Author Archives: Thad Curtz

HB1117

HB1117– Requiring the annual meeting of agencies, utilities and stakeholders to address the extent to which the state risks rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; Goldendale) (Co-Sponsors Dye – R & Leavitt – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be –
To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker includes some of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s energy analytics experts in the annual stakeholders’ meetings and requires the conveners to invite them to provide relevant analytics to inform the discussion in 2023 if regional energy analytics capability has been established by the lab.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy  January 12th. Amended to make a couple of minor changes and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously March 4th.

Summary –
The law currently requires the UTC and the Department of Commerce to jointly convene a meeting of utilities, grid operators, and other stakeholders at least once a year to discuss power system planning and the adequacy of electric energy resources. The convenors provide a summary of each meeting to the Governor and the Legislature.

The bill would specify that the meeting in 2023 “must specifically address” the extent to which residents are at risk of rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacy events, and the extent to which proposed laws and regulations for building and transportation electrification may require new policy for resource adequacy. Stakeholders would be surveyed for recommendations on policy options to prevent severe blackouts, and the meeting would seek to identify regulatory and statutory incentives to enhance and ensure continuing resource adequacy and reliability.

SB5129

SB5129 – Planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Hunt & Mullet – Ds; Fortunato, Holy, McCune, and Short – R’s)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th. Reintroduced in 2024 and placed on 2nd reading January 17th.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill’s findings declare that planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology aligns with the Legislature’s goals for a comprehensive energy strategy and that the strategy should include consideration of measures to promote its development. They say it can help the state meet its long-term electricity emission reduction goals, and that the state should examine the various ways the rapidly evolving technology will support our future energy infrastructure and economy.

The bill would add advanced nuclear reactor technology to the strategy’s list of more efficient and cleaner energy sources to use in reducing dependence on fossil fuel energy sources. It would add the management of spent nuclear fuel to the list of technologies that the Department of Commerce is to actively seek to maximize federal and other nonstate funding and support for.

SB5117

SB5117 – Altering the State Building Code Council’s procedures and authority. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1404 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would create a variety of new procedural rules for the Council. It would be required to discard any proposal that doesn’t include all the requested information, doesn’t have sufficient detail to be acted upon as of a deadline the Council sets, or that “exceeds the specific delegation of authority provided by the Legislature”. (It would not be allowed to rely solely on the broad delegation of authority in the current law.) A member of the Council would have to sponsor a proposal for it to move forward. The proposed text would have to be put in the Code Reviser’s format for finalized rules, and any proposed changes to that would have to be in writing, specify the legal authority for the amendment, and be available to all councilmembers and the public before a vote on a change could be taken. (The current process, in which members discuss and agree to many adjustments in phrasing and details in a draft during one or more meetings, would be explicitly prohibited.) The Council would be required to adopt policies to ensure it adheres to all of the requirements for rule making in the Administrative Procedures Act.

The bill says that if there’s “a concern” that the information provided in a proposal isn’t sufficient, inaccurately represents the actual impacts or costs, or if the assertions in the proposal “are questioned” by experts with knowledge of the industry or circumstances the Council “should” supplement the cost estimate information provided in a petition with independent research. At least two weeks before final adoption of nonemergency changes to the Code, the Council would have to make available for public comment:
(1) the currently required small business economic impact statement;
(2) the currently required cost-benefit analysis and the supporting information, for members to determine if the proposed rule is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply with it and if the probable benefits of the rule are greater than its probable costs;
(3) any independent, third-party analysis the Council commissioned;
(4) any supplemental cost estimate information and industry specific information provided in the process; and,
(5) any findings, determinations or recommendations of the Council’s economic impact work group, consultants, or employees.
The bill says all this information should be available for review and vetted by Council members prior to a final vote adopting any rule modification. If someone working in an industry subject to regulation under a proposed rule raised an economic or cost-related protest or provided a cost or economic analysis that was different, the protestor could request that the Council provide a substantive response to raised concerns, including an explanation of provisions in the rule addressing, mitigating, or reducing the cost or economic impacts of the rule.

The bill would specify various criteria for appointments to technical advisory groups. If a member represented a specific interest or group, it would allow any person of that group to petition the Council to have that member removed from the TAG on the grounds that the person doesn’t have the qualifications or characteristics necessary to represent the interest or group. The Council would be required to remove any technical advisory group member it found lacked the characteristics and qualifications necessary to fill the position.

The Council would be required to identify the sources of information it reviewed and relied upon in the course of adopting changes to the Code, to include that information in the rule-making file, and to post the materials it considered or relied upon on its website for at least a year. It would be required to create a distribution list to notify specified agencies about proposed rules and the associated materials before public hearings on them. It would also be required to notify individuals involved in providing state subsidized housing that the proposed rule would increase the cost and complexity of building construction and identify when public comment will be taken. If a proposal would change the design of school buildings, OSPI would have to be notified. Every three years, the Council would have to submit a report to the Legislature identifying provisions in the adopted codes that generated conflict, summarizing the different perspectives brought before the Council related to the conflict, and how the Council addressed it.

The bill would make the appointment of the managing director of the Council subject to confirmation by the Senate, and prohibit anyone registered as a lobbyist from serving on it. It would add a representative from a utility to the Council. It would require training on ethics in public service and the Council’s rules of procedure for anyone serving on it.

HB1084

HB1084 – Having the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board make project recommendations to the Legislature rather than making grants itself.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Ramos, Ryu – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation March 27th; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously on March 7th.

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

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

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

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

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

HB1085

HB1085 – Reducing plastic pollution.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on March 10th, and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules; passed by the Senate April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th, and passed out February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute made some minor changes in the bill’s details, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would have the building code require a bottle filling station or a combined filling station and drinking fountain in new construction where a drinking fountain is required. It would prohibit the sale or installation of overwater structures containing expanded or extruded plastic foam; and blocks or floats containing that foam and intended for use with such structures. (Floating homes would be exempted.) It would prohibit lodging establishments from providing personal health or beauty products in any single-use plastic packaging. (Enforcement of this requirement would primarily be based on complaints filed with the Department of Ecology, which would be required to create a forum for filing those, and would do education and outreach about the requirement.)

SB5094

SB5094 – Adding a climate resilience element to water system plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 20th and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 30th. Replaced by a substitute delaying the requirement by a year and passed out of committee February 2nd; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 22nd; passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 7th.

Summary –
After June 30th 2024, water system plans for Group A community public water systems serving 1,000 or more connections would have to include a climate resilience element. These systems would be required to determine which extreme weather events pose significant challenges to their system and build scenarios to identify potential impacts; to assess critical assets and the actions necessary to protect the system from the consequences of extreme weather events; and to develop reports on the costs and benefits of the system’s risk reduction strategies and its capital project needs.

The Department of Health would update its water system planning guidebook to assist water systems in implementing the requirement, and would provide technical assistance to systems based on their size, location, and water source, by providing references to existing State or Federal risk management, climate resiliency, or emergency management and response tools that might be used to satisfy the requirements. (If funds were appropriated, the University of Washington climate impacts group would assist the department in the development of such tools.)

The bill would also amend the water system acquisition and rehabilitation program, dropping the Public Works Board and the Department of Commerce as joint administrators with the Department of Health. The program would now be allowed to make loans as well as grants. Climate readiness projects, including the planning the bill requires and actions to protect a water system from extreme weather events, including infrastructure and design projects, would be eligible for financial assistance from the program.

SB5093

SB5093 – Updating the State’s climate resilience strategy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 13th, and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1170 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes match the ones made earlier in the House companion bill. They would require a workgroup on improving the coordination of funding for climate resilience; require Ecology to estimate agency costs for implementing the updated strategy; report on those to the Governor and Legislature by September 30, 2024; report every two years on appropriated funding for implementing the strategy. One specifies that agencies can only consider climate change impacts in their policies and programs to that extent that’s allowed under their statutory authority.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Ecology update and modernize the 2012 Integrated Climate Response Plan with the assistance of other state agencies. It amends the legislation for creating that plan to include a number of additional agencies, tribal governments, and the UW climate impacts group in the process. (The plan would now be updated every four years, with biannual reporting.) The bill would no longer require Ecology to serve as a “central clearinghouse” for relevant scientific and technical information about the impacts of climate change on the state. It would add explicit requirements for collaboration and engagement with various parties on environmental justice issues. It adds consideration of various time scales to the planning scenarios, and strengthens the language requiring agencies to prioritize climate resilience and adaptation in their planning. The bill would have Ecology recommend a durable structure for coordinating and implementing the state’s climate resilience strategy, including a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding across agencies, and work with OFM and other agencies on coordinating state responses to Federal funding opportunities for climate resilience.

The bill would rewrite and expand the requirements for the plan, dropping several topics, and now including:
(1) A summary of each agency’s current climate resilience priorities, plans, and actions;
(ii) Strategies and actions to address the highest climate vulnerabilities and risks to Washington’s communities and ecosystems;
(iii) A lead agency or group of agencies assigned to implement actions; and
(iv) Key gaps to advancing climate resilience actions, including in state laws, policies, regulations, rules, procedures, and agency technical capacity.

The expanded strategy is supposed to:
(i) Prioritize actions that both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate preparedness;
(ii) Protect the state’s most overburdened communities and vulnerable populations and provide more equitable outcomes;
(iii) Prioritize actions that deploy natural solutions, restore habitat, or reduce stressors that exacerbate climate impacts;
(iv) Prioritize actions that promote and protect human health; and
(v) Consider flexible and adaptive approaches for preparing for uncertain climate impacts.

Ecology would work with other agencies on identifying best practices and processes for prioritizing resilience actions and assessing the effectiveness of potential actions; developing a process for measuring progress and success towards statewide resilience goals; analyzing opportunities and gaps in current agency resilience efforts; and identifying other issues involved in developing policies and actions for the climate resilience strategy.

SB5092

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

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

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

SB5091

SB5091 – Expanding tax incentives for hydrogen fuel cells.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing March 9th. Replaced by a second substitute specifying that the incentives are for green electrolytic hydrogen; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Returned to Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade for the 2024 Session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This made changes in dates, eligibility, and other details that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would create and expand 10 year tax incentives for the research, development, production, and sale of hydrogen fuel cells in the state. It would reduce the B&O tax on businesses manufacturing or selling fuel cells in the state to 0.2904 percent. It would provide a B&O tax credit for 1.7% of a business’s expenditures on fuel cell research and development each year. It would provide a credit eliminating the property or leasehold excise taxes on land used for manufacturing fuel cells. In addition, it would provide a credit eliminating the property tax on the machinery and equipment for manufacturing, research and development, and testing that’s already exempted from the sales tax, if the machinery and equipment were used in manufacturing fuel cells.

