Author Archives: Thad Curtz

HB1091

HB1091 – Implements a low-carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island) (Co-Sponsor Slatter – D) (Requested by the Governor)
Current status –
Conference committee version passed by both houses.
In the House – Passed
Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 21st. Had a hearing in Appropriations on February 4th; replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 9th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 16th, was amended, and passed out of committee as a 3rd Substitute on the 19th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 27th. Returned to the House by the Senate for possible concurrence with amendments there; the House refused to concur in the changes April 20th, and asked the Senate to agree to its version. Conference committee report signed April 24. Passed by the House April 25th.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 10th; replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing March 27th; replaced by a much weakened striker, amended, and passed out of committee April 1st. Referred to Rules April 2nd; amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 8th. The Senate declined to accept the House version, and the bill went to conference committee. Conference committee report signed April 24. Passed by the Senate April 25th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
(The original bill was an updated version of HB1036, but the only substantive change was requiring fuels to have associated emissions at least 20% below 2017 levels to generate credits.)
The current price of CO2e reductions under California’s low carbon fuel standard is $200/metric ton; in Oregon it’s roughly $100/tonne.

Summary –
Conference Committee Striker –
This slows the rate at which reductions in fuel carbon intensity need to be made by dropping the provision for a step up to 2.5% reductions in 2032 and 2034. This delays the point at which a 10% reduction is reached by several years, and creates a pause at that level; it now requires a JLARC report on the program and a legislative review at that point before continuing the program, rather than requiring the reauthorization in the Senate’s version. It moves the date for reaching a 20% reduction out to 2038. Like the Senate bill, it drops the House provision that said Ecology had to require any additional reductions after 2031 that were needed to meet the State’s targets. It makes the implementation of the bill dependent on an increase of at least five cents a gallon in the gas tax rather than the additional $500 million in transportation funding added in the Senate’s version.

It makes the continuation of the program past the 10% reduction level dependent on at least a 15% increase in biofuel production and in state feedstocks, and on the approval beyond appeals of at least one new or expanded facility increasing biofuel capacity by more than sixty million gallons a year. (It says this expansion must include at least one new facility producing at least ten million gallons a year.) It also expands the severability clause to specify that the rest of the act is still to be enforced if these provisions are held to be invalid.

The striker drops the provision specifying that broadband investments generate credits, but adds a provision to the House definition of a credit saying that they can be generated by “other activities consistent with this chapter.” It allows up to 10% of total credits to be generated by state investments reducing transportation GHG emissions and decarbonizing the sector. It drops the Senate’s provisions about limiting SEPA review for new biofuel facilities and requiring the evaluation of their net cumulative emissions.

The final version caps the price of credits in the clearance market in 2023 at $200 (in 2018 dollars); it’s limited to inflation increases after that. It follows the Senate version in requiring Ecology to hold a clearance market if any covered facility is short of credits, allows carrying forward deficits, requires Ecology to undertake an exploration of the root causes for a shortfall after two deficit periods,  and allows it to implement remedies for the problem (subject to some prohibitions). It follows the Senate in requiring electric utilities to spend 50% of their revenue from credits they generate on transportation projects  that Ecology and DOT decide produce the largest reductions in GHG emissions, rather than on the vehicle purchase incentives the House specified. It adds that they “should consider” projects expanding low and moderate income access to zero-emission transportation.

The conference version kept the Senate provision requiring deferral of compliance obligations for at least a quarter and up to four years if the forecast projected there were not going to be enough available credits to meet covered parties’ obligations, requiring an emergency deferral if there was not an adequate supply of renewable fuels for reasons that couldn’t have been foreseen or prevented, and providing a full or partial deferral for an individual party unable to comply for reasons beyond its control. It drops the House and Senate provisions about a WSU study of least conflict sites and a stakeholder process about mitigation of impacts, and has Ecology and Commerce make recommendations about improvements to permitting processes for industrial projects and facilities, and mitigations of their environmental impacts instead.

It makes the expedited Energy Facility Site Evaluation permitting process an option for smaller biofuel facilities capable of producing between 1,500 and 25,000 barrels a day.

