extension of sewers and other urban government services outside the urban growth area.
Prime Sponsor – Representative MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 4th at 3:30 PM
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The proposed amendments would leave the Growth Management Act in a rather contradictory state, since they would only remove some of the language saying that the patterns of land use for rural elements in counties’ comprehensive plans are supposed to “reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development” while adding that counties can, in fact, choose to build sewer lines and provide other urban services to support that sort of development…

Summary –
The bill explicitly adds the construction of sewer lines to the definition of “rural government services.” It also removes various language prohibiting counties from providing services that permit low-density sprawl, or restricting their ability to expand “urban government services” into the designated rural areas of their comprehensive plans.

SB6082

SB6082 – Specifies that various current limitations on car manufacturers’ practices do not apply to Tesla’s direct sales model.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce February 4th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Car dealers in a number of states have filed lawsuits or lobbied for legislation trying to keep Tesla from selling its cars through its own showrooms, without relying on dealerships. There’s currently an exception in Washington law that allows Tesla to do that. The bill would expand the exception to any manufacturer that only makes electric vehicles. (I’m told that Rivian is lobbying for it at this point.)

Summary –
The bill amends a current law that limits how manufacturers can discriminate among or compete with dealers to specify that its provisions don’t apply to any manufacturer of all electric vehicles.

SB6019

SB6019 – Tax exemptions for waste to energy plants
Prime Sponsor – Senator Palumbo (D; 1st District; parts of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish & eastern King County)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Establishes various tax incentives, expiring in 2030, for new waste to energy plants built within a mile of an existing landfill, and for new manufacturing within five miles that uses the power from such a plant. (It also says that they have to be operating under Federal and State environmental laws and regulations, except that “permit actions to site an energy recovery facility may be exempt from compliance” with the State’s Environmental Policy Act.)

Details:

It exempts such plants from the B&O tax; exempts the sale of the power the plants produce from the public utility tax; and exempts the purchase of machinery, materials and equipment for them, and labor and services for their construction, from sales and use taxes.

It exempts the purchase of machinery, materials, and equipment for such manufacturing facilities, and labor and services for their construction, from sales and use taxes, provided that the new plant maintains at least twenty-five family living wage jobs for at least ten years.

SB5981

SB5981 – Creates a cap and trade system.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 21st. Still in committee by the 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Scheduled for a hearing on a draft substitute, February 4th 2020 at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2020 Substitute –
The substitute delays any implementation of its provisions until a new act providing at least $2 billion per biennium in new transportation funding has been passed. It creates a fourth destination for the revenue, the Strategic Transportation Investment Account, though the draft leaves the division of funding between the four accounts open. This account must be used to provide cost-effective congestion relief, enhance all modes of mobility, assist highly impacted communities, and address the impacts of the transportation system on carbon pollution and other quality of life issues, including impacts to salmon. This funding can include projects to reduce congestion and improve air quality, including multimodal alternatives; ones to reduce carbon emissions from transportation including ones to accelerate the deployment of zero emission vehicles or deploy grid infrastructure for vehicle charging; and fish barrier correction projects.

The new version specifies that Ecology must allocate allowances to electric utilities between 2021 and 2035 covering their average annual emissions over each previous three year period, and that it’s to adopt rules “providing the method for distribution of no-cost allowances” to them between 2035 and 2050. (I assume this means the rules would gradually step down their allowances in some way to be determined in the future.) The substitute exempts emissions associated with electricity exported from the state. The State would actually get the allowances back immediately, auction them, and then give the proceeds to the utilities, to be used exclusively to minimize the bill’s impacts on customers. Each utility would have to develop a plan, conforming to rules from the UTC or the Department of Commerce, with a portfolio of mechanisms for aiding customers, like weatherization, energy efficiency, electrification of heating in buildings, electric vehicle incentives, and infrastructure. At least half the money would now have to go to rate relief.

Natural gas suppliers would be covered by a similar scheme, but their starting allocation in 2022 is left open in the draft, and it would be required to step down annually between then and 2035 in proportion to the gas utilities’ share of the reductions needed to meet the State’s 2035 target. Their plans would have to give the highest priority to assisting low-income customers, and use at least twenty-five percent of the money for rate relief for residential customers. Proceeds from the sale of allowances are used for investments to reduce emissions, including efficiency and renewable gas projects. The UTC is to provide for timely recovery for prudent and reasonable costs associated with complying with the act, and gas companies are prohibited from passing costs on to customers whose emissions are covered by its other provisions.

The substitute specifies that energy efficiency projects, carbon capture, and sequestration may be used to provide offsets. (It would no longer allow the aggregation of temporally separate offset activities.) It raises the limit on using offsets between 2024 and 2034 from 6% to 8%. The current bill requires certain percentages of offset projects to provide direct environmental benefits to the state. The substitute lets projects within the state count toward those requirements, and raises the required percentage between 2024 and 2034 from 50% to 90%. It says Ecology can restrict the use of offsets from areas and plants failing to meet air quality standards; eliminates the provisions allowing the use of up to an extra 5% of offsets from tribal lands; directs Ecology to keep the total quantity of allowances and offsets below the total of required compliance obligations “to the extent practicable,” and adds a regular review of the offset protocols.

The substitute drops the section prohibiting regional air quality agencies and other jurisdictions from directly regulating greenhouse gas emissions through a cap, charge, low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuels standard, or charge upon sale or use. It adds some progressive requirements about standards that have to be met by parties receiving project contracts, and moves various dates forward a year.

Summary of the 2019 bill –
Raises the State’s targets for greenhouse gas reductions to match the Paris Accords’. Creates a state greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade program requiring allowances for each metric ton of emissions above a gradually decreasing cap. Allowances are sold at auction, and can be sold or traded within the state and in linked programs in other jurisdictions. Requires setting a floor and a ceiling on prices for allowances, and mechanisms for increasing or decreasing the allowances available to help keep prices within that range.

Details –
The cap is to be set and adjusted over time so that covered entities contribute their proportional share of the overall State reductions needed to meet the new targets.

Covered entities
You need allowances if your facility emits more than 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2 equivalents (on its own or when the emissions associated with your direct purchases of electricity are included); if the associated emissions from your generating electricity in the state, importing it, or supplying natural gas are above that level; or if you’re a supplier of other fuels like gasoline or diesel that would produce emissions above that level when combusted. You can also opt-in to the program if you’re responsible for emissions but aren’t required to participate (if, for example, you can make reductions cheaply and want to make money by selling the allowances you earn), or if you just want to trade in the market. Allowances can be banked and used in later years. There’s a penalty of $200 per allowance, adjusted for inflation starting in 2025, for failing to provide enough of them to cover your emissions in a given year, as well as a penalty of up to $10,000 for violations of the rules.

Offsets
Between 2021 and 2023 up to 8% of an entities’ obligations may be met with approved offset credits, provided at least 75% of those reduce emissions in the state; through 2034 up to 6% of them may be met with offsets if at least 50% of those reduce emissions in Washington. At any point another 5% may be met through offsets on tribal land in the US or a linked jurisdiction. (The bill may intend this to mean tribal land in the state, but it doesn’t say so.) The bill creates an advisory committee to provide guidance on rules to increase offset projects with other environmental benefits in the state while prioritizing projects that “benefit highly impacted communities, Indian tribes, and natural and working lands.”

Exemptions
The bill exempts biomass from various approved sources, all biofuels, aviation fuel, coal burned at the Transalta plant, marine fuel burned outside the state, vented or unintentional emissions, and military installations.

Between 2021 and 2035, it provides a gradually decreasing number of free allowances to energy-intensive trade exposed industries in eleven categories, and to any others the Department of Commerce may identify through quantitive criteria about their energy use and trade exposure. (However, the bill also says in Section 14(1) that they don’t have to start complying until 2023…) The number of free allowances is to decrease at the same rate needed for reductions in allowances for covered entities as a whole to result in meeting the targets; facilities with relatively lower emissions are to receive more allowances. (The Department’s to review the program every two years to see if it is avoiding significant leakage from the transfer of activities out of state, or awarding more free allowances than are necessary for that goal.)

If a 100% Clean Electricity bill passes, the bill requires the Department of Ecology to develop rules, in consultation with Commerce and the UTC, providing utilities with enough free allowances through 2035 to avoid the bill’s impacting rates or charges. It provides natural gas utilities free allowances for the gas sold to low-income customers, so the company does not have to pay to offset those emissions. (I think that the bill requires the value of those allowances to be spent funding measures to benefit low-income consumers such as weatherization, conservation, and help paying bills.)

Investments
The bill creates a climate oversight board with a lot of members, including representatives of the Governor, the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Auditor, four legislators, two tribal representatives, various stakeholders, and an indeterminate number of other experts. (It isn’t clear how some of these people are to be selected.) It’s responsible for ongoing review of the cap and trade system and the funding provided by it, but the bill doesn’t say what happens to any conclusions it draws from that review, or what if any power it has to affect what it “reviews”.

The bill creates an environmental and economic justice panel, appointed by the Governor. The panel’s to include two members representing union labor; two members representing tribal governments; and five other members, including at least one tribal leader and at least two nontribal leaders representing the interests of vulnerable populations residing in “highly impacted communities”. (Those communities are to be identified by the Department of Health, considering “vulnerable populations” and environmental hazards; including census tracts that are partly or wholly on tribal land; and building on a particular analysis already completed by the UW.) The panel’s to be co-chaired by a tribal leader and a representative of the interests of highly impacted communities. It’s to make recommendations on the plans for spending this revenue and their implementation, evaluate the funding levels, and analyze the policies to determine if they produce the intended improvements. The Department of Ecology is to consult with the panel and “accord substantial weight” to its recommendations in developing implementation plans for spending from each of the funds the bill sets up, and in developing biennial spending plans for each of them. It’s to update the identification of highly impacted areas every two years “under advisement from” the panel.

Any agency receiving funding from the system must consult with Indian tribes “on all decisions that may affect Indian tribes’ rights and interests in their tribal lands.” (Perhaps this only covers decisions implementing this bill, but it doesn’t seem to say that.) The process must be independent of any public participation process required by state law, or by a state agency, and regardless of whether the agency receives a request for consultation. No project that affects tribal lands can be funded without “meaningful consultation” with affected Indian tribes. Any project that “directly impacts” tribal lands must have written consent from the relevant tribal governments.