(It also says that the Legislature intends to extend the incentives if what seem like inevitable outcomes occur.)

HB1078

HB1078– Requires local urban forestry ordinances to include a tree bank provision for replacing trees, in order to avoid blocking development that involves removing them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor – Doglio – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 11th; replaced by a substitute, amended and passed out of committee February 3rd. Died in Appropriations in 2023. Reintroduced there in 2024; had a hearing on January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. (It dropped requirements for providing tree bank provisions as an option, and made other minor changes; the amendment simply revised language in the findings.)

Summary –
Tree banks are designated areas where trees can be planted to compensate for the removal of trees elsewhere in order to enable development. The tree bank provisions required in local urban forestry plans would have to conform to guidelines established by the Department of Natural Resources. Those would create criteria for designating areas to be used as tree banks. (They would have to be located in priority areas the Department identified using canopy analysis and inventories, mapping tools that identify highly impacted communities, data on habitat for salmon recovery, and DNR’s 20 year forest health strategic plan.)

The required guidelines would include the appropriate ratios of trees planted within the tree bank to trees removed elsewhere within the community; the appropriate species of trees to be used; and how to effectively support urban forest management plans through the use of a tree bank.

SB5068

SB5068 – Dedicating gradually increasing amounts of the sales and use taxes on motor vehicles to transportation projects and reducing existing transportation project debt.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See the Transportation section of the Topics index for several similar proposals this session.

Summary –
The bill would require the current use tax revenue and sales tax revenue from new and used retail sales of a vehicle, including private-party sales, to be diverted over time to a new transportation and maintenance account. (It would not include the tax on car rentals.) The bill would require that these funds be used for for “transportation projects, programs, and activities”, including reducing existing debt obligations for transportation projects and infrastructure. It would prohibit using them in any sort of new debt financing.

The bill would divert 10% of this revenue to the new fund starting in the 2025 fiscal year, and would increase the amount diverted by 10% in each subsequent year, diverting 100% of it beginning in 2034.

SB5057

SB5057 – Delaying the building performance standards by two years, and creating a work group on their financial impacts and building efficiency policy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah) (Co-sponsor Schoesler – R)
Current status – Had a hearing January 27th in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 22nd. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This reduces the delays in compliance for large buildings to one year, removes the two year delays for smaller buildings, adds a couple of people to the work group, has Commerce convene it instead of the WSU Energy Program, and provides for a financial hardship exemption. The amendment requires reporting on the financial impacts to all covered Tier 1 buildings, not just the State buildings, and adds a representative of the owners of those buildings to the work group.

Summary –
The bill delays the compliance dates by which covered commercial buildings would have to meet the State’s energy performance standards for two years. Buildings over 220,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by June 2028; those between 90,000 and 220,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by June 2029, and the remaining buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by 2030. It would also delay the date for completing the rules, the reporting dates, and the other dates for implementing the standards by the same amount.

It would delay the schedule for creating SB5722’s energy management and operations requirements for commercial buildings between 20,000 sq. ft. and 50,000 sq. ft. and multi-family over 50,000 sq. ft. and the eventual performance standards for those by two years as well.

The bill would also have the WSU extension energy program create a work group with the help of the State Energy Office. It would report on the financial impacts of complying with the performance standard for state-owned buildings, and make recommendations to the Legislature about building energy efficiency, including identifying investments or other strategies and timelines for increasing energy efficiency in the sector. It would provide a cost-benefit analysis of options to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, including energy efficiency; and “recommend any changes” to Chapter 285, Laws of 2019. This was HB1257, and includes the current performance standards and benchmarking requirements for commercial buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. (It also includes the cost-effective conservation requirements for gas utilities, setting the social cost of carbon, various provisions about renewable gas, and EV infrastructure requirements for the Building Code Council.)

The work group would include a representative for OSPI; one for each of the public four-year higher education institutions; one for the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges; one for DSHS; one for the Department of Corrections; one for Enterprise Services; and two from a national association for industrial and office parks.

HB1033

HB1033 – Committee on standards to increase composting of food waste and reduce contaminants in compost.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th, amended to add a representative from a regulated company providing curbside pickup to the advisory committee, and passed out March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 12th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be –
To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute adds a representative of hospitality businesses to the stakeholder committee, allows interested tribes to participate through invitations from Ecology, and adds home composting to the list of things for the committee to consider.

Summary –
The bill would create a stakeholder advisory committee to make recommendations to the Legislature on standards to divert increased amounts of food waste from landfills to composting facilities and to reduce the inclusion of non-compostable materials.

The committee would consider:
(a) The goals of managing organic materials to increase food waste diversion and to ensure that finished compost is clean;
(b) The types of compostable products, and amounts if known, sold or distributed into Washington;
(c) Consumer confusion caused by noncompostable products that can lead to contamination issues;
(d) Compostable standards related to the breakdown of products in facilities;
(e) The acceptance of compostable products by organic materials management facilities in Washington, including consideration of organic certifications;
(f) Estimates of the percentage of compostable products used in Washington that are disposed of at organic materials management facilities;
(g) Financial incentives for organic materials management facilities accepting compostable products;
(h) Current laws related to compostable products and the enforcement of these laws;
(i) Any work product from other stakeholder advisory committees currently discussing similar topics in other jurisdictions or nationwide; and
(j) Policy options addressing contamination of organic waste streams and ways to increase the use of reusable and refillable items.

The committee members would be selected by Ecology and include at least one member from:
(a) Cities, including both small and large cities and cities located in urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents cities in Washington;
(b) Counties, including both small and large counties and urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents county solid waste managers in Washington;
(c) Municipal collectors, or companies providing curbside organic materials collection services or curbside organic materials management services under a municipal contract;
(d) Three organic materials management facility operators, including at least one operator of a facility that doesn’t currently accept compostable food service products and one operator of a facility that does currently accept them;
(e) An environmental nonprofit organization specializing in waste and recycling issues;
(f) Two manufacturers of compostable products, including at least one manufacturer of compostable food service products and one manufacturer of compostable plastic food service products;
(g) A distributor of compostable food service products;
(h) A statewide general business trade association;
(i) A retail grocery association;
(j) Two organizations that act as third-party certifiers of compostable products;
(k) The Department of Agriculture; and
(l) Two associations focused on organic materials recycling or composting.

An independent facilitator hired by the Department of Ecology would convene the committee, hire any needed subcontractors, provide staff support to the committee, prepare reports for its review, and deliver a report to appropriate legislative committees with its consensus recommendations on developing standards for managing compostable products, especially food service products. (The report’s to include the dissenting opinions on issues on which there wasn’t consensus.)

SB5039

SB5039 – Requires utility planning for wildfire risks and identification of best management practices.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 11th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Wednesday February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1032 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
Requires each electric utility to create a wildfire management plan by October 31, 2024 and update it every three years. An independent consultant selected by the State Energy Office after consultation with stakeholders and the public would develop the format for the plans and a list of recommended actions to be included in them, including best practice guidance for those actions. Each utility’s plan would include a review of its specific circumstances and incorporate the appropriate identified actions from the list; abutting utilities could develop collaborative plans. Private utilities’ plans would be reviewed by the Utilities and Transportation Commission and public utilities’ would be reviewed by their governing boards, in consultation with various other agencies. Reviewers would provide feedback to the utilities, but as I read the bill, it doesn’t quite require their approval of the plans. (They’re to “confirm” whether it contains the appropriate recommended actions.)  The bill also disclaims any State responsibility for subsequent problems.)

The consultant’s list is to include actions related to:
(a) Vegetation management along transmission and distribution lines and near associated equipment;
(b) Infrastructure inspection and maintenance repair activities, schedules, and record keeping;
(c) Modifications or upgrades to facilities and construction of new facilities to incorporate cost-effective measures to minimize fire risk;
(d) Preventative programs, including adoption of new technologies to harden utility infrastructure;
(e) Operational procedures;
(f) Identification of appropriate widths for vegetation management and rights-of-way, including the consideration of fire-resistant vegetation alternatives;
(g) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electric system along with associated communication plans for impacted parties and the public, including highly impacted communities, vulnerable populations, and persons reliant on electricity to maintain necessary life functions; and
(h) Public and interested parties’ engagement and communication plans addressing wildfire safety and risk mitigation.

Each electric utility’s protocols have to include plans for mitigating the public safety impacts of deenergizing portions of the system, considering the impacts on critical first responders, local and tribal governments, health and communication infrastructure, and those populations at increased risk. Decisions about whether or not to shut down parts of the system are reserved to the utilities.

SB5037

SB5037 – Preventing the Energy Code from prohibiting the use of natural gas in buildings. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsor MacEwen – R)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prevent the State Energy Code from prohibiting “the use of natural gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance, in any building.” (It would also remove achieving “the broader goal of building zero fossil-fuel greenhouse gas emission homes and buildings” from the language specifying what the Building Code Council is to design the Code to do.)

SB5018

SB5018 – Transferring estimated sales and use tax revenue from expenditures by the Department of Transportation from the general fund to the motor vehicle fund.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See the Transportation section of the Topics index for several similar proposals this session.

Summary –
The bill would transfer the estimated sales and use tax revenue from expenditures by the Department of Transportation from the general fund to the motor vehicle fund. It would apply to any revenue from the Department’s expenditures on purchases of “any tangible personal property, digital products, or labor.”

SB5017

SB5017 – Dedicating the sales and use taxes on motor vehicles to highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See the Transportation section of the Topics index for several similar proposals this session.

Summary –
The bill would require the use tax revenue and the six and five- tenths percent sales tax revenue from new or used retail sales of a vehicle, including private-party sales, to be used exclusively for highway purposes. (It would not apply to the revenue from car rentals.)

SJR8200

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

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

SB5030

SB5030 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; NW Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Short & Schoesler – Rs; Wellman – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1018 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in 2021 as HB1387, but did not get a hearing. It passed the House last year as HB1924, under Representative Tharinger’s sponsorship.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current sales and use tax exemptions for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel for ten years, until June 2034. (The bill declares the policy objective of the exemption is to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least 75 percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan, but this is not a requirement. It’s only to be used by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in evaluating the effectiveness of the exemption.)

JLARC reviewed a previous exemption in 2019. It estimated that the exemption would save the sixteen participating facilities $5.6 million over the 2021-2023 biennium. Employment had only gone down by 281 jobs between 2013 and 2017, from 5,139 jobs to 4,858, so that exemption easily met the stated policy goal of retaining at least 75% of the jobs.