Senate floor amendments –
These prohibit Ecology from raising the standard after 2026 unless a new biofuels production facility producing more than sixty million gallons of biofuels a year has been successfully permitted, and there’s been at least a 25% increase in the volume of in-state biofuel production and the use of agricultural feedstocks grown within the state. They require the program to generate credits for investments funded in an omnibus transportation act that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize the sector, but allow Ecology to limit the number of those that can be earned each year. They require rule making for the program to conform to the standards for significant rules under the Administrative Procedure Act; if funds are appropriated, they require the WSU Energy Program to consult with stakeholders and identify least conflict priority sites for projects to produce significant volumes of low carbon transportation fuel, require Ecology to periodically consult with stakeholders to identify and discuss mitigation of significant likely environmental impacts associated with them, and require periodic reporting to the Legislature on a range of issues about them.

In Ways and Means –
The striker replaced the requirement for a 2028 standard 10% below 2017 levels with a set of stepped reductions producing a maximum reduction of 4% by then, followed by maximum reductions of 1%/yr through 2031, and 2.5% a year through 2034. It no longer requires Ecology to update the rules to produce emission reductions through 2050 consistent with the state’s targets. It requires the passage of “a separate additive transportation funding act” generating more than $500 million/biennium in revenue before Ecology can actually activate the program. [This is the same provision recently attached to the cap & trade bill.] It no longer has Ecology design mechanisms to provide a financial disincentive for relying on the mechanisms for cost compliance, and directs the department to hold a credit clearance market for any period where at least one regulated party is short of credits. It caps the maximum price for credits in the clearance market at $200, adjusted for inflation. [This is about their current price in the California market.] It requires Ecology to evaluate the net cumulative GHG emissions for new or expanded facilities that would require a SEPA review and would result in annual GHG over 25,000 MT per year, including any net displacement of global emissions.  [This involves estimates like the controversial ones for the Kalama methanol proposal, where the proponents claimed that the methanol would be used in China to produce plastics with fewer emissions than what would be used to make them there otherwise.] It requires 50% of an electric utility’s revenues from credits to be used for activities and projects that Ecology and the Department of Transportation jointly decide do the most to reduce GHG emissions and decarbonize transportation. If the forecast projects there will be less than 100% of the credits needed to comply with the requirements during a compliance period the bill requires Ecology to issue a deferral, adjusting the requirement temporarily, using the requirement for the previous period, suspending the calculation of deficits, or taking other measures needed to keep the costs of credits under the cap. The bill no longer allows broadband projects to generate credits, and makes some other minor changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment requires Ecology to use the standard for the previous period if it determines before the beginning of 2026 or 2028 that available in-state feedstocks for the program are less than 25% of what’s needed for compliance.

In the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology –
The striker in committee made a number of modest adjustments to the bill which are summarized by staff at the end of it; the amendment specified that utility credits for providing power from a zero emission resource for transportation are only available for electricity supplied to a metered customer for charging or refueling, and limits the required mechanisms for assigning credits to charging in a utility’s service area. (Ecology could apparently still decide to assign them for providing charging beyond that area.)

Amendments on the House Floor –
Amendments required Ecology’s reports on health benefits to distinguish between those from the Clean Fuel Standard and those from vehicle efficiency improvements; authorized credits for broadband investments facilitating remote work and required Ecology to create a metric for them; removed expedited site review for clean fuel projects; created a program to identify least conflict priority sites for them; required periodic consultation with stakeholders on mitigation for probable environmental impacts from them and reporting to the Legislature on mitigation, funding needs, permitting, and environmental review; and allowed nonprofit and public entities to earn credits from fueling battery or fuel cell vehicles. Representative Fitzgibbon’s amendment and Representative Paul’s amendment each made a number of changes which are summarized at the bottom of those. (All the amendments are available at the bottom of the bill page.)

Second substitute adopted by House Environment and Energy –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the second substitute at the beginning of that. An additional amendment in the House Transportation Committee would require Ecology to expedite processing of environmental reviews under the State Environmental Policy Act and permit applications for projects related to producing low-carbon transportation fuels.

