Author Archives: Thad Curtz

SB5872

SB5872 – Would allow any electricity produced with less than the average emissions of new combined-cycle natural gas turbines to keep being sold in spite of the State requirement for carbon-free electricity by 2045.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Short, Wagoner and Jeff Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology. Did not have a hearing by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow electricity from any power plant producing fewer emissions than the 2008 emissions performance standard for baseload electric generation or the average emissions of available new combined-cycle natural gas thermal electric generation turbines to be sold without counting as a violation of the State requirement that utilities have to deliver carbon-free electricity by 2045.

HB1994

HB1994 – Making a second or subsequent theft of a catalytic converter or other metal a Class B rather than a Class C felony, and lengthening the sentence if a thief confronted someone trying to prevent the theft.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Young (R; 26th District; Kitsap Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Sutherland and Jacobsen – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Public Safety.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
See also HB1815; HB1873 and SB5495.

Summary –
The bill would make a second or subsequent theft of a catalytic converter or other commercial metal property, nonferrous metal property, or private metal property with a value between $750 and $5,0000 a class B felony, rather than a Class C felony like such thefts of most other kinds of property. It would count a conviction for theft in the third degree, of property worth less than $750, as a first violation if the original charge was for this class B felony.

It would add twelve months to the standard sentence range if it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that someone convicted of this crime had engaged in a confrontation during the theft with the property owner or a third party trying to prevent it from occurring.

SB5744

SB5744 – Creates a ten year sales and use tax deferral for projects investing at least $2 million in clean technology manufacturing, clean alternative fuels production, generating renewable electricity, or storing it, with options for reducing or eliminating the deferred taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle, Conway, Das, Kuderer, Mullet, Pedersen, Saldaña, Trudeau – Ds) (By request of the Office of Financial Management.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1988 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would expand the deferral for facilities to store energy from renewable sources to include storage for renewable or electrolytic hydrogen and for any electricity. It would leave the current tax exemptions for renewable hydrogen production facilities as part of “electric vehicle infrastructure” in place. It would require Labor and Industries to adopt rules for the minimum labor standards and good faith efforts required to get the bill’s reductions in deferred tax obligations.

Original bill –
The bill would defer state and local sales and use taxes on materials and equipment, labor, or services for projects investing at least $2 million in buildings, or machinery and equipment, or both, for any new, renovated, or expanded clean technology manufacturing operation; facility to produce clean fuels or renewable or electrolytic hydrogen; or facility to generate or store electricity from renewable resources. The manufacturing of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions other than water, including motorcycles would be qualified; so would charging and fueling infrastructure for any of those, 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 renewable resources or equipment used directly in storing it.

Applications for the deferral could not be submitted after June 30th, 2032. Ten percent of the deferred taxes would become due on December 31st of the second year after completion of the project, and the rest of them would be due in annual payments of 10% at the end of each of the nine following years. (No interest would be charged, except on delinquent payments.)

The State would reduce its part of the taxes to be repaid by half for projects certified by L&I as including procurement from and contracts with women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses; procurement from and contracts with entities that have a history of complying with federal and state wage and hour laws and regulations; apprenticeship utilization; and preferred entry for workers living in the area where the project is being constructed. (If a project was built without one or more of these, the Department would be allowed to certify that it met them if it demonstrated it had made all good faith efforts to do so, but was unable to due to lack of availability of qualified businesses or local hires.) Projects that met these standards and paid workers at prevailing wage rates determined by local collective bargaining would receive a 75% reduction, and those that also were developed under a community workforce or project labor agreement would not have to repay the deferred taxes at all. A person leasing qualified buildings, machinery, and equipment would only receive the tax benefits if the owner agreed to pass them on in writing, and if the lessee agreed in writing with the Department to do the required tax performance reporting.

Construction would have to begin within two years or the taxes would become due. A gradually decreasing percentage of them would be due if the project had not been completed within five years or if it were used for some other purpose that didn’t qualify for the deferment.

The bill would revise a definition so that renewable hydrogen production facilities would no longer be included under the current sales and use tax exemptions as part of “electric vehicle infrastructure.”

HB1921

HB1921 – Creating rules for the tax assessment of wind and solar facilities, and authorizing counties to enter into agreements for their annual payment of fees in place of property taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Boehnke & Young – Rs; Fitzgibbon, Shewmake, & Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Finance January 18th; replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor making a number of changes that are summarized in a staff memo and passed out  of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules February 7th. Replaced on the floor by a striker from the prime sponsor which stripped the bill down to the development of rules for assessment by the Department of Revenue and required county assessors to refer to those in valuing renewable property, though they’d still be allowed to use other methods if they had a compelling reason. Passed by the House 97-1 on February 15th.
Next step would be – To the Senate.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Revenue to develop rules for the tax assessment of solar and wind facilities of at least one megawatt of AC nameplate capacity that were not yet in service, using a cost-based approach. In doing this, it would have to develop industry specific trending tables for solar and for wind projects, and to develop an appraisal model in cooperation with stakeholders within 90 days of the effective date of the bill. The bill would prohibit revaluing a facility for at least twenty years after it was placed into service.

It would also allow the governing body of a county and the owner of the property for a wind or solar project in the unincorporated area of the county that was not yet in service to enter into an agreement exempting it from the property tax and providing for the payment of an annual fee in its place. The fee could not be more than $4,500/MW of AC nameplate capacity for a solar project and $8,000/MW for wind projects, plus $750/MW for storage associated with projects. Agreements would be limited to a maximum of ten years, but might be renewed by mutual consent. If any portion of the property were within an incorporated city, the county would have to have its consent to an agreement. The payments would be due on April 30th each year, and handled as if they were property tax payments. If the fee weren’t paid, the property would be subject to the regular tax the next year, though it could continue under the agreement by paying the fee plus penalties and interest by October 31st of the year in which it was due.

HB1988

HB1988 – Creates a ten year sales and use tax deferral for projects investing at least $2 million in clean technology manufacturing, clean alternative fuels production, generating renewable electricity, or storing it, with options for reducing or eliminating the deferred taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Berry and Paul – Ds) (By request of the Office of Financial Management.)
Current status – Referred to Senate Ways and Means; had a hearing March 7th and passed out of committee the 9th. Passed by the Senate March 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5744 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance February 1st; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 24th; amended to add a JLARC review after five years and passed out of committee the 28th. Referred to Rules; passed by the House March 4th.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute adds making compounds (like ammonia) from green or renewable hydrogen for storing or transporting it to the deferments, along with storage for electricity from any source .  It requires the Department of Labor and Industries to adopt rules with minimum requirements, documentation requirements, consultation requirements, and a certification process for the labor standards in the bill. It would no longer remove renewable hydrogen production facilities from the current sales and use tax exemptions for “electric vehicle infrastructure.”

Original bill –
The bill would defer state and local sales and use taxes on materials and equipment, labor, or services for projects investing at least $2 million in buildings, or machinery and equipment, or both, for any new, renovated, or expanded clean technology manufacturing operation; facility to produce clean fuels or renewable or electrolytic hydrogen; or facility to generate or store electricity from renewable resources. The manufacturing of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions other than water, including motorcycles would be qualified; so would charging and fueling infrastructure for any of those, 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 renewable resources or equipment used directly in storing it.

Applications for the deferral could not be submitted after June 30th, 2032. Ten percent of the deferred taxes would become due on December 31st of the second year after completion of the project, and the rest of them would be due in annual payments of 10% at the end of each of the nine following years. (No interest would be charged, except on delinquent payments.)

The State would reduce its part of the taxes to be repaid by half for projects certified by L&I as including procurement from and contracts with women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses; procurement from and contracts with entities that have a history of complying with federal and state wage and hour laws and regulations; apprenticeship utilization; and preferred entry for workers living in the area where the project is being constructed. (If a project was built without one or more of these, the Department would be allowed to certify that it met them if it demonstrated it had made all good faith efforts to do so, but was unable to due to lack of availability of qualified businesses or local hires.) Projects that met these standards and paid workers at prevailing wage rates determined by local collective bargaining would receive a 75% reduction, and those that also were developed under a community workforce or project labor agreement would not have to repay the deferred taxes at all. A person leasing qualified buildings, machinery, and equipment would only receive the tax benefits if the owner agreed to pass them on in writing, and if the lessee agreed in writing with the Department to do the required tax performance reporting.

Construction would have to begin within two years or the taxes would become due. A gradually decreasing percentage of them would be due if the project had not been completed within five years or if it were used for some other purpose that didn’t qualify for the deferment.

The bill would revise a definition so that renewable hydrogen production facilities would no longer be included under the current sales and use tax exemptions as part of “electric vehicle infrastructure.”

SB5842

SB5842 – Making adjustments to the Climate Commitment Act, and creating an Executive Office of Climate Policy and Accountability in the Department of Ecology.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 11th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Liias, Das, Nguyen, and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The provisions about the Office of Climate Policy and Accountability are presumably intended to shape the provision in the cap and invest act which says “The Governor shall establish a governance structure to implement the state’s climate commitment” in accordance with a long list of criteria.

I would have thought that the earlier provision saying the bill preempted the Clean Air Act would have left anything in that which the new bill didn’t cover operable; one of the Senate floor amendments will also repeal it.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 18th. Replaced by a striker eliminating the requirement that the rules for smoothing obligations over time match those of linked jurisdictions; requiring that investments from the price ceiling auctions produce at least a metric ton of reductions for each unit allowing a metric ton of emissions; and making some other small changes. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 2nd.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor adding biofuels from wastewater treatment plants to the definition of biomass for the cap and invest bill, and moving a reporting date by six months; passed out of committee February 2nd. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 4th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 7th. (The 2nd substitute would let all covered entities use credits released through the price ceiling mechanisms to meet their compliance obligations. It would allow Ecology to suspend the price floor mechanism if it “might enter into a linkage agreement” with a jurisdiction that doesn’t have one. It specifies that the new Office of Climate Policy and Accountability would only report on the state’s progress in achieving GHG limits, rather than developing a strategic climate work plan; would not represent the State nationally or internationally; and could only implement laws administered by Ecology in accordance with the polices established in the bill and monitor their economic impacts to minimize leakage.) Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to restrict the use of banked offset credits to those issued in the two years before the bill takes effect (or after that); to direct the Department of Ecology to repeal the Clean Air Act (in addition to saying this bill preempts it); and to drop the provision creating the Office of Climate Policy and Accountability. Passed by the Senate February 11th.

Summary –
Original bill –
Currently, the Climate Commitment Act (aka as the cap and invest program) uses the total state emissions between 2023 and 2025 as the basis for calculating the proportion of an entity’s emissions to total state emissions for entities that begin to be covered by the program during the second compliance period, from 2027 through 2030. The bill would use the total state emissions during 2015 through 2019 instead, which is what it does for entities covered during the first compliance period.

The bill would readopt Section 22 of the original act, about the managing and smoothing of compliance obligations, verbatim, except for the part about the poison pill provisions preventing the Act from taking effect unless an additive transportation package was passed. (The Governor vetoed all those provisions in the bill.) He also vetoed the rest of this section, on the grounds that it primarily provided a convenient summary of compliance obligations that duplicated other passages in the Act, that there weren’t any substantive aspects of the section that Ecology couldn’t adopt and implement through its rulemaking authority, and that it created an internal inconsistency with regard to the expiration date of allowances, because the ability of covered entities to rely on the last seven years of allowances in Section 22(1) conflicted with the unlimited time period for use of allowances in Section 9(2).

The bill would exempt a variety of specified bidding information from public disclosure, as well as information contained in the secure online tracking system, and various submitted financial or proprietary information.

It would narrow the current provision preventing a state agency from adopting or enforcing any other program that regulates greenhouse gas emissions from a stationary source. It would now allow them to adopt and enforce limitations on emissions from stationary sources that are not greenhouse gas pricing or market-based emissions cap and reduce programs, and that are authorized or directed by state statute or required to implement a federal statute, rule, or program.

It would create an Executive Office of Climate Policy and Accountability within the Department of Ecology, reporting to the Director. Its primary purpose would be supporting the state’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing accountability to achieve the State’s 2050 emissions limits and providing an accurate inventory of emissions. It would be required to aggressively implement laws and policies to achieve those limits, and would represent the State on national and international emissions reduction policies. It would be required to develop a strategic climate work plan with performance milestones and accountability measures, to present that to the Legislature by January 31, 2024, and to submit a legislative report on progress by January 31, 2025, and every two years afterwards.

Section 7 of the bill would change the name of what’s currently called “an auction ceiling price” to “a reserve auction floor price”, which seems like a confusing choice to me. (The reserve auction floor price is a ceiling price, because extra allowances from the reserve are sold at auction to increase supplies and hold the prices down if they rise above the floor for the reserve auction.)

SB5837

SB5837 – Removing plastic carryout bags as an option for use at retail establishments; making the 8¢ charge for paper carryout bags permanent.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Das, Hunt and Nobles – Ds)
Current status –Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Plastic bags are clearly bad for the environment; whether they’re bad for the climate is unclear; it depends on how often they’d are reused, what bags are used to replace them, how bags are dealt with at the end of their useful lives, and complicated full life cycle estimates of the associated emissions.

Summary –
The bill would advance the date after which retail establishments may not provide reusable film plastic carryout bags to a retail customer or a person at an event from January 1st, 2026 to January 1st, 2023. (The current law would have allowed them to continue providing bags of at least four mils if the 2025 Legislature hadn’t amended the requirements in response to a study it ordered.) (This bill would add an exemption for bags to contain or wrap hot food.)

It would make the 8¢ charge for a paper carryout bag permanent, and continue the 8¢ charge for a compliant reusable plastic carryout bag until the end of 2022. It would eliminate provisions for increasing the charges for them to 12¢ in 2026, for the increase from 20% to 40% in the required post-consumer recycled content of reusable plastic carry-out bags that’s currently scheduled for July 1st, 2022, and for the increase in their minimum thickness from 2.25 mils to four mils that’s currently scheduled for January 1st, 2026. These would be superceded, as I understand the bill, since retail stores would not be allowed to provide them at all after the end of 2022.

SB5828

SB5828 – 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 – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Wagoner, Rivers – Rs; Dhingra, Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd; replaced by a substitute changing the title to drop the reference to the autonomous vehicle work group and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Still in Rules at cutoff. Sent to the “X” file Februry 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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.

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.

SB5818

SB5818 – Limits review and appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act and Growth Management Act to promote housing construction in cities.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Short – R; Liias, Kuderer, and Saldaña – Ds)
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 Environment and Energy February 24th and passed out of committee. Referred to Rules; replaced by a striker making various changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it; and passed by the House March 4th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Housing & Local Government  January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate February 15th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute simplifies (and perhaps broadens) the exemption from GMA review and SEPA appeal of some local development regulations by saying it applies to any that “increase housing capacity, increase housing affordability, and mitigate displacement” and aren’t in a critical area. It adds projects creating “light and glare” to those that are exempt from SEPA appeals about aesthetics as long as they’ve passed local design review. The staff summary says it “removes the requirement for Ecology to modify the existing rule-based categorical exemption for single-family residential project types in UGAs to apply only to single-family residential types with total square footage of 1500 square feet or more”. (As I read the bill, there’s no difference in the effect of these two versions.) It drops the provision about awarding attorney’s fees, making it more difficult for citizens to go to court.