HB1018

HB1018 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Tharinger (D; 24th District; NW Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Chapman & Fey – Ds; Orcutt & Abbarno – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Ways and Means March 23rd; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5030 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in 2021 as HB1387, but did not get a hearing. It passed the House last year as HB1924, under Representative Tharinger’s sponsorship.

In the House –
Passed out of the House Finance Committee  January 19th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current sales and use tax exemptions for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel for ten years, until June 2034. (The bill declares the policy objective of the exemption is to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least 75 percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan, but this is not a requirement. It’s only to be used by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in evaluating the effectiveness of the exemption.)

JLARC reviewed a previous exemption in 2019. It estimated that the exemption would save the sixteen participating facilities $5.6 million over the 2021-2023 biennium. Employment had only gone down by 281 jobs between 2013 and 2017, from 5,139 jobs to 4,858, so that exemption easily met the stated policy goal of retaining at least 75% of the jobs.

HB1012

HB1012 – Creating an extreme weather response grant program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Leavitt (D; 28th District; SW Pierce County) (Co-Sponsor Rep. Robertson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections March 14th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Reintroduced in the House for the 2024 Session, sent to Rules, and passed by the House on January 8th. Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House  2024 – Passed

In the House  2023 – Passed
Passed out of the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans January 13th ; had a hearing in Appropriations on January 30th. Amended and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Changes in Appropriations –
The amendment would narrow eligibility for the grants to areas where populations face “combined, multiple environmental harms and health impacts”,  and widen the definition of the people they might be used to benefit from those who are “socially vulnerable” to those who are “vulnerable” more generally.

Summary –
Subject to appropriation, the bill would have the State Military Department create a grant program to help cities, counties and towns that have emergency management organizations, and tribes, meet the costs of responding to community needs during periods of extremely hot or cold weather or in periods with severe poor air quality from wildfire smoke. Recipients would have to demonstrate that they lacked the local resources to address these needs and that the costs were incurred for the benefit of vulnerable populations.

Grants could be awarded for establishing and operating warming and cooling centers, as well as transporting people and their pets to them, and providing facilities for pets in them; purchasing fans or other supplies for cooling congregate living settings; providing emergency temporary housing such as rented hotel rooms; and other activities the department determined were necessary for life safety during these periods.

HB2119

HB2119 – 2022 Transportation Package.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma (Co-Sponsors Wylie & Riccelli – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 17th. Amended and passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules February 24th.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5974 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The Washington State Wire has a summary of the anticipated budget allocations plus a little political commentary.

Summary –

Amendments in House Transportation –
Amended to synchronize with the current Senate version by declaring the State’s intention to fully fund the ferry vessel and terminal electrification program in accordance with the 2040 Long Range Plan  (but not the need to replace vessels on a biennial basis); by creating a Department of Transportation program focused on safety improvements to prevent lane departures in dangerous areas; by delaying the imposition of the tax on imported fuel for five months, reducing expected revenues by $51.2 million; and by depositing revenues from the tax on exported fuel into the Move Ahead WA account, rather than the motor vehicle fund. Other amendments would exempt biofuels exported to other states from the fuel tax; drop the provision allowing cities and towns to impose an additional tax of up to 2% on natural gas, steam energy, or telephone businesses with a vote of the people; and make other minor changes.

Original bill –
The bill would specify that transportation appropriations from the carbon emissions reduction account which is funded by revenue from the cap and invest program can only by used for active transportation, transit programs and projects, alternative fuel and electrification, ferries, and rail. It would declare the Legislature’s intention to use this money for the activities identified in the LEAP Transportation Document. 24% of that money would be dedicated to active transportation and 56% to transit. The bill would expand the cap and invest program’s requirement for environmental justice assessments, for reporting to the Environmental Justice Council, and for directing specified percentages of funding to vulnerable populations to include these investments.

It replaces the section of the Clean Fuels Act about Commerce’s creation of implementation rules with a new section, which simply deletes the subsection of the original act that the Governor vetoed.

The bill would apply the fuel tax to direct deliveries and bulk transfers to any destination with the United States, including tribal lands, but then it would provide credits against that, resulting in a tax of 6¢ a gallon, and no tax if the state to which the fuel went imposed a higher tax on it than Washington’s. (It would extend the current provisions that allow claiming a credit against the tax for fuel used in particular activities like urban transit to those uses of fuel exported to other parts of the country.) It would raise the tax on aircraft fuel sold, delivered or used in the state from 11¢/gallon to 18¢/gallon.

The bill would create a Move Ahead Washington account and a Move Ahead Washington flexible account which could only be spent on projects, programs, or activities assigned to those accounts in an omnibus transportation appropriations act. The bill would raise the basic license plate fee from $10 to $50, raise the motorcycle fee from $4 to $20, raise the dealer permit fee from $15 to $40, and raise license replacement fees; most of that additional revenue, the 25¢ license plate technology fee, and the 50¢ license service fee would be directed to the Move Ahead Washington account. It would raise the enhanced license fee from $32 to $56; add $2 to the fee for abstracts of driving records (and $4 after July 1st 2029); raise the fee for replacing driving identification to change or correct material information from $10 to $20; and deposit the additional revenue in the Move Ahead Washington flexible account. It would raise the documentary service fee that dealers can charge to cover their administrative costs in concluding sales and leases, which include licensing and registration fees and other agency fees, from $150 to $200.

The bill would direct $31 million a year from the general fund to the Move Ahead Washington flexible account from 2026 through 2038. (The bill says this represents the estimated state sales and use tax generated from the new transportation projects and activities it would fund.)

It would fund the sales and use tax reductions for the sale or lease of plug-in and fuel cell vehicles from the general fund rather than the electric vehicle account. It would fund the credits against the B&O tax and the public utility tax for purchases of alternative fuel vehicles over 14,000 pounds, for alternative fuel infrastructure, and for employers’ investments in financial commute trip reduction incentives from the general fund rather than the multimodal transportation account. It would fund the exemptions from the sales and use taxes for the sales of batteries and fuel cells for vehicles, and for work on them, from the general fund, and not the multimodal account.

The bill would raise the maximum amount of the excise tax voters in border area jurisdictions could decide to impose on the retail sale of fuel for the purpose of street maintenance and construction from 1¢/gallon to 2¢/gallon, adjusted for inflation going forward. It would allow cities and towns to impose an additional tax of up to 2% on natural gas, steam energy, or telephone businesses. (This would not require a vote of the people as I read the bill). The revenue would have to be used for improvements in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, the city, or the county, but might include public transportation and transportation demand management projects. It would allow transportation benefit districts to increase an existing sales or use tax for special transportation needs from 2/10 of one percent to up a maximum of 3/10 of one percent. It would allow the governing board of a district that included all the territory of the jurisdiction establishing it to impose a new local sales and use tax of up to 1/10 of one percent, and to vote to extend it for up to ten years.

The bill would make having all new vehicles sold, purchased, or registered in Washington be electric beginning with the 2030 models a target for the State, and would require the Department of Commerce to create “a scoping plan” for achieving that.

It would have Commerce establish a competitive bus and bus facilities grant program to provide funds to transit authorities for the replacement, expansion, rehabilitation, and purchase of transit rolling stock (including ferries and vans); the construction, modification, or rehabilitation of facilities; and the retrofitting of rolling stock and facilities to adapt to technological change or innovation. It would be required to incorporate environmental justice principles and geographic diversity into the selection process, to exclude fuel type as a factor, to limit any single grantee to a maximum of 35% of the funding in a biennium, and to establish an advisory committee to carry out the requirements for the program, including assisting with establishing the grant criteria.

The bill would establish a Connecting Communities program at Commerce to improve active transportation connectivity in communities by providing safe, continuous routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonvehicle users carrying out daily activities; mitigating for the health, safety, and access impacts of transportation infrastructure that bisects communities and creates obstacles in the local active transportation network; investing in greenways providing protected routes for nonvehicular users; and facilitating the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities to improve the connectivity and safety of that network. The program would propose projects to the Legislature considering
(a) Access to a transit facility, community facility, commercial center, or community-identified assets;
(b) The use of minority and women-owned businesses and community-based organizations in planning, community engagement, design, and construction of projects;
(c) Whether they will serve overburdened communities, vulnerable populations, low income households, and people with disabilities;
(d) Environmental health disparities;
(e) Location on or adjacent to tribal lands or locations providing essential services to tribal members;
(f) Crash experience involving pedestrians and bicyclists; and
(g) Identified need by a community.
Commerce would report to the transportation committees of the Legislature in December of each year for five years on selected projects for funding and on the status of previously funded projects.

The bill would require state transportation projects starting design on or after July 1, 2022, and costing $500,000 or more to identify locations on State rights-of-way that don’t have a complete Americans with Disabilities Act accessible sidewalk or shared-use path, that don’t have a bike lane or adjacent parallel trail or shared-use path, that have such facilities on a state route within a population center with a posted speed over 30 mph and no buffer or physical separation from vehicular traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists, and/or a design that hampers the ability of motorists to see a crossing pedestrian with sufficient time to stop. The Department would be required to consult local jurisdictions about existing and planned active transportation connections along or across those locations; and to identify connections to other existing and planned public transportation services; existing and planned facilities that connect to the location; and the potential use of speed management techniques to minimize crash risks. DOT would be required to lower the speed limit with appropriate roadway design and operations where this approach aligns with local plans or ordinances, particularly in contexts that present a higher possibility of serious crashes. It would have to plan, design, and construct facilities providing context-sensitive solutions needed to integrate the state route into the local network and contributing to connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people accessing public transportation and other modal connections, including ADA accessible sidewalks or shared-use paths, bike facilities, and crossings .

The bill would have DOT establish two statewide school-based bicycle education grant program, one for elementary and middle school and one for older students, to develop bicycling skills and street safety knowledge. It would be encouraged to consult with the Environmental Justice Council and the Office of Equity in the process. It would contract with a nonprofit organization with relevant reach and experience, including a statewide footprint and demonstrable experience deploying bicycling and road safety education curriculum via a train the trainer model in schools, for the elementary program, and with a non-profit meeting the same requirements plus experience developing and managing youth-based programming serving youth of color in an after-school and/or community for the junior high and high school program. The elementary program is to identify partner schools according to a long list of equity criteria; provide them with a fleet of bikes; provide a free bike with equipment for participants, and provide in-school bike and pedestrian safety education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and physical education teacher training. The junior high and high school program is to use the equity-based criteria to identify target populations and partner organizations that work with youth from 14 to 18, including schools, community-based organizations, housing authorities, and parks and recreation departments. It would provide education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and initial instructor/volunteer training, as well as ongoing support to those partners. DOT would report annually to the Legislature’s transportation committees on the programs.