Substitute adopted by House Environment and Energy –
There’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of the substitute. (They include requiring 50% of the revenue to go to reducing the cost of new electric vehicle leases and purchases, and giving utilities credits for electricity used in residential charging.)

Original Bill –
The Department of Ecology is to establish rules to reduce the intensity of transportation fuels, including electricity, used in the state. They’re to take effect January 1st, 2023, and to reduce the full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions attributable to fuels other than electricity to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (By 2031, Ecology is to update them so emissions from transportation sources will meet the state’s target of a 95% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.)

The rules are to create a system of trackable, verifiable, tradeable, and bankable credits, generating a credit (or a deficit) when the production, importing, or dispensing of fuel with a lower (or a higher) carbon intensity than the department’s standard results in the emission of a metric ton of CO2e. The estimates of greenhouse gas emissions may not privilege fuels from any particular places, and must reflect the carbon intensity of each electric utility’s mix of generation sources. The rules must include cost containment mechanisms, such as provisions allowing the department to establish a credit clearance market and sell credits at a price it sets after the end of each compliance period, a similar means for complying if participants haven’t been able to acquire enough credits to meet the requirements by the end of a period, and a similar means of ensuring that the prices of credits don’t significantly exceed those of credits in similar programs in other jurisdictions. (Such mechanisms must be designed to financially disincentivize participants from relying on them rather than reducing emissions.) Persons associated with the supply chains of transportation fuels covered by the program and those generating credits from fuels that are not covered by the program may elect to participate in the market. (The department may also designate an entity to aggregate and use credits generated by any persons covered by the program that generate credits but choose not to participate.)

Electricity and fuels used by aircraft, vessels, railroad locomotives, and military vehicles are not covered by the program. Fuel for off-road logging vehicles, construction and mining, and agriculture isn’t covered until 2028, but can be used to generate credits and trade them before then. Ecology is also authorized to allow the generation of credits associated with electric or alternative transportation infrastructure that already exists when the bill becomes effective.

The rules must allow generating credits from providing zero emission vehicle refueling infrastructure and other low carbon fuel infrastructure including, fast charging battery electric vehicle infrastructure and hydrogen electric vehicle refueling infrastructure. They may allow generating credits from any activities that reduce emissions in the state, including carbon capture and sequestration projects, such as innovative crude oil production projects including carbon capture and sequestration; refinery investments in it; or direct air capture projects; and fueling of vehicles with electricity the department certifies as net-zero. (This must include electricity for which a renewable energy credit or other environmental attribute has been retired or used only for purposes of the program; electricity produced using a zero emission resource that’s directly supplied as a transportation fuel by its generator, and the smart charging of an electric vehicle when the carbon intensity of grid electricity is comparatively low.) The department’s to periodically consult with an advisory panel, including representatives of forestland and agricultural landowners, on how to best incentivize and allot credits for sequestration through activities on agricultural and forestlands. It may set yearly limits on the credits that can be generated by emissions reducing activities that it chooses to include, providing those “take into consideration” the return on investment needed for it to be financially viable.

Before each compliance period, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Agriculture and Ecology, is to estimate whether the expected supply of low-carbon fuels will generate enough credits to meet the program’s compliance requirements.

Utilities must spend half of their low carbon fuel standard revenues from supplying retail customers on projects supporting the use of electrification or renewable hydrogen in transportation. Sixty percent of that must go to projects in or directly benefiting areas with high levels of air pollution or disproportionately impacted communities identified by the department of health. Ecology may adopt requirements, developed in consultation with utilities, for spending the other half of these revenues.

Details –
Calculations of life-cycle emissions may include “changes in land use associated with transportation fuels and any permanent greenhouse gas sequestration activities”, and may consider the efficiency of a fuel as used in a powertrain.

The department may obtain additional information it needs to estimate fuel emissions from suppliers and utilities; companies covered by the program should be allowed to demonstrate appropriate carbon intensity values to the department if that doesn’t counter the reduction goals of the program or prove administratively burdensome.

It’s to try to harmonize the rules with those of other states that have adopted low carbon fuel standards or similar requirements for low-carbon transportation fuels and that supply (or might supply) significant quantities of those to the state, or get them from us.