40% of the revenue goes to an energy transformation account, to be spent on projects and programs in Washington that provide additional reductions in carbon pollution. These include residential, industrial, construction, transportation, and agricultural investments in renewable energy, efficiency, conservation, sequestration, and carbon emissions reductions. They have to provide real, specific, quantifiable, additional, and verifiable reductions for periods of time to be determined by the Department, and meet high labor standards. They have to be ranked and sortable based on quantitative performance metrics, including the avoided cost of a ton of carbon dioxide, though the bill does not say they have to be selected on that basis, or provide any criteria for deciding which projects that meet the basic standards will be selected, beyond saying 10% of these funds have to be spent in highly impacted areas.

35% of the revenue goes to an energy transition account, to provide funding to assist low-income households with increased energy prices; to help provide clean energy and low-carbon housing, transportation options, and technologies to people with greater barriers to accessing those, and where pollution is concentrated; and to support displaced fossil fuel-related industry workers. Spending has to be prioritized to help with additional energy and transportation costs resulting from policies and programs to reduce fossil fuel use, and to assist displaced workers, but it can also be used “to reduce carbon pollution and reduce vulnerable population characteristics or environmental burdens in highly impacted communities.” Thus, the money can be spent in a very wide variety of ways, including direct financial assistance, social and health services programs, energy bill subsidies, efficiency and weatherization services, affordable transportation, affordable housing, and improved community services. The Department must develop a worker support program for bargaining unit and nonsupervisory fossil fuel industry workers who are affected by the transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy, and may allocate additional funds to it if there’s an unexpected amount of dislocation.

25% of the revenue goes to a climate impacts resilience account. Expenditures from it are to prioritize funding and investments to benefit “highly impacted communities”. At least half of it’s to go to community preparedness and awareness “before, during, and after” wildfires; resources to help tribal communities deal with wildfires; relocating tribal communities impacted by flooding and sea level rise; and programs to increase awareness of and preparedness for impacts of climate change and to educate people about ways to reduce pollution. The remainder’s to be spent on “natural resources resilience and related purposes” including, but not limited to, funding for improving forest and natural lands’ health and resilience to climate change, including thinning and prescribed fire projects and wildland fire prevention; for reducing stormwater impacts; for reducing flooding risks; for improving the availability and reliability of water supplies for in-stream and out-of-stream uses; for fish barrier correction projects; for projects to prepare for sea level rise and restore habitats, including small forestland owner fish passage barrier projects; and for adapting to and remediating the impacts of ocean acidification.

Details –
There are provisions for entering into agreements linking the program and its auctions with other jurisdictions’. The bill requires creating an advisory committee to make recommendations about designing and implementing the system, and to report on its functioning every two years. It requires appointing an independent organization to monitor and report on the auctions and on secondary markets that buy and sell allowances. It requires creating an electronic system for handling allowances and the auctions, or sharing another jurisdiction’s.

It prohibits regional air quality agencies and local jurisdictions regulating greenhouse gas emissions through “a cap, charge, low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuels standard, or charge upon the sale or use”.

HB1984

HB1984 – Exempts any location processing, handling, or preparing food or beverages for sale or service to the public from any law intending to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 18th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
“Food processing plants” include any places where food or beverages are prepared, handled or processed for sale, or for service to the public without charge, in any way (other than merely washing, trimming and packaging vegetables and fruit for sale). It includes lunch counters, night clubs, vending machines, the Salvation Army, retail meat markets, school cafeterias, and so on, as well as canneries and processing plants.

I’m not sure how far the bill’s language about exemptions from measures “otherwise intended to support the achievement” of the State’s targets for emissions reductions goes. For example, if the state wanted to require grid-enabled water heaters in new restaurants, would those businesses be exempt? If the intent statement of a new energy efficiency bill included carbon reduction as one of the goals of the bill, would these businesses be exempt from that?

Summary –
The bill exempts all “food processing plants” from requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and any measures “otherwise intended to support the achievement” of the state’s targets for reducing those.

HB1985

HB1985 – Relief from greenhouse gas regulations for agricultural commodities and food products with lower embedded emissions than imported equivalents.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 18th. Still in committee by cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
“Food products” include animal feed, chewing gum, bottled water, and “articles used for components of any such article.” (I’m not sure if that includes the plastic bottle and the gum wrapper or not…)

If 95% of the imported apples being sold in Washington had lower emissions than your apples, you apparently could pick one of the producers of the 5% that didn’t as your competitor for the comparison.

I don’t see what the B&O taxes that may be included in the comparisons have to do with emissions, or how you’re supposed to estimate the emissions of “labor”. (Are you supposed to compare the energy use of 17 farmworkers with the emissions associated with manufacturing and operating a mechanical harvester that will do the same work?) There’s also no further specification of how to define or limit the scope of these life-cycle analyses, so there’s lots of room to get the comparisons to come out however you’d like them to by including or omitting thing like land use changes.) Doing these for food is notoriously complicated; in particular, it’s been estimated that transportation from the farm to the supermarket is only about 4% of its carbon footprint; lots comes from how much fertilizer and machinery you use.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Commerce to consult with Ecology and stakeholders and develop a model that allows producers of products and goods to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and transportation of products and goods imported from out of state.

If any rule is created limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of agricultural commodities or food products a business can have Ecology compare the emissions associated with a specified competitors’ import with the same type of item from Washington. (A business can also provide the department with a comparison of its own from “a reputable greenhouse gas emissions expert.”)

If the comparison estimates that an imported product has higher associated emissions than the Washington one, Ecology is to provide regulatory relief for the producer of the agricultural commodity or food product to assure they remain competitive in the global market. This includes providing an exemption from any rules addressing greenhouse gas emissions, including those that limit or price emissions, require purchasing credits, or add additional costs to production.

Details
The calculations are to “include the gross estimated carbon emissions” of the items, including transportation, and may include “labor, business and occupation taxes, energy use of vehicles involved in production or transport, and clean air credit purchasing.”

SB5970

SB970 – Authorizes $5 billion in bonds backed by revenue from SB5971.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hobbs (D; 44th District; Lake Stevens)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th. Passed out of committee to Rules March 6th 2019. Still in committee by the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status in 2020 session; referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB5971 raises the revenue to support these bonds. SB5972 appropriates the new funds.)

Summary –
The bill authorizes $5 billion in bonds for transportation projects, backed by new revenue from SB5971.

SB5972

SB972 – Appropriates the additional revenue for transportation from SB5971.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hobbs (D; 44th District; Lake Stevens)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th. Substitute bill passed out of committee to Rules March 7th 2019. Still in committee by the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status in 2020 session; referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB5970 authorizes $5 billion in bonds to fund the Forward Washington projects, backed by the additional revenue SB5971 would raise for that account.)

Comments –
The substitute states that up to $290 million is expected from the bonds authorized by SB5970 during this biennium, and makes appropriations for debt service. It reduces the appropriation for grid upgrades from $50 million to $45 million, and removes the statement about intending to fund the Chelan LINK transit facilities over time. It appropriates $3 million for vanpools from the Forward Flexible account rather than from the multi-modal transportation account.

Summary – Appropriations (from the new revenue only) for the 2019-2021 Biennium

From the new Forward Washington account:
DOT Facilities Maintenance, Operations, and Construction – $2 million
DOT Highway Maintenance – $50 million
DOT Traffic Operations – $5 million
DOT Planning, Data and Research – $0.1 million for Columbia River bridge governance study
Highway improvements projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $770.6 million (including $350 million for culvert replacement to support salmon and $50 million for storm water improvements).
Highway preservation projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $100 million
Ferry construction – $160 million
Local projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $23.6 million
Freight Mobility Investment Account – $2.5 million
Rural Arterial Trust Account – $3.5 million
Transportation Improvement Account – $9 million
County Arterial Preservation Account $3.5 million

Total = $1.3 billion (or $950 million without the culvert replacements for fish passage).

From the new Forward Flexible account:
Grant program for special needs transportation – $20 million
Transit coordination grants – $0.5 million
Bus and bus facility grants – $30 million
Transportation demand management – $4.5 million
Transportation grid electrification grants – $50 million
Complete Streets program – $9 million
Rail capital projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $15 million
Washington Ports grants program – $10 million
Safe routes to schools – $6 million
Pedestrian and bike safety programs – $16.5 million
Freight Mobility Multimodal account – $2.5 million
Rural Mobility Grant Program – $11 million
Alternative fuel tax credits – $5 million
Distribution to cities and counties for transportation purposes – $37.5 million

Total = $220 million (or something slightly over $182 million if you figure that most of the city and county money will also go to road construction and repair, like the money in the Forward Washington account.)

The bill also designates the US 2 Trestle replacement; replacing the I-5 Bridge over the Columbia River replacement; fish passage barrier removal projects; the Hood River Bridge replacement; the Bridge of the Gods replacement; and all future bridges over the Columbia River that connect Washington with Oregon as projects of statewide significance under SB5847, which had a hearing in the committee February 19th. Those projects are estimated to cost at least $1 billon each; if SB5847 passes, it would have DOT appoint a project coordinator and assemble a dedicated team to expedite the planning and construction of each project.

SB5971

SB971 – Raises revenue to fund transportation projects. (Includes a carbon fee.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hobbs (D; 44th District; Lake Stevens)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th. 1st substitute with significant changes passed out of committee March 6th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing, but still in that committee at the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status in 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by Ways and Means.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB5970 authorizes $5 billion in bonds to fund projects, backed by the additional revenue this bill would raise. SB5972 appropriates the new funds.)

Comments –
The changes in the 1st substitute are summarized on pp. 11-12 of the Senate Bill Report. Among other things, it reduces the carbon fee to $10/tonne for utilities, lowers the increase in EV registration fees to $150 from $200, adds $50 to the registration fee for hybrids, and expands the exemptions for energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries in various ways.