The Department would negotiate with the Oregon Department of Transportation to determine the impacts on ridership, revenue, and policy of eliminating Amtrak Cascades fares for passengers 18 years and younger, and report to the transportation committees on the results and the status of fare policy requests to Amtrak by December 1, 2022. The bill would eliminate ferry fares for these passengers. It would establish a transit support grant program to provide support for operating and capital expenses to transit agencies that maintain or increase their local sales tax authority and have adopted a zero-fare policy for at least passengers 18 and younger. Grants would be prorated according to expenditures for operations; no agency could receive more than 35% of the money; and fuel type could not be a factor in the grant process.

The bill would expand the areas in which speed cameras could be used to include any roadway in a school walk area, public park speed zones, and hospital zones, and would require notification signs for drivers in those zones. It would increase the number of additional cameras that cities with over 195,000 people in a county of over 1.5 million were allowed to install, allowing one for every 10,000 residents in specified areas for cities that have done an equity analysis of livability, accessibility, economics, education, and environmental health, and consider that in their placements. Half of the net revenue from cameras in these new specified zones and the additional cameras authorized for larger cities would go to the State’s Cooper Jones active transportation safety account.

The bill would have the Transportation Commission reevaluate options to improve performance on the Interstate 405 and State Route 167 corridors at least every two years, since it has not met the goal of keeping average vehicle speeds in the express toll lanes above 45 mph at least 90% of the time during peak hours. It would remove the block on spending revenue from various accounts until a compliance path for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed businesses to achieve their share of the state’s emissions reduction through 2050 was in place. (HB1682 is intended to provide that.)

It would create a formal interagency council for coordinating the state’s transportation electrification efforts to ensure it’s leveraging state and federal resources to the best extent possible and to ensure zero emissions incentives, infrastructure, and opportunities are available and accessible to all. This would be led by the Departments of Commerce and Transportation with participation from Ecology; Enterprise Services; the State Efficiency and Environmental Performance Office; Agriculture; Health; the UTC; a representative from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction knowledgeable about student transportation; and other agencies with key roles in electrifying the sector. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees. It would develop a statewide transportation electrification strategy to ensure market and infrastructure readiness for all new vehicle sales; identify EV infrastructure grant related funding opportunities, and coordinate grant funding criteria across agency programs to most efficiently distribute state and federal electric vehicle-related funding in a manner that is most beneficial to the state, and advances best practices. It would recommend additional criteria that could be useful in advancing transportation electrification. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees.

SB5974

SB5974 – 2022 Transportation Package.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Southwest Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsor Saldaña – D)
Current status – Sent to conference  committee; its report was adopted by both houses March 10. Relative to the amended House striker, the final version restores the specification that $500 million in preservation and maintenance funding is for stormwater projects with an emphasis on green infrastructure. It no longer specifies an intent to fund projects according to the LEAP document.  It drops the 6¢/gallon tax on fuel exported to other states, and transfers $57 million a year to the Move Ahead WA flexible fund from the general fund; allows using the Public Works Assistance account for Move Ahead WA projects; and transfers $57 million a year from that account to Move Ahead WA. It restores the inflation adjustment to the border fuel tax, and drops the authorization for voters to approve an increase of up to 2% in their local gas utility tax, and the tax sticker on fuel pumps. It allows extending the local transit benefit tax with a vote more than once. It shifts creating the rail crossing grant program to the Department of Transportation, and limits regional mobility grant awards to transit authorities with free fares for riders 18 and under. It requires Transportation to estimate and report on the cap and invest program credits to be generated as a result of Move Ahead WA projects, and to make recommendations on the most effective ways to invest those to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize transportation. It specifies that completing Connecting Washington projects is a legislative priority, and recognizes that “the application of practical design” during project design may produce cost saving, but it specifies various requirements for legislative oversight of proposed changes. It requires reporting on estimated savings as a result of practical design, and transfers those and some other possible project savings to the transportation future funding program to be split evenly between accelerating current Connecting Washington projects and funding new ones.
Next step would be – To the Governor
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2119 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed
Referred to Transportation February 17th; then passed to Rules without a hearing on February 25th. The bill was amended on the floor by Representative Fey to eliminate the 6% tax on fuel exported to other states, to partially replace the expected revenue by transferring $100 million a year for the next 15 years from the Public Works Assistance Account to the Move Ahead WA program, resulting in a estimated net reduction of roughly $500 million in funding for the program over that period, and to drop the specification that $500 million of the preservation and maintenance funding is for enhancing stormwater runoff treatment with an emphasis on green infrastructure retrofits. His striker also defines biofuels in the Fuel Tax Act as those with life cycle emissions at least 40% below those of the petroleum products they’re replacing; drops the authorization for local increases of up to 2% on utility taxes to fund transportation; drops the required railway crossing grant program; adds some environmental justice provisions; drops the increased license plate fee from $50 to $40 for used cars; and has the Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council develop of a public and private outreach plan and create an industry electric vehicle advisory committee. Other amendments have the Department of Agriculture produce and distribute a sticker required on motor fuel pumps with information on Federal and State tax rate, and remove the inflation adjustment from the provision authorizing jurisdictions within ten miles of the border to raise the border fuel tax from 1¢/gallon to 2¢.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Transportation Committee Thursday February 10th at 10:00 AM; continued February 11th at 8:00 AM. Referred to Rules. Amended by the prime sponsor to adjust the bill in a number of small ways; and by others to declare the State’s intention to fully fund the ferry vessel and terminal electrification program in accordance with the 2040 Long Range Plan and the need to replace vessels on a biennial basis; and to delay the imposition of the tax on imported fuel for five months, reducing expected revenues by $51.2 million. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to eliminate telephone businesses from the optional additional 2% tax; to specify that $500 million of the preservation and maintenance funding under LEAP 2 is to go to enhance stormwater runoff treatment with an emphasis on green infrastructure retrofits; to create a grant program for projects that eliminate at grade highway-rail crossings; to create a Department of Transportation program focused on safety improvements to prevent lane departures in dangerous areas; and to make a couple of other minor changes. Passed by the Senate February 15th.

Comments –
The Washington State Wire has a summary of the anticipated budget allocations plus a little political commentary.

Summary –
The bill would specify that transportation appropriations from the carbon emissions reduction account which is funded by revenue from the cap and invest program can only by used for active transportation, transit programs and projects, alternative fuel and electrification, ferries, and rail. It would declare the Legislature’s intention to use this money for the activities identified in the LEAP Transportation Document. 24% of that money would be dedicated to active transportation and 56% to transit. The bill would expand the cap and invest program’s requirement for environmental justice assessments, for reporting to the Environmental Justice Council, and for directing specified percentages of funding to vulnerable populations to include these investments.

It replaces the section of  the Clean Fuels Act about Commerce’s creation of implementation rules with a new section, which simply deletes the subsection of the original act that the Governor vetoed.

The bill would apply the fuel tax to direct deliveries and bulk transfers to any destination with the United States, including tribal lands, but then it would provide credits against that, resulting in a tax of 6¢ a gallon, and no tax if the state to which the fuel went imposed a higher tax on it than Washington’s. (It would extend the current provisions that allow claiming a credit against the tax for fuel used in particular activities like urban transit to those uses of fuel exported to other parts of the country.) It would raise the tax on aircraft fuel sold, delivered or used in the state from 11¢/gallon to 18¢/gallon.

The bill would create a Move Ahead Washington account and a Move Ahead Washington flexible account which could only be spent on projects, programs, or activities assigned to those accounts in an omnibus transportation appropriations act. The bill would raise the basic license plate fee from $10 to $50, raise the motorcycle fee from $4 to $20, raise the dealer permit fee from $15 to $40, and raise license replacement fees; most of that additional revenue, the 25¢ license plate technology fee, and the 50¢ license service fee would be directed to the Move Ahead Washington account. It would raise the enhanced license fee from $32 to $56; add $2 to the fee for abstracts of driving records (and $4 after July 1st 2029); raise the fee for replacing driving identification to change or correct material information from $10 to $20; and deposit the additional revenue in the Move Ahead Washington flexible account. It would raise the documentary service fee that dealers can charge to cover their administrative costs in concluding sales and leases, which include licensing and registration fees and other agency fees, from $150 to $200.

The bill would direct $31 million a year from the general fund to the Move Ahead Washington flexible account from 2026 through 2038. (The bill says this represents the estimated state sales and use tax generated from the new transportation projects and activities it would fund.)

It would fund the sales and use tax reductions for the sale or lease of plug-in and fuel cell vehicles from the general fund rather than the electric vehicle account. It would fund the credits against the B&O tax and the public utility tax for purchases of alternative fuel vehicles over 14,000 pounds, for alternative fuel infrastructure, and for employers’ investments in financial commute trip reduction incentives from the general fund rather than the multimodal transportation account. It would fund the exemptions from the sales and use taxes for the sales of batteries and fuel cells for vehicles, and for work on them, from the general fund, and not the multimodal account.

The bill would raise the maximum amount of the excise tax voters in border area jurisdictions could decide to impose on the retail sale of fuel for the purpose of street maintenance and construction from 1¢/gallon to 2¢/gallon, adjusted for inflation going forward. It would allow cities and towns to impose an additional tax of up to 2% on natural gas, steam energy, or telephone businesses. (This would not require a vote of the people as I read the bill). The revenue would have to be used for improvements in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, the city, or the county, but might include public transportation and transportation demand management projects. It would allow transportation benefit districts to increase an existing sales or use tax for special transportation needs from 2/10 of one percent to up a maximum of 3/10 of one percent. It would allow the governing board of a district that included all the territory of the jurisdiction establishing it to impose a new local sales and use tax of up to 1/10 of one percent, and to vote to extend it for up to ten years.

The bill would make having all new vehicles sold, purchased, or registered in Washington be electric beginning with the 2030 models a target for the State, and would require the Department of Commerce to create “a scoping plan” for achieving that.

It would have Commerce establish a competitive bus and bus facilities grant program to provide funds to transit authorities for the replacement, expansion, rehabilitation, and purchase of transit rolling stock (including ferries and vans); the construction, modification, or rehabilitation of facilities; and the retrofitting of rolling stock and facilities to adapt to technological change or innovation. It would be required to incorporate environmental justice principles and geographic diversity into the selection process, to exclude fuel type as a factor, to limit any single grantee to a maximum of 35% of the funding in a biennium, and to establish an advisory committee to carry out the requirements for the program, including assisting with establishing the grant criteria.