There are variety of reporting requirements. The bill allows Ecology to collect fees from participants to to cover the costs of administering the program. It extends the current penalties for violations of air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee is to report to the Legislature on a variety of issues about the program after five years, including its costs and benefits, associated emissions reductions, and its effects on employment and fuel prices. The bill removes a poison pill provision about the transfer of transportation funds which has been intended to block adoption of the standard.

HB1099

HB1099 – Improving the state’s climate response through updates to the state’s comprehensive planning framework.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Passed by the Senate March 3rd. Though I thought it hadn’t been, the floor amendment making a lot of cuts to the environmental provisions in the bill was adopted. They are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment. The House refused to concur in the Senate’s version, and the bill went to conference committee. The Senate adopted the conference report, but the House reportedly didn’t have the time to do the same. I think they needed to do that last step for the bill to pass…
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2022 – Passed
Returned to House Rules; reintroduced there, and passed by the House January 21st.

In the Senate 2022 – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing and Local Government February 1st. Replaced by a striker adding several environmental justice provisions, and adding to the goals of a number of comprehensive plan elements (mostly about environmental issues). Passed out of committee February 17th, and referred to Ways and Means. (There’s a staff summary of the changes at the end of the striker.) Amended in Ways and Means, passed out of committee February 28th and referred to Rules. The amendments replace the measures about climate change  and reducing emissions with language about increasing resiliency and addressing extreme weather events, drop the requirement for reporting on per capita miles traveled, make the adoption of Commerce’s model resiliency element optional, and make a couple of other less significant changes.

In the House 2021 – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 19th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 28th. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 16th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute, amended, passed out of Appropriations, and referred to Rules on February 22nd. Replaced by a striker by the sponsor, amended, and passed by the House March 5th.

In the Senate 2021 –
Referred to the Committee on Housing and Local Government. Had a hearing March 16th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing March 27th, and passed out of Ways and Means March 29th. Then referred to Transportation, had a hearing there April 1st, but didn’t get out of committee. Returned to House Rules in 2022.

Summary –

In Senate Committee-
The striker makes avoiding creating or worsening environmental health disparities and approval of the GHG emissions reductions sub element voluntary rather than mandatory, and makes a couple of other minor changes that are summarized at the end of it.

On the House floor –
The sponsor’s striker made a number of small changes which are summarized at the end of it. Until 2035, the amendment made authorizing missing middle housing with specified provisions in current single family zoning areas count as satisfying the requirements of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement. (The provisions are summarized at the end of it.)
2nd Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the 2nd substitute’s changes at the beginning of it.. The amendments prohibit Commerce’s guidelines for measures that cities and counties can take to reduce emissions through comprehensive plans and development regulations from including road usage charges, any fees or surcharges related to vehicle miles traveled, or any measures that would regulate or tax transportation service providers, delivery vehicles, or passenger vehicles.

Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes, which are significant, at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill adds adapting to and mitigating the effects of a changing climate, helping to achieve statewide targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled, preparing for climate impacts scenarios, and protecting “environmental, economic, human health, and safety” to the list of goals for planning under the Growth Management Act  and the Shoreline Management Act.

It requires a new climate change and resiliency element in comprehensive plans, designed to result in reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions, avoid the adverse impacts of climate change, and enhance resiliency. (Emissions reduction planning is required for counties with at least 100 people per square mile and a population of at least 200,000, or at least 75 people per square mile and an annual growth rate of at least 1.75%, and for the cities within them. It’s encouraged for the rest. Resiliency planning is required for jurisdictions planning under the GMA and is encouraged for others.)

The greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement of the comprehensive plan must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Commerce, after public comment, and must be designed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the jurisdiction’s transportation and land use systems, reduce vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction, and prioritize reductions in communities that experience disproportionate impacts and harm due to air pollution.

The resiliency subelement must be designed to identify and protect natural areas resilient to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration; and address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation patterns. It’s to enhance resiliency equitably, and must prioritize actions in communities that will disproportionately suffer from compounding environmental impacts and be most impacted by natural hazards due to climate change.