Summary –

The bill raises the fuel tax by 6¢/gallon. It adds a freight project fee of 10% of the license fee on vehicles over 10,000 pounds to the current 15% fee and increases the new fee by 3% every two years until 2031. It adds $5 to the $30 passenger car license fee. It raises the vehicle trip permit from $25 to $45. It raises the fee for an international fuel tax agreement license from $10 to $32.50. Starting in 2020, it raises the fee for an enhanced driver’s license from $24 to $54, and the fee for shorter extensions from $4/year to $9/year. It raises the annual registration fee for electric vehicles from $150 to $350. It adds a surcharge of 25¢ to each ferry ride. It puts a carbon pollution fee of $15/metric ton of CO2 (with no inflation adjustments) on the carbon content of electricity and on fossil fuels, other than those used to generate electricity in the state. These increased revenues go to a new Forward Washington transportation account, which is mostly appropriated for highway projects in SB5972. The bill adds two $10 fees to the license fees for vehicles up to 12,000 pounds; they both go to the Forward Washington account until June 30th, 2020; after that one of them goes to the highway patrol, ferries, and various other transportation funds.

The bill raises the sales and use taxes on automobiles, auto parts, and bicycles 1%. It creates a special transportation benefit assessment on the increase in assessed value resulting from new construction – $2/$1,000 in added value for residential property; $1/$1,000 for manufacturing facilities; and $4/$1,000 for other construction. It raises the mobile home registration fee from $75 to $100, and adds an additional fee of $10. It raises the sales and use taxes on car rentals 1%. It charges a 50¢ fee for each ride in a for-hire vehicle like a taxi or Uber. It creates an additional fine for driving in the HOV lane illegally of $175 for the first offense, $250 for the second offense, and $350 for each offense after that. 14.5% of the revenue from car rental taxes, and the increased revenue from these other changes goes to a new Forward Flexible account, which is mostly appropriated for other transportation than highways in SB5972.

Aviation fuel; agricultural fuel; the Transalta coal plant; biogas; log trucks; facilities making renewable energy equipment; copper, nickel, lead, and zinc mining; the fuel used outside the state by trucks and vessels primarily engaged in interstate commerce; and various other obvious things are exempted from the carbon fee. The Department of Commerce is to develop objective numerical standards for the energy intensity and trade exposure which will qualify energy-intensive trade-exposed manufacturing facilities (EITEs) as exempt.

Details:
The bill prohibits any other fees within the state on the carbon in fossil fuels or used in the production of electricity. (I think this section intends to prohibit cities, counties and other jurisdictions from doing this, though the first sentence reads as if it’s to keep the Legislature from passing any other carbon fees.)

It adds “local agencies” to the current poison pill provisions about moving the funding for transit and highway safety into the construction fund if an agency adopts a low carbon fuel standard. Presumably, this is motivated by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency considering adopting a Regional Clean Fuel Standard for King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish Counties. (People say it announced it would do this, but their website doesn’t say that yet.)

Commerce is to create a stakeholder work group to study how to efficiently and consistently integrate carbon pricing in electricity markets and recommend ways to improve their carbon transparency and market liquidity to the Legislature. By 2026, the Department of Revenue, Commerce, Ecology are to review the method for protecting EITEs and the merits of alternatives.

It would let utilities deduct any carbon fees they pay for the carbon content of imported electricity from the alternative compliance fees they would pay under SB5116 if they failed to meet the targets for reducing their use of fossil fuels under that bill, so they would not pay twice.

HB2095

HB2095 – Creates grant program for sustainable farms and fields.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walsh (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff ; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5947 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – The bill makes the grants dependent on the provision of available funding for a dedicated account it establishes, but it currently seems to require the Department to develop the program whether or not there’s any funding provided for it.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Agriculture to develop a sustainable farms and fields program to make grants supporting agroforestry; increasing the carbon content of soils; and reducing agricultural uses of water, energy, and of fertilizers and pesticides produced from fossil fuels. There’s no provision in the bill for funding the program, other than providing for an account in the treasury for the program.

Details –

Roughly sixty percent of the funding is to be divided evenly among grants for agroforestry; for carbon sequestration; and for reducing the use of water, energy, and fertilizers and pesticides. Grants can be used for down payments on equipment. The rest of the money is to go to what the Department judges will be the most effective of the remaining projects.

(However, there may not be money for further grants. The Department can also spend up to 20% of the funds on watershed protection projects, research programs or to support the development of new businesses in the state, even if those expenditures would not qualify for program funding otherwise. It can also spend up to 10% of the money on administrative assistance to applicants, up to 5% of it on educational campaigns to publicize the program, and up to 5% of it on administrative costs. During the first five years of the program, up to 5% of the funding can be used in developing methods for prioritizing projects.)

Activities on commercial working forest land, aquaculture and blue carbon projects, and activities other than agroforestry on land that’s in a land retirement program are not eligible for these grants.

The Department’s to consult with other agencies to develop methods for estimating, measuring, and verifying outcomes; and to prioritize awards to try to maximize the reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases per dollar awarded by leveraging other funding. It’s to estimate these reductions by counting the storage of a ton of carbon dioxide equivalents in soil or standing trees for 100 years as the equivalent of avoiding putting a ton of them into the atmosphere, and by treating storage for lesser periods of time proportionally.

The Department can require applicants to enter into contracts committing them to carry on activities for various periods of time, including in perpetuity, as a condition for receiving funding for a project. They can receive an annual payment for storage during the previous year, or a payment based on expected future storage, with a provision for recovering funding if that doesn’t materialize because they’re negligent.

The Department’s to report to the Legislature on the program every two years.

HB2082

HB2082 – Pilot project for riparian agroforestry and carbon sequestration with payments to landowners.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walsh (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to College & Workforce Development Committee. Still in committee by cutoff 2019. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The current bill lacks the sort of details about how to manage payments for sequestration that SB5947 proposes methods for. It isn’t clear how the sequestration landowners get paid for is supposed to be measured or verified. In particular, it isn’t clear how long you have to keep a ton of carbon sequestered in order to get paid $10 for it, or what happens if you get the fee and then cut the trees. (Since a ton of carbon is roughly the equivalent of 3.7 tons of CO2, the scale of the payment would be something like $2.70/ton of avoided emissions.)

Summary –
Creates an pilot program for funding tree planting along streams on fallow and underutilised agricultural land to cool water for salmon and sequester carbon. The program is to be developed by several departments at the UW, WSU’s cooperative extension program, and the Department of Commerce. Participating landowners are to be paid ten dollars for each verified ton of carbon sequestered.

Details –
The pilot’s to show the capacity of tree plantings around streams on unforested land to reduce temperatures and increase salmon survival; to establish the carbon sequestration benefits of agroforestry on fallow or underutilized lands; and to establish a model revenue stream for landowners. The pilot’s to run through 2039, and the bill declares the Legislature’s intention to fund it for that period.

It can include surveying available, unused, or underused agricultural land in Western Washington that could be used for riparian-oriented agroforestry production; locating private landowners who wish to participate in the initiative; and selecting, planting, tending, and monitoring various species in different locations to develop useful data about effects on stream health, salmon survival, and carbon sequestration.

They’re to produce a periodically updated study of changes in stream health, including the effects on temperature, suspended sediments and turbidity, water quality, habitat, and nutrient availability; the impact of different site characteristics including soil types, elevation, aspect, and precipitation on tree growth and carbon sequestration rates; and the amount of carbon sequestered per site, per acre, and per year, across different soil types and tree species, and at different growth stages. Commerce is to report to the Legislature on the project and any available results every two years, starting in October 2020.

Projects are exempt from the Forest Practices Act’s rules.

SB5947

SB5947 – Creates grant program for sustainable farms and fields.
Prime Sponsor – Senator McCoy (D; 38th District; Snohomish County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2095 is an identical companion bill in the House.

2020 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House at end of 2019 Session; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Passed by the Senate January 15th; referred to the House. Senate concurred in the House changes March 10th.

In the House (Amended version passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources February 7th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to the House Committee on the Capital Budget; had a hearing and passed an amended striker out of committee there on March 2nd. Passed by the House March 4th. Returned to the Senate for possible concurrence.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Referred to Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Had a hearing in that committee February 19th. A rewritten substitute bill with minor changes in the content passed out of committee February 21st. Had a hearing in Senate Ways and Means March 1st, and passed out of that committee with amendments. Placed on 2nd Reading by Rules March 4th. Passed the Senate March 6th.
In the House
Referred to the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, and Natural Resources. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, and Natural Resources on March 28th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House at end of 2019 Session.

Comments –
The 2019 substitute bill delays appropriation of any funding except for rule making and the report until January 2020, makes the grant program an option for the Department of Agriculture even if it’s funded, makes its different aspects dependent on appropriated specific funding, and allows grants for some commercial forestry projects including work in areas depleted by fire or pests.

(The original bill made the grants dependent on the provision of available funding for a dedicated account it established, but it seemed to require the Department to develop the program whether or not there was any funding provided for it.)

The 2020 striker in the House committee eliminates any references to reductions of emissions from fossil fuels, water, energy use, and fossil-fuel based herbicides or pesticides; it adds a number of references to encouraging more use of precision agriculture. It shifts the primary responsibility for the program to the Conservation Commission, and increases its ability to shape the program very significantly, by eliminating most of the previous version’s specifications for how the money is to be allocated, how grants are to be awarded, and what they can be awarded for. (There is still a list of allowable uses, but it now concludes with “other equipment purchases or financial assistance deemed appropriate by the Commission”; it does include new limits on how much funding can be spend on developing, advertising, and administering the program.) It uses the previous bill’s specification of the method for estimating carbon storage as a starting point, but lets the Commission change that. It limits the length of carbon storage contracts to twenty-five years, and it requires prioritizing proposals that benefit fish habitat and reducing the priority of any that are expected to significantly damage fish or wildlife habitat.

The amendment makes the bill contingent on the appropriation of at least $400,000 each to the Conservation Commission’s water irrigation efficiencies program; its natural resources investments program; and its shellfish growing area improvement program. The changes in the House Capital Budget Committee replace this provision with one that makes the program dependent on specific appropriation for it, and drop a final section about encouraging cost sharing and prioritizing grants which I think was probably more or less redundant, given language earlier in the bill about that.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Agriculture to develop a sustainable farms and fields program to make grants supporting agroforestry; increasing the carbon content of soils; and reducing agricultural uses of water, energy, and of fertilizers and pesticides produced from fossil fuels. There’s no provision in the bill for funding the program, other than providing for an account in the treasury for the program.

Details –

The Department’s to report to the Legislature on the program every two years.