Original bill –
The bill would remove the ending date for the current exemption from administrative or judicial appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act of any ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions a city takes to implement the twenty-five steps the Growth Management Act encourages to increase residential building capacity. (The exemption, which was adopted in 2020, will expire in April 2023 now.) It would add an exemption from environmental or judicial review under SEPA for them. It would exempt adoption of ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions to implement any strategies adopted in a city’s housing action plan from these SEPA appeals and reviews. (I think that Section 3 of the bill merely adjusts another section of the law to make the same changes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.)

It would exempt any action taken by a city to implement strategies adopted in a housing action plan from review or legal challenge under the Growth Management Act. It would exempt the adoption of any ordinances and amendments to development regulations taken by a city to implement actions specified in the housing element of its comprehensive plan from SEPA environmental or judicial review and administrative or judicial appeal.

It would direct the Department of Ecology to conduct expedited rule making to modify the thresholds for the categorical exemptions from threshold determinations and environmental impact statements in the current SEPA rules to exempt four attached single-family residential units as well as four detached ones; exempt multifamily residential projects of up to 200 units in incorporated urban growth areas rather than projects up to 60 units; exempt single-family residential project types of less than 1,500 square feet in incorporated urban growth areas with up to 100 units, while continuing to cap the current exemption at 30 units for single-family residential projects larger than that.

It would exempt project actions pertaining to residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development from SEPA appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on aesthetics, or those impacts, unless the project had not been subject to local design review requirements. (I think it merely restates their current exemption from appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on transportation, or those impacts, unless DOT had found a project would present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned transportation system.)

The bill adds a provision to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party at trial or on appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a project-specific affordable housing development.

SB5795

SB5795 – Requires manufacturers of portable flat screen digital electronics to provide independent repair providers and owners access to the documentation, parts and tools for repairs that they make available to authorized service providers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Keiser, Pedersen, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
This bill addresses the same issues as HB1810, and makes many of the same provisions in slightly different language. However, it adds an alternative way to comply with many of the requirements for access to information and tools, through aftermarket providers, which isn’t clearly written and doesn’t seem to include any requirements about the extent or quality of that access. This bill would only apply to “handheld or portable devices” with a microprocessor and flat screen, like laptops and smartphones,  that were originally manufactured for distribution and sale in the United States for general consumer purchase.

Summary –
The bill would require original manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state on or after January 1st 2012 to make the same diagnostic and repair information that they make available to authorized repair providers available to independent repair providers in the same format, and for no charge or the same charge, including corrections to embedded software and safety and security patches.

Manufacturers would be required to make them all available for purchase on fair and reasonable terms. It would require them to make equipment or service parts for these, including any updates to their embedded software, available to owners of those products and independent repair providers for purchase on fair and reasonable terms (unless the parts were no longer available to the manufacturer or authorized repair provider). If manufacturers sold any diagnostic, service, or repair documentation any independent repair provider or owner in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they would be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included diagnostic, service, or repair documentation or functionality that was not available in a standardized format. A manufacturer of digital electronic products sold or used in the state would have to make any diagnostic repair tools it makes available to its own repair or engineering staff or any authorized repair provider available for purchase with the same capabilities and at fair and reasonable rates by owners and independent repair providers.

The bill says that manufacturers could fully satisfy all the obligations above by providing “diagnostic repair documentation to aftermarket diagnostic tools, diagnostics, or third party service information publications and systems” and would not be responsible beyond that for the content and functionality of those.

Equipment or parts sold or used in the state to provide security-related functions would not be allowed to exclude diagnostic, service, and repair information need to reset a security-related electronic function from the information provided to owners and independent repair facilities. The bill also says that if information necessary to reset an immobilizer system or security-related electronic module is excluded in the sub-section it “may be” obtained by owners and independent repair facilities through the appropriate secure data release systems, but there doesn’t seem to be an exclusion in the current version.

The bill would prohibit manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state on or after January 1, 2023, in Washington state  from designing or manufacturing them in a way that prevented reasonable diagnostic or repair by an independent repair provider, including  attaching a battery in a way that made it difficult or impossible to remove. They’d be prohibited from establishing end user license agreements that restricted the legal uses of a product after purchase, and from dictating the venue for legal disputes in them.

The bill would make a violation of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, and would create an additional civil penalty of $500 for each violation of its provisions.

SJM8008

SJM8008 – Urging the United States Government to enter into a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsors Senators Lovelett, Lovick, Salomon, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would transmit a memorial from the Legislature to the President Biden, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and Washington’s Congressional representatives urging them to begin good faith negotiations to enter into a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. (It would commit participating nations to end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion, phase out existing production in line with the global commitment to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and accelerate equitable transition plans.)

SB5775

SB5775 – Requires cities and towns to allow microtrenching for fiber optic cables.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Senators Short – R; Conway, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Claire Wilson, and Paul – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1722 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require cities and towns to allow microtrenching for installing fiber optic cable, unless they makes a written finding that allowing it would inconvenience the public use of the right-of-way or adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. (A microtrench for conduit is no more than four inches wide and between 12 inches and 26 inches deep; they could be shallower if the jurisdiction and the installer agreed to that.) Jurisdictions could charge fees to cover their costs for issuing permits and inspections.

HB1964

HB1964 – Requires property leases for solar or wind projects to include and maintain a decommissioning plan and financial assurance of the project owner’s capacity to implement it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Corry (R; 14th District; Jefferson and Clallam Counties)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on Tuesday February 22nd at 10:30 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th. Passed out of committee February 3rd and referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor and passed by the House February 11th. (The striker required the projected cost of demolition to include an offset for the salvage value of the facility and be based on the cost of hiring a third party to do the work. It required the financial assurance to include an additional 20% contingency factor; prohibited local jurisdictions from requiring higher financial assurances; and made some other changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it.

Summary –
The bill would make developers leasing land for a solar or wind project responsible for decommissioning it within 18 months of when it stopped operating, requiring them to make and maintain a plan for decommissioning and financial assurance of their capacity to implement it.

The Department of Ecology would be required to develop a provisional standard form for these within 180 days in consultation with the industry, and then a final form. Unless a property owner and the project owner agreed on other terms in writing a plan would have to provide for removing nonutility-owned equipment, conduits, structures, fencing, and foundations to at least three feet below grade; removing graveled areas and access roads (unless the property owner requested leaving them in writing); restoring the property to a condition reasonably similar to its initial state, including replacing topsoil removed or eroded on previously productive agricultural land; and reseeding cleared areas, unless the property owner made a written request that not be done because of plans for agricultural planting. (The project owner would not be required to remove equipment and materials that a public utility required top remain on-site.)

The financial assurance would have to be equal to the cost of meeting these obligations, as calculated and updated every five years by a third-party professional engineer hired by the project owner from a list made by the department, and equal to at least $10,000/megawatt of the facility’s AC nameplate capacity. (Acceptable methods of assurance would include a bond or escrow account.) At least thirty days before beginning construction a project owner would have to provide the decommissioning plan and proof of financial assurance covering at least 20% of the cost of decommissioning to the county auditor. Each five years after that an updated decommissioning plan and proof of financial assurance increasing the coverage by 20% would be required, so that financial assurance covering 100% of the cost of decommissioning would be required with the updated plan due on or before the 20th anniversary of the beginning of construction.

On or before the 20th anniversary of beginning construction, the updated decommissioning plan would have to include include an estimate of the removed materials (including wind turbines, photovoltaic modules, turbine blades, towers, guy wires, auxiliary equipment, and steel support structures) that would be salvaged, recycled, refurbished, or sent to a landfill. No more than 20% of the mass of a facility, excluding cement support structures, could be landfilled.

The bill would preempt local ordinances and regulations dealing with any aspects of facility agreements, financial assurance, and decommissioning plans associated with wind and solar projects. None of its requirements would apply to the nonutility owner or operator of a net metered distributed 
generation system with a nameplate capacity of below 3,000 kilowatts.
.

HB1932

HB1932 – Creates criteria for recyclable products and packaging; prohibits “deceptive or misleading claims” about recyclability; requires increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content in plastic tubs, thermoform containers, and single-use cups.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Santos, Duerr, Slatter, Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5658 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t say so, but I assume its categorizing misleading labels about reyclability as “deceptive or misleading claims” is intended to make them subject to the consumer protection laws.

Summary –
The bill would establish standards for what products and packaging the State considers to be recyclable, and would make symbols or statements on them suggesting they were recyclable a “deceptive or misleading claim” unless they met those standards and were “of a material type and form that routinely became feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.”

By January 1, 2025, Ecology would complete a study of the material types and forms that are collected, sorted, sold, or transferred by facilities that process recyclable materials from curbside recycling programs and other solid waste facilities. It would identify which of these are actively recovered and not considered contaminants by included operations or facilities; and how material was collected or processed. It would publish its preliminary findings on its website, take public comments before the final version, and update the study every five years.

A product or packaging would be considered recyclable if at least 75% of what’s sorted and aggregated in the state is reprocessed into new products or packaging; or if the material type and form are collected for recycling in jurisdictions that encompass at least 60% of the population, and are sorted into defined streams for recycling by large transfer or processing facilities that collectively serve at least 60% of programs statewide, and then sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the State’s solid waste management requirements. (Ecology could modify the rules to include smaller facilities to meet the goals of the program.) Until 2031, product or packaging not collected under a curbside collection program would count as recyclable if the program recovered at least 60 percent of its material and that had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material type and form; after 2031 recovering at least 75% of the material would be required. Products or packaging in compliance with State or Federal laws passed after 2023 and governing recyclability or disposal would count if the Director of Ecology determined they wouldn’t increase increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive consumers about their recyclability. Plastic packaging could not count as recyclable if it included any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent that.

Cities, counties, and the State would be authorized to impose civil liability in the amount of $500 for a first violation of the law, of $1,000 for a second one, and of $2,000 for a third and any subsequent one. Ecology would be required to develop an enforcement program to investigate and identify violations by 2026.

The bill would include plastic tubs and thermoform plastic containers like clamshells and egg cartons (starting in 2026), as well as single-use plastic cups (starting in 2029) in the current law requiring gradually increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content and annual reporting about that.

SB5658

SB5658 – Creates criteria for recyclable products and packaging; prohibits “deceptive or misleading claims” about recyclability; requires increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content in plastic tubs, thermoform containers, and single-use cups.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Rivers – R; Das, Hunt, Saldaña, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology  January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1932 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t say so, but I assume its categorizing misleading labels about reyclability as “deceptive or misleading claims” is intended to make them subject to the consumer protection laws.

Summary –
The bill would establish standards for what products and packaging the State considers to be recyclable, and would make symbols or statements on them suggesting they were recyclable a “deceptive or misleading claim” unless they met those standards and were “of a material type and form that routinely became feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.”

By January 1, 2025, Ecology would complete a study of the material types and forms that are collected, sorted, sold, or transferred by facilities that process recyclable materials from curbside recycling programs and other solid waste facilities. It would identify which of these are actively recovered and not considered contaminants by included operations or facilities; and how material was collected or processed. It would publish its preliminary findings on its website, take public comments before the final version, and update the study every five years.

A product or packaging would be considered recyclable if at least 75% of what’s sorted and aggregated in the state is reprocessed into new products or packaging; or if the material type and form are collected for recycling in jurisdictions that encompass at least 60% of the population, and are sorted into defined streams for recycling by large transfer or processing facilities that collectively serve at least 60% of programs statewide, and then sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the State’s solid waste management requirements. (Ecology could modify the rules to include smaller facilities to meet the goals of the program.) Until 2031, product or packaging not collected under a curbside collection program would count as recyclable if the program recovered at least 60 percent of its material and that had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material type and form; after 2031 recovering at least 75% of the material would be required. Products or packaging in compliance with State or Federal laws passed after 2023 and governing recyclability or disposal would count if the Director of Ecology determined they wouldn’t increase increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive consumers about their recyclability. Plastic packaging could not count as recyclable if it included any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent that.

Cities, counties, and the State would be authorized to impose civil liability in the amount of $500 for a first violation of the law, of $1,000 for a second one, and of $2,000 for a third and any subsequent one.
Ecology would be required to develop an enforcement program to investigate and identify violations by 2026.

The bill would include plastic tubs and thermoform plastic containers like clamshells and egg cartons (starting in 2026), as well as single-use plastic cups (starting in 2029) in the current law requiring gradually increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content and annual reporting about that.

HB1931

HB1931 – Eliminates the expiration date for the fees Ecology receives for the costs of hydropower licensing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 24th, and passed out of committee the 28th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Appropriations January 25th; passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor by the prime sponsor to extend the current expiration date to 2029, and passed by the House February 15th,

Summary –
The bill would eliminates the expiration date for the fees Ecology receives for the costs of hydropower licensing, which is currently June 30th, 2023.

HB1924

HB1924 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel, shifting expiration from 2024 to 2034.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Tharinger (D; 24th District; Jefferson and Clallam Counties) (Co-sponsors Representatives Chapman and Fey – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Finance Committee January 24th; passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in the 2021 session as HB1387, but did not get a hearing in the House Finance Committee.

Summary –
The bill adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat or biofuel, shifting its expiration date from 2024 to 2034.

HB1918

HB1918 – Exempts zero-emission outdoor power equipment from the sales tax and imposes an additional 6.5% air quality tax on equipment with emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Macri (D; 43rd District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Valdez, Berry, Ryu, Simmons, Peterson, Goodman, Ramel, Kloba, Bateman, Harris-Talley, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Senate Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations January 20th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Finance; had a hearing there February 17th. Replaced by a second substitute adding exceptions for government purchases of a few more kinds of equipment and allowing waivers; passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Rules; passed by the House March 4th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute removes the additional 6.5% tax on equipment with emissions other than water; requires state agencies and local governments to buy zero-emission large outdoor equipment when that’s practicable. It requires Commerce to provide technical assistance about these kinds of equipment to the government and the public instead of having it monitor compliance with the bill’s requirements for governments.  (It also exempts outdoor power equipment used for emergency response activities, in natural resource work on forestland, in agricultural settings, or in remote settings that can only be reached by water from the bill’s requirements.)

Original bill –
The bill would impose an additional air quality improvement tax of 6.5% on each retail sale of outdoor power equipment that produced emissions in use other than water. (The tax would be collected from January 1st 2022 through 2032, and apply to equipment with less than 25 horsepower.) The bill defines “outdoor power equipment” as lawn mowers, riding lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, string trimmers, brush cutters, chainsaws, pole trimmers, pole saws, log splitters, leaf blowers, leaf shredders, leaf vacuums, soil tillers, soil cultivators, augers, mulchers, edgers, wood chippers, stump grinders, pressure washers, snow blowers, tampers, compactors, and other equipment designed or marketed for use in an outdoor setting in the management of vegetation, landscaped outdoor spaces, or built spaces.)

The bill would exempt zero-emission outdoor power equipment from the sales tax, and require physical and electronic retailers to notify potential customers of that and of the 13% tax on other outdoor power equipment in specified ways. It would not allow state agencies and local governments to purchase any outdoor power equipment with emissions after 2024. The Department of Commerce would review their compliance with the requirement by December 1, 2026, and submit a report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including a review of the market availability, cost, and performance attributes of zero emission outdoor power equipment relative to emitting versions.

There would be a JLARC evaluation of the results, covering at least the amount of the exemption and the tax for each type of equipment; the number of taxpayers that received the exemption and the total exempted; the number of taxpayers that paid the air quality improvement tax and the total paid, the average per taxpayer of the exemption and the new tax, the net effect on state revenues of the two changes, and to the extent that it’s practical, the amount of the benefit to taxpayers in each county as a result of the exemption and the cost to them of the tax.