(In collaboration with other agencies, the Department of Commerce is to create a model resiliency element that may be used by jurisdictions in developing their plans. It’s to establish minimum requirements or include model options for fulfilling the bill’s requirements; and should provide guidance on identifying, designing, and investing in infrastructure that supports community resilience to climate impacts, including the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural infrastructure as well as traditional infrastructure, natural areas and vital habitat. It should provide guidance on identifying and addressing natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change; and must recognize and promote as many co-benefits of climate resilience as possible – such as salmon recovery, ecosystem services, and supporting treaty rights.)

During the 2024 update cycle, the larger and faster growing jurisdictions for which emissions reduction planning is required must adopt goals, policies, and actions that are likely to result in reductions of emissions and vehicle miles traveled that comply with the state’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Department of Commerce, in consultation with other agencies, is to estimate the required reductions. (However, adopting and implementing a climate action plan satisfies this requirement if it achieves “meaningful reductions” in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled.) These jurisdictions’ 2032 updates have to fully comply with the rest of the requirements. (The bill also specifies that these jurisdictions’ land use plans “should” give special consideration to achieving environmental justice and “must” avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities; it specifies that they must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed by wildfires, including reducing residential development in their wildland urban interface.)

The bill adds pedestrian and biking facilities to the inventory for transportation facilities and services needs; it requires level of service standards for them and forecasts of mutimodal transportation demand. It prohibits denying approval of a development if it’s possible to provide for its transportation needs through pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, increased or enhanced public transportation service, ride-sharing programs, demand management, or other strategies funded by the development, even if it fails to meet traffic level of service standards.

It requires regional transportation planning organizations encompassing at least one of the larger and faster growing jurisdictions to adopt a regional emissions and vehicle miles reduction plan for all jurisdictions in the organization. This must implement the State’s goals for reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector consistent with the Department of Commerce’s estimates of the area’s proportional share of what’s needed to meet the State’s targets, allocating vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions reductions that must be achieved to the larger jurisdictions after taking into account the reductions achieved within them by the regional plan. It must prioritize reductions in communities that have experienced disproportionate harm due to air pollution. (The comprehensive plans of jurisdictions would be required to be consistent with their regional plans.)

The bill requires parks and recreation planning to add consideration of the health disparities map published by the Department of Health to increase green space in the most pollution-burdened locations.

Commerce is also to publish a summary of annual vehicle miles traveled in each city and the unincorporated portions of each county in the state. It’s to update its shoreline master program guidelines, requiring them to address the impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, and shoreline natural resources and the environment.

HB1084 – 2021

HB1084 – Reducing emissions from natural gas space and water heating in residential and commercial buildings. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; San Juans & Anacortes) (Co-sponsor Slatter – D) (By request of the Governor)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 22nd; substitute passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations; had a hearing February 17th. No action taken in the executive session on cutoff day.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5093 is a companion bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the original and the changes made in the substitute at the beginning of the new version. (The big change is that it drops eliminating residential fossil fuel space and water heating.)

Original bill –
The bill moves the date by which updates to the state energy code must achieve a 70% reduction in energy use from the 2006 levels forward by four years, to 2027, makes 70% a minimum, and requires eliminating on-site fossil fuel combustion for space and water heating and minimizing their indirect emissions. It removes the Building Code Council’s authority to defer implementation of the reductions.

It makes the State Energy Code for residential construction the minimum for local codes, rather than the maximum and the minimum, authorizing local jurisdictions to require greater reductions than the state code does. It shifts the standards the Council’s to follow from constructing increasingly “energy efficient” homes to increasingly “low-emission energy efficient homes”, and from “helping to achieve” construction of zero-fossil fuel buildings by 2031, to actually achieving that by 2030.

It requires the Department of Commerce to create energy management and benchmarking requirements for non-residential buildings, hotels, motels and dormitories between 50,000 and 10,000 sq ft. along with provisions for reporting and penalties. (Since this is modeled on some of the current requirements for buildings over 50,000 sq ft in HB1257, I think this is supposed to mean that they have to have an energy management plan in addition to benchmarking.) By October 1, 2027, Commerce is to recommend energy performance standards for these buildings to the Legislature, and it’s to adopt rules starting in 2029 that cover them under the state’s energy performance standard .