HB2047

HB2047 – Researches carbon sequestration and supports participation in existing forest carbon markets and incentive programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramos (D, 5th District, Issaquah) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources, February 20th at 8:00 AM. Passed out of committee with an amendment February 22nd; referred to Appropriations. Second substitute passed out of Appropriations February 28th. Referred to Rules. Placed on 2nd Reading March 11th 2019. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Now in the House Rules “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The amendment added aquatic lands to the bill.

Summary –
Subject to specific appropriations, would expand DNR’s current research on establishing baseline inventories for carbon stocks, flux, trends, emissions, and sequestration in forests across the state. Requires a report to the Legislature on results, needs for further research, ways to improve the methods, and a suggested schedule for updates by December 1st, 2020.

Subject to specific appropriations, would require DNR to help interested owners of forest land connect with existing carbon markets and other incentive-based carbon emission reduction and sequestration programs. This may include:

Identifying carbon market opportunities and incentive programs;
Matching interested and willing landowners with appropriate programs;
Studying the overlaps and interactions among different programs and identifying roadblocks to expanding them;
Assisting landowners with access to feasibility analyses, market applications, stand inventories, pilot project support, and other services;
Supporting policies that increase access to these programs;
Developing and, when possible, implementing incentives for participation in them, and;
Sharing best practices for expanding carbon storage and access to incentive programs.

DNR is to provide interim reports about this work to the Legislature and a final report by December 1, 2023.

Subject to specific appropriations, the Governor and DNR must form a carbon sequestration advisory group to report to the Legislature by December 1st 2019 and every two years after that on ways to effectively advance and accelerate carbon sequestration throughout the state, considering the need to maintain existing long-lived carbon stocks and the need to make carbon sequestration easier; focusing on market efficiency and reducing transaction costs; on avoiding unintended consequences; and on maintaining a viable forest products and sawmill industry.

Details:

HB2009

HB2009 – Revises Senate environmental justice bill.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D, 30th District, Federal Way)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Relations on February 15th. Passed out of committee February 20th, and referred to Appropriations. Pulled directly from Appropriations to the floor, replaced by a striker, and passed just before cutoff April 17th 2019. Returned by the Senate to House Rules Committee for third reading. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Now in the House Rules “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the House Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This bill rewrites and revises SB5489.

Comments –
SB5489’s Republican opponents in the Senate proposed 30 amendments to the bill when it came to the floor on the last day on which a bill from the opposite house could be passed before cutoff, effectively preventing a final vote there. In response, the House pulled this version directly from committee and passed it. It now will need concurrence by the Senate.

The striker’s provisions are summarized on its last two pages. (There’s one weird thing about its drafting; it now says that the foundation of the bill, the cumulative impact analysis that agencies are supposed to rely on, means an “analysis tool…” rather than the analysis done with that tool.)

Compared to the version that passed the Senate, it expands the task force by adding four legislators, the owner of a minority owned small business in an impacted area and a member from a mid-sized economic development organization representing business interests appointed by the Governor, and someone representing statewide agricultural interests appointed by the Commissioner of Public Lands. It specifies that the task force may consider tribal exposure scenarios, Federal SuperFund sites, and State Toxics Control sites in determining impacted communities. It adds two items to the task force’s work load – a report on best practices for evaluating potential displacements of residents and increases in environmental burdens during local governments’ comprehensive planning, and recommendations for addressing the equity implications of the effects of the historical application of Federal and State environmental and land use regulations on rural communities. It drops the recommendations for including analysis of the distribution of environmental burdens across population groups in SEPA evaluations and the methods for incorporating the precautionary principle in decision making from the work to be done if time allowed. It adds a preliminary report on uncompleted tasks and additional resources needed, and requires agencies to report on the adoption of any “rules, policies, or guidelines related to the cumulative impact analysis” to appropriate legislative committees rather than just to the Interagency Council on Health Disparities.

It drops the phrase that said agencies shall adopt the cumulative impact analysis “with any needed modifications,” and flatly says that their rules, policies, and guidelines must be consistent with the task force’s guideline unless they provide a compelling reason to deviate from them, which they must report to the Council and appropriate committees. It says the bill’s null and void if specific funding for it isn’t appropriated this session.

Summary –

The bill keeps SB5489’s intent section, and revises a lot of its prose, while keeping many of its actual provisions.

However, it makes significant changes in the composition of the powerful task force that both versions set up to create rules for state agencies about defining and implementing environmental justice. It now has the Governor appoint the representative of a statewide environmental justice organization to co-chair the task force, rather than having that person be “a representative of statewide environmental justice interests.” (That organization is presumably Front & Centered, the bill’s creator.) It replaces four representatives living in communities with high levels of pollution with three members from some currently unspecified “organization” appointed by the co-chairs with diversity in mind. It reduces the task force’s size, dropping a tribal leader; the representatives of labor, of business, and of statewide environmental interests; and the potential representatives from each of any other agencies the Governor might add. (Since there are still representatives from eight agencies on the task force, the Governor’s appointees would have a clear majority in this revised group.)

It also changes the central definition of “environmental justice” from “fair treatment and [a] right … to have access to a safe, healthy environment” to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people … with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (That is, it’s now about due process, not outcomes.)

Details –
It allows the task force to consider factors in addition to the UW’s specified analyses in its guidance to agencies on designating “highly impacted communities,” and adds recommendations for how to integrate the distribution of environmental burdens across population groups into evaluations under the State’s Environmental Policy Act to the task force’s work.

This bill narrows the agencies required to use “all practicable means and measures to promote environmental justice and fair treatment” from all agencies to those on the task force. It continues to require agencies to conduct cumulative impact analyses, but now says they “may” rather than “shall” “issue policies… and adopt rules …to identify highly impacted communities, create target environmental health standards, and prioritize highly impacted communities … in the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and funding decisions.” It eliminates requiring agencies to review their programs, plans and policies every five years to ensure they’re promoting the reduction of disproportionate environmental burdens and the attainment of the health targets.

The bill also makes specific provisions for staffing and funding, which aren’t in the Senate bill.

HB1999

HB1999 – Allows the Department of Ecology to adopt Zero Emission Vehicle standards.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D, 1st District, Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 19th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5811 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
SB5336 would also do this, but it includes a lot of other measures to reduce transportation emissions.

Summary –

The bill removes the prohibition on adopting the California Zero Emission Vehicle standards from the current law authorizing Ecology to adopt the rest of California’s emissions standards.

(It may also extend the range of vehicles that Ecology’s authorized to regulate some by changing its authority over the emissions from “medium duty passenger vehicles” to authority over “medium duty vehicles”.)

HB1986

HB1986 – Tax exemptions for electric bicycles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance, February 21st. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill creates a sales and use tax exemption for buyers of electric bicycles and related cycling equipment.

Details:
The exemption also applies to up to $200 of other cycling equipment, like a helmet or a bike lock. It expires on May 1st, 2025 or when $500,000 in sales have been exempted. (The bill declares the intention to extend the expiration date if the exemptions have produced at least a 25% increase in the number of electric bikes by the time it’s reviewed, which I think would be in ten years or less.)

HB1226

HB1226 – Revising the Energy Independence Act (I-937)
Prime Sponsor – Representative DeBolt (R, 20th District, Chehalis)
Current status – Had a hearing before the House Environment & Energy Committee on January 21st. Amended and passed out of committee February 5th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance February 14th. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
House Bill Analysis

Comments –
One amendment by the Environment and Energy Committee removed the sections that would basically have repealed the Energy Independence Act (I-937) if the State put a price of any sort on the carbon content of fuels or electricity. Another removed the provisions allowing utilities to meet their renewable energy requirements under the Act by using “clean energy resources” as well as the renewables the Act allows, and making carbon reduction investments for at least as much as complying with the Act’s requirement would cost. The amended bill also added a tax break with an annual cap of $83 million for investments in forest fire risk reduction, allowing a lot of companies to get a credit for those on their B&O taxes, and allowing utilities to get a credit for them them on their public utility taxes.

Summary –
At this point, beginning in January 2020, utilities with over 25,000 customers will be required by Initiative 937 (the Energy Independence Act) to provide at least 15% of their retail sales from “eligible renewable resources,” which do not include nuclear power or power from the existing dams on the Columbia and other rivers (except for some new power from increased efficiency at those).

The bill expands the area in which renewable resources, and additional power produced by increases in efficiency at dams that utilities own, can be used to meet the requirement – from the Pacific Northwest to roughly the part of the country west of the Great Plains. In the same way, it expands the area in which the percentage of energy coming from biomass in a plant co-fired by that and fossil fuel can be used to meet the requirement.

Expanded eligible resources would now also include a utility’s share of any additional power produced from efficiency improvements at the old BPA dams and (for private utilities) the renewable energy credits associated with whatever hydroelectric power they get from BPA.

It goes on to create a new definition of “clean energy resources”, which includes any renewables, as well as any other resources that don’t emit CO2, like nuclear plants. Starting in 2020, a utility would meet the requirement if it got 100% of its load from these “clean energy resources”, and it made “carbon reduction investments in a dollar amount that is at least equal to the incremental cost of complying with the annual target.” (I think this means they only have to make the investments if they fall short of the target, which I don’t think will ever happen to the public utilities now that their old hydro allotments count under these new rules, but it might conceivably mean they have to spend enough money to meet the target, and then spend that much again on other investments that reduce carbon.) These investments could range from EV chargers, demand management, or storage, to forest health projects. (Removed by amendment in the House Environment and Energy Committee.)

Starting in 2029, utilities would also have to meet any new energy or capacity needs with “clean energy resources”. (This would not allow any new gas plants to provide occasional backup for variable renewables.) This includes procurements through new contracts; those would also have to specify the sources of the power. However, the governing bodies of utilities could waive these requirements if it was necessary for system reliability or if meeting them was going to raise power costs more than 5% above the “lowest reasonable cost resource”.)

In any case, they can continue to use, for as long as they want to or can:

Power purchased from the BPA;
Short-term spot market purchases;
Electricity from renewing or extending contracts in effect as of January 1, 2020, if that doesn’t lead to any expansion of the power or capacity provided;
Coal power from the Transalta plant;
Currently-owned generation resources and increased generation from those;
Power from increased efficiency from a utility-scale renewable resource or distributed energy resource (such as a combined heat and power plant), and,
Power required to maintain reliable service and comply with applicable standard of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). They are explicitly authorized to procure one or more gas plants if that’s needed to avoid “potential conflicts with or compromises to” their ability to meet NERC’s reliability standards.