The bill would establish a Connecting Communities program at Commerce to improve active transportation connectivity in communities by providing safe, continuous routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonvehicle users carrying out daily activities; mitigating for the health, safety, and access impacts of transportation infrastructure that bisects communities and creates obstacles in the local active transportation network; investing in greenways providing protected routes for nonvehicular users; and facilitating the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities to improve the connectivity and safety of that network. The program would propose projects to the Legislature considering
(a) Access to a transit facility, community facility, commercial center, or community-identified assets;
(b) The use of minority and women-owned businesses and community-based organizations in planning, community engagement, design, and construction of projects;
(c) Whether they will serve overburdened communities, vulnerable populations, low income households, and people with disabilities;
(d) Environmental health disparities;
(e) Location on or adjacent to tribal lands or locations providing essential services to tribal members;
(f) Crash experience involving pedestrians and bicyclists; and
(g) Identified need by a community.
Commerce would report to the transportation committees of the Legislature in December of each year for five years on selected projects for funding and on the status of previously funded projects.

The bill would require state transportation projects starting design on or after July 1, 2022, and costing $500,000 or more to identify locations on State rights-of-way that don’t have a complete Americans with Disabilities Act accessible sidewalk or shared-use path, that don’t have a bike lane or adjacent parallel trail or shared-use path, that have such facilities on a state route within a population center with a posted speed over 30 mph and no buffer or physical separation from vehicular traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists, and/or a design that hampers the ability of motorists to see a crossing pedestrian with sufficient time to stop. The Department would be required to consult local jurisdictions about existing and planned active transportation connections along or across those locations; and to identify connections to other existing and planned public transportation services; existing and planned facilities that connect to the location; and the potential use of speed management techniques to minimize crash risks. DOT would be required to lower the speed limit with appropriate roadway design and operations where this approach aligns with local plans or ordinances, particularly in contexts that present a higher possibility of serious crashes. It would have to plan, design, and construct facilities providing context-sensitive solutions needed to integrate the state route into the local network and contributing to connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people accessing public transportation and other modal connections, including ADA accessible sidewalks or shared-use paths, bike facilities, and crossings .

The bill would have DOT establish two statewide school-based bicycle education grant program, one for elementary and middle school and one for older students, to develop bicycling skills and street safety knowledge. It would be encouraged to consult with the Environmental Justice Council and the Office of Equity in the process. It would  contract with a nonprofit organization with relevant reach and experience, including a statewide footprint and demonstrable experience deploying bicycling and road safety education curriculum via a train the trainer model in schools, for the elementary program, and with a non-profit meeting the same requirements plus experience developing and managing youth-based programming serving youth of color in an after-school and/or community for the junior high and high school program. The elementary program is to identify partner schools according to a long list of equity criteria; provide them with a fleet of bikes; provide a free bike with equipment for participants, and provide in-school bike and pedestrian safety education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and physical education teacher training. The junior high and high school program is to use the equity-based criteria to identify target populations and partner organizations that work with youth from 14 to 18, including schools, community-based organizations, housing authorities, and parks and recreation departments.  It would provide education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and initial instructor/volunteer training, as well as ongoing support to those partners. DOT would report annually to the Legislature’s transportation committees on the programs.

The Department would negotiate with the Oregon Department of Transportation to determine the impacts on ridership, revenue, and policy of eliminating Amtrak Cascades fares for passengers 18 years and younger, and report to the transportation committees on the results and the status of fare policy requests to Amtrak by December 1, 2022. The bill would eliminate ferry fares for these passengers. It would establish a transit support grant program to provide support for operating and capital expenses to transit agencies that maintain or increase their local sales tax authority and have adopted a zero-fare policy for at least passengers 18 and younger. Grants would be prorated according to expenditures for operations; no agency could receive more than 35% of the money; and fuel type could not be a factor in the grant process.

The bill would expand the areas in which speed cameras could be used to include any roadway in a school walk area, public park speed zones, and hospital zones, and would require notification signs for drivers in those zones. It would increase the number of additional cameras that cities with over 195,000 people in a county of over 1.5 million were allowed to install, allowing one for every 10,000 residents in specified areas for cities that have done an equity analysis of livability, accessibility, economics, education, and environmental health, and consider that in their placements. Half of the net revenue from cameras in these new specified zones and the additional cameras authorized for larger cities would go to the State’s Cooper Jones active transportation safety account.

The bill would have the Transportation Commission reevaluate options to improve performance on the Interstate 405 and State Route 167 corridors at least every two years, since it has not met the goal of keeping average vehicle speeds in the express toll lanes above 45 mph at least 90% of the time during peak hours. It would remove the block on spending revenue from various accounts until a compliance path for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed businesses to achieve their share of the state’s emissions reduction through 2050 was in place. (HB1682 is intended to provide that.)

It would create a formal interagency council for coordinating the state’s transportation electrification efforts to ensure it’s leveraging state and federal resources to the best extent possible and to ensure zero emissions incentives, infrastructure, and opportunities are available and accessible to all. This would be led by the Departments of Commerce and Transportation with participation from Ecology; Enterprise Services; the State Efficiency and Environmental Performance Office; Agriculture; Health; the UTC; a representative from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction knowledgeable about student transportation; and other agencies with key roles in electrifying the sector. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees. It would develop a statewide transportation electrification strategy to ensure market and infrastructure readiness for all new vehicle sales; identify EV infrastructure grant related funding opportunities, and coordinate grant funding criteria across agency programs to most efficiently distribute state and federal electric vehicle-related funding in a manner that is most beneficial to the state, and advances best practices. It would recommend additional criteria that could be useful in advancing transportation electrification. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees.

SB5967

SB5967 – Imposing a state climate resiliency and mitigation surcharge on large financial institutions financing the global fossil fuel industry.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Rolfes -D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
From 2023 through 2049, the bill would impose a climate resiliency and mitigation surcharge on financial institutions that are members of a consolidated financial group with an annual net income of at least $1 billion, and that are bankers of fossil fuel industries. If fossil fuel financing minus financing for renewable energy were 4% or more of the groups’ total financing for all industries, the rate would be 0.5%; if it were from 2.5% to 4% of total financing the rate would be 0.375%; and if it were less than 2.5% the rate would be 0.25%. However, institutions with a rate of 0.375% would be able to reduce their current 1.2% B&O surcharge to 1.075%, so they’d actually pay an additional 0.25%, and institutions with a rate of 0.25% would be able to reduce their current surcharge to 0.95%, so they’d actually break even. The rate would be adjusted each July, on the basis of published reporting by the Department of Commerce developed from “league tables published by a well-established financial data analytics and services firm that provides financial, economic, and government information covering industry sectors”. The revenue would go into the climate resiliency account along with some of the revenue from the cap and invest bill and could be spent in a variety of ways.

SB5962

SB5962 – Planning for and implementing the conservation or restoration of 30% of Washington’s lands and waters by 2030.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Rolfes, Lovelett- Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources, and Parks.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Director of the Recreation and Conservation Office to adopt a plan to conserve or restore 30% of Washington’s lands and waters by 2030, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Lands, and the directors of the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Commerce, Ecology, and Agriculture. The plan would have a collaborative and inclusive approach to conservation; benefit everyone in the state; support locally led and designed efforts; honor tribal sovereignty and support the priorities of tribal nations; pursue conservation and restoration, use science as a guide; and build on existing tools and strategies, emphasizing flexibility and adaptive approaches. It would be adopted by December 31, 2023, and the Director would publish periodic progress reports on its implementation and progress toward achieving the 30 by 30 goal.

The bill says that “conservation” should be considered to include “not only preservation, but also the restoration as well as the use of lands and waters that are consistent with providing the critical resources that sustain all life on earth”. It also says that lands and waters designated for special protections like parks, marine sanctuaries and “other public lands” should be considered as “conserved” by the plan, as well as additional lands and waters in public or private management that protect important ecosystem functions.

The bill would create a 30 by 30 Commission, chaired by the Director of the Office, to assist in the development of the plan. It would include representatives of the other departments listed above, and the Director would appoint other members, including land conservation and preservation advocates; additional rural landowners; advocates for outdoor recreation and parks, including urban park accessibility; and representatives from disproportionately impacted communities identified by the environmental health disparities map; from forestry, farming, and ranching; and from cities, counties, and special purpose districts. The Director would also invite representatives of Federal agencies managing lands in the state and representatives of tribes to serve on the Commission. The Director and the Commission would have to include a robust public engagement program in the development of the plan, providing equitable community engagement among all segments of the state.

As a foundation for the plan, the director would be required to adopt guidance for including lands and waters considered to currently be in conservation status, and to prepare an assessment of current progress toward meeting the policy, informed by data and maps provided by relevant governments.

The bill would require state agencies to act consistently with this policy goal, and be
guided by the plan in achieving it. (The bill would encourage cities, counties, and special purpose districts to act consistent with it.)

HB2100

HB2100 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Bronoske -D, Eslick – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Transportation February 1st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5828 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
This bill is identical to the prime sponsor’s HB2070, except that the title no longer says it’s “Relating to implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group.”

Summary –
The bill would no longer require including moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs in their annual reports to the Department of Licensing. It also drops a clause implying the Department can require information about collisions in addition to what the law currently specifies. It requires submitting a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department including information on how to interact with the vehicle being tested in emergency and traffic enforcement situations, and requires submitting the expected period of time during which testing will occur to the Department rather than to various local and state law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways on which testing will occur.

SB5961

SB5961 – Requires state agencies and local governments to use biochar products in projects when it’s feasible, with various exceptions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sefzik (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsor Warnick – R)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations February 21st; passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to limit the requirements to public works projects; specify that the biomass must come from various waste materials; and to not require using it if any of the criteria for exceptions apply rather than all of them. Passed by the House.

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

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

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

SB5849

SB5849 – Extends the reduced B&O tax rate for manufacturers of solar systems and components for five years; creates 10 year property tax exemption for new industrial or manufacturing facilities in designated areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Referred to House Finance; had a hearing March 7th, and passed out of committee March 8th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 17th, and passed out of committee February 24th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to remove the provisions for tax exemptions in designated distressed areas. Passed by the Senate March 4th.

Summary –
Currently the law reduces the B&O tax rate for manufacturing solar energy systems or solar grade silicon to 0.275%. (The normal B&O tax rate for manufacturing is 0.484%.) The bill would extend the expiration date of this exemption from July 1st 2027 to July 1st 2032.

(It would also extend a 10 year sales and use tax exemption for new Industrial or manufacturing facilities of any and all kinds in designated areas.)

SB5033

SB5033 – Limiting the property tax exemption for improvements to single-family dwellings to the construction of accessory dwelling units.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsors Saldaña, Das, Nguyen, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in Ways and Means Thursday January 27th at 4:00 PM.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
In the House 2022 –
Reintroduced in Ways and Means January 10th.