HB1873

HB1873 – Prohibits scrap metal dealers from buying a catalytic converter from anyone but a business or the owner of the vehicle from which it came; strengthens current law against removing markings from metal property.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Klippert (R; 8th District; Kennewick) (Co-Sponsors Gilday, Jacobsen, Corry, Robertson, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Public Safety.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This bill would make a second or subsequent violation of the current law’s prohibitions on removing identifying marks from metal property or entering into a transaction where they’ve been deliberately and conspicuously altered a Class C felony; otherwise; it’s identical to SB5495. HB1815 also addresses converter thefts, by requiring unique marking identification on converters, and creating a task force on the issue. See HB1994 as well.

Summary –
The bill expands the regulations about scrap metal dealers to prohibit them from buying a catalytic converter from anyone but a commercial enterprise or the owner of the vehicle from which it came. (The owner would have to provide the year, make, model, and vehicle identification number for the vehicle.) It adds precious metals to the dealers’ reporting requirements for “private metal property” and “non-ferrous metal property” transactions (though it doesn’t specify that addition each time those others are specified). It requires a five day delay before cash payments can be made for these materials, and requires keeping records of them for at least three years.

It makes it a gross misdemeanor, and a civil infraction subject to a $1,000 fine, for any scrap metal business and for any owner, partner, or employee of one to purchase or receive private metal property
knowing that it’s stolen. It makes a second or subsequent violation of the current law’s prohibitions on removing identifying marks from metal property, or entering into a transaction where they’ve been deliberately and conspicuously altered, a class C felony.

HB1896

HB1896 – Requires battery producers to participate in and fund a stewardship program providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Harris-Talley (D; 37th District; Rainier Valley) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Ryu, Simmons, Slatter, Peterson, Gregerson, Ormsby, Goodman, Ramel, Kloba, Frame, Bateman, Macri, Valdez, Duerr, and Pollett – Ds)
Current status – Had a continued hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th. Replaced by a substitute making minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing February 5th. Amended (by Rep Boehnke from the Tri-Cities) to require Commerce to contract with PNNL for a study of the end-of-life management of large format batteries rather than doing it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill is a slightly revised version of HB2496, which was introduced in the 2020 session, and had a hearing in the House, but did not advance beyond that. This bill eliminates the exemption for producers selling less then 5,000 batteries a year in the state, and adds some environmental justice standards. There are roughly 25 pages of details in the bill, and I haven’t tried to get all of them into the summary.

Summary –
The bill would make producers responsible for creating and funding a product stewardship system for dealing with all used batteries under twenty-five pounds (with a few exceptions, including vehicle batteries.). The bill would have users drop off used batteries at “free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible” sites, and prohibit putting them in containers for mixed recycling, landfills, incinerators, or waste-to-energy plants. (The system would include education and outreach to encourage participation.) Batteries from producers who weren’t participating couldn’t be legally sold in the state.

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans have to include performance goals for target collection rates and targets for the percentages of materials recovered through recycling. (They must collect and provide for the end-of-life management of batteries in an amount roughly equivalent to the Washington market share of the batteries of producers participating in the plan, and recover and recycle at least 70% of the weight of rechargeable batteries and 80% of others.) Plans have to include a system to collect charges from participating producers to cover the costs of the system, and structure the charges to encourage designs that reduce the environmental impacts of products. They have to adjust the financial obligations of producers in proportion to their use of recycled content in batteries.

There have to be collection sites for batteries under 12 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. Collection sites have to operate on a free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible basis for any person, business, government agency, or nonprofit organization. Programs have to use the collection sites of any retailer, wholesaler, municipality, solid waste management facility, or other entity that meet the requirements for sites and request it. They have to reimburse organizations implementing a State  approved electronic recycling plan for their costs, and reimburse local governments for the costs of any facilities of theirs used as battery collection sites for the program.

Plans have to include a procedural manual for collection sites about reducing risks of spills or fires, and protocols for responding to those, and for managing damaged batteries.  There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for hefty batteries between twelve and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people. (They have to be certified to handle and ship hazardous materials. )

Plans have to manage batteries by prioritizing prevention and waste reduction first, then reuse when that’s appropriate, and then recycling. They can only deal with batteries in other ways, like landfilling them, after a year, and after demonstrating to Ecology that these other higher priority options aren’t technologically feasible or economically practical.

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2026, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

After issuing a warning, Ecology can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for violations of the law and of up to $10,000 a day for intentional, knowing, or negligent violations. In addition, management organizations can seek reimbursement from another battery stewardship organization that fails to deal with its batteries in an amount roughly equivalent to the national battery market share of its producers. In fact, organizations are authorized to sue producers who are not participating in an approved plan for their expenses in dealing with that producer’s batteries, and if there’s more than one management organization they can sue others that are not dealing with their producers’ share of the used batteries for their expenses in collecting and dealing with those.

Details –
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; it doesn’t cover batteries sealed in products.

Plans have to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology, which is to collect a fee from producers to cover the cost of administering the program. It’s to maintain a public list of producers and brands that can be legally sold because they’re in the program.

The bill allows manufacturers to request that submitted information be exempted from public records requests, and has the Director of the Department do that if it isn’t detrimental to the public interest and is consistent with the public records law. It authorizes the Pollution Control Hearings Board to deal with appeals.

HB1895

HB1895 – Developing a plan for the conservation, reforestation, and restoration of forests in Washington State.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Harris-Talley (D; 37th District; Rainier Valley) (Co-Sponsors Maycumber, Steele, Graham, – Rs; Leavitt, Ramos, Lekanoff, Valdez, Shewmake, Simmons, Stonier, Peterson, Berg, Kloba, Callan, Riccelli, Macri, and Duerr – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 18th. (Still in committee at cutoff.)
Next step would be – Dead bill
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5633 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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.

HB1871

HB1871 – Establishes a moratorium on the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s siting alternative energy facilities, pending a report on the Energy Independence Act and recommendations of a Joint Legislative Committee.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Klicker (R; 16th District; Walla Walla) (Co-Sponsors Dent, Chase, Ybarra, and Sutherland – Rs)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy Friday January 25th at 8:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings assert that viewshed, wildlife, and land use patterns in specific counties of the state are being permanently impacted to deliver carbon-free energy benefits to the most populous counties of the state; that voters in those counties opposed the renewable energy mandate in I-937, but have ended up with the projects and transmission lines that required; that they feel these facilities have not brought the promised “green jobs,” meaningful tax revenue, or local environmental benefits “in so far as these local communities were already served with clean, affordable hydroelectric energy”; and that the Legislature should consider providing producer counties with mitigation payments, viewshed impairment payments, or supplemental economic development assistance to improve equity and environmental justice.

Summary –
The bill would establish a moratorium on siting alternative energy facilities through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, which allows bypassing the local permitting process in certain cases, pending a comprehensive performance report on the effects of the Energy Independence Act and the recommendations of a Joint Legislative Committee.

By December 1, 2022, the Department of Commerce would have to submit a report on alternative energy siting inequity to a Joint Select Committee and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature. The report would have to contain an assessment of the beneficial impact of the energy independence act on Washington’s fuel mix, including:
(a) An assessment of the beneficial impact of the energy independence act on Washington’s fuel mix, including the percentage of that coming from the renewable resources promised and promoted by the Act; and a calculation of the cumulative expenditures between 2006 and 2020 on compliance costs by each electric utility subject to the Act to meet its requirements for using renewable energy resources; purchasing of renewable energy credits; and spending four percent of retail revenues on renewable resources.
(b) An assessment of the capital expenditures in each county in Washington on renewable resources in each of those years;
(c) An assessment of the impacts associated with those capital expenditures on state and local tax revenue, the property tax base in each county, and the sources of revenues dedicated to local school districts, including the impacts, if any, on state and local effort assistance funding;
(d) An identification of the number and type of jobs created in each county as a result of implementing the Act, categorizing them as short-term construction jobs; long-term jobs outlasting facility construction; regulatory or compliance jobs created at state agencies, electric utilities, or local governments; and jobs related to the production or marketing of electricity from a new renewable energy resource;
(e) A calculation of the cumulative incremental cost above the least cost wholesale energy resource of compliance with the Act’s targets – for each utility, and in aggregate for all utilities in Washington;
(f) A calculation of the incremental cost of renewable resources eligible under the Act, including wind and solar, relative to other nongreenhouse gas emitting energy resources, such as electricity derived from nuclear or hydroelectric facilities, based on the average wholesale market price of electricity from those other nongreenhouse gas emitting energy resources during these years, and,
(g) A generalized description and map of the areas of Washington that electric utilities consider to have available resources for potentially economical utility-scale wind or solar energy facility development.

It would require the Department of Commerce to form a utility technical advisory group to consult in preparing the report, inviting the participation of a representative from each utility that currently subject to the Act’s renewable energy and conservation requirements. (Commerce could also ask for input from other utilities.)

The bill would create a Joint Legislative Committee on alternative energy facility siting, consisting of two Senators and two Representatives from each party, and alternates, chosen by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. It would review the report, and review inequities in where large alternative energy projects have been sited in Washington; inequities in where they are expected to be sited, and forms of economic development assistance, mitigation payments, and viewshed impairment payments that counties not hosting their per capita share of alternative energy resources “should provide” to counties that host more than their per capita share. The Committee would report its findings and any
recommendations to the committees of the Legislature with jurisdiction over environment and energy laws by December 1, 2023. Recommendations could be made by a simple majority, and two or more members could report minority findings if the committee didn’t reach majority-supported recommendations.

SJR8210

SJR8210 – Adding a section to the Washington Constitution on the conservation and protection of the state’s natural resources.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Senators Lovelett, Liias, Rolfes, Saldaña, Stanford, and Wilson, C. – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HJR4209 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The resolution would submit an amendment to Article I of the Constitution to the voters for their approval and ratification, or rejection. It would affirm that the people of the state, including future generations, have the right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems, and a stable climate, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful qualities of the environment. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall serve as trustee of those natural resources and conserve, protect, and maintain them for the benefit of all the people, including future generations. It would specify that those rights are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among the rights reserved to all the people, and are on par with other protected inalienable rights. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall equitably protect those rights for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, geography, or wealth, and shall act with prudence, loyalty,
impartiality, and equitable treatment of all beneficiaries in fulfilling its trustee obligations.

HJR4209

HJR4209 – Adding a section to the Washington Constitution on the conservation and protection of the state’s natural resources.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; San Juans & Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Representative Berry – D)
Current status – Continued hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy Thursday February 3rd at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SJR8210 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The resolution would submit an amendment to Article I of the Constitution to the voters for their approval and ratification, or rejection. It would affirm that the people of the state, including future generations, have the right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems, and a stable climate, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful qualities of the environment. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall serve as trustee of those natural resources and conserve, protect, and maintain them for the benefit of all the people, including future generations. It would specify that those rights are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among the rights reserved to all the people, and are on par with other protected inalienable rights. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall equitably protect these rights for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, geography, or wealth, and shall act with prudence, loyalty, impartiality, and equitable treatment of all beneficiaries in fulfilling its trustee obligations.

HB1864

HB1864 – Provides funds to help recruit or retain researchers or instructors with skills to further clean energy innovation at public academic and research institutions; provides a credit against B&O taxes for research and development spending on innovations in clean technology.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance January 27th. Amended and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t specify a funding source for the Technology Leadership Account it would create. It also declares the Legislature’s intention to extend the tax credit if more businesses are claiming it over time; that would be a very poor basis for concluding that the credit was actually contributing to that growth, rather than other factors.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute adds clean electrolytic hydrogen storage; marine renewable energy; solar and wind energy; sustainable aviation fuel; low carbon advanced manufacturing; transmission and distribution grid modernization technologies; zero carbon and energy efficient building technologies; energy grid cyber security; electric and zero carbon transportation technologies; recycling; and earth-abundant materials technologies to the definition of qualified clean technology R&D. It drops grid-scale electricity storage, zero carbon steel, zero carbon fertilizer, underground electricity transmission, and zero carbon alternatives to palm oil. It rephrases “clean hydrogen that is produced without emitting carbon” as “clean, electrolytic hydrogen production”; “plant and cell-based meat and dairy” and “drought and flood-tolerant food crops” as “advanced agriculture and food technology”; and “coolants that do not contain F-gases” as “technologies that allow transition from hydrofluorocarbons.” It adds investments in laboratory build-out and equipment to qualified R&D expenditures.

Original bill –
The bill would create an Advanced Technology Leadership and Security Strategic Reserve Account dedicated to providing funding to support recruiting or retaining a researcher or instructor with skills needed to assist in clean technology innovation at a Washington State academic institution, state laboratory or national laboratory. The Director of the Department of Commerce would be able to authorize expenditures from the account in response to a request from the President of one of these organizations including a signed declaration and supporting materials to be specified by the Director. The Department could also draw on the account to provide assistance with the analysis and decision making for awards requested by an academic institution or deemed necessary for due diligence by the Director. The Director would be required to develop factual findings establishing the connection between the amount awarded and furthering advanced technology leadership and security for Washington’s economy, and the Department would report each year to the Legislature’s economic development committees on awards and the findings to support them.

The bill would create a credit against the business and occupation tax for each “person” with research and development spending on innovations in clean technology during the year more than 0.92% of taxable income. That would include research on clean hydrogen produced without emitting carbon, next generation nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, grid-scale electricity storage, electrofuels, advanced biofuels, zero carbon steel, plant and cell-based meat and dairy, zero carbon fertilizer, carbon capture, underground electricity transmission, zero carbon plastics, geothermal energy, pumped hydropower, thermal storage, drought and flood-tolerant food crops, zero carbon alternatives to palm oil, and coolants that do not
contain F-gases. Operating expenses directly incurred in qualified clean technology research and development by a person claiming the credit, including wages, compensation of a proprietor or a partner in a partnership, benefits, supplies, and computer expenses  would count as spending in calculating the credit. Up to 80% of payments to a “person” other than a public educational or research institution to conduct qualified clean technology research would also count.  Payments to a “person” other than a public educational or research institution; capital costs; and overhead such as expenses for land, structures, or depreciable property would not count.

The credit would be the greater of the person’s qualified clean technology research and development expenditures or 80% percent of the amounts received by a person other than a public educational or research institution in compensation for the conduct of qualified research and development; minus 0.92% of the person’s taxable amount for that, multiplied by 1.50%. It would be limited to the lesser of $900,000 a year or the tax due. An organization receiving the credit could assign part or all of it to the person contracting for the performance of the qualified research and development.

The credit would expire at the end of 2022, but the bill declares the Legislature’s intention to renew it if there’s growth in the clean technology industry in Washington, as measured by the number of businesses claiming the credit.

HB1831

HB1831 – Creates an EV infrastructure training program and requires electricians certified through that to be present when public chargers are being installed or maintained.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bronoske (D; 28th District; Southwest Pierce County) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Berry, Macri, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards January 18th; replaced by a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute removes an error, to say that the current exemptions would apply instead of that they wouldn’t;  and specifies that the requirements apply to installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, but only on sites that are “public works”, rather than on any for public use.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Labor and Industries to create the rules for an electric vehicle infrastructure training program certification. Beginning July 1, 2023, all electric vehicle equipment intended for public use would have to be installed by appropriately licensed electrical contractors and appropriately certified electricians. At least one certified electrician would have to be present at any given time on a jobsite where that equipment was being installed or maintained. On a jobsite where the installation of equipment included one or more charging ports intended to supply 25 kilowatts or more to a vehicle, at least 25% of the certified electricians present on the site at any given time would have to have the electric vehicle infrastructure training program certification. (By way of comparison, a typical 40 amp 240 volt charger supplies 9.6 kilowatts.) The current provisions for exemptions from electrical contractor licensing and electrician certification laws would not apply to this work.