The bill amends the language of the Legislature’s current policy declarations about gas and electric services, replacing “natural gas and electricity services” with “energy services”, and adding language about maintaining affordability, reducing the use of fossil fuels in space and water heating, and advancing the use of high efficiency electric equipment.

It removes gas companies from the requirements about supplying service to all reasonably entitled applicants, requires them to charge new customers the full costs of any pipeline extensions to provide them with service, and prohibits companies from expanding their service areas. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize a line extension to serve a new customer..)  It requires each company to develop comprehensive transition plans approved by the UTC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of natural gas, evaluating cost and life-cycle emissions associated with alternative pipeline fuels and electric alternatives, and identifying specific actions to achieve their share of the reductions needed to reach the state’s targets at the lowest reasonable cost for customers. They must evaluate and compare multiple strategies to identify the lowest reasonable cost combination of strategies to achieve the reductions, including evaluating measures to reduce buildings’ thermal loads; converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; permanently decommissioning portions of their distribution systems; incorporating renewable natural gas, hydrogen, or other low-carbon fuels in their systems; and expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs. (Their cost analysis must include at least resource costs, market-volatility risks, demand-side resource uncertainties, the risks imposed on ratepayers, resource effect on system operations, public policies regarding resource preference adopted by the state or the federal government, and the need for security of energy supply. It’s to include the cost of risks associated with environmental effects, including the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions calculated according to the estimates of the Federal Interagency Working Group using a 2.5% discount rate, which is currently about $78/tonne.)

They have to including an estimate of the costs and benefits that will accrue to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities;  ensure that the transition does not disproportionately impact low-income households or overburdened communities; ensure those get an equitable share of the  energy and nonenergy benefits of utility programs and infrastructure, including the reduction of burdens and improvement of indoor air quality; and provide for layoff avoidance strategies and a specified list of high labor standards.

A plan must also consider recommendations from the latest version of the state energy strategy and input from any electric utilities operating in the company’s service area, as well as identifying any changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with actions in the plan. Plans may include authorized projects to reduce the emissions from non-hazardous leaks.

The UTC is to establish a climate protection surcharge per therm of natural gas use, which isn’t to exceed the social cost of carbon. (PSE’s emissions are currently 14.6 lbs/therm; at that rate, the current cap on the surcharge would be about $0.50/therm, and the maximum surcharge would work out to something like $270 a year on the bill for a medium sized gas home built to the 2018 code.) The money would be spent by the utilities, subject to the UTC’s approval, on implementing the transition plans, assistance to low-income customers, programs to avoid worker dislocation, and ensuring the transition doesn’t unduly burden vulnerable populations or overburdened communities. (These projects and activities would also have to meet high labor standards and maximize local workers’ and diverse businesses’ access to associated economic benefits.)

Each gas utility would be required to develop an integrated resource plan for meeting system demand with the least cost mix of energy supply, including electrification and conservation. These would be informally reviewed by the UTC and it would be required to “consider the information reported in them” when it evaluates the performance of the utility in setting rate and other proceedings. They must include:
1. A range of forecasts of future demand in firm and interruptible markets for each customer class , examining the effect of economic forces on consumption and forecasting changes in end uses;
2. Assessments of commercially available conservation, including load management, and of policies and programs needed to obtain it; of conventional and commercially available nonconventional gas supplies; of the impact of the electrification of the building sector; of opportunities for using company-owned or contracted storage; and of pipeline transmission capability and reliability.
3. A comparative evaluation of the cost effectiveness of gas purchasing strategies, electrification, storage options, delivery resources, and improvements in conservation
4. The integration of demand forecasts and resource evaluations into a plan for at least the next ten years, describing the mix of resources to meet current and future needs at the lowest reasonable cost to the utility and its ratepayers;
5. A short-term plan outlining the specific actions to be taken by the utility in implementing the long-range plan during the following three years; and a report on the utility’s progress towards implementing the recommendations in its previous plan;
6. An evaluation of disparities in current conditions for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations in the utility’s service territory based on an assessment of current economic, public health, and environmental conditions ; and,
7. An evaluation of disparities in utility programs and infrastructure for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations based on an assessment of the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens (including those outside the utility’s service territory) associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs.