Current substitute –
The law currently provides a three year property tax exemption for any physical improvement to single-family dwellings on real property, including constructing an attached or detached ADU, “to the extent that the improvement represents 30% or less of the value of the original structure”. [I think that probably means that up to 30% of the cost is exempt, rather than that you can’t get the exemption if the improvement costs more than 30% of the value of the original structure.] The bill would limit the exemption to the construction of ADUs.

In the House 2021 –
Referred to Housing & Local Government Jan 13th; had a hearing there on the 21st; replaced by a substitute and referred to Ways and Means. Died there.

SB5896

SB5896 – Shifts a report by the Department of Enterprise Services on the use of electricity to recharge vehicles at State Offices from an option to a requirement.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sefzik (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Lovelett, Carlyle, Liias, Lovick, Saldaña, Frockt, Nobles, Randall, Salomon, Wellman – Ds; Fortunato, Honeyford, Schoesler, Warnick, Lynda Wilson, and Jeff Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 26th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently, the Department of Enterprise Services is authorized to report to the Governor and the appropriate committees of the Legislature on the the number of plug-in electric vehicles charging at State offices, and the amount of state-purchased electricity consumed by them. The bill would change this from a report made when the Director deemed it necessary, if the cost were significant, to an annual requirement.

SB5908

SB5908 – Creating a Clean Car Authority to distribute, coordinate and oversee electric vehicle grants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle, Hunt, Nguyen, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in State Government and Elections January 28th; passed out of committee February 2nd. Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a new State agency, the Clean Car Authority, to distribute electric vehicle grant funding awarded to Washington from the Federal Infrastructure bill, provide a vision for the state about the most beneficial and efficient distribution of electric vehicle grants, as well as coordinating and overseeing their administration by state agencies and local governments. (It would coordinate with the Office of Climate Commitment Accountability, if that were created by SB5842. It would be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Justice Act.

Its Director would be appointed by the Governor the State’s with the consent of the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The Director would have complete charge and supervisory powers over the authority, and could create the Authority’s administrative structures and employ any necessary personnel.  (They would be covered by civil service provisions, except for the Director and the Vice Director, if one were created.) The director would be required to appoint an industry advisory committee including representation from the electric vehicle industry, interested stakeholders, and state and local governments administering electric vehicle grants.

SB5903

SB5903 – Requiring multimodal transportation options at drive-up services.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Billig (D; 3rd District; Spokane) (Co-Sponsors Rivers – R; Das, Dhingra, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer, Liias, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Randall, Saldaña, Trudeau, and Wellman – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation January 31st. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require any public or private drive-up service open to motor vehicles to allow bicyclists, pedestrians, and other nonmotor vehicle modes of transportation to access the service. (If mixing multimodal traffic and motor vehicles in the same lane would create a safety hazard, an alternative lane or lanes would have to be made available for it.)

HB2066

HB2066 – Requires local governments to exempt certain infill development from the State Environmental Policy Act’s requirements. (That’s an option for them now.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce and Eastern Thurston Counties) (Co-Sponsors Dufault -D; Klicker, Gilday, Sutherland, Eslick, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment and Energy February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would leave the categorical exemption as an option rather than requiring it, and would require a jurisdiction adopting it to provide  a means for collaboration and coordination with any tribe whose lands, usual and accustomed areas, or protected areas would be affected by the infill development. It would limit the current provision which allows the exemption if the applicable comprehensive plan has ever undergone environment review under SEPA by requiring that to have been done within the previous seven years. Cities and counties engaged in a review and evaluation of their urban densities would be required to consider how to maximize the use of the infill development exemption as part of identifying reasonable measures to align their actual development with their targets.

Original bill –
Currently, a local government can choose to categorically exempt certain infill development from SEMA requirements, if it’s for an area where current density and intensity of use is equal to or lower than what’s called for in the comprehensive plan and the development is residential mixed-use, or commercial up to 65,000 sq. ft., excluding retail. (It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and can’t clearly exceed the density or intensity of use that calls for.) The government also has to consider the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determine that they’re adequately addressed by the development regulations or other applicable requirements, rules or  laws; and the comprehensive plan has to have completed an environmental impact statement under SEPA’s requirements before it was adopted or the local government has to have prepared an environmental impact statement considering the proposed use or density and intensity of use in the area.

The bill would require these exemptions unless the local government’s legislative body  considers the probable adverse impacts and adopts a finding that they’re not adequately addressed by the regulations or other requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan, planned action ordinance, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws. In that case, it can require the development  to comply with SEPA.

HB2049

HB2049 – Requiring local governments to accept building applications from certain professionals as complete; excluding some expansion and remodeling projects from local review; and streamlining processes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce and Eastern Thurston Counties) (Co-Sponsors Bateman, Shewmake, Walen, Wicks, Dufault, Macri, Peterson, and Simmons -Ds; Boehnke, Gilday, Hoff, Robertson, Rude, Sutherland, Eslick, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Referred to Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In spite of the title, there’s nothing in the bill saying the changes only apply to affordable housing.

Summary –
The bill would require local governments to accept any building permit application with plans, computations, or specifications prepared by a professional engineer or architect with at least $1 million in liability insurance as complete, and prohibit them from imposing “substantial modifications or conditions on submittals prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed architect, landscape architect, soils engineer, civil engineer, structural engineer, or combination thereof.” The requirement would apply during project review, and would apply to approving construction drawings as well.

Unless a clear violation of substantive and procedural requirements was demonstrated by a local government, the bill would allow no more than three reviews or requests for additional information during project review before a project would be automatically deemed approved. It would shift the current reporting requirements to focus on permitting times for subdivisions and for housing from single-family residences through fourplexes, and it would have local governments report to the Department of Commerce, which would post it, rather than posting the information on their own websites. It would have Commerce freeze funding for public works and the implementing the Growth Management Act if a city missed the deadline for its annual report.

It would require local governments planning under the Growth Management Act to do a technical review of an application for conformity with the requirements by all departments, divisions, and sections of the local government with jurisdiction over the project before returning a permit to an applicant for corrections and changes.

It would prohibit local governments from requiring local project review for the expansion or remodeling of existing buildings, structures, or development if:
(i) Alterations would not modify the existing site layout for single-family dwellings or duplexes, except those located in critical areas, or when two or more duplexes would be built on the same lot;
(ii) The project involves no exterior work adding to the footprint;
(iii) The door or window adjustments or replacements are allowed with no site plan needed; and
(iv) Total additions and alterations and detached accessory structures are less than 2,000 square feet in area without new vehicular access.

The bill would also no longer allow local governments to exclude landmark designations, street vacations, or other approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities, or other administrative or quasi-judicial project permits that they determined presented special circumstances from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.090. [I think that’s simply because that section is not in the code any more, but I don’t know what happened to it.]

SB5910

SB5910 – Accelerating the availability and use of renewable and electrolytic hydrogen.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Hawkins -R; Billig, Conway, Hunt, Mullet, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Passed by the House March 7th. Senate concurred in House amendments March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 5th; passed out of committee on the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 12th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy on February 22nd. Replaced by a striker that drops the authorizations for municipal utilities and PUDs to produce, use, sell, and distribute some kinds of hydrogen; drops the provision making the Facilities Site Review process available to additional facilities; requires specific commitments from participants in an application for Federal hydrogen hub funding; and makes some other changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it.

Replaced by a striker in Appropriations; amended to make it null and void if funding for it isn’t appropriated, and passed out of committee February 28th. The new striker restores the authorizations for municipal utilities and PUDs to produce, use, sell, and distribute some kinds of hydrogen; it restores the tax breaks for producing electrolytic hydrogen and for the sale of electricity to produce it and renewable hydrogen that the Senate substitute dropped.  It allows Commerce to provide funding (at an appropriated amount, not the earlier version’s $500K) to support applying for Federal hydrogen hub funding. It requires the Department of Revenue to produce guidance for county assessors to refer to in appraising solar and wind projects of at least one megawatt. Referred to Rules; amended on the floor to require utilities to provide certain information to the UTC before replacing natural gas with renewable or electrolytic hydrogen, and to provide some general guidelines for what the UTC is to consider in setting rates for it; passed by the House March 7th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute no longer expands the tax breaks for the production of renewable hydrogen to include electrolytic hydrogen, and no longer provides the tax breaks on the sale of electricity to produce either of them. It moves the Office of Renewable Fuels under the Director of Commerce, removes the $500,000 appropriation to support applying for Federal clean hydrogen hub funding, and it would add facilities for storing any sort of electricity, not just electricity from renewable sources,  to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process.

Original bill –
The bill would create a Statewide Office of Renewable Fuels, with a Director appointed by the Governor. It would work with other state agencies to:
(a) Accelerate comprehensive market development with assistance along the entire life cycle of renewable fuel projects;
(b) Support research into, development, and deployment of renewable fuel production and distribution.
(c) Drive job creation and support the transition to clean energy;
(d) Enhance resiliency by using renewable fuels to support climate change mitigation and adaption; and
(e) Partner with overburdened communities to ensure they benefit from renewable fuels efforts equitably.

It would also collaborate with local government, state and Federal agencies, private entities, public four-year institutions of higher education, and others on research, development, and deployment efforts in the production, distribution, and use of renewable fuels including electrolytic hydrogen. It would review existing renewable fuels initiatives, policies, and investments; consider opportunities for coordinating public, private, state, and federal funds to develop and deploy renewable fuels; and assess opportunities for and barriers to their deployment in hard to decarbonize sectors of the economy. The Office could request recommendations from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals on fire and safety standards adopted by authorities.

By July 1, 2024, it would be required to develop a plan and recommendations for the Legislature and Governor on renewable fuels policy and funding including project permitting, state procurement, and pilot projects. It could apply for Federal funds and grants, would collaborate with a range of other agencies, and might work with them on compiling data about the State’s use of renewable fuels.

The bill would appropriate $500,000 for the next biennium to have the Department of Commerce provide funding to one or more local government bodies or a public-private partnership to prepare an application to secure federal funding to locate one of the four planned regional clean hydrogen hub in Washington. The Infrastructure Bill provides $8 million over four years to develop these; they’d work toward achieving a hydrogen fuel carbon intensity goal; would demonstrate the production, processing, delivery, storage, and end use of hydrogen; and would be the basis for developing a national network to facilitate a clean hydrogen economy. (The bill lists some reasons to think Washington would be a good location.) The Director would seek strong and timely applications with a broad range of participants for developing and implementing the hub’s infrastructure, and that had commitments from manufacturing industries, transportation, utilities, and other sectors to incorporate hydrogen fuels into their transition to cleaner energy.