HB1823

HB1823 – Shifts the revenue from the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap & invest program) to funding outdoor recreation, climate adaptation, and natural climate solutions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ormsby – D; Eslick, Goehner, Schmick, Klicker, Graham, Chambers, and Abbarno – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill would change the carbon emissions reduction account, which receives roughly $365 million a year of specified revenue in advance of any other allocations from the cap & invest program, into the outdoor recreation and climate adaptation account. The air quality and health disparities account is supposed to get at least $20 million/biennium of the remaining revenue. All the rest of it goes into the climate investment account; 75% of that goes to the climate commitment account and 25% goes to the natural climate solutions account. The bill would eliminate the climate commitment account, and direct all of that revenue into the natural climate solutions account.

Funds in the carbon emissions reduction account are currently dedicated to reducing transportation emissions; under the bill, they would be dedicated to enhancing outdoor recreation and to contributing to climate change adaptation by investing in forest health, drought resilience, flood risk mitigation, and Puget Sound recovery and water quality. $125 million each biennium would go to fund wildfire response, forest restoration, and community resilience.

These funds could also be used for grants and loans to small forestland owners for activities that increase sequestration; the forestry riparian easement program, the family forest fish passage program, or to provide grants under a new grant program administered by the community economic revitalization board and investing in “institutions and infrastructure that make timber and farming towns sustainable and vibrant”. They could be used for drought resilience, or for flood risk mitigation investments including programs to reduce flood damage and improve aquatic habitat in the basins most at risk of catastrophic flooding; to fund flood control authorities to improve floodplains and flood protection infrastructure; or to fund sustainable water supply projects to secure the agricultural industry against climate change risks. They could be used for Puget Sound water quality investments, including upgrading required pollution controls; for outdoor recreation enhancement and amenities, grants to support marinas in complying with the environment protecting measures in aquatic lands permits; grants to replace or add buoys at locations that appropriately balance environmental protection and the needs of on-water recreation; grants to improve equitable access to local trails and connectivity of local trails to parks and regional trail networks; and for investments that measure and reduce the impact of urban heat island effects on salmon, conserve energy, and improve equity in human health.

They could also be used for any other purposes specified in the natural climate solutions account. (The bill would also add the investments in reducing transportation emissions that currently have dedicated funding from the carbon reductions account it would eliminate to the list of purposes that could be supported by that account.)

HB1814

HB1814 – Provides a new one-time credit for start-up costs and virtual net metering for community solar projects with low-income and low income service provider subscribers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsor Representative Berry -D)
Current status – Referred to Senate Ways and Means, amended to reduce the maximum size of a community solar system back down to 199 KWs, and to make a couple of small technical changes. Passed out of committee March 9th, and passed by the Senate March 10th. House concurred with the Senate amendments the same day.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 21st. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 1st. Had a hearing in Finance February 7th; replaced by a second substitute and passed out of committee February 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 26th,

Summary –
2nd Substitute –
This would raise the program’s  total cap from @20 million to $100 million; and the biennial cap from $5 million to $25 million. It would increase the eligible system size from 199 kWs to 1,000, and authorize including storage in projects and providing incentives for up to 100% of its cost. This version would have a utility that’s administering a project over 100kWs deliver payments for the power it generates, minus approved administrative costs, to its low income subscribers in some form that provides continuing direct benefits to them, such as rate reductions. If the administrator isn’t a utility, payments for the power would be made to the retail customer where the project was located according to a written agreement with the utility, and then distributed by the administrator to subscribers, minus administrative costs. (Presumably, there also has to be an agreement between the customer that’s hosting the site and the administrator about passing those payments on, though I don’t see that in the bill.)

Substitute –
The substitute eliminates the $500 pre-application fee; it cleans up and clarifies the drafting of the bill in a number of ways, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would create a low-income community solar incentive program for new projects between twelve kilowatts and 199 kilowatts with at least two subscribers or one low-income service provider subscriber. If the utility providing service in their area chose to participate in the program, community solar projects could submit applications for precertification to the WSU Energy Extension Program from July 1st 2022 through June 30th 2033, demonstrating how the project would deliver continuing direct benefits to low income, low income service provider, public agency or tribal subscribers. Projects could be administered by a utility, a non-profit, a housing authority, or by a tribal housing authority if the project were on tribal land. (These benefits could include the credits for the project’s power or other mechanisms that lower participants’ energy burden. Only the portion of a public or tribal agency subscription that was demonstrated to benefit low-income beneficiaries would count as a subscription qualifying for the incentives.) Projects would have to be on sites that didn’t displace critical habitat or productive farmland, but dual use agrivoltaic projects that ensured ongoing agricultural operations would be eligible.

Administrators would have two years after an application was precertified by the Energy Program to complete the project and actually get certified to receive the incentives, though they could request a 180 day extension if they could demonstrate significant progress. The Energy Program would be required to review each project for reasonable cost and financial structure, with a targeted installed cost of $2/watt DC for systems over 200 kWs and $2.25 per watt DC for systems under 200 kWs, excluding costs associated with storage systems and electrical improvements to permit grid-independent operation, but they might approve projects that were more or less expensive based on a review. (The Energy Program could also review and adjust the cost per watt target for each biennium.)

Within 60 days of certification, participating utilities would provide a one-time low-income community solar incentive payment to the administrator of the project to be used to provide direct benefits to its subscribers. The payment would cover up to $20,000 of the “project’s administrative costs related to the administrative start-up of the project for qualifying subscribers.”  [That seems to contradict the language saying the payment must be used to provide direct benefits, and another section of the bill says that the administrator can collect a reasonable fee to cover costs incurred in organizing and administering the project provided subscribers are notified about that before signing up. I’m not sure how these are supposed to fit together; maybe this is supposed to mean that subscribers have to pay for the work of getting themselves subscribed, but they get paid back if the program gets certified? Perhaps the fee has to come out of the payments for production….] The upfront payment would also include “up to 100% of the proportion of the installed cost of the share of the project that provides direct benefits to subscribers”, taking into account any federal tax credits or other grants or incentives from which the program is benefiting. [This reads as if it could be any amount below 100%, but there’s nothing else  in the bill about how to determine its level, so it may be supposed to mean this should be 100% of that cost, but no more than that – if some of the total cost is providing benefits that aren’t going to qualified providers, but to an agency, for example.] To reimburse utilities for these payments, the bill would create a new credit against their public utility taxes, not to exceed the greater of 1.5% of their year’s taxable power sales or $200,000. The utility would also provide net metering in accordance with the State’s current provisions for projects with a nameplate capacity between 12 kilowatts and 100 kilowatts AC, crediting the metered customer’s bill for production at the retail rate per kilowatt.  (The utility would set the rate at which it paid for the production from any larger projects in an agreement with the project.) The administrator would be required to pass payments for production on to the subscribers, after deducting reasonable administrative costs approved by the Extension Program. [It’s not clear how this approval process is supposed to work with the fee the subscribers were notified about before signing up.] The administrator or the utility would report each year on the energy production for the period, each subscriber’s units, and the date and amount disbursed to each subscriber.

The program would have a total cap of $20 million, a cap of $300,000 for 2023, and a cap of $5 million for any later year. The Energy Program would be required to try to distribute incentive funds equitably throughout the state, by including measures such as reserving or allocating them based on the proportion of public utility taxes collected, the proportion of the State’s low-income customers served by each utility (based on Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program data, and measures to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of community solar installations and a diversity of administrative models for projects. It would be required to use at least $2,000,000 of the funding for the entire program to support nonprofit organizations’ innovative approaches to allocating benefits to subscribers; to defining and valuing benefits to be provided to subscribers; or to other aspects of the subscriber, administrator, system host, and utility relationship. It would be required to ensure that at least $2,000,000 of the funding was available to tribes. It would be required to maintain a website with information about the program, including a monthly report of the number of certifications, and an estimate of the remaining unallocated funding for incentives.

I’ve been told that the first sections of this bill are intended to sunset the most recent State production incentive program with no new funding, while the Code Reviser’s summary says it terminates the application period for that program (which hit its cap early but was still required by the law to accept applications) on June 30, 2020, rather than June 30, 2021,  and that it extends the date by which precertified community solar projects may become certified under the program from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022. So far, I can’t make sense of the actual language in those sections. The extension in the bill applies to shared commercial projects as well; I don’t understand whether the projects that were precertified and managed to get certified during those two years would actually be eligible for funding somehow. I don’t know whether projects that got on the waitlist after the program hit its cap were precertified and would now be eligible for certification and incentives.

Details –
The bill would now require the RECs from these community solar projects to be retired, rather than allowing the utility to keep them as part of the contract for a project. Subscribers who moved within the utility’s service area would continue to receive net metering credits on their bills, but if they left the area, the administrator would be authorized to transfer those to another qualified subscriber.

HB1812

HB1812 – Including clean energy projects in the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting and monitoring, shifting the UTC’s current responsibilities in that process to the Council, and making administrative changes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Wylie & Berry – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – House concurred in the Senate amendments; the sections of the bill about consulting with rural stakeholders and reviewing inequities in the siting of renewable energy projects were vetoed by the Governor.
Next step would be – Signed into law except for Sections 19-22.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment and Energy January 25th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. (The substitute would retain hearings in the process rather than converting them to meetings; would allow any facility in the  process to apply for expedited permitting, rather than only energy facilities; broadens the definition of clean energy manufacturing facilities to include any form of transportation without exhaust other than water rather thanto  the original’s specified list; makes storage facilities include ones for electricity from any source; and makes other small changes summarized by staff at the beginning of it. ) Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing February 7th; amended to make the bill null and void if funding weren’t appropriated for it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor on the floor, amended, and passed by the House February 13th. The striker removed the option for tribes to appoint two members to the Council, removed clean fuel from the definition of clean manufacturing facilities, and made a few other small changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment would create a joint select committee on alternative energy facility siting, with specified membership, to review inequities in where large alternative energy projects have been and are forecast to be sited, and to review forms of economic development assistance, mitigation payments, and viewshed impairment payments that counties not hosting their per capita share of alternative energy resources should provide to counties that host more than their per capita share. The amendment would require the Department of Ecology  to consult with stakeholders from rural communities, agriculture, and forestry on the benefits and impacts of anticipated changes in the state’s energy system, including the siting of facilities, using the environmental justice community engagement plan, with input from the Environmental Justice Council. It specifies topics to be included in the process, and what’s to be included in a report on rural clean energy and resilience to the committee and other government bodies.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker making a number of minor changes that are summarized at the end of it; passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means, had a hearing there February 26th, and passed out of committee the 28th. Passed by the Senate March 3rd.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would add projects for producing renewable natural gas, renewable and electrolytic hydrogen, biofuel for other uses than transportation, and energy storage facilities to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process. It would also add manufacturing facilities for clean fuel and vehicles (or their components), for equipment for charging and fueling them, for equipment for the production of alternative energy and for energy storage. It would shift the Utilities and Transportation Commission’s role and responsibilities in the current process to the Council, removing the UTC from the process completely.

The bill would replace a representative of the Department of Natural Resources on the Council with a representative of the Commissioner of Public Lands. It would authorize the governing bodies or executive officials of up to two tribes with ancestral lands in the area where an energy facility is proposed to each appoint a member of the Council , sitting and voting when it considered the proposed site.  It would add ongoing regulatory oversight of energy facilities in accordance with its environmental and ecological guidelines to the Council’s powers. It would allow it to enter into contracts to carry out the other provisions of the Act for siting energy facilities in addition to studies of sites proposed by applicants, and authorize it to conduct some meetings on the proposed location and operational conditions of facilities rather than legal hearings. It clarifies that certification from the Council is required for the reconstruction of facilities over a certain size as well as for their construction. It would allow applicants to chose to apply for certification from the Council for the construction, reconstruction, or modification of electrical transmission facilities with a nominal voltage of at least 115,000 volts that are located in more than one jurisdiction with land use plans or zoning ordinances, even if they are not outside a current corridor. It would require notifying the county and city legislative authorities where the proposed facility would be located and tribal governments
affected by the proposed facility when an application for siting one was received. It would require the Council to work with local governments where a project was proposed and with tribal governments affected by a proposed facility to provide for meaningful participation and input during siting review and compliance monitoring. It would require the chair and designated staff to offer to conduct government-to-government meetings to address tribal issues of concern, and would require the Council’s reporting to the Governor to include a summary of any government-to-government meetings, including the issues and proposed resolutions.

It would remove the current language prohibiting a city, county, or regional planning authority from changing land use plans or zoning ordinances so as to affect the site of a proposed site after a hearing by the Council had determined the project was in compliance with those. It would require the Council’s director to notify an applicant before making a threshold determination that a facility proposed in a site application would have a probable significant, adverse environmental impact and to provide an opportunity to amend the application. It would require someone who wished to testify at the public hearing required before the Council issued its recommendation to the Governor to already have raised their issue in writing with specificity during the application review process before the hearing. If the environmental impact of a proposed facility were not significant or would be mitigated to a nonsignificant level, the bill would allow the Council to limit that hearing to whether any land use plans or zoning ordinances with which the proposed site has been determined to be inconsistent should be preempted. If the Council granted expedited processing to a project it would have to hold a public meeting to take comments on the application before issuing a recommendation to the Governor.

With the exception of transmission projects, the bill would require the Council to review a preapplicant’s draft materials on request and provide comments on additional studies or stakeholder and tribal input that should be included in the formal application.  It would change the provisions allowing the Council to conduct a preliminary study of a site upon request of any potential applicant, making the appointment of  an independent consultant to study the project an option for the Council rather than a requirement, and removing the specifications about what might be included. It would no longer allow such a study to be used in place of the “detailed statement” about projects required for other State agencies and local governments by the State Environmental Policy Act.

The bill would exempt the Director of the Council, the Director’s personal secretary, and two designated staff members from the Civil Service Law.

 

SB5717

SB5717 – Increasing government purchases of compost products, and creating a pilot program to reimburse farming operations for purchasing and using them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell.)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5731 is a much more ambitious compost bill; this bill shares some of its provisions.

Comments –
Since a given amount of collected organics turns into a much smaller amount of compost product, I think the bill’s targets must mean jurisdictions are supposed to buy percentages of the amount of finished compost that a certain amount of collected organics would produce after it was processed.

Summary –
Like SB5731, the bill would require local jurisdictions with curbside organics collection services available to residents to adopt a compost procurement ordinance to implement the State’s current law about using compost in government projects, and a compost procurement plan to meet its requirements. By January 1, 2024, they’d have to make reasonable efforts to purchase finished compost products equivalent to 25% of the amount of organic materials collected and delivered to their compost processor each year. This target would increase to  50% starting in 2026, and to 70% starting in 2028.

Both bills would require the use of compost products to the maximum extent economically feasible to meet the State’s current requirements for using them in projects, though this bill requires that of “governmental units” in general, rather than  just state agencies, local governments, and public schools. They both would allow preferential purchasing of compost in order to meet the State’s requirements for projects, rather than having to go with the lowest bidder.

In both bills, if funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored. (However, this bill would not make the purchase of compost spreading equipment for financing for it eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program.)

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology as well as the Attorney General, cities, and counties to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, but would not make the other changes in the enforcement of the Plastic Product Degradability Act that SB5731 does.