The bill creates a number of tax exemptions, deductions and credits for industries, pipelines, and utilities.

The requirements of I-937 and the bill’s requirements for clean energy and capacity are all repealed if the Legislature puts a tax, fee, or other price (at any level) on the carbon content of fuels and electricity. [Removed by amendment in the House Environment and Energy Committee.]

Details –

Tax Breaks

The bill creates sales and use tax exemptions, to expire in 2029, for expenditures to reduce or offset the emissions at an energy intensive, trade-exposed facility; and for ones to reduce emissions from natural gas pipelines. It provides up to $50 million to provide public utility tax credits to refund the businesses that pay that (including railroads, transportation companies, water companies, gas distribution companies and others as well as gas and electric utilities) for the entire costs of projects to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and a deduction from those taxes for the “cost of production of power from” any new renewable facilities built or installed between 2019 and 2028. (I think this probably means the a deduction for the additional lifetime levelized cost of power from the facility, rather than an annual deduction for the extra cost in each of those eight years, but I’m not sure.)

HB1796

HB1796 – Authorizes jurisdictions to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government, February 12th at 10:00 AM. A substitute bill passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules; placed on 2nd Reading March 11th. Referred to Rules 2 Consideration March 21st 2019. Still in Rules by the 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Referred to the House Committee on Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB 5730 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.
The various legal adjustments in the substitute are summarized on p. 6 of the House Bill Report.

Comments –
Property assessed clean energy financing programs make the repayment of a loan for an energy efficiency upgrade a lien on the property, which is repaid through the property tax billing process, and which stays as an obligation of the new owners if the building changes hands. Thirty states have established these programs. However, it isn’t clear that they’re legal in Washington, because our Constitution prohibits any gift of public funds to private parties.

ShiftZero, a coalition of green building organizations, has been promoting this idea, and has obtained a serious legal opinion which says that they would be if they were structured the way they are in Texas, because that relies entirely on private financing, rather than lending any state funds. (However, it isn’t clear whether the State using its property tax mechanism to implement a private loan and other details in this bill are constitutional here. Presumably, a court will settle those questions if the bill passes.) ShiftZero has a flyer about the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes municipalities to set up programs like this for energy efficiency, water conservation, renewable energy, and resiliency projects in agricultural, commercial, and industrial properties; and in multifamily properties with five or more units.

A municipality can impose fees on property owners who want to participate in order to pay for the reasonable costs of administering the program, provided the fees don’t exceed the municipality’s actual costs. It can contract with another municipality or entity to administer loans, or administer them in cooperation with other municipalities.

The Department of Commerce is also to set up or contract for the administration of a program to administer these loans, and a municipality could contract with Commerce to participate in that program. However, the municipality itself would remain responsible for collecting payments on a loan, and for foreclosing on the property if that became necessary.

If Commerce contracted with a third party to administer the statewide program, it would have to be done efficiently and transparently, including:

Making any services offered to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers;
Making information about any properties joining the program available to all interested and qualifying third-party capital providers so the owners could receive impartial terms from them;
Disclosing any financial interest the administrator had in any of the services provided to property owners to the public;
Allowing financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers, and;
Working in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop a program guidebook and documents or forms.

If funding were appropriated, Commerce could set up a loan loss reserve or credit enhancement program to support financing of qualified projects.

SB5811

SB5811 – Allows the Department of Ecology to adopt Zero Emission Vehicle standards.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed by the Senate)
Returned to Senate Rules by the House at end of 2019 Session; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Placed on 3rd reading by the Rules Committee. Passed by the Senate January 15th. Senate concurred in the House amendments March 9th.

In the House – (Passed by the House)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing February 13th; replaced by a striker and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of Appropriations March 2nd and referred to Rules. Passed by the House March 5th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1999 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Coltura has a flyer about the bill.

The striker in the House Committee on Environment and Energy adopts the zero emissions vehicle standards, rather than simply removing the prohibition on adopting them from the current law. It no longer limits them to the model years that Oregon’s version covers, and it no longer says that vehicles for the model year in which the requirement comes into effect aren’t subject to the requirement. It also repeals current provisions (in RCW 70.120A.020) requiring Ecology to provide two systems of early credits and banking for ZEVs produced and sold before the implementation of the program in Washington.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, February 12th at 10:00 AM. Passed out of committee February 14th; sent to Rules for 2nd Reading; placed on 2nd Reading February 19th. Passed by the Senate March 4th.
In the House – 2019
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Environment. Had a hearing Tuesday March 19th. Returned to Senate Rules by the House at end of 2019 Session;

Comments –
SB5336 would also do this, but it includes a lot of other measures to reduce transportation emissions.

Summary –
The bill removes the prohibition on adopting the California Zero Emission Vehicle standards from the current law authorizing Ecology to adopt the rest of California’s emissions standards.

HB1862

HB1862 – Raises the cap on net metering
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mead (D; 44th District; Snohomish)
Current status – Referred to House Committee on Environment and Energy. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SSB5223 was originally an identical companion bill in the Senate, but it’s been amended in minor ways.

Comments –

Net metering credits customers generating some of their own power with fuel cells, combined heat and power systems, or renewable energy systems at the retail rate for the power that goes onto the grid from their systems when they aren’t using it. Thus, they pay for the power they used from the grid net, or minus, the surplus power they provided to it.

The changes made to the original SB5223 by amendments in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology Committee are summarized on p. 3 of the Senate Bill Report.

Summary –

The bill requires utilities to offer net metering to more customers, increasing the current cap from 0.5% of a utility’s peak demand during 1996 to 4%. (At least, I think that’s what it does; the change it makes seems pretty ungainly. It amends “On January 1, 2014, the cumulative generating capacity available to net metering systems will equal 0.5% percent …” to read 4% instead.) Representative Morris’s HB1129 also does this, more smoothly, but it would change the current system in several other ways.

Details –

The bill requires utilities to use the surplus credits that they get each year from any net-metering systems that have generated more power than customers used to help low-income residential customers pay their bills. (HB1129 only allows them to do this.)

Requires the State Building Code Council to do a study and make changes in the code to encourage more use of renewable energy systems.

Requires the Department of Commerce to create a stakeholder work group and report by December 1, 2020 to the appropriate legislative committees on its recommendations about specific circumstances in which changes in compensation for net metering systems would be warranted, and what the policy should be for customer-generators in the same rate class. The work group has to consider reductions in utility income from different levels of net metering and whether there are any cost shifts to ratepayers associated with it, and must provide an inventory of other states’ net metering laws.

Like HB1129, the bill would make large utilities include the total number of kilowatt hours consumed during the most recent twelve months on all customers’ bills.

HB1443

HB1443 – Extends lowered B&O tax rate to include mass timber products.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D, 24th District, Clallam County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources February 6th. Passed out of that committee February 13th; referred to Finance. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing in the Finance Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5467 was an identical companion bill in the Senate; it’s now dead – in the Senate X file.

Summary –

Mass timber panels (which are also called cross-laminated timber) can replace a most of the steel and concrete in large buildings, avoiding the emissions from producing those and sequestering the carbon from the trees for years.

The bill extends the current lower business and occupation tax rate for timber and wood products to apply to mass timber. (It’s 0.2904 percent rather than 0.484 percent until 2024)

HB1832 – 2019

HB1832 – Electrifying public vehicle fleets.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Macri (D; 43rd District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations, February 13th. A much weakened substitute bill passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to the House Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th 2019. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the Transportation Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
The House Bill Analysis is available here.

Comments – The changes in the substitute bill are summarized on its first page. It removes all the requirements for electrifying fleets by particular dates, converts the plan for doing that to a study of the issues, and shifts the responsibility for doing that from the Department of Enterprise Services to the Joint Transportation Committee.

Summary –

Requires any 2023 model light duty vehicles or later ones that state agencies own or operate to be battery electrics or fuel cell vehicles. By 2026, a similar rule would apply to medium and heavy duty vehicles.

Requires any 2025 model light duty vehicles or later ones that local governments own or operate to be battery electrics or fuel cell vehicles. By 2027, a similar rule would apply to medium and heavy duty vehicles.

Prohibits the Department of Licensing from registering public vehicles that don’t meet the requirements. Would allow the Department of Enterprise Services to exempt emergency vehicles and any others if it determined there weren’t adequate vehicles on the market to meet their requirements.

Requires the Department of Enterprise Services to develop a plan for electrifying public vehicles and meeting these requirements by 2021, in consultation with a number of other stakeholders and with consideration of other vehicle fleet programs.

Details:

The plan must include:

Estimates for the number of publicly owned electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles during the period between 2121 and 2030, broken down by a number of categories;
Estimates for the facilities needed to provide prompt, efficient, and cost-effective fueling for them during this transition, and an estimate of the yearly and total cost of building those;
An analysis of the electrical upgrades needed for those facilities and of the investment required to implement them;
Estimates of the differences between the purchase price of new electric and internal combustion vehicles during this transition;
Estimates of their respective lifetime costs of ownership during the period, including estimates of the yearly reductions in gasoline and diesel sales, the savings to taxpayers from those, and of the money that would have gone elsewhere retained in the state; and,
Identification of mechanisms that could be utilized to finance the transition of public fleets to electric vehicles.

It’s to include recommendations for rules to exempt vehicles from the requirements, and the Department’s also to evaluate the total potential costs and total potential economic and noneconomic benefits of the plan using the best available economic models, emission estimation techniques, and other scientific methods.

SB5747

SB5747 – Requires a report on ways to expand the use of solid waste-to-energy plants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (D; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Ecology and the Utilities and Transportation Commission to submit a jointly prepared report to the Legislature by the end of 2019 examining opportunities, and making recommendations, for expanding the use of waste-to-energy plants in Washington.

SB5730

SB5730 – Authorizes jurisdictions to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Palumbo (D; 1st District; Snohomish County)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1796 is a companion bill in the House.

If Commerce contracted with a third party to administer the statewide program, it would have to be done efficiently and transparently, including:

Making any services offered to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers;
Making information about any properties joining the program available to all interested and qualifying third-party capital providers so the owners could receive impartial terms from them;
Disclosing any financial interest the administrator had in any of the services provided to property owners to the public;
Allowing financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers, and;
Working in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop a program guidebook and documents or forms.