The bill authorizes a municipal utility or PUD to adopt a beneficial electrification plan if it finds, after input from gas companies in its service area, that outreach and investment in electrifying homes and buildings will provide it with net benefits. Plans must include consideration of system benefits as well as revenues from increased retail loads, distribution system efficiencies resulting from demand response, dynamic pricing, or other load management opportunities, system reliability improvements, indoor and outdoor air quality benefits, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. They must also consider the costs of additional electricity (which must have lower emissions than using natural gas would); any increased distribution system, management, or equipment costs needed to meet increased loads; and the costs of incentives or programs to get customers to switch. They’re to identify options and program schedules for the electrification of various energy end-uses or other energy sources. These utilities are authorized to invest in activities that their plans show provide net benefits and quantifiable verifiable emissions reductions, including promoting electrical equipment, advertising beneficial electrification programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates.  They’re to prioritize incentives and services for highly impacted communities in their service areas. (They may also promote and advertise emissions reductions programs to their ratepayers.)

The bill requires the Department of Commerce to create a statewide program to provide coordination and technical assistance promoting the adoption of high-efficiency heat pump equipment for space and water heating to utilities, housing providers, builders, and the public; develop and distribute educational materials about benefits; develop strategies to ensure that the program serves low-income households, vulnerable populations, and overburdened communities; support the development of a workforce training and certification program for the installation of equipment in coordination with the state board for community and technical colleges, and develop and implement an incentive program for residential and commercial building owners that convert from a fossil fuel system to a heat pump. (Incentives must be limited to projects installed by certified installers; the department may consider higher payments for those with low or moderate incomes, residents or owners of rental properties, and other populations who may be overburdened; and projects or activities funded through them have to meet and be reviewed for specified high labor standards, and maximize access to economic benefits for local workers and diverse businesses.)

The bill also removes the provision that currently prohibits Commerce from participating as an intervenor in utility regulatory proceedings.

HB1075

HB1075 – Requires ride-hailing services to reduce their vehicle emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 15th; substitute passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 19th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
Requires an analysis of the effects on drivers after a year and after five years.
Second Substitute –
Exempts ride-hailing companies using only zero-emissions vehicles from some reporting and regulatory requirements.

Original bill –
By July 1st, 2022 the bill requires the Department of Ecology to establish a baseline of the emissions per passenger-mile-traveled through ride-hailing services in 2018. (It’s to include an estimate of the additional miles using active modes of transportation like walking and biking by passengers whose use of those has been facilitated by the company’s software.) The bill requires the department to set mandatory annual goals and targets that are technically and economically feasible for each company’s emissions per passenger-mile and for increasing the percentage of passenger-miles traveled using zero emission vehicles; they’re to “take into consideration” the state greenhouse gas targets and its vehicle miles traveled goals. To the extent that it’s practical, the rules Ecology’s to create for the program are to have a minimal negative impact on low-income and moderate-income drivers; support providing clean mobility for low-income and moderate-income individuals; and complement and support the long list of goals for planning under the Growth Management Act.

By January 1st 2024, each ride-hailing company must create an emissions reduction plan for reaching the targets; these must be approved by the department; implemented starting January 1st, 2025; and updated every two years. (It’s authorized to delay the process if it finds there are unanticipated barriers to expanding the use of zero-emissions vehicles, and it can create a system to give companies credits toward reaching their targets for providing or supporting charging infrastructure for ride-hailing vehicles.)

Plans have to include proposals for increasing the proportion of zero emission vehicles used, increasing the percentage of overall vehicle miles completed by zero emission vehicles, decreasing the average gram-per-mile greenhouse gas emission rates for vehicles, and increasing the percentage of overall vehicle miles in which passengers are being carried. They also have to consider incentives to increase the percentage of miles traveled by riders whose associated use of active modes of transportation is being facilitated by the company’s software; and to outline actions the company will take to ensure the plan won’t make drivers worse off financially.