The bill would have the UTC report to appropriate Legislative committees by December 1, 2024 about whether it should regulate rates and services for the production and distribution of hydrogen fuels; and whether the electric utilities it regulates should be required to analyze the costs and benefits of adopting special tariffs for power used in producing electrolytic hydrogen. The report would also address the adoption of safety standards for distributing and dispensing hydrogen fuel; recommended standards for blending it into natural gas distribution infrastructure; and the role it may serve as the state reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

It would make changes in the definitions of the “alternative energy resources” to add projects for producing renewable natural gas, for renewable and electrolytic hydrogen, and for energy storage to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process. (HB1812 makes some of the same changes, but adds clean energy manufacturing, expands the pre-applicant process to more than transmission facilities, and includes biofuels used for things besides transportation.)
The bill would authorize PUDs to produce, distribute and sell electrolytic hydrogen as well as renewable hydrogen, and authorize municipal utilities to operate with renewable and electrolytic hydrogen as well as natural gas. It would expand the current sales and use tax exemptions for renewable hydrogen (as “electric vehicle infrastructure”), and the exemption from the leasehold excise tax collected instead of property tax form leased public lands  to include electrolytic hydrogen production facilities, in addition to ones for renewable hydrogen.
It would provide a 25 year rebate of the sales tax on electricity used in producing electrolytic hydrogen or renewable hydrogen,  or in compressing, liquifying, or dispensing them, by exempting those sales from the tax if the utility reduced the price for producers by the same amount.

SB5732

SB5732 – Requiring new buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. to include green, agrivoltaic, or bio-solar roofs, or to make a cash-in-lieu payment for local climate resiliency programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Sheldon, Randall, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings declare that green roofs provide greater weatherization and insulation for  a building, can prolong the service life of HVAC systems through decreased use, can triple the life of the roof,  can reduce stormwater runoff, can help clean the air and reduce urban heat island effects, can generate employment, can provide recreational spaces, and can be effectively combined with solar panels. (The Living Roofs website has some photos of these.)

It doesn’t take the differences in their potential performance in the different climates in the Eastern and Western half of the state into consideration in any way.

Summary –

After January 1, 2025, the bill would require the design of any new building where the sum of multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial area was over 50,000 square feet, excluding the parking garage area, to have at least 70% of the roof be a green roof. Half of that area could be solar and half could be an intensive green roof with at least six inches of soil; all of it could be an extensive green roof with between three and six inches of soil if half the area also had solar panels; a quarter of the dedicated area could have solar and three-quarters of it could have an extensive green roof; or a quarter of it could have solar panels, half of it could be an extensive green roof, and a quarter of it could be an intensive green roof producing food.

They would have to be designed and constructed by qualified teams of contractors including engineers, landscape architects, architects, and at least one green roof professional. They’d have to have a five-year maintenance plan with a minimum of two visits a year, and be designed to facilitate inspection by local authorities to ensure ongoing energy and environmental performance.They’d have to  “be part of performance rating systems” including the LEED program, Sustainable Sites, and the Living Architecture Performance Tool. The Building Code Council would have to adopt rules for the requirements by December 31, 2024.

Building owners could apply for full or partial exemptions from the requirements during permitting and make a cash-in-lieu payment of $50/sq. ft. instead. (The bill estimates that as the average cost of constructing a green roof.) [As I read the bill, these exemptions have to be granted if they’re requested; jurisdictions have to spend any payments they receive on local climate resiliency programs.]

The bill would have the Washington State Institute for Public Policy do a report to the Legislature on the cost of constructing a green roof by January 1, 2025; and recommend any  changes to the cost estimates in the Act to ensure that the costs of the various alternative assemblies for complying are roughly equivalent and the cash-in-lieu payments are based on the actual average cost of constructing a green roof.

If funds were appropriated for it, the Institute would also do a cost-benefit analysis of the use of these systems on buildings between 10,000 to 50,000 square feet, in consultation with Ecology, Commerce, and an organization that has experience conducting them. The analysis would include agrivoltaic installation and maintenance costs; and the effects of these various systems on stormwater runoff and water treatment facilities in communities over 50,000; on public health and air quality; on energy efficiency and reductions in fossil fuel use for buildings with agrivoltaic systems; and on Job creation.

SB5715

SB5715 – Increasing the Statewide Broadband Office’s definition of broadband service to at least 100 megabits per second downloads and 20 megabits per second uploads.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Sheldon, Randall, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Community & Economic Development Tuesday February 22nd, and passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 3rd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th, and passed out of committee on February 2nd. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate unanimously on February 15th.

Summary –
The bill would increase the Statewide Broadband Office’s definition of broadband service to at least 100 megabits per second download and 20 megabits per second upload. (Currently, it’s defined as any service that provides at least 25  Mbps downloads and 3 Mbps uploads.)

 

SB5648

SB5648 – Modifying the State’s limits on local jurisdictions’ ADU requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to Housing and Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.”>Senator Liias (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.

SJR8211

SJR8211 –
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Southeast King and Northeast Peirce Counties)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would submit a Constitutional amendment to the voters that would require any state revenue collected from a road usage charge, vehicle miles traveled fee, or other similar charge be used exclusively for highway purposes.

HB2062

HB2062 – Allows a regional transit authority to create enhanced service zones with improved service from rail or high capacity systems, to be approved by residents of the zone and financed by them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Seattle); Co-Sponsor Rep. Liias (D; 21st District; South Seattle, Renton, Tuckwila)
Current status – Referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5528 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
It’s hard to see how the operators of commercial parking facilities without attendants are supposed to be able to keep track of how many of the vehicles that used them were exempt from a commercial parking tax.

Summary –
The bill would authorize regional transit authorities to create enhanced zones to improve rail or high capacity service in ways that directly benefited residents of the zone. A zone would have to be recommended to the authority by an advisory committee whose members represented the proposed zone, and then authorized in a special election by the voters in the zone. The improvements would be financed by increasing the maximum rate of the local special motor vehicle excise tax available to regional transit authorities in counties with a population over 1.5 million from .85% to 1.5% within the enhanced zone, and/or through a local commercial parking tax.

The parking tax could be imposed as a tax on commercial parking businesses in the zone, based on the number of stalls or gross proceeds, or as a tax “for the act or privilege of parking a motor vehicle in a facility operated by a commercial parking business.” In that case, it would still be collected and paid by operator of the facility, but it might be a fee per vehicle or proportional to the charge for parking, and might vary according to a number of reasonable factors including the facility’s location, the time of day, or the duration of the parking. It would also apply to leased spaces as well as temporary parking, unless those were for buildings’ residents. Carpools, vehicles with a disabled parking placard, and government vehicles would be exempt.

An enhanced service zone would have to be within the transit authority’s boundaries and include at least all of a city or town within them; it could also include one or more entire adjacent cities or towns and adjacent unincorporated areas. There might also be multiple enhanced service zones encompassing the same city or town, or adjacent unincorporated area.

HB2070

HB2070 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Bronoske -D, Sutherland – R)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Did not receive a hearing, ans still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5828 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
Since the bill’s officially titled “Relating to implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group”, the changes it would make were apparently recommended by that group. (Since the prime sponsor has now introduced HB2100, which is identical to this bill except for a new title with no mention of the autonomous work group,  perhaps they weren’t…)

Summary –
The bill would no longer require including moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs in their annual reports to the Department of Licensing. It also drops a clause implying the Department can require information about collisions in addition to what the law currently specifies. It requires submitting a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department including information on how to interact with the vehicle being tested in emergency and traffic enforcement situations, and requires submitting the expected period of time during which testing will occur to the Department rather than to various local and state law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways on which testing will occur.

SB5633

SB5633 – Creating a voluntary, incentive-based plan to conserve at least one million acres of working forestland; and reforest at least one million acres by 2040.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 34th District; Bainbridge Island) (Co-Sponsors Short, Gildon, Hawkins, Wagoner, and Warnick – Rs; Das, Hasegawa, Lovelett, Nguyen, Nobles, Randall, and Stanford – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 20th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1895 is a companion bill in the House.
There’s a staff summary.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to create a voluntary, incentive-based working and nonworking forest conservation and reforestation plan intended to conserve at least a million acres of working forestland and reforest at least a million acres by 2040. The plan would have to respect the full diversity of landowner management and investment objectives, and utilize or develop incentive-based strategies that address preventing the loss of working and nonworking forestland across the state; opportunities to implement incentive-based carbon compensation programs for avoiding conversion and reforestation; reforestation on forestland impacted by wildfire, pests, disease, landslides, land-use change, and other stressors; and tree planting and increased canopy coverage in urban areas. prioritizing highly impacted or overburdened communities. It would have to use the plan to assess and prioritize conservation and reforestation actions each biennium.

The Department would be required to develop a framework to address the goal, mapping and prioritizing areas across the state based on criteria including risk of permanent forest loss, or the loss of critical environmental, economic, cultural, equity, or health benefits including value to local economies, carbon sequestration, landscape-level habitat connectivity, or salmon recovery and important wildlife habitat. It would evaluate and promote existing carbon compensation programs and other incentives for emissions reductions to assist forestland owners in voluntarily engaging in carbon markets. It would map and prioritize historically forested areas, including postwildfire areas and areas where reforestation or afforestation efforts might support environmental restoration, local economic development, or tribal restoration objectives, and it would conduct an analysis of the regional reforestation pipeline, including seed collection, nursery capacity, and workforce needs, to ensure an adequate basis to meet goals and growing needs. (Reforestation analyses would be required to include an ecological assessment of advantages and disadvantages of intervention, and of best strategies for maintaining and restoring ecological integrity and resilience to climate change.) It would map and prioritize urban and community areas where tree planting might provide environmental, economic, or health benefits, particularly to highly impacted or overburdened
communities. It would conduct the analysis needed to develop a strategic plan, including specific criteria to prioritize the conservation of forests at risk of conversion, and analysis of the reforestation pipeline, the state’s private sector logging and milling capacity, and equity and environmental justice impacts.

In developing the framework, the department would have to consult with impacted communities using the State’s community engagement plan and identify opportunities to increase equity in forestland ownership; utilize the Washington health disparities map to help identify highly impacted or overburdened communities lacking equitable access to forest benefits; consult with the Washington State Office of Equity on how to make values-driven, data informed decisions to identify and address disparities impacting communities of color; invite input from tribes on forested areas with important cultural, ecological, and economic values threatened by conversion or other disturbance; and engage a range of stakeholders (including a long specified list) in the development and implementation of the conservation and reforestation plan.