HB1810

HB1810 – Requires manufacturers of digital electronic products to provide independent repair providers and owners access to the documentation, parts and tools for repairs that they make available to authorized service providers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; South King County) (Co-Sponsors Representative Chase – R;  Ryu, Berry, Taylor & Fitzgibbon – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Appropriations January 27th. Replaced by a second substitute which would make it null and void if specific funding for it weren’t appropriated, and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules: still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments – SB5795 addresses many of the same issues.

History in the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee  January 19th. The substitute would remove the option for manufacturers to provide a training program leading to certification as a “manufacturer certified repair facility” as alternative to the other fair repair requirements, and would allow independent repair providers to maintain any one of several different repair certifications.

Summary –
Starting January 1, 2023, the bill would require original manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state to make the same documentation, parts and tools, including corrections to embedded software and safety and security patches, that they make available to authorized repair providers available to independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. Manufacturers would be required to make them all available for purchase on fair and reasonable terms.

Starting January 1, 2024, it would require manufacturers to make documentation, parts, and tools, as well as any updates to the embedded software, available to owners of products for purchase on fair and reasonable terms (unless the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of them presented a reasonably foreseeable risk of property damage or personal injury).

If manufacturers sold any documentation, parts, or tools to any independent repair provider in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they would be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included documentation or functionality that was not available in a standardized format.

Manufacturer would not be required to sell service parts that were no longer available to authorized repair providers. Equipment or parts sold or used in the state to provide security-related functions would not be allowed to exclude diagnostic, service, and repair information need to reset a security-related electronic function from the information provided to owners and independent repair facilities. The bill also says that if information necessary to reset an immobilizer system or security-related electronic module is excluded in the sub-section it “may be” obtained by owners and independent repair facilities through the appropriate secure data release systems, but there doesn’t seem to be an exclusion in the current version.

As an alternative to these obligations, manufacturers could provide a training program and allow any licensed Washington business to get certified as a “manufacturer certified repair facility” in an open and fair process.

The requirements would not apply to motor vehicles, non-road engines and equipment, or medical equipment. It would make a violation of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, but would only allow the Attorney General to enforce those provisions.

SB5678

SB5678 – Provides for preliminary declarations by the UTC on whether proposed energy projects would comply with a utility’s requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Energy Transformation Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast Washington.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Carlyle- D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 22nd; referred to Rules; passed by the Senate March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th; replaced by a substitute, which limits the option of seeking a declaratory order to investor owned utilities and clarifies a couple of procedural things. Passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing February 4th and passed out of committee the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would allow a private utility or the person proposing an energy transformation project, nonemitting electric generation project, or renewable resource project that might be acquired by the utility to petition the Utilities and Transportation Commission for a declaratory order to determine whether the project would comply with the utility’s need to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to comply with the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Projects that the UTC determined would comply with the requirements could be identified in a utility’s Clean Energy Action Plan and its Clean Energy Implementation Plan. The Commission could reevaluate a resource or a project in considering whether to approve a Clean Energy Implementation Plan or in a rate case, if it deviated substantively from the one described in the application foe a declaratory order.

(In fact, the last section of the bill says that “nothing” in the section of it about the declaratory orders “preempts the authority of the commission from making a determination, independent of the processes under [that] section … on whether a proposed energy transformation project, nonemitting electric generation project, or renewable resource project … meets the planning and portfolio requirements of an investor-owned utility’s Clean Energy Implementation Plan.)

SB5714

SB5714 – Creates sales and use tax deferments for large solar canopies on commercial, industrial & residential parking lots.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Liias – D)
Current status – Referred to House Finance; had a hearing and passed out of committee March 8th. (There were four proposed amendments; though the Legislature’s website doesn’t indicate whether they failed, none of them seem to have made it into the current version of the bill.) Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings say that the initial capital costs of installing solar generation on parking lot canopies will in most cases be fully amortized over time with the power generated and sold into the electricity system, but that initial capital costs may deter incorporation of installations into new projects.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there  February 17th, and passed out of committee the 24th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to add specifications for the development of the labor standards rules, and passed by the Senate March 4th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute reduces the amount of deferred tax owed by 25%, 50%. or 100% if various labor standards are met, and requires complete repayment of the taxes owed in eight years.

Original bill –
The bill would defer the sales and use taxes for solar canopies with at least a megawatt of capacity in parking lots for commercial, industrial and residential buildings. (If I’ve done the arithmetic correctly, this would be roughly 50,000 sq. ft. of panels.) Applications for the deferral would include the location of the project, its estimated or actual costs, time schedules for its completion and operation, anticipated nameplate capacity and use of the electricity, and any other information the Department of Revenue required. They could be filed until June 30th, 2032.

Applicants would have to begin actual construction on a project within a year of receiving a deferral certificate, unless it was delayed due to circumstances beyond the recipient’s control. (Problems with funding would not count.) Recipients would have to pay any taxes incurred if they didn’t begin construction within a year, and would have to notify the Department if a completed project was going to produce less than 85% of the electricity originally assumed. If a project wasn’t completed within two years, or the Department found it wasn’t being used as a qualifying solar canopy at any time within eight years of its completion, a gradually decreasing proportion of the deferred taxes would be due, with interest.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would be required to evaluate the program, considering the number of solar canopies receiving the deferral, their average and total electric output, the total beneficiary savings from the tax preference, the estimated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions assuming an equivalent amount of energy would otherwise been generated through the combustion of fossil fuels, and any other metrics the committee finds relevant.

SB5668

SB5668– Modifying the regulation of gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes.) (Co-Sponsor Liias -D)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
HB1766 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require each non-municipal gas utility to develop a clean heat transition plan for meeting the state’s greenhouse gas limits with respect to the emissions from fossil natural gas combustion; limiting the expansion of the gas system for residential and commercial space and water heating; advancing the use of high-efficiency electric equipment and production and the distribution of clean gas fuels; and ensuring the safe and equitable transition of the system. Plans would have to ensure that the transition achieves benefits for low-income households, overburdened communities, and vulnerable populations; and ensure the equitable distribution of the energy and nonenergy benefits of the utility’s programs and infrastructure to those communities and populations, including the reduction of energy burdens and improvement of indoor and outdoor air quality.

Plans would have to identify specific actions to achieve the company’s share of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets; and include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative transition actions, including those for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and incorporating the social cost of emissions. They would have to consider recommendations from the latest state energy strategy; identify changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with specific actions in the plan; and prioritize the remaining use of fossil natural gas by residential and commercial customers in consultation with electric utilities. They would have to assess overall current conditions within the company’s service territory, including the state of the economy, public health, and environmental conditions; the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs, including those caused by utility actions outside its service area; and the relative impact of alternative emissions reduction strategies on indoor air pollution and the health of customers. Plans would have to support an equitable transition for overburdened communities and low-income customers through no-cost grant programs for low- income residents and low-cost or specially targeted incentive programs for moderate income or fixed income seniors. Companies would have to consult with any electric utility with customers in their service area in developing plans, and those would be subject to review, modification, and approval by the Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Plans would have to be based on a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of multiple emissions reduction strategies to identify the combination that complied with the requirements at lowest reasonable cost.They would be required to consider:
(a) Measures to increase the efficiency of energy use in residential, industrial, and commercial buildings through thermal load reduction strategies such as envelope efficiency improvements, hot water conservation, or process load reductions;
(b) Development of geothermal and industrial waste heat, and other heat sources that don’t involve substantial emissions of greenhouse gases;
(c) Development of district heating systems using waste heat; and
(d) Reduction of the carbon content of delivered gas by incorporating renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen.
They might also consider expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs, using dual heating systems to limit the use of fossil gas to periods of peak energy demand during a transition period, converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; targeted programs to permanently decommission areas of the company’s distribution systems; using offset credits to the extent the cap and invest program allows; and implementing projects to reduce nonhazardous leaks from pipelines.

The bill would exempt gas companies from the requirement that utilities provide new service on request, and prohibit companies from extending service to new customers unless they determined that was compatible with their plan; it would prohibit them from expanding their service area unless the UTC determined that was consistent with their plan and would not result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the gas plant to be installed in the expanded area. It would require them to charge the full cost of a line extension. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize an extension to a new customer.) After December 31, 2024, it would prohibit them from including any conservation measure that requires the installation of new gas-fired equipment in their conservation acquisition targets or offering financial incentives to acquire any, unless the commission found the measures were consistent with the company’s plan and didn’t result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the equipment.

It would expand the renewable natural gas program to allow a utility to propose delivering renewable hydrogen and hydrogen produced by hydrolysis using any energy source as well, provided that it demonstrated that would reduce its greenhouse gas intensity per therm, including life-cycle emissions, and would not reduce the safety or reliability of its service. The bill would require the UTC to establish safety standards for the use of hydrogen before approving a program that includes it, and would allow the retail customer charge for a program to exceed 5% of the charge for natural gas if the Commission determined that was necessary under an approved transition plan.

Once major projects in an approved plan began operating, the bill would allow the utilities to account for and defer all operating and maintenance costs, depreciation, taxes, and cost of capital incurred in connection with them, as well as costs for contracts to purchase renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen, until the UTC considered their application to recover them through rates.

HB1815

HB1815 – Marking catalytic converters with identifiers to more effectively track their ownership and identify stolen property, and creating a task force to address converter thefts.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ryu (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Boehnke & Chase – Rs;  J. Johnson, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Orwall, Shewmake, Leavitt,  Sells, and Gregerson – Ds)
Current status – House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5495 also addresses converter thefts; so do HB1873 and HB1994.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Public Safety January 18th. Replaced by a substitute making minor changes and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Transportation. Replaced by a 2nd Substitute eliminating the pilot converter tracking project, converting the task force to a work group, and adding a member representing auto manufacturers and one representing converter manufacturers. It would have the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs establish a grant and training program, when funded, to assist local law enforcement targeting metal theft. Voted out of committee February 7th; referred to Rules; amended on the House floor to make two very minor changes and passed February 12th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law and Justice February 21st. Replaced by a striker making various adjustments that are summarized by staff at the end of it; passed out of committee and referred to Transportation February 24th. Had a hearing there February 26th; amended to have WSU do the catalytic convertor theft study rather than the Joint Transportation Committee, and passed out of Transportation February 28th. Referred to Rules, replaced by yet another striker, amended, and passed by the Senate March 4th.

The bill now has the WSU catalytic converter theft work group; requires any scrap metal dealer’s transactions for a catalytic converter to have documentation indicating that it came from  a vehicle registered in the seller’s name;  and limits immediate payment for any non-ferrous metal transaction to $30 unless there’s a retained image of the material as well as the seller’s government ID. It also says there must be a three day delay for payments to individual sellers. (I don’t see how this fits with the previous bit.)  A floor amendment added similar requirements for auto wreckers. It adds a $1,000 fine per converter to the current penalties for scrap metal dealing offenses, and makes converter transactions without the required records violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs  would now be responsible for making recommendations on reducing converter theft (including considering the possibility of a marking program), as well as the grant and training program. People who attempted to purchase or sell unlawfully obtained metals at licensed scrap metal recyclers or to conduct a transaction under the influence of controlled substances would be added to the no-buy database.

Summary –
If funds were appropriated for it, the Washington State Patrol would establish a catalytic converter tracking pilot project intended to deter the theft of converters by marking them with vehicle identification numbers or other unique identifiers. The Patrol would collaborate with law enforcement, insurance companies and scrap metal dealers to identify the vehicles most frequently targeted for converter theft and establish the most effective methods for marking permanently marking them. Materials to arrange for the marking of the converters of vehicles most likely to be stolen at no cost to the owners would be distributed to dealers, automobile repair shops and service centers, law enforcement agencies, and community organizations. The Patrol would make any educational information resulting from the project available to law enforcement agencies and scrap metal dealers, and report to the Legislature by October 1, 2023, describing the progress, results, and any findings, including the number of converters marked, and, to the extent known, whether any marked converters were stolen and the outcome of any criminal investigation into the thefts.

The bill would also create a task force to review state laws related to theft of converters. It would be required to develop recommendations for:
(a) Deterring catalytic converter theft;
(b) Developing tools to identify and recover stolen converters; and
(c) Lowering costs to victims of converter theft.
It might also develop recommendations related to:
(a) Maintenance and accessibility of law enforcement records
related to transactions involving converters; and,
(b) Traceability of payments related to those.

Members would be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and consist of a Democrat and a Republican from each chamber (one of whom would be elected as the chair by the members), and a member from the State Patrol, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Office of Public Defense; the Superior Court Judges’ Association, the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association, the Association of Washington Cities, the Office of the Attorney General, the property and casualty insurance industry, the scrap metal recycling industry, the Washington Organized Retail Crime Association, and two members representing individuals with lived experience being charged with, or convicted of, organized theft. The members would choose one legislator and one nonlegislative member as cochairs, and the Patrol would be authorized to contract with one or more consultants to provide data analysis, research, and other services the task force decided it needed.

HB1801

HB1801 – Requiring ratings of the repairability of digital electronic equipment on its packaging, and creating a commission on its repairability.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; SeaTac) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ryu, Fitzgibbon, and Berry – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Consumer Protection and Business January 19th; replaced by a substitute weakening the bill dramatically and voted out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments-
The bill’s not very clear about exactly where and how each sort of information has to be available; this is my best guess about its intent. I’m also not clear whether the requirement for displaying the scores and the information in the second list below for a product for sale on a website applies to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 digital equipment products of all kinds in the state, or only to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 of that particular item.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would drop everything in the bill about the creation and enforcement of repairability score labeling requirements, and replace the Commission with a three year task force making annual reports and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature.

Original bill –
The bill would require original equipment manufacturers of digital electronic equipment sold or used in the State to provide average repairability scores, for purposes of diagnosis and consumer information, on a label on the front and rear of its packaging. Each piece of equipment’s scores would range from one to ten, and they would cover:
(a) The duration and availability of technical documents and related advice on its use and maintenance;
(b) The ease of dismantling it, tools required, and other characteristics of the fasteners used or other parts;
(c) The manufacturer’s estimate of the duration of its parts;
(d) How long the manufacturer plans to continue manufacturing replacement parts;
(e) The ratio of the price of replacement parts to the price of new equipment;
(f) The potential to recycle or dispose of it;
(g) The expertise required to safely repair it; and,
(h) Any other information deemed necessary by Commerce.
(The manufacturer would average these to create the average repairability score for the packaging.) The Department of Commerce would create specific standards for equipment, and manufacturers would have to meet them for each criterion before they could assign a repairability score higher than five for it. Commerce might also create additional standards for any or all score values for each criterion.

Manufacturers would also have to “include the following information with the repairability scores.” [It isn’t clear to me whether this and the ratings for each criterion (or quick response codes, other codes, or a web address to guide a consumer to full information on a website) would also have to be on the packaging, or whether that’s optional.]
(a) The model number and manufacturer’s suggested retail price;
(b) Information on the software updates provided by the manufacturer;
(c) Potential for a factory reset of the equipment;
(d) Whether or not remote assistance is available from the manufacturer and the price charged for providing that; and
(e) Other information deemed necessary by the department.

Ninety days before selling digital equipment in the state, a manufacturer would have to submit the numeric score for each criterion and the average repairability score for the packaging label; reasons for how the equipment meets the scores chosen; and any other required information to Commerce. The Department would post that on a public website, and might publish its own comments alongside the manufacturer’s information if it determined that or the scores were materially incomplete, inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading. (It would have to try to notify manufacturers of any problems in their submissions and give them up to 30
days to make changes.) The bill would make violations of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, and would allow an individual who brought a successful action under the Act for a violation to recover all the remedies it establishes and an additional $1,000 in statutory damages for each violation.