If funding were appropriated, Commerce could set up a loan loss reserve or credit enhancement program to support financing of qualified projects.

HB1664 -2019

HB1664 – Advancing electric transportation.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportation. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5336 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The bill only seems to provide specific provisions for private utilities and municipal utilities, not the PUDs.

Summary –

Washington would join the other nine states that have adopted California’s zero emission vehicle standards. (Those currently require manufacturers to have about 2.5% of the cars they sell in a given state be free of tailpipe emissions, and establish a market for trading credits that manufacturers who sell more battery and fuel-cell cars than required can sell to those who don’t sell enough or decide it would be cheaper to buy credits than produce and sell the cars.)

The bill requires all utilities to engage in electrifying transportation, and specifically authorizes them to build and promote charging infrastructure (as well as to invest in making energy infrastructure in general more efficient). It removes the requirement that their chargers must be in places where cars will plug in for at least four hours if they want to earn a rate of return on the investment.

It authorizes cities with municipal utilities serving more than 400,000 customers to do as much as the Washington Constitution allows to provide financing to help customers electrify transportation, and to offer programs, services, and make investments to provide that, if that will benefit ratepayers and the city has adopted a plan for electrifying transportation.

Utilities regulated by the UTC can submit a plan for investing in chargers or providing other programs, services, or incentives to support electrifying transportation. (In fact, they now have to have a plan if they want earn an increased rate of return on EV infrastructure.) The plan may not “increase costs to customers in excess of one-quarter of one percent above the benefits of electric transportation to all customers” over the twenty years of a utility’s current integrated resource plan. The UTC can allow an addition to the rate of return of up to 2% for capital investments in chargers behind the customer’s meter, provided that won’t increase costs to ratepayers more than 0.25%.

The bill provides a sales tax exemption of up to $1,000 and a use tax exemption of up to $1,000 on the sale or lease of new or used fully electric cars, light trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of less than $45,000 for the base model. (If you buy the car at the end of the lease you can get the tax exemptions on that purchase as well as on the lease payments.) The exemption expires when the number of vehicles that have received the exemption reaches 10% of the number of cars, light trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles in the state.

It funds the program with the vehicle registration fee for plug-in cars that go at least 30 miles on the battery and raises it from $100/year to $150. (That fee currently goes to the motor vehicle fund to be spent on highways.)

Details –
In reviewing a private utility’s electrification plan, the UTC has to consider multiple options for the electrification of transportation for all customer classes; its impact on loads, and whether demand response or opportunities for managing load are appropriate; system reliability and distribution system efficiencies; interoperability concerns, including the interaction of hardware and software systems in proposals; benefits and costs; and the overall customer experience.

The bill removes the current prohibition against adopting California’s zero emissions vehicle requirements, and no longer requires Ecology to have any changes in emissions rules reviewed by an advisory group of stakeholders.

SB5629

SB5308 – Promoting small modular nuclear reactors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on February 6th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Though the bill removes the provision in RCW 82.85.020(1)(b) that limits the sales and use tax deferral to two projects a year, RCW 82.85.040 still says the department may not approve applications for more than two projects a year. (Maybe this is intended to mean that the Department can now approve an unlimited number of deferrals, but only two from a given applicant…)

Summary –

Small modular reactors (SMRs) under the bill have an output no greater than 300 MW, and are designed to be manufactured in a factory and transported to sites. The bill specifies that the clean energy technology innovation to be supported in the State’s clean energy strategy includes SMRs. It exempts their manufacture and sale, and the manufacture and sale of any components, from the tax on manufacturing (0.484 percent), the tax on wholesale sales (0.484 percent), the State tax on retail sales (0.471 percent), and any other business and occupation taxes. (They must develop an apprenticeship, training, or workforce development program in cooperation with a public institution of higher education to be eligible for the tax breaks.) The bill exempts these tax breaks from expiring after ten years.

It expands the current provisions for deferring the payment of state and local sales and use taxes on the first $10 million of the costs of constructing, expanding, or renovating the facilities of manufacturing businesses, removing the limitation of the deferral to two projects a year and the requirement that they be located on different sides of the state. (It also specifies that projects that utilize or produce small modular reactors or other green technologies are encouraged.) The bill converts the current pilot program for directing these deferred taxes into supporting workforce training for manufacturing businesses when they are repaid into a permanent one.

These deferred taxes are to be paid in equal parts over ten years, without any adjustment for inflation, beginning five years after the completion of a project. The bill would add four years to the lifespan of this tax break, which would now expire in 2030.

Details –
It declares that the Legislature intends to extend these tax exemptions if a review finds that the number of jobs in the SMR industry in the state has increased by at least 10%. (This should be an easy standard to meet, since there are almost none now.)

SB5489

SB5489 – Requires state agencies to use all practical means and measures to promote environmental justice.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff; placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2009 was an extensive revision and rewrite of the original version of this bill; the second substitute Senate bill is now pretty close to the House version.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Had a hearing on a proposed substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 13th. Passed out of committee and referred to Ways and Means February 19th. Had a hearing there February 27th; a second substitute bill was further amended and passed out of Ways & Means February 28th. Placed on 2nd reading by Rules Committee March 5th. Passed the Senate March 8th.
In the House
Referred to the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Relations. Had a hearing March 19th; replaced by a striker which passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing April 6th. Amended and passed out of committee April 8th. Referred to Rules; placed on 2nd reading April 10th. Still in Rules by the end of 2019 session; Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House.

Comments –
In the House
The changes in the House striker are summarized on its last page. It shifts power back toward the task force, saying that agencies “must adopt” the use of the cumulative impact analysis, and “must adopt” it consistent with the task force’s guidance on how to use it if there is any. It specifies the use of the Department of Health’s (DOH) Washington Tracking Network for the cumulative impact analysis, rather than the UW study, and adds some reporting about needs for funding and uncompleted tasks.

Amendments in House Appropriations require the use of tribal exposure scenarios as a factor in the analysis of cumulative impact areas, have the report include best practices for local governments to include environmental justice principles in comprehensive planning under the GMA, and make the bill null and void if it isn’t funded in this year’s budget.

In the Senate
Second Substitute Senate version
This aligned the bill with the significant changes in HB2009, though it’s different in some minor ways.

Like HB2009, it now changes the central definition of “environmental justice” from “fair treatment and [a] right … to have access to a safe, healthy environment” to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people … with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (That is, it’s now about due process, not outcomes.)

Like HB2009, it changes the composition and power of the task force that they set up. That group no longer creates rules about defining and implementing environmental justice that state agencies must adopt. It develops models, methods, best practices, and recommendations in the House version. In the House version there are “model rules for agency adoption”; in the Senate version the task force creates “guidance for state agencies.” It also says that “if time and resources permit” the task force should do the work on equity analyses, gaps in research, utilizing the precautionary approach, and cataloging and cross-referencing all the state agencies’ research and data about people’s health and environment that are required in HB2009.

The House bill has the Governor appoint the representative of a statewide environmental justice organization to co-chair the task force. (That unspecified organization is presumably Front & Centered, the bill’s creator.) The Senate has him appoint ” a member who is well-informed on the principles of environmental justice and with expertise in statewide environmental justice issues.” They both replace four representatives living in communities with high levels of pollution with three members from some currently unspecified “organization” appointed by the co-chairs with diversity in mind. They reduce the task force’s size by dropping a tribal leader; the representatives of labor, of business, and of statewide environmental interests; and the potential representatives from each of any other agencies the Governor might add. (Since there are still representatives from eight agencies on the task force, the Governor’s appointees would have a clear majority in this revised group.)

This substitute bill does not include HB2009’s provision about including environmental justice considerations in SEPA analyses. Section 5 (1) uses somewhat different language than HB2009’s about the degree to which agencies are required to use the task force’s recommendations, but it isn’t clear to me if one of them gives the agencies more latitude than the other.

One amendment to the 2nd Substitute in Senate Ways & Means added back a tribal representative, one from business and one from labor, now appointed by the Governor.

Front and Centered has a flyer about the bill.

Summary of the original version –
Creates a task force to study and and report recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor on how to incorporate environmental justice principles into the ways state agencies operate. “Environmental justice” means that all people have the right to a safe and healthy environment; that no group of people should bear disproportionately high exposure to pollution or adverse human health or environmental impacts; and that all groups should have appropriate access to meaningful public participation in decisions that affect their environment.

Within sixty days of the task force’s report, Ecology is to provide uniform rules and guidelines for implementing the recommendations to all state agencies on the task force. The agencies must use cumulative impact analyses to identify highly impacted communities, create target environmental health standards for counties and census tracts all over the state, and prioritize highly impacted communities and their vulnerable populations in the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and funding decisions.

The “vulnerable populations” it covers are defined as communities that experience disproportionate cumulative risk from “environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs relative to income, access to food and health care, and linguistic isolation; and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.” “Environmental burdens” include cumulative risks caused by historic and current exposure to conventional and toxic hazards; adverse environmental effects, including environmental conditions caused or made worse by contamination or pollution or that create vulnerabilities to climate impacts; and exposure to hazards made worse by changes in the climate.

Comments –
Though the bill currently says the task force must “discuss… draft rules for agencies”, the rest of it says it is to draft rules agencies must adopt, not just discuss some possible rules.

Details –
The bill specifies the membership of the task force, including representatives of at least eight state agencies; four representatives from different areas of the state who live in communities that are most significantly burdened by, and vulnerable to, high levels of pollution; and a number of other stakeholders. It would be co-chaired by a representative of statewide environmental justice interests and the executive director of the Governor’s interagency council on health disparities. It’s to hold at least four regional meetings in different parts of the state, and complete a report by July 31, 2020.

State agencies must review and revise their rules, programs, plans, and policies every five years to ensure they are promoting reductions in disproportionate environmental burdens and attainment of the environmental health targets the bill establishes, and the task force is to reconvene “five years after the adoption of the last rules to evaluate the findings of each department and update their findings and recommendations.”

