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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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