Parties selling 1,000 or more pieces of digital equipment annually and listing equipment for sale on a website would be required to display all this information there.

The bill would also create a commission on digital electronic equipment repairability to study, analyze, and prepare reports on local, national, and global repairability standards for digital electronic equipment; and provide recommendations to the Legislature on repairability standards for digital electronic equipment in Washington. Members would be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and consist of a Democrat and a Republican from each chamber (one of whom would be elected as the chair by the members), and a member from Commerce, Ecology, the Attorney General’s office, an advocacy group focused on sustainability of digital electronic equipment; an organization representing the interests of local technology companies; a distributor or marketplace platform for digital electronic equipment; and an original equipment manufacturer. The commission might invite any number of others to participate in an advisory, non-voting capacity. It would report to the Legislature every two years, beginning in October 2024, on the development of local, national, and global repairability standards, and provide recommendations on the creation, implementation, management, and enforcement of State standards, with a focus on achieving compatibility with emerging national and global standards. It would be authorized to issue and enforce subpoenas to obtain documents or testimony from any entity or individual to gather information that would assist in the execution of its duties.

SB5731

SB5731 – Diverting organic materials from landfills, increasing composting, and reducing food waste. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Lovelett – D)
Current status – Did not have a hearing; still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1799 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would add to the State’s current food waste reduction goals by establishing goals to reduce the disposal of organic materials in landfills by 75% from 2015 levels by 2030, and to recover at least 20% of the amount of edible food that was disposed of in 2015 for human consumption by 2025. It defines “organic materials management” to include vermiculture, black soldier fly, or similar technologies as well as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Jurisdictions would be required to provide organic solid waste collection services to all their residents and businesses that generate more than .5 cubic yard of organic materials; and provide for their organic management. (Jurisdictions disposing of less than 5,000 tons of solid waste or with populations under 25,000, census tracts with fewer than 75 people per square mile in unincorporated portions of a county,and areas receiving waivers for up to five years from the Department of Ecology on the basis of factors including the distance to organic management facilities, the facilities’ ability to manage additional organic materials, and current restrictions on their transport would be exempt. However, Ecology could apply the requirements to sparse census tracts and areas with waivers after January 2030 if it determined that the new goals had not or would not be achieved. Counties’ and cities’ solid waste plans would be required to be consistent with the new goals, to identify the capacity for organic management needed to meet them, to consider other methods of managing organics in addition to composting and anaerobic digestion, and to identify priority areas for that in industrial zones in the jurisdiction (and not in overburdened areas). The bill would add composting and other organic materials management facilities to the list of local public works projects eligible for State loans, grants, financing guarantees, and technical assistance through the Public Works Board. By 2023, local governments would be required to adopt a compost procurement ordinance and a procurement plan to implement the State’s current requirements for using compost in projects, giving priority to purchasing compost products from companies that produce them locally, are certified by a nationally recognized organization, and produce compost from municipal solid waste, and meet quality standards comparable to those adopted by the Department of Transportation or Ecology.

Beginning January 1, 2024, the bill would require a business that generates at least eight cubic yards of organic waste per week that isn’t managed on site to arrange for organic materials management of that; beginning in 2025 the requirement would apply to businesses generating at least four cubic yards, and beginning in 2026, businesses that generate at least four cubic yards of any solid waste per week would have to arrange for organic management of their organic waste, unless the department determined that additional reductions in the landfilling of organic materials would be better achieved, at reasonable cost to businesses, by establishing a different threshold. Businesses could fulfill the requirements by:
(a) Source separating organic waste and subscribing to a service with organic waste collection and materials management;
(b) Managing its organic waste on-site or hauling its own organic waste for organic management; or
(c) Qualifying for exclusion from the requirements of this section consistent with subsection (1)(b) of this section.
Businesses’ contracts for gardening or landscaping service would have to require that the organic waste be managed organically. (The requirements wouldn’t apply in areas of a jurisdiction with no available businesses that collect and deliver organic materials to solid waste facilities that provide for the organic materials management of it and food waste, and would not apply at all in jurisdictions with no available capacity at the solid waste facilities to which businesses that collect and deliver organic materials could feasibly and economically deliver them.)

The bill would modify the current Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which reduces gleaners and food donors exposure to liability, by only requiring  the “apparently fit grocery products” it covers to meet all safety and safety-related labeling standards; those would not include certain current required pull dates or a “best by,” “best if used by,” “use by,” “sell by,” or similarly phrased date intended to communicate information about the freshness or quality of a product to consumers. The bill would allow donors to be paid for the costs of handling, administering, and distributing donated food and grocery products, and would allow charging needy individuals that much for them.

The bill would create a Washington Center for Sustainable Food Management at the Department of Ecology to help coordinate statewide food waste reduction. It would be authorized to:
(a) Coordinate the implementation of the State’s food waste reduction plan;
(b) Draft plan updates and measure progress on actions and strategies, and toward the statewide goals established in the bill and that plan;
(c) Maintain a website with current food waste reduction information and guidance for food service establishments, consumers, food processors, hunger relief organizations, and other sources of food waste;
(d) Provide staff support to multistate food waste reduction initiatives in which the state is participating;
(e) Maintain the consistency of the plan and other food waste reduction activities with the work of the Conservation Commission’s food policy forum;
(f) Facilitate and coordinate public-private and nonprofit partnerships focused on food waste reduction;
(g) Collaborate with federal, state, and local government partners on food waste reduction initiatives;
(h) Develop and maintain maps or lists of locations of the food systems of Washington that identify food flows, where waste occurs, and opportunities to prevent food waste;
(i) Collect and maintain data on food waste and wasted food;
(j) Research and develop emerging organics and food waste reduction markets;
(k) Develop and maintain statewide food waste reduction and food waste contamination reduction campaigns, in consultation with other state agencies and other stakeholders, including the development of materials may inform food service operators about the protections from civil and criminal liability under federal law and under the Samaritan Donation Act when donating food; and develop guidance in support of distribution of promotional materials by local health officers as part of routine inspections, and State agencies; and,
(l) Distribute and monitor grants for food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery.
The Center would be required to research and adopt several model ordinances for optional use by counties and cities that provided mechanisms for commercial solid waste collection and disposal designed, in part, to establish disincentives for generating organic waste and for landfilling organic materials. Ecology would do a State Environmental Policy Act review of these, and actions by jurisdictions adopting them would not be subject to its requirements. The department would be authorized to establish a voluntary reporting protocol for reports by businesses that donate food and recipients, could encourage its use, and could also request information about  the volumes, types, and timing of food managed by a facility, and the food it generated

The bill would make the purchase of compost spreading equipment or financial assistance to farmers to purchase that eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program, if it were for annual use for at least three years with significant volumes of compost from a composting site that wasn’t owned or operated by the farmer. If funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored.

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, rather than the Attorney General. It would shift the definition of “Supplier” in the State’s Plastic Product Degradability law  to make manufacturers (or importers into the State, if the State lacked authority over the manufacturers) responsible for compliance with it. It would require plastics labeled as compostable to use green, beige, or brown labeling, striping, or other design patterns that help differentiate them from noncompostable materials, prohibit the use of similar schemes on plastics and food service products that weren’t compostable, and would add beige to the acceptable colors in the current State rules about making it easy to identify compostable plastic film products. It would prohibit plastic produce stickers that were not biodegradable.

It would shift the State’s share of  the responsibility for enforcing the Plastic Product Degradability law from the Attorney General to Ecology, specify that it’s enforcement must be  based primarily on complaints filed with the Department and cities and counties, require the Department to create ways to file complaints, and require it, cities and counties to provide education and outreach activities to inform retail establishments, consumers, and suppliers about the requirements of the law.

HB1799

HB1799 – Diverting organic materials from landfills, increasing composting, and reducing food waste.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Berry – D)
Current status – House concurred in Senate amendments March 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5731 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment & Energy January 21st. Replaced by a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing and passed out of committee on February 7th. (I don’t know if an amendment to make the bill null and void unless funding for it were appropriated passed or not – it’s labeled “Checked”.) Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor making various adjustments which are summarized by staff at the end of it and passed by the House February 14th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker dropping the Good Samaritan pricing provision, removing extended producer responsibility programs for packaging and paper products from the waste management funding study, and making some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. Passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 26th; and passed out of committee the 28th. Amended on the floor to prohibit expanding any existing organic materials management facility that processed more than 200,000 tons of material in 2019 (with the exception of anaerobic digesters); to exempt jurisdictions with between 25,000 and 50,000 people and without curbside organics collection from the organics collection service requirements, and to add a labeling requirement for nonfood contact film products. Passed by the Senate March 3rd.

Summary –
The substitute delays some local requirements by two years, drops the ban on non-compostable produce stickers, makes the compost reimbursement program permanent, and makes a lot of other small changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would add to the State’s current food waste reduction goals by establishing goals to reduce the disposal of organic materials in landfills by 75% from 2015 levels by 2030, and to recover at least 20% of the amount of edible food that was disposed of in 2015 for human consumption by 2025. It defines “organic materials management” to include vermiculture, black soldier fly, or similar technologies as well as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Jurisdictions would be required to provide organic solid waste collection services to all their residents and businesses that generate more than .5 cubic yard of organic materials; and provide for their organic management. (Jurisdictions disposing of less than 5,000 tons of solid waste or with populations under 25,000, census tracts with fewer than 75 people per square mile in unincorporated portions of a county,and areas receiving waivers for up to five years from the Department of Ecology on the basis of factors including the distance to organic management facilities, the facilities’ ability to manage additional organic materials, and current restrictions on their transport would be exempt. However, Ecology could apply the requirements to sparse census tracts and areas with waivers after January 2030 if it determined that the new goals had not or would not be achieved.) Counties’ and cities’ solid waste plans would be required to be consistent with the new goals, to identify the capacity for organic management needed to meet them, to consider other methods of managing organics in addition to composting and anaerobic digestion, and to identify priority areas for that in industrial zones in the jurisdiction (and not in overburdened areas). The bill would add composting and other organic materials management facilities to the list of local public works projects eligible for State loans, grants, financing guarantees, and technical assistance through the Public Works Board. By 2023, local governments would be required to adopt a compost procurement ordinance and a procurement plan to implement the State’s current requirements for using compost in projects, giving priority to purchasing compost products from companies that produce them locally, are certified by a nationally recognized organization, and produce compost from municipal solid waste, and meet quality standards comparable to those adopted by the Department of Transportation or Ecology.

Beginning January 1, 2024, the bill would require a business that generates at least eight cubic yards of organic waste per week that isn’t managed on site to arrange for organic materials management of that; beginning in 2025 the requirement would apply to businesses generating at least four cubic yards, and beginning in 2026, businesses that generate at least four cubic yards of any solid waste per week would have to arrange for organic management of their organic waste, unless the department determined that additional reductions in the landfilling of organic materials would be better achieved, at reasonable cost to businesses, by establishing a different threshold. Businesses could fulfill the requirements by:
(a) Source separating organic waste and subscribing to a service with organic waste collection and materials management;
(b) Managing its organic waste on-site or hauling its own organic waste for organic management; or
(c) Qualifying for exclusion from the requirements of this section consistent with subsection (1)(b) of this section.
Businesses’ contracts for gardening or landscaping service would have to require that the organic waste be managed organically. (The requirements wouldn’t apply in areas of a jurisdiction with no available businesses that collect and deliver organic materials to solid waste facilities that provide for the organic materials management of it and food waste, and would not apply at all in jurisdictions with no available capacity at the solid waste facilities to which businesses that collect and deliver organic materials could feasibly and economically deliver them.)

The bill would modify the current Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which reduces gleaners and food donors exposure to liability, by only requiring  the “apparently fit grocery products” it covers to meet all safety and safety-related labeling standards; those would not include certain current required pull dates or a “best by,” “best if used by,” “use by,” “sell by,” or similarly phrased date intended to communicate information about the freshness or quality of a product to consumers. The bill would allow donors to be paid for the costs of handling, administering, and distributing donated food and grocery products, and would allow charging needy individuals that much for them.

The bill would create a Washington Center for Sustainable Food Management at the Department of Ecology to help coordinate statewide food waste reduction. It would be authorized to:
(a) Coordinate the implementation of the State’s food waste reduction plan;
(b) Draft plan updates and measure progress on actions and strategies, and toward the statewide goals established in the bill and that plan;
(c) Maintain a website with current food waste reduction information and guidance for food service establishments, consumers, food processors, hunger relief organizations, and other sources of food waste;
(d) Provide staff support to multistate food waste reduction initiatives in which the state is participating;
(e) Maintain the consistency of the plan and other food waste reduction activities with the work of the Conservation Commission’s food policy forum;
(f) Facilitate and coordinate public-private and nonprofit partnerships focused on food waste reduction;
(g) Collaborate with federal, state, and local government partners on food waste reduction initiatives;
(h) Develop and maintain maps or lists of locations of the food systems of Washington that identify food flows, where waste occurs, and opportunities to prevent food waste;
(i) Collect and maintain data on food waste and wasted food;
(j) Research and develop emerging organics and food waste reduction markets;
(k) Develop and maintain statewide food waste reduction and food waste contamination reduction campaigns, in consultation with other state agencies and other stakeholders, including the development of materials may inform food service operators about the protections from civil and criminal liability under federal law and under the Samaritan Donation Act when donating food; and develop guidance in support of distribution of promotional materials by local health officers as part of routine inspections, and State agencies; and,
(l) Distribute and monitor grants for food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery.
The Center would be required to research and adopt several model ordinances for optional use by counties and cities that provided mechanisms for commercial solid waste collection and disposal designed, in part, to establish disincentives for generating organic waste and for landfilling organic materials. Ecology would do a State Environmental Policy Act review of these, and actions by jurisdictions adopting them would not be subject to its requirements. The department would be authorized to establish a voluntary reporting protocol for reports by businesses that donate food and recipients, could encourage its use, and could also request information about  the volumes, types, and timing of food managed by a facility, and the food it generated

The bill would make the purchase of compost spreading equipment or financial assistance to farmers to purchase that eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program, if it were for annual use for at least three years with significant volumes of compost from a composting site that wasn’t owned or operated by the farmer. If funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored.

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, rather than the Attorney General. It would shift the definition of “Supplier” in the State’s Plastic Product Degradability law  to make manufacturers (or importers into the State, if the State lacked authority over the manufacturers) responsible for compliance with it. It would require plastics labeled as compostable to use green, beige, or brown labeling, striping, or other design patterns that help differentiate them from noncompostable materials, prohibit the use of similar schemes on plastics and food service products that weren’t compostable, and would add beige to the acceptable colors in the current State rules about making it easy to identify compostable plastic film products. It would prohibit plastic produce stickers that were not biodegradable.

It would shift the State’s share of  the responsibility for enforcing the Plastic Product Degradability law from the Attorney General to Ecology, specify that it’s enforcement must be  based primarily on complaints filed with the Department and cities and counties, require the Department to create ways to file complaints, and require it, cities and counties to provide education and outreach activities to inform retail establishments, consumers, and suppliers about the requirements of the law.

SB5722

SB5722 – Creates a benchmarking and energy management program (and eventual performance standards) for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and other buildings between 20,000 and 50,000 sq.ft.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Liias – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1774 is a companion bill in the House. (Dead bill)

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th. Replaced with a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 4th and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 17th, and passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Appropriations; amended to make it null and void if funding for it isn’t appropriated; and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor delaying the start date of the expanded early adoption incentive program for smaller buildings by a year, to July 2025, and making a couple other minor changes. (I now think the bill caps these expanded incentives at $150 million.) Passed by the House March 3rd.