The Department would be required to identify, prioritize, utilize, and develop voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities consistent with the plan, using appropriations provided for that specific purpose. It would have to utilize and build on various previous reports to the Legislature. It would assess and inventory existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities relevant to the goals of the plan, and consider new ones. These might include tools such as payment for ecological services, technical or financial support to small forestland owners, tax or market incentives, conservation and working forest easements, fee simple land acquisition, or transfer of development rights. The Department would identify their limitations and make recommendations to improve, accelerate, or expand them to maximize their effectiveness. It would identify new or existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentives addressing economic stressors that contribute to forest conversion (including the retention of milling infrastructure, market access,
and workforce development); that give financial value to the underlying environmental, health, equity, and cultural values of working forestlands; and that provide support to small working forestland owners achieving their objectives and goals.

The Department would develop a pilot rapid response fund to test opportunities and barriers to acquiring private working forestlands at imminent risk of conversion from willing sellers, and maintaining them as working forests.

By December 1st 2022, the Department would report to the Office of Financial Management and the appropriate committees of the Legislature including a map and justification of identified priority areas, an approach to monitoring to assure that the forested acres were meeting the criteria of success established in the plan, and a description of activities to be undertaken consistent with it. The plan would have to be finalized and submitted to them by December 1st 2023. Each biennium after that, the Department would have to submit a report reviewing previous and future activities. This would include a list and brief summary of tools, financing opportunities, and incentives used in the preceding biennium, including total funding, costs for those, and their outcomes and effectiveness. It would highlight any of them that contributed to more equitable outcomes, including equity in forestland ownership, access to green spaces, and urban tree cover canopy. It would include any barriers to implementation, legislative or administrative recommendations to address those, and a comparison of the requested and actual funding for the plan the previous biennium, with an analysis of the additional progress that would have been expected with full funding, if that’s possible. The report would include a list and brief summary of tools and incentives to be used in the next biennium with requested appropriations, including information from the prioritization process. It would identify potential partnerships between the State and the forest products industry to promote the use of those as a way toward maintaining the state’s forestland base and reaching its emissions goals, and would identify a range of other potential partnership opportunities. The report would include criteria by which working and non-working forested areas would be considered protected from conversion, including a minimum time frame for that conclusion. It would provide an update on the acres of working and nonworking forestland by region, and on private sector logging and milling capacity, including gains or losses, and potential reasons for significant changes. It would provide an update on the quantity and quality of jobs created or sustained through conservation and reforestation activities; on the locations and acres reforested; and on consultation with highly impacted communities.

HB2020

HB2020 – Includes requiring design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building Challenge certifications, and provides accelerated permitting for them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wallen (D; 48th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Leavitt, Ramel, Ryu, Macri, Bateman, Lekanoff, and Pollet -Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Local Government January 18th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Did not progress by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill is mostly about increasing affordable housing, but it would also require the standards set by local design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building certifications. It would require cites to create a preferred permit path program that would be available to developments that were Passive House or Living Building Challenge certified as well as for projects with 20% affordable housing. The program would provide expedited processing in less than 120 days. (The substitute drops most of the original bill, including the requirements about providing for certified high efficiency buildings; it retains creating a Sustainable Equitable Affordable Measured Board to “provide oversight and guide local jurisdictions in achieving goals for expeditious sustainable affordable housing”, create a plan, and measure and report on progress.

HB2002

HB2002 – Changing administrative procedures to make it easier to permit clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Duerr, Peterson, Ryu, Tharinger, Bateman, and Lekanoff – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment and Energy January 27th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5744 and its companion bill HB1988 would create a sales and use tax exemption for many of the same projects.

Summary –

The bill would cover proposals for electric transmission projects and projects to generate or store electricity from renewable resources. It would cover facilities to produce clean fuels or renewable or electrolytic hydrogen. Projects for the manufacturing of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions other than water, including motorcycles, and parts of both, would be qualified; so would projects manufacturing charging and fueling infrastructure for any of them, as well as equipment and facilities for generating renewable and electrolytic hydrogen (including preparing those for distribution); for producing clean fuel with associated greenhouse gas emissions not exceeding 80% of 2017 levels, and for generating electricity from alternative energy resources or equipment for energy storage.

The bill would require the official responsible for deciding whether a project proposal had to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement to notify an applicant for a project that was a clean energy project if that were likely to require an EIS, and to give those applicants a chance to revise their applications and mitigate the anticipated impacts before an actual final decision was made.

The bill would only allow the Shorelines Hearings Board to consider new issues or new evidence when reviewing agency decisions on the permitting of clean energy projects (or appeals about ones that had been structured as master programs) to the same extent that courts can when reviewing agency decisions. It would apply the same limits to the Pollution Hearings Board’s consideration of appeals of the decisions about solid waste permits for any projects listed in RCW 43.21B.110 (c) & (d) that were defined by the bill as clean infrastructure.

It would prohibit a local government from requiring an electric utility to demonstrate the necessity or utility of a proposed project during review of it beyond demonstrating it had performed assessments or obtained approvals required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Utilities and Transportation Commission, or any other Federal or State agency with authority over the assessment of its infrastructure needs.

The bill would exempt information designated as critical electric infrastructure information by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Secretary of the Department of Energy under the Federal Power Act from public disclosure.

HB2026

HB2026 – Implementing a pilot program collecting a per mile road use charge on vehicles in place of the gas tax.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wicks (D; 38th District; Everett)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a road use charge program for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, collecting an annual fee of 2.5¢ for each mile they drove in the previous year rather than the $225 in fees they currently pay. The new system would apply to new all electric cars purchased or leased after July 1 2025, and would be a registration option for other all electric vehicles. It would be an option for plug-in hybrids after July 1, 2026. The total annual fee could not exceed the current additional fees for the car, and that limit would be reduced by $50 for voluntary participants.

After July 1st 2027 owners of an internal combustion vehicle could choose to pay the road use fee, and would get a credit against the fuel tax that the Department determined corresponded to the tax they would have paid on its annual fuel usage. The charge could not exceed the current additional fees for plug-ins, and that limit would be reduced by $50. The department would have to design and execute a public outreach and education program, in consultation with the Transportation Commission, before implementing the program.

The bill would require at least 500 state owned electric, electric-hybrid, and internal combustion passenger or light duty truck fleet vehicles to be included in the program. They’d be selected by the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Transportation Commission, to further test the viability of a per mile fee on electric-hybrid and internal combustion vehicles, but would not be subject to the fee until July 1, 2027.

The Department would offer owners one or more methods of reporting miles driven, including one based on submitting odometer readings periodically. It could also include one or more automated methods, and could certify one or more private sector services to provide those. It would have to offer periodic payment options to participants. It would report to the Legislature on the program’s performance each year, and offer recommendations for improving it. The Transportation Commission would be required to assess approaches to implementing a per mile fee discount for low-income vehicle owners, in collaboration with the DOT, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature’s Transportation Committees by January 10, 2024, as part of its report on the results of its Federal research program. By January 1, 2029, the Joint Transportation Committee would evaluate the road use charge in consultation with the Department to assess requirements for fully implementing it in place of the fuel tax, well as the potential revenue impacts of that, and report to the Legislature’s transportation committees.

HB2001

HB2001 – Expanding the incentive program for affordable housing to include tiny houses.
Prime Sponsor – Representative McCaslin (R; 4th District; Spokane Valley) (Co-Sponsors Graham, Jacobsen, Chase, and Sutherland – Rs)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government Tuesday February 1st at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current incentive program for affordable housing to include tiny houses. The program allows cities and counties to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing, if it meets certain requirements. (The incentives include density bonuses within the urban growth area; height and bulk bonuses; fee waivers or exemptions; parking reductions; and expedited permitting.) The bill would allow tiny houses to be built inside or outside the urban growth area.

HB2003

HB2003 – Creating a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products are responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Donaghy (D; 44th District; Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Duerr, Fitzgibbon, Jesse Johnson, Leavitt, Peterson, Ramel, Ryu, Simmons, Macri, Bateman, Ormsby, Davis, Riccelli, Lekanoff -Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment and Energy. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5697 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would create a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products were responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted. They would be required to join a producer responsibility organization, which would submit a nine year plan for approval to the Department of Ecology, implement it, and report to Ecology on its plan performance in specified ways. Ecology would be authorized to collect a fee from producer responsibility organizations to cover the costs of the statewide needs assessment, would administer the program, and would appoint and support an advisory council for it.

The bill is 74 pages long. There’s already a proposed substitute from the prime sponsor of the Senate version, which will be heard in committee there January 18th. (It’s in the folder for the bill onb the page with the committee materials for the hearing). There’s a staff report on that.

SB5862

SB5862 – Has the county or county treasurer take any steps in foreclosure proceedings to facilitate the enforcement of a CPACER lien that can’t be done by the capital provider.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Rivers, Fortunato, Gildon, and Jeff Wilson – Rs; Kuderer, Lovick, Nguyen, Nobles, Stanford, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government February 16th. Passed out of committee February 18th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th; referred to Housing and Local Government. Had a hearing there January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor rewriting the section about responsibilities for collection to try to establish that’s the responsibility of the lender, and that the government is not playing a constitutionally impermissible role in the process. Referred to Rules, and passed  by the Senate unanimously February 9th.

Summary –
The bill would have the county or county treasurer undertake any action or obligation in foreclosure proceedings under RCW 84.64.80 to facilitate the enforcement of a CPACER lien that can’t be done by the capital provider or an assignee. It specifies that these are just to “facilitate the enforcement of the C-PACER lien by the capital provider or assignee” and shall not constitute prohibited enforcement activities under RCW 36.165.110, which says that a county “may not enforce any privately financed debt.” Any money received related to delinquent installments would go to the capital provider, who would reimburse the county or the treasurer for their costs.

SB5697

SB5697 – Creating a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products are responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Rolfes, Kuderer, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Pedersen, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing on a substitute by the prime sponsor in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 18th. Replaced by a second substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means and scheduled for a hearing there on February 5th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2003 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

Substitute –
The second substitute makes further changes which are summarized by staff in a page of small print at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would create a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products were responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted. They would be required to join a producer responsibility organization, which would submit a nine year plan for approval to the Department of Ecology, implement it, and report to Ecology on its plan performance in specified ways. Ecology would be authorized to collect a fee from producer responsibility organizations to cover the costs of the statewide needs assessment, would administer the program, and would appoint and support an advisory council for it.

The bill is 74 pages long; there’s already a proposed substitute from the prime sponsor, which is what will be heard in committee. (It’s in the folder for the bill on this page with materials for the hearing.). There’s a staff report on the substitute.