The report must discuss:

Methods to increase public participation and engagement by providing meaningful opportunities for involvement to all people;
Draft rules for agency adoption regarding cumulative impact analyses that will identify highly impacted communities, based on analyses of vulnerable populations and environmental burdens conducted by the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences. (These also include any census tracts that are fully or partly on tribal land.);
Methods for meaningfully consulting vulnerable populations in periodically evaluating and updating the designation of highly impacted communities and the cumulative impact analysis;
Methods for creating and implementing analyses to evaluate environmental justice, including but not limited to cumulative impact analyses, into all significant planning, decision making, and investments, including describing potential risks, benefits, and opportunities for these communities and populations;
Methods for prioritizing these communities and populations by identifying and, where legally and fiscally feasible, maximizing inspection, enforcement actions, investment of resources, planning, permitting, and public participation to reduce environmental health disparities and advance a healthy environment for all residents;
Methods for cataloging and cross-referencing current research and data for programs within all state agencies relating to the health and environment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels;
Methods for establishing a qualitative target environmental health level for each county or larger area, and a quantitative target at the census tract level or larger;
Recommended criteria for identifying and addressing gaps in current research and data collection to inform agency actions, refine cumulative impact methodology, and identify factors that may impede achieving environmental justice; and,
Methods for incorporating the precautionary approach to decision making, including permitting, to the extent allowed by law.

HB1642

HB1642 – Expands on-bill repayment programs for renewable energy and conservation projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Referred to Rules 2 Consideration in 2019. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to pass out of the House by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a House Bill Report on the substitute and a Fiscal Note.

2019 Legislative History
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 18th. Passed out of committee February 21st, weakened by an amendment. Referred to Rules; placed on 2nd Reading March 9th. Referred to Rules 2 Consideration March 21st. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.

Comments –
The National Resources Defense Council did a detailed brief five years ago about the issues in designing these programs. (Often, they require that the expected savings are sufficient to cover the loan payments, so the project is “bill-neutral”, though HB1642 doesn’t.) It can also be complicated to figure out how to handle one of these loans when the borrower leaves a utility’s service area, or sells the property, but that’s an issue that the lender, not the utility, needs to take into account.

The amended bill makes offering of on-bill repayment program an option for all utilities, rather than requiring large utilities to offer one, and makes a number of other changes through an amendment by the prime sponsor which are summarized at the end of this page.

Summary –
In these programs, a utility facilitates a customer’s repayment of a loan from a third party for a renewable energy or energy conservation project by adding the payments to the utility bills. HB 1642 requires utilities with over 25,000 customers to offer these loans to their customers, unless their energy conservation plan includes an on-bill or off-bill repayment program for energy conservation loans that they administer and they or a third party capital provider make. The bill lets these utilities count the energy savings from projects financed through the programs toward their requirements for conservation under the Energy Independence Act (I-937), as long as the projects meet the Act’s standard for cost-effectiveness.

The bill defines the capital providers for these loans as “non-profit lenders, community banks, or credit unions.” It also allows smaller utilities and retail electric co-ops to choose to offer on-bill repayment programs.

Details:

Up to 25% of one of these loans may fund measures that aren’t included in a utility’s conservation portfolio.

Utilities have to provide borrowers in these programs with any conservation incentives they’re eligible for, and must have a marketing and outreach program to publicize them.

They can recover their reasonable and prudent costs for publicizing the programs and for upgrading their billing systems to handle the payments. They’re not responsible for recovering the loan; any payments go toward meeting the utility’s part of the bill first.

HB1549

HB1549 – Specifies requirements for lead agencies’ evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Blake (D; 19th District; Wahkiakum and Pacific counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 7th. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5561 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –

The bill requires the Department of Ecology, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, to develop a rule limiting agencies’ evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions.

Comments –
As I read the bill, a new source using new technology wouldn’t actually have to demonstrate it would have lower emissions than what it was replacing, or even that it probably would, in order for an agency to have to “accommodate and encourage” the technology in evaluating its emissions. It only has to “intend” to have lower emissions.

I’m not sure what the section that says you can’t require a project to mitigate emissions by more than a proportional share of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets is supposed to mean. (If the targets require a 50% reduction by 2050, and you’re building a project in 2037, do you need to reduce your initial proposal’s emissions by 50%?) Whatever the numbers, it seems as if it makes it easy to submit a proposal that doesn’t do much about controlling emissions, and then to cheerfully agree to reduce them by whatever proportion this is, requiring Ecology to approve your project.

Details:

The rule must establish a threshold below which an action’s direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases will not be judged to produce probable, significant adverse impacts;
It must establish a methodology for determining when the direct and indirect impacts of actions with emissions above that threshold will produce probable adverse impacts;
It must provide guidance for lead agencies about when it’s appropriate to issue a determination of nonsignificance or a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for an action;
It must require agencies to evaluate the significance of global life-cycle emissions in the context of global carbon emissions, and the significance of emissions within Washington state in the context of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the state;
It must acknowledge that significant cumulative impacts caused by other greenhouse gas emissions don’t constitute substantial evidence that a proposed action’s contributions to global emissions are cumulatively significant;
It must indicate how an agency should evaluate market substitution or displacement effects when assessing the life cycle impacts of an action;
It must provide guidance for addressing emissions from new sources which specifically accommodates and encourages new technology intended to substitute for or replace
existing technologies and achieve the same production goals with fewer greenhouse gas emissions;
It must establish a framework for calculating the direct and indirect emissions it’s reasonable to attribute to an action. That must specify the scope and context for estimating the emissions, including whether to count the global emissions attributable to the action, or only those that will occur within the state. It must authorize agencies to “to incorporate prior environmental review and other inventories that quantify emissions for categories of activities and industries that have been prepared by the Department of Ecology, including those required by section 2 of this act, industry groups, or other lead agencies.” [I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Maybe it means they can only use assessments prepared by Ecology, but I think it’s probably supposed to mean they can use assessments by industry groups and other agencies if they choose to.] It must authorize them to rely on adopted policies and regulations of other agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over any direct or indirect emissions of an action to predict emissions and emission trends. [I don’t know if this includes agencies in other states and Federal agencies or not.]
It must establish a threshold of direct emissions attributable to an action below which agencies may not consider global life-cycle emissions associated with that action;
It must establish a methodology for agencies to use in identifying reasonable mitigation measures for identified environmental impacts. [Proposals can only be denied if the reasonable measures won’t be sufficient to mitigate the impacts.] This must recognize measures taken by the applicant or others to mitigate the impacts; it must let the agency rely on a range of mitigation measures including market offsets, new technology with lower emissions, alternate fuels, best available control technologies (BACT), potential efficiency measures, and, any other actions or measures required by other agencies with jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a reduction of the emissions associated with the action. It has to identify acceptable sources for the purchase of offsets. The methodology may not require mitigation in excess of a proportional share of the state’s reduction targets or require mitigation to completely eliminate the impact of an action’s emissions in order to be considered sufficient for approving a proposal.
It must establish a methodology through which an agency can address impacts of climate change on a proposed action through resiliency and adaptation planning, including site design and other measures to address sea level rise and increased risks from storms and wildfire.

The Department must report to the appropriate legislative committees on the emissions for categories of industries and activities and anticipated trends, as well as how those inventories and trends may be used in environmental reviews.

SB5561

SB5561 – Specifies requirements for lead agencies’ evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Takko (D; 19th District; Longview)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, February 19th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1549 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Ecology, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, to develop a rule limiting agencies’ evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions.

Details:

The rule must establish a threshold below which an action’s direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases will not be judged to produce probable, significant adverse impacts;
It must establish a methodology for determining when the direct and indirect impacts of actions with emissions above that threshold will produce probable adverse impacts;
It must provide guidance for lead agencies about when it’s appropriate to issue a determination of nonsignificance or a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for an action;
It must require agencies to evaluate the significance of global life-cycle emissions in the context of global carbon emissions, and the significance of emissions within Washington state in the context of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the state;
It must acknowledge that significant cumulative impacts caused by other greenhouse gas emissions don’t constitute substantial evidence that a proposed action’s contributions to global emissions are cumulatively significant;
It must indicate how an agency should evaluate market substitution or displacement effects when assessing the life cycle impacts of an action;
It must provide guidance for addressing emissions from new sources which specifically accommodates and encourages new technology intended to substitute for or replace
existing technologies and achieve the same production goals with fewer greenhouse gas emissions;
It must establish a framework for calculating the direct and indirect emissions it’s reasonable to attribute to an action. That must specify the scope and context for estimating the emissions, including whether to count the global emissions attributable to the action, or only those that will occur within the state. It must authorize agencies to “to incorporate prior environmental review and other inventories that quantify emissions for categories of activities and industries that have been prepared by the Department of Ecology, including those required by section 2 of this act, industry groups, or other lead agencies.” [I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Maybe it means they can only use assessments prepared by Ecology, but I think it’s probably supposed to mean they can use assessments by industry groups and other agencies if they choose to.] It must authorize them to rely on adopted policies and regulations of other agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over any direct or indirect emissions of an action to predict emissions and emission trends. [I don’t know if this includes agencies in other states and Federal agencies or not.]
It must establish a threshold of direct emissions attributable to an action below which agencies may not consider global life-cycle emissions associated with that action;
It must establish a methodology for agencies to use in identifying reasonable mitigation measures for identified environmental impacts. [Proposals can only be denied if the reasonable measures won’t be sufficient to mitigate the impacts.] This must recognize measures taken by the applicant or others to mitigate the impacts; it must let the agency rely on a range of mitigation measures including market offsets, new technology with lower emissions, alternate fuels, best available control technologies (BACT), potential efficiency measures, and, any other actions or measures required by other agencies with jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a reduction of the emissions associated with the action. It has to identify acceptable sources for the purchase of offsets. The methodology may not require mitigation in excess of a proportional share of the state’s reduction targets or require mitigation to completely eliminate the impact of an action’s emissions in order to be considered sufficient for approving a proposal.
It must establish a methodology through which an agency can address impacts of climate change on a proposed action through resiliency and adaptation planning, including site design and other measures to address sea level rise and increased risks from storms and wildfire.

SB5555

SB5555 – Excludes most solar systems from renewable energy tax incentives.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 6th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

For a solar system to be eligible for renewable energy tax incentives, all of its components, including the solar cells, would have to be produced or manufactured in the United States, or in a facility that the Department of Ecology certified as meeting all the relevant Washington State environmental, health, and safety standards.