Summary –
Substitutes –
The substitute would expand the current early adoption incentive program to include buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. They’d get 30¢/sq.ft for implementing their benchmarking, energy management, and operations and maintenance planning requirements without having to meet the performance standards for bigger buildings, and these incentives would be available for buildings using gas, without regard to their greenhouse gas emissions. Multifamily buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. would be eligible for these incentives as well, rather than being able to choose to apply for the 85¢/sq.ft. incentives for early compliance with the performance standards for non-residential over 50,000 sq.ft as they could in the first version of the incentives. Owners could apply from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2030. (I think the bill would allow another $75 million for these incentives, and that the additional funding would not be available for the previous phase of incentives, which reached their $75 million cap very quickly, but the language of that provision isn’t very clear.)

The bill also requires a small business impact statement, and an appeals process for administrative decisions including penalties. It would authorize enhanced incentive payments for building owners committing to anti-displacement provisions rather than limiting incentives for multifamily buildings to those limiting increase in rent to inflation for four years.

Original bill –
By December 31, 2023, the bill would have the Department of Commerce create a benchmarking and energy management requirement for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The requirements are to be consistent with the current Clean Buildings energy performance standards for non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq ft, but are limited to energy use analysis through benchmarking and reporting, energy management planning, and operations and maintenance planning. The Department would be required to create an actual performance standard for these buildings by 2030, and the bill would authorize it to establish targets for buildings’ greenhouse gas-adjusted energy use intensity in this and the current performance standards.)

Commerce would provide a support program for building owners including outreach and informational materials connecting them to utility resources, periodic training, phone and email support, and other technical assistance. It would have to include enhanced technical support such as assistance with benchmarking and planning for buildings whose owners typically don’t employ dedicated managers, such as multifamily housing, child care facilities, and houses of worship. The bill also says the department “shall consider” underresourced buildings with a high energy use per square foot, buildings in rural communities, buildings whose tenants are primarily small businesses, and those located in high-risk communities according to the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities map. [I think that probably means it’s supposed to consider what additional support owners of those buildings might need, and provide that, but it’s not clear.] (The requirements would also have to include provisions for financial hardship.)

Commerce would also be required to establish an incentive program to supplement the cost to building owners or tenants, less utility incentives and annual savings resulting from the requirements. It would have to require that tenants’ rent could not be raised at a rate above inflation for four years after receiving the incentives.

The Department would have to notify the owners of covered buildings of the requirements by July 1, 2025, and owners would have to file reports demonstrating they’d developed and implemented the bill’s required procedures by July 1st, 2027 and every five years after that. It would adopt rules imposing a penalty of not more than 30 cents a square foot for failing to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements, or for increasing rent above the rate of inflation for multifamily leased space receiving the incentives. (Penalties would be deposited in the low-income weatherization and structural rehabilitation assistance account and reinvested into the program to support compliance with the standard.) [I think this means the actual performance standard to be established by 2030.]

The department would have to evaluate the benchmarking data to determine energy use and greenhouse gas emissions averages by building type, and report to the Legislature and the Governor by October 1, 2029, with recommendations for cost-effective building performance standards for the covered buildings, their estimated costs for building owners, and anticipated implementation challenges.

By December 31st, 2030, the Department would be required to adopt rules to add these buildings to the State’s energy performance standard program. It would have to consider the age of buildings in setting performance targets, and might establish a longer timeline for compliance by multifamily buildings than for the other buildings covered by the bill. The rules could not take effect until the end of the 2031 regular session.

HB1792

HB1792– Expanding various tax exemptions for the production, distribution, and use of hydrogen made by electrolysis.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Orcutt, Abbarno – Rs, and Fitzgibbon -D)
Current status – Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
In the House –
Had a hearing in Environment & Energy January 18th. Passed out of committee January 21st. Referred to Finance. Had a hearing there February 7th. Amended by the prime sponsor to reduce the length of the exemption to 15 years, and passed out of committee February 17th.

Original Bill –
The bill would define electrolytic hydrogen production facilities (using any energy source) as “fuel cell vehicle infrastructure”, including them in the current sales and use tax exemptions for labor, services, and materials used in installing, constructing, repairing, or improving fuel cell infrastructure. That definition would also exempt leased public land used for installing, maintaining, and operating electrolytic hydrogen facilities from the excise tax ordinarily collected from leaseholders in place of the property tax. (These exemptions all currently expire July 1st, 2025.)

The bill would create a new exemption from the public utilities tax for the sales of electricity to an electrolytic hydrogen production business, a business producing hydrogen using renewable resources as the source of the hydrogen and the energy, or a business compressing, liquifying, or dispensing either of these. The exemption would last for 25 years from when the business began commercial operations, provided it began by July 1, 2032, and provided the electricity used for hydrogen was metered separately from the power for the businesses’ general operations, and the price for it was reduced by an amount equal to the tax exemption. (The exemption would not apply to any remarketing or resale of electricity originally obtained by contract for the production of electrolytic hydrogen.)

The bill would authorize public utility districts to produce, use and sell electrolytic hydrogen under the current regulations governing their renewable gas businesses. It would authorize municipal utilities to use renewable and electrolytic hydrogen as well as natural gas.

HB1793

HB1793 – Creates rules for owners’ installations of charging stations in common interest communities such as condominiums, cooperative apartments, and developments with homeowners’ associations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; South Seattle, Renton, Tukwila.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Fitzgibbon & Berry – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law and Justice February 17th. (An amendment to allow charging a reasonable fee for the placement of a charging station was initially reported as passing, but actually failed.) Passed out of committee February 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 1st.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Civil Rights & Judiciary January 18th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 28th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor by the prime sponsor and passed by the House February 9th.

Summary –

Floor amendment in the House –
This drops the provision allowing an association to  charge the cost of an infrastructure upgrade to meet the power needs of chargers against the unit owners who have them, and requires a written disclosure of some more details about an installed charger to a buyer. It drops the language saying charging equipment is not real property, and no longer says the owner may either remove the EVCS or sell it to the buyer or to the association upon sale of the apartment, unit, or lot. [I don’t know if these last two changes have any significant practical implications or not…]

Substitute –
The substitute no longer allows an association to authorize installing a charger in a common area, or to create a new parking space to facilitate installing a charger; allows alternative ways for a vehicle owner to pay a charger’s electricity besides a separate meter; requires sellers to make disclosures about installed chargers; no longer requires a certificate of insurance from homeowners in associations subject to the Homeowners’ Associations Act; and specifies that the requirement for a certificate from unit owners in associations subject to the Washington Uniform Common Interest Act only applies to certain types of those.

Original bill –
The bill would prevent an apartment owners’ association from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station in a designated parking space for the personal use of an apartment owner. The association might impose reasonable restrictions on charging stations, and could require an owner to submit an application in advance for approval for the installation. (It would have to be processed and approved in the same way as an application for approval of an architectural modification, would have to be approved or denied in writing within sixty days, and would automatically take effect at the end of that period if it hadn’t been denied by then, unless the delay resulted from a reasonable request for information.) An association could charge a reasonable fee for processing an application if there were a fee for all applications for architectural modifications. It would have to approve an application if the installation were reasonably possible and the apartment owner agreed in writing to:
(a) Comply with the association’s reasonable architectural standards for the installation;
(b) Engage an electrical contractor familiar with the standards to install it;
(c) Provide, within14 days after an approval, a certificate of insurance naming the association as an additional insured on the apartment owner’s policy for any claim related to the installation, maintenance, or use of the station, or, if the charging station is located in a common area, reimbursement to the association for the actual cost of any increased premium attributable to the station, which would have to be provided with 14 days of receiving an invoice for that from the association;
(d) Register the electric vehicle charging station with the association within 30 days after installation;
(e) Pay for the electricity associated with the separately metered electric vehicle charging station; and;
(f) Comply with the other requirements of the bill.
The owner would have to obtain any permit or approval required by the local government for a station, and comply with all relevant codes and safety standards. A station would have to meet all applicable health and safety standards and any national, state, or local requirements.

If installation of an electric vehicle charging station in a designated parking space were impossible or unreasonably expensive, an association could authorize the installation of an electric vehicle charging station for the exclusive use of an apartment owner in a common area.. In such cases, the association could enter into a license agreement with the owner for the use of the space; the owner would still have to comply with the requirements of the bill.

Unless a written contract set other terms, an apartment owner would be responsible for the costs of installing a station. It would be the owner’s property, and if it was removable, the owner could take it or sell it to the buyer of the apartment or to the association if either decided to purchase it. An owner would be required to inform any prospective buyers of the existence of a station, the related responsibilities, and whether the owner planned to remove it . The owner and each successive owner would be responsible for:
(a) Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the station;
(b) Costs for damage to it, a common area, or limited common area resulting from its installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement;
(c) The cost of electricity associated with it;
|(d) Obtaining and maintaining an insurance policy that meets the bill’s requirements;
(f) Removing the station if that were reasonably necessary for the repair, maintenance, or replacement of the common area or limited common area; and,
(e) Any costs for a removal of the station and the restoration of the common area or limited common area after the removal.

An association might install a charging station in the common areas for the use of all apartment owners and, in that case, the association would have to develop appropriate terms of its use.  An association would be authorized to create a new parking space to facilitate the installation of a station. If it reasonably determined that the cumulative use of electricity in the community attributable to the installation and use of  charging stations required the installation of additional infrastructure to provide a sufficient supply of electricity, it could assess the cost of the improvements against each apartment owner that had, or would, install a charging station.

An association that willfully violated the bill’s requirements would be liable to the apartment owner for actual damages, subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 to the owner, and responsible for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs In any action in which an apartment owner requesting to have a station installed and seeking to enforce compliance with the bill prevailed.

The bill would create identical provisions for the installation of chargers in a condominium unit or common space by the owner of a unit , and for the installation of chargers in a lot or designated parking space by the owners of residences in developments with home owners’ associations.

SB5670

SB5670– Requiring local governments to allow additional duplexes through sixplexes near major transit stops and in areas now zoned single family.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Kuderer – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be –  Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1782 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
In the Senate –
Had a hearing in Housing & Local Government January 18th; amended to allow zero lot line setbacks where appropriate and passed out of committee January 27th.

Original bill –
The bill defines “middle housing” to mean duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments with up to six units. The bill would require cities with over 20,000 people planning under the Growth Management Act [GMA] to allow them on all lots zoned for single family within half a mile of a major transit stop, and to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on all other lots zoned for single-family. As an alternative, a city with a population of 500,000 or more could alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of at least 40 units/acre across all of its urban growth area; a city with between 100,000 people and 500,000 could rezone to an average minimum density of at least 30 units/acre across its UGA; and a city with between 20,000 and 100,000 people could rezone to an average minimum of at least 25 dwelling units/acre across its UGA. Within nine months of the effective date of the bill any of these cities that had not adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of its comprehensive plan’s mandatory elements would be required to perform the actions for addressing racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion specified in the GMA for areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop. (The bill would define a major transit stop for the purposes of the entire GMA as a ferry terminal; a stop on a light rail, commuter rail, or fixed rail system; a stop on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on HOV lanes; or a stop for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of 15 minutes or less for at least five hours during weekday peaks.

Any city with a population of at least 10,000 planning under the GMA would have to allow duplexes on any lots currently zoned for single-family. (Any city with a population between 10,000 and 20,000 would be able to alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of 15 dwelling units or more per acre instead.) Cities choosing any of the alternatives based on average minimums in the bill would also have to adopt findings of fact demonstrating that will not result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, or further exclusion in housing, and then transmit those findings to the Department of Commerce.

Cities would be allowed to adopt development and design standards for middle housing, provided that those didn’t discourage it through unreasonable costs, fees, delays, or other requirements or actions which individually, or cumulatively, made developing it impracticable. They would be prohibited from requiring zoning, development, siting, or design review standards for it that were more restrictive than those for single-family residences, and would be required to apply the same development permit and environmental review processes to both. They would be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition of developing it  within a half mile of a major transit stop; from requiring more than than one off-street parking space per lot for it on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet; and from requiring more than two off-street parking spaces per lot for it on lots larger than that.

The Department of Commerce would provide technical assistance to cities implementing  the bill’s requirements, and prioritize cities demonstrating the greatest need for it. It would publish a model middle housing ordinances within 18 months of the bill’s effective date, and that would preempt local development regulations until a city took all the actions necessary to implement  the bill’s requirements. Commerce would establish a process by which cities implementing the requirements could seek approval of necessary local actions. Any local actions approved by the department would be exempted from appeals under the GMA and the State Environmental Policy Act. It would exempt amendments to development regulations and other nonproject actions taken by a city to implement its requirements from administrative or judicial appeals under the GMA. [I think the language of the bill would only exempt them if they had been approved by Commerce, but I’m not sure.]

The bill’s zoning requirements would take effect twenty-four months after its effective date for cities over 10,000 people, or twelve months after the Office of Financial Management determined that a city had reached one of the population thresholds in the bill.

HB1782

HB1782 – Requiring local governments to allow additional duplexes through sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments near major transit stops and some of these in areas now zoned single family.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bateman (D; 22nd District; Thurston County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Macri, Berry, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Local Government January 18th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing February 5th, and passed out of committee (after the failure of a series of amendments.) Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5670 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute provides for additional technical assistance from Commerce; adds a variety of new requirements; and makes other changes. There’s a staff summary at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill defines “middle housing” to mean duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments with up to six units. The bill would require cities with over 20,000 people planning under the Growth Management Act [GMA] to allow them on all lots zoned for single family within half a mile of a major transit stop, and to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on all other lots zoned for single-family. As an alternative, a city with a population of 500,000 or more could alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of at least 40 units/acre across all of its urban growth area; a city with between 100,000 people and 500,000 could rezone to an average minimum density of at least 30 units/acre across its UGA; and a city with between 20,000 and 100,000 people could rezone to an average minimum of at least 25 dwelling units/acre across its UGA. Within nine months of the effective date of the bill any of these cities that had not adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of its comprehensive plan’s mandatory elements would be required to perform the actions for addressing racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion specified in the GMA for areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop. (The bill would define a major transit stop for the purposes of the entire GMA as a ferry terminal; a stop on a light rail, commuter rail, or fixed rail system; a stop on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on HOV lanes; or a stop for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of 15 minutes or less for at least five hours during weekday peaks.

Any city with a population of at least 10,000 planning under the GMA would have to allow duplexes on any lots currently zoned for single-family. (Any city with a population between 10,000 and 20,000 would be able to alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of 15 dwelling units or more per acre instead.) Cities choosing any of the alternatives based on average minimums in the bill would also have to adopt findings of fact demonstrating that will not result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, or further exclusion in housing, and then transmit those findings to the Department of Commerce.

Cities would be allowed to adopt development and design standards for middle housing, provided that those didn’t discourage it through unreasonable costs, fees, delays, or other requirements or actions which individually, or cumulatively, made developing it impracticable. They would be prohibited from requiring zoning, development, siting, or design review standards for it that were more restrictive than those for single-family residences, and would be required to apply the same development permit and environmental review processes to both. They would be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition of developing it  within a half mile of a major transit stop; from requiring more than than one off-street parking space per lot for it on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet; and from requiring more than two off-street parking spaces per lot for it on lots larger than that.