HB1597

HB1597 – Including methane leakage from natural gas facilities in emissions estimates and regulatory activity.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollet (D; 46th District; Northeast Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy, February 12th at 3:30. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
The House Bill Analysis is available.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Ecology to develop a uniformly applicable estimate of methane emissions during the production, gathering, processing, transmission, storage, and distribution of natural gas in the state, and a rule to specify their global warming potential over a twenty year time frame. (The estimate is to be set at a level where there’s a 95% chance that actual emissions are not above it.)

The bill requires State agencies, cities, and local governments in general to use those estimates of upstream natural gas emissions in permitting, planning, and other regulatory processes, and specifically amends the laws about a number of State regulatory processes to require including them in emissions estimates.

Details:

Ecology must consult with the UTC, the Chair of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Commerce in developing this rule making process. It can require gas or electrical companies to submit information about the emissions for their existing or proposed gas facilities, but they can only be used in developing an estimate to apply uniformly to all gas emissions, not to particular companies’. Starting in 2024, Ecology must evaluate the accuracy of the estimate every three years; update it when needed; and report on it to the appropriate legislative committees, including recommendations for changing how widely it’s applied, if any.

The bill amends the Clean Air Act, the State’s targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, reviews under the Environmental Policy Act of facilities or projects whose associated direct or indirect annual greenhouse gas emissions are reasonably expected to be over ten thousand tons a year, the provisions for carbon mitigation plans from power plants, environmental facilities site planning, the regulation of utilities by the UTC, and utilities’ integrated resource planning to require inclusion of upstream emissions from natural gas estimated in accordance with Ecology’s rule.

SB5576

SB5576 – Improving sustainability and climate science education.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education February 18th. Passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Still in the house of origin by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by Ways and Means.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1496 is the identical companion bill in the House.

Comments –
There’s an article about the results of the climate education project that the Legislature funded last year in the Green Schools Catalyst Quarterly.

Summary –
The bill updates the label in the current list of topics that must be taught in public schools from “science with particular reference to the environment” to “science with special reference to the environmental and sustainability standards.” ((OSPI sets and revises these State standards for schools to describe what all students at different grade levels “should know and be able to do in the area of Environmental and Sustainability Education”.

If funding were made available, the bill would require OSPI to develop grants for community non-profits and educational service districts to develop plans for teacher education in next generation science standards, including climate science standards. Comprehensive and targeted comprehensive schools, and communities historically underserved by climate science education would get priority for these. In selecting applications and prioritizing grants, SPI could consider applicants’ previous success in developing teachers’ ability to help students understand climate science standards.

In this context, “climate science” means the ideas from various sciences, the integrating concepts, and the science and engineering practices in the standards that lead a student toward climate science literacy. “Climate science literacy” means understanding your influence on climate and its influence on individuals, society, and the environment. (A “climate-literate person” understands the essential principles of the climate system; knows how to assess scientifically credible information about climate; can communicate meaningfully about climate and climate change; and can make informed and responsible decisions about actions that might affect the climate.)

HB1496

HB1496 – Improving sustainability and climate science education.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dolan (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

SB5476

SB5476 – Protects established composting sites from being sued for creating a public nuisance.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 48th District; Bellevue)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1167 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Summary –
Currently, agriculture and forestry activities that are consistent with good practices in those fields, and were established before other surrounding activities (like neighboring housing developments), are protected from lawsuits claiming that they are creating a public nuisance because of things like smells or noise, unless they’re having a substantial negative effect on public health or safety.

The bill extends this protection to composting activities. (Composting must also be meeting city and county regulations to qualify for this protection.)

SB5353

SB5353 – Promoting redevelopment to support transit.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Zeiger (R; 25th District; Pierce County)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Local Government February 5th. Passed out of committee February 19th and referred to Ways and Means. Still in the house of origin by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by Ways and Means.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes certain counties to lower property taxes to encourage the development of more housing in areas around transit by expanding some current provisions for lowering taxes in other “residential targeted areas”.

Details:
Counties can reduce taxes on new housing units in residential targeted areas by using special lower valuations in their property tax assessments.

There are various requirements for when these can be created, including some about where they can be located. The bill expands the rules about permissible locations to allow them to be created by counties that want to promote transit supportive densities and efficient land use in an area that’s within an urban growth area; is in the potential annexation area of a city with a population of at least two hundred thousand; and is within a quarter mile of a corridor where bus service is scheduled at least every fifteen minutes for no less than ten hours per day. (The route must be in service or have planned service within five years).

HB1397

HB1397 – Creates work group on electric and hybrid airplanes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland)
Current status – Returned to House Rules 3rd Reading by Senate at end of 2019 Session. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Now in the House Rules “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2019 History
In the House (Passed)
Had a hearing before the House Committee on Transportation on February 7th. Passed out of committee February 25th; referred to Rules. Placed on 2nd reading by the Rules Committee March 1st. Passed by the House March 5th.

In the Senate
Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. Had a hearing March 18th. Passed out of committee with amendments to cover using fuel cells March 26th; referred to Rules. Returned to House Rules 3rd Reading by Senate at end of 2019 Session.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Transportation to convene a work group on hybrid and electric regional aircraft, including representatives from the electric aircraft industry, the aircraft manufacturing industry, electric utility districts, the battery industry, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation Aviation Division, the Airline Pilots’ Association, a primary airport representing an airport association, and the airline industry.

They’re to study, at least:

Infrastructure requirements necessary to facilitate electric aircraft operations at airports;
Potential economic and public benefits including the direct and indirect impact on the state’s manufacturing and service jobs and wages;
Potential incentives for industry in the manufacturing and operation of electric aircraft for regional air travel;
Educational and workforce requirements for manufacturing and maintaining these planes;
Demand and forecast for their use, including an expected timeline for their entering the market given Federal certification requirements;
Identification of up to six airports in the state that might benefit from a pilot program once such an aircraft for commercial use is available; and,
Recommendations to further their adoption, including specific, measurable goals for the years 2030, 2040, and 2050 that reflect progressive and substantial increases in their use.

The work group must submit a report with recommendations to both transportation committees of the Legislature by November 15, 2020, as well as a progress report on any efforts to implement the recommendations by February 15, 2021, and every two years after that.

SB5308

SB5308 – Oversight for municipal energy service contracts.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille counties)
Current status – Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by House at end of 2019 Session; Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff; placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on February 5th. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 20th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 27th; amended 2nd substitute with minor changes passed out of that committee February 28th. Placed on 2nd reading by Rules Committee March 5th. Passed by the Senate March 12th.
In the House –
Referred to the Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by House at end of 2019 Session

Comments –
The 1st substitute replaces the complaint provisions with a requirement for DES to consider contractors’ past performance and comments from municipalities in revising the registry. Almost all the minor changes made in Ways and Means are summarized on the first page of the 2nd substitute..

Summary –

Performance based energy service contractors sign contracts to increase buildings’ efficiency. They provide the capital, do the work, and guarantee a certain level of performance in return for long-term payments from the owners, who often gain from the savings on their utility bills.
Currently, if a city or county decides to negotiate one of these contracts, other State procurement requirements don’t apply to the project. The bill creates a system for overseeing their contracts.

Details –
The bill requires a conference with the Department of Enterprise Services by the parties to one of these contracts about the capabilities of the energy equipment and services, expected outcomes for the municipality, and whether other energy equipment and services might be better for the municipality’s purposes. Any proposed revisions have to be recorded and agreed to by all the parties.

The technical documents for these projects have to be prepared by an architect and/or a professional engineer.

The department has to provide third-party verification of the work within 90 days after it’s finished, to see that equipment and services are installed and performing correctly and that the municipality’s staff has been trained to use and maintain the equipment.

The bill requires withholding 10% of the any funding the department provides to help municipalities obtain a contract until monitoring is complete.

The bill creates a system for handling complaints about the work by cities and counties. These have to be filed within two years of the discovery of a defect. If a complaint is filed, 10% of any funding supplied by the department _must_ be withheld or recouped from the contractor, though it _may_ be provided to the contractor after the complaint is resolved. The department currently maintains a registry of these companies, and contractors are to be removed from that as soon as any complaint is filed, and only returned to it when it’s resolved.

The Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee must report to the Legislature by the end of 2020 on the structure of the performance-based contracting services program, including the roles of the department, contractors, municipalities; its cost-effectiveness; whether these contracts adequately protect municipalities from defects; whether they lead to superior outcomes for municipalities compared to general procurement practices that aren’t required for one of these projects; and whether the program limits the range of options for energy equipment and services available to municipalities.

SB5347

SB5347 – Requires utility publicity for climate programs to display “discernible and quantifiable effects” of an individual’s participation on global emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R, 42nd District, Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment & Technology February 6th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Requires any utility publicity indicating that a benefit, program or service will help deal in any way with the problem of climate change to include a “detailed description of the discernable [sic] and quantifiable effects” it will have on global climate change, displayed in a way that “discloses the discernable [sic] and quantifiable effects on global climate change attributable to the average individual customer” using it.

Comments –
Don’t feed the troll…

SB5329

SB5329 – Updates Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council operations. (By request of the Site Evaluation Council.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D, 34th District, White Center)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Passed out of the committee January 31st. Referred to Rules; placed on 2nd reading February 5th. Still in house of origin by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1332 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill adds some language about the State’s need to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and increase its reliance on clean energy to the section of the code about its intentions, and says that the bill intends “to streamline application review for energy facilities that use alternative energy resources to meet the state’s energy goals.”

The Council would have its own staff, rather than relying on the UTC’s. The bill reduces its size, and would no longer add a member from an area where a project has been proposed during the time it’s reaching a decision about its recommendation to the Governor on that project. (Instead, there’s a member representing the Association of Washington Cities and one from the Washington State Association of Counties.) It adds a tribal representative.

After the environmental review of the project, the Council can hold a public hearing about whether or not genuine issues of fact on matters the council deems material to its recommendation exist. If it then decides there aren’t, and that the project is consistent and compliant with local land use requirements then it can skip the requirement for holding a formal adjudicative hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, and proceed to make a recommendation.

Details –
The bill eliminates a member from DNR, and a number of optional memberships for various agencies, and it makes a number of small procedural changes expanding the Council’s discretion and powers.