The Department of Commerce would provide technical assistance to cities implementing  the bill’s requirements, and prioritize cities demonstrating the greatest need for it. It would publish a model middle housing ordinances within 18 months of the bill’s effective date, and that would preempt local development regulations until a city took all the actions necessary to implement  the bill’s requirements. Commerce would establish a process by which cities implementing the requirements could seek approval of necessary local actions. Any local actions approved by the department would be exempted from appeals under the GMA and the State Environmental Policy Act. It would exempt amendments to development regulations and other nonproject actions taken by a city to implement its requirements from administrative or judicial appeals under the GMA. [I think the language of the bill would only exempt them if they had been approved by Commerce, but I’m not sure.]

The bill’s zoning requirements would take effect twenty-four months after its effective date for cities over 10,000 people, or twelve months after the Office of Financial Management determined that a city had reached one of the population thresholds in the bill.

 

HB1774

HB1774– Creates a benchmarking and energy management program (and eventual performance standards) for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and other buildings between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; South Seattle, Renton & Kent.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ramel, Berry, Dolan, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Environment & Energy. Did not have a hearing by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5722 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
By December 31, 2023, the bill would have the Department of Commerce create a benchmarking and energy management requirement for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The requirements are to be consistent with the current Clean Buildings energy performance standards for non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq ft, but are limited to energy use analysis through benchmarking and reporting, energy management planning, and operations and maintenance planning. The Department would be required to create an actual performance standard for these buildings by 2030, and the bill would authorize it to establish targets for buildings’ greenhouse gas-adjusted energy use intensity in this and the current performance standards.)

Commerce would provide a support program for building owners including outreach and informational materials connecting them to utility resources, periodic training, phone and email support, and other technical assistance. It would have to include enhanced technical support such as assistance with benchmarking and planning for buildings whose owners typically don’t employ dedicated managers, such as multifamily housing, child care facilities, and houses of worship. The bill also says the department “shall consider” underresourced buildings with a high energy use per square foot, buildings in rural communities, buildings whose tenants are primarily small businesses, and those located in high-risk communities according to the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities map. [I think that probably means it’s supposed to consider what additional support owners of those buildings might need, and provide that, but it’s not clear.] (The requirements would also have to include provisions for financial hardship.)

Commerce would also be required to establish an incentive program to supplement the cost to building owners or tenants, less utility incentives and annual savings resulting from the requirements. It would have to require that tenants’ rent could not be raised at a rate above inflation for four years after receiving the incentives.

The Department would have to notify the owners of covered buildings of the requirements by July 1, 2025, and owners would have to file reports demonstrating they’d developed and implemented the bill’s required procedures by July 1st, 2027 and every five years after that. It would adopt rules imposing a penalty of not more than 30 cents a square foot for failing to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements, or for increasing rent above the rate of inflation for multifamily leased space receiving the incentives. (Penalties would be deposited in the low-income weatherization and structural rehabilitation assistance account and reinvested into the program to support compliance with the standard.) [I think this means the actual performance standard to be established by 2030.]

The department would have to evaluate the benchmarking data to determine energy use and greenhouse gas emissions averages by building type, and report to the Legislature and the Governor by October 1, 2029, with recommendations for cost-effective building performance standards for the covered buildings, their estimated costs for building owners, and anticipated implementation challenges.

By December 31st, 2030, the Department would be required to adopt rules to add these buildings to the State’s energy performance standard program. It would have to consider the age of buildings in setting performance targets, and might establish a longer timeline for compliance by multifamily buildings than for the other buildings covered by the bill. The rules could not take effect until the end of the 2031 regular session.

SB5669

SB5669– Strengthens State energy codes by adding reductions in net energy use, net-zero readiness, and wiring for solar in new buildings for the 2031 code cycle, and by creating a residential stretch code.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Senator Stanford – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Never heard. (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1770 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require the State Energy Code to provide an 80% reduction in residential and non-residential energy use compared to the 2006 baseline by 2034. (This would be 10% more than the reduction currently required by 2031. Since buildings are constructed under the code in place when they’re permitted, it takes a couple of additional years for a code update to actually become effective.)

It would also require those buildings to be “net zero ready”, and to include wiring for photovoltaic panel installation in the future. (The Department of Energy defines “net zero ready” buildings as being so energy efficient that an added renewable energy system could offset all or most of the building’s annual energy. The bill would have the Building Code Council develop the actual rules for meeting the State’s definition of that standard.)

The bill would have the the Department of Commerce propose rules for the technical provisions of an optional statewide residential reach code, and would require the Code Council to adopt one. Any city, town, or county could choose to adopt and enforce it in place of the State Energy Code’s standard requirements. It would have to become effective by 2023, and have to achieve the reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that would become effective in the regular State residential code by 2034, but could not exceed the “net zero” energy standard.

The bill would also eliminate a provision specifying that space heating equipment efficiency should be allowed to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance in the code.

HB1770

HB1770 – Strengthens State energy codes by adding reductions in net energy use, net-zero readiness, and wiring for solar in new buildings for the 2031 code cycle, and by creating a residential stretch code.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ramel, Berry, Dolan, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker which drops the requirements for net-zero readiness by 2034 and for an eventual 80% reduction in net energy consumption from the 2006 Washington State Energy Code. It eliminates the home affordability cost analysis. The bill now simply authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt a residential energy stretch code created by the Code Council to reach the 70% reduction in energy use currently required for the regular 2030 code three years earlier. (It would also require a 70% reduction in emissions, though.) Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5669 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Local Government January 19th; replaced by a substitute January 21st. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to require an affordability cost analysis for any change in the residential code; to exclude new EV charging loads from the 80% reduction requirement; and to clarify a couple of sentences. Passed by the House February 12th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute replaces a requirement for “wiring for photovoltaic panel installation” with a requirement for “electrical raceways and designated space for solar equipment for photovoltaic panel installation”. It adds an exemption for buildings with inadequate solar exposure, and changes a few other dates and details which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill would require the State Energy Code to provide an 80% reduction in residential and non-residential energy use compared to the 2006 baseline by 2034 (through changes in the code adopted in the 2031 cycle; this would be 10% more than the reduction currently required by 2031, through changes in the 2028 cycle.) Since buildings are constructed under the code in place when they’re permitted, it takes a couple of additional years for a code update to actually become effective.)

It would also require those buildings to be “net zero ready”, and to include wiring for photovoltaic panel installation in the future. (The Department of Energy defines “net zero ready” buildings as being so energy efficient that an added renewable energy system could offset all or most of the building’s annual energy. The bill would have the Building Code Council develop the actual rules for meeting the State’s definition of that standard.)

The bill would have the the Department of Commerce propose rules for the technical provisions of an optional statewide residential reach code, and would require the Code Council to adopt one. Any city, town, or county could choose to adopt and enforce it in place of the State Energy Code’s standard requirements. It would have to become effective by 2023, and have to achieve the reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that would become effective in the regular State residential code by 2034, but could not exceed the “net zero” energy standard.

The bill would also eliminate a provision specifying that space heating equipment efficiency should be allowed to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance in the code.

HB1768 – 2022

HB1768 – Expanding the definition of the conservation projects that the Department of Enterprise Services and school districts are to implement (if they’re cost effective) to include projects reducing energy demand or greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 17th. Passed out of committee September 24th, referred to Rules; passed by the Senate March 3rd.
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 13th; substitute adopted January 20th. Passed by the House February 10th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute makes the same changes in definitions for the program that authorizes municipalities to negotiate performance-based energy contracts for conservation in their buildings. There’s a staff summary of these and other small changes at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill would expand the definition of the conservation projects that the Department of Enterprise Services and school districts are required to implement, if they’re cost effective. It currently includes projects reducing energy consumption or energy costs, and projects increasing efficiency. The bill would include projects reducing energy demand or reducing greenhouse gas emissions through distributed energy resources, such as energy storage, demand response, electric vehicles, and grid-interactive efficient buildings.

SB5666

SB5666– Allows public electric utilities to fund outreach and investment to convert customers’ equipment from fossil fuels to electricity if they have approved plans establishing that will provide net benefits to the utility.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Carlyle – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1767 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would allow public electric utilities to adopt a targeted electrification plan after public comment, establishing that the sum of the benefits of an option for electrifying its residential and commercial customers’ gas or wood equipment would equal or exceed the sum of its costs. (These utilities would still be authorized to offer incentives and programs to accelerate the electrification of homes and buildings if that were in their direct economic interest.)

The benefits they consider may include system impacts, as well as:
(i) Utility revenue from increased retail load;
(ii) Distribution and transmission system efficiencies resulting from demand response or other load management opportunities associated with the increased load, including direct control and dynamic pricing;
(iii) System reliability improvements;
(iv) Indoor and outdoor air quality benefits to existing and future customers;
(v) Reductions in customers’ greenhouse gas emissions, taking into consideration the utility’s obligations under the cap and invest act and the State’s greenhouse gas emissions limits;
(vi) Public health benefits, such as resilience in dealing with extreme heat and wildfire smoke for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations.
The analysis may differentiate the benefits and costs for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations in their service area.

The costs they consider must include:
(i) The electricity, which must be demonstrated to have a lower greenhouse gas emissions profile than direct use of natural gas or any other resources that might be used to serve or offset the load from electrification during the life of the equipment;
(ii) Any upgrades to the utility’s distribution or transmission system or load management practices and equipment made necessary by the increased load; and
(iii) The cost of any incentives, advertising, or other inducements used to encourage customers to electrify a use served by a different fuel.

After adopting a plan, a public utility would be authorized to offer incentives and establish other programs to accelerate the targeted electrification of homes and buildings, including the promotion of electrically powered equipment, advertising programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates. A utility offering these incentives and programs would be required to prioritize service to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities, and to ensure that all customers were benefiting from the transition to clean energy through the equitable distribution of energy and non energy benefits and the reduction of burdens to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities including long-term and short-term public health and environmental benefits; reduction of those costs and risks; and energy security and resiliency.

HB1767

HB1767– Allows public electric utilities to fund outreach and investment to convert customers’ equipment from fossil fuels to electricity if they have approved plans establishing that will provide net benefits to the utility.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Macri, Berry, Dolan, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed out of committee January 20th. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5666 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 18th.

Summary –
The bill would allow public electric utilities to adopt a targeted electrification plan after public comment, establishing that the sum of the benefits of an option for electrifying its residential and commercial customers’ gas or wood equipment would equal or exceed the sum of its costs. (These utilities would still be authorized to offer incentives and programs to accelerate the electrification of homes and buildings if that were in their direct economic interest.)

The benefits they consider may include system impacts, as well as:
(i) Utility revenue from increased retail load;
(ii) Distribution and transmission system efficiencies resulting from demand response or other load management opportunities associated with the increased load, including direct control and dynamic pricing;
(iii) System reliability improvements;
(iv) Indoor and outdoor air quality benefits to existing and future customers;
(v) Reductions in customers’ greenhouse gas emissions, taking into consideration the utility’s obligations under the cap and invest act and the State’s greenhouse gas emissions limits;
(vi) Public health benefits, such as resilience in dealing with extreme heat and wildfire smoke for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations.
The analysis may differentiate the benefits and costs for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations in their service area.

The costs they consider must include:
(i) The electricity, which must be demonstrated to have a lower greenhouse gas emissions profile than direct use of natural gas or any other resources that might be used to serve or offset the load from electrification during the life of the equipment;
(ii) Any upgrades to the utility’s distribution or transmission system or load management practices and equipment made necessary by the increased load; and
(iii) The cost of any incentives, advertising, or other inducements used to encourage customers to electrify a use served by a different fuel.

After adopting a plan, a public utility would be authorized to offer incentives and establish other programs to accelerate the targeted electrification of homes and buildings, including the promotion of electrically powered equipment, advertising programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates. A utility offering these incentives and programs would be required to prioritize service to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities, and to ensure that all customers were benefiting from the transition to clean energy through the equitable distribution of energy and non energy benefits and the reduction of burdens to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities including long-term and short-term public health and environmental benefits; reduction of those costs and risks; and energy security and resiliency.

HB1766

HB1766 – Modifying the regulation of gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Slatter -D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in  Environment & Energy January 28th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
SB5668 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would require each non-municipal gas utility to develop a clean heat transition plan for meeting the state’s greenhouse gas limits with respect to the emissions from fossil natural gas combustion; limiting the expansion of the gas system for residential and commercial space and water heating; advancing the use of high-efficiency electric equipment and production and the distribution of clean gas fuels; and ensuring the safe and equitable transition of the system. Plans would have to ensure that the transition achieves benefits for low-income households, overburdened communities, and vulnerable populations; and ensure the equitable distribution of the energy and nonenergy benefits of the utility’s programs and infrastructure to those communities and populations, including the reduction of energy burdens and improvement of indoor and outdoor air quality.

Plans would have to identify specific actions to achieve the company’s share of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets; and include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative transition actions, including those for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and incorporating the social cost of emissions. They would have to consider recommendations from the latest state energy strategy; identify changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with specific actions in the plan; and prioritize the remaining use of fossil natural gas by residential and commercial customers in consultation with electric utilities. They would have to assess overall current conditions within the company’s service territory, including the state of the economy, public health, and environmental conditions; the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs, including those caused by utility actions outside its service area; and the relative impact of alternative emissions reduction strategies on indoor air pollution and the health of customers. Plans would have to support an equitable transition for overburdened communities and low-income customers through no-cost grant programs for low- income residents and low-cost or specially targeted incentive programs for moderate income or fixed income seniors. Companies would have to consult with any electric utility with customers in their service area in developing plans, and those would be subject to review, modification, and approval by the Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Plans would have to be based on a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of multiple emissions reduction strategies to identify the combination that complied with the requirements at lowest reasonable cost.They would be required to consider:
(a) Measures to increase the efficiency of energy use in residential, industrial, and commercial buildings through thermal load reduction strategies such as envelope efficiency improvements, hot water conservation, or process load reductions;
(b) Development of geothermal and industrial waste heat, and other heat sources that don’t involve substantial emissions of greenhouse gases;
(c) Development of district heating systems using waste heat; and
(d) Reduction of the carbon content of delivered gas by incorporating renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen.
They might also consider expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs, using dual heating systems to limit the use of fossil gas to periods of peak energy demand during a transition period, converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; targeted programs to permanently decommission areas of the company’s distribution systems; using offset credits to the extent the cap and invest program allows; and implementing projects to reduce nonhazardous leaks from pipelines.

The bill would exempt gas companies from the requirement that utilities provide new service on request, and prohibit companies from extending service to new customers unless they determined that was compatible with their plan; it would prohibit them from expanding their service area unless the UTC determined that was consistent with their plan and would not result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the gas plant to be installed in the expanded area. It would require them to charge the full cost of a line extension. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize an extension to a new customer.) After December 31, 2024, it would prohibit them from including any conservation measure that requires the installation of new gas-fired equipment in their conservation acquisition targets or offering financial incentives to acquire any, unless the commission found the measures were consistent with the company’s plan and didn’t result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the equipment.

It would expand the renewable natural gas program to allow a utility to propose delivering renewable hydrogen and hydrogen produced by hydrolysis using any energy source as well, provided that it demonstrated that would reduce its greenhouse gas intensity per therm, including life-cycle emissions, and would not reduce the safety or reliability of its service. The bill would require the UTC to establish safety standards for the use of hydrogen before approving a program that includes it, and would allow the retail customer charge for a program to exceed 5% of the charge for natural gas if the Commission determined that was necessary under an approved transition plan.

Once major projects in an approved plan began operating, the bill would allow the utilities to account for and defer all operating and maintenance costs, depreciation, taxes, and cost of capital incurred in connection with them, as well as costs for contracts to purchase renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen, until the UTC considered their application to recover them through rates.