Ecology is also to consult with businesses that deliver food and other consumer goods and report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by December 1st, 2022 on ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Details –
Ride-hailing companies are required to provide relevant data to Ecology. The department’s authorized to collect fees to cover the costs of administering the program, and is required to report on it to the appropriate legislative committees. (There doesn’t seem to be an appeals procedure,  and there don’t seem to be any penalties for failing to meet the targets.)

The bill doesn’t apply to taxicabs, charters and excursion services, commercial vehicles on regular routes that include travel outside city limits, non-profits providing passenger service for people with special needs, or limousines.

SB5042

SB5042 – Delays vesting of development rights associated with actions under the Growth Management Act until sixty days after final planning decisions are made.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsor Billig – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 17th. Passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 3rd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2021 –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing and Local Government January 12th; passed out of committee January 28th. Referred to Rules. Was still in the house of origin at cutoff.

In the Senate 2022 – Passed
Reintroduced in Senate Rules for the 2022 session; passed by the Senate January 26th.

In the House 2022 –
Referred to Environment and Energy.

Summary –
The bill sets the “initial effective date” of various planning changes covered by the Growth Management Act at sixty days after the publication of a notice of adoption for the action (or sixty days after the issuance of the Growth Management Hearing Board’s final notice, if there’s a review.) The bill’s findings say that the current legal interpretation of the GMA sets this effective date (and the vesting of development rights which occurs then) earlier in the process, and allows those rights to vest before the validity of plans and regulations can actually be determined.

The bill applies to actions that expand an urban growth area; remove the designation of agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands; create or expand a limited area of more intensive rural development; establish a new fully contained community; or create or expand a master planned resort.

HB1057

HB1057 – Clarifies that the Clean Air Act’s prohibition of pollution unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of life and property includes publicly owned open spaces. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollet (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Valdez – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 12th; referred to Rules. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of the substitute. (It now just establishes a work group to study the best practices for reducing the odors from asphalt recycling plants rather than regulating the stench from the plant that motivated the bill.)

Original bill –
Clarifies that the Clean Air Act’s prohibition of pollution that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property applies to publicly owned open spaces such as bicycle or
pedestrian trails, parks, and town commons, not just to private property.

HB1053

HB1053 – Postpones the upcoming prohibition of some plastic and paper carryout bags for six months. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Johnson (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-sponsor Dye – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th; the committee adopted and passed a substitute January 19th. Referred to Rules, and placed on second reading January 22nd. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Action in the House-
The House Committee on Environment and Energy adopted a substitute that delayed the preemption of local bag ordinances, leaving those in place where they exist for the time being.

Original Bill-
The bill postpones the upcoming prohibition of some plastic and paper carryout bags for six months, from January 1st 2021 until July. It authorizes the governor to extend the postponement for up to six additional months if he decides COVID-19 issues are continuing to cause significant supply chain problems for the carryout bags the current law requires.

Details –
The law (RCW 70A.530.020) in question prohibits single-use plastic carryout bags, and paper or reusable film plastic carryout bags that don’t meet recycled content requirements. (It has a number of longer term provisions as well, but this bill doesn’t affect those.)

HB1050

HB1050 – Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from hydrofluorocarbons.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 15th. Replaced by a substitute, amended in a couple of minor ways, and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; replaced by a 2nd substitute and voted out February 11th. Referred to Rules February 15th. Passed out of Rules, amended on the floor, and passed by the House February 23rd. The House concurred in the Senate’s amendments April 12th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 16th; replaced by a striker and voted out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing March 30th. Amended, passed out of committee, and referred to Rules April 2nd. Passed by the Senate April 7th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill included an amendment to the current law on utilities’ conservation requirements saying utilities had to “consider the nonenergy impacts associated with the generation of electricity as well as from other sources, including refrigerants” in assessing conservation, but that vague and sweeping language has been dropped in the substitute.

Summary –
Ways and Means Amendment –
This required the Building Code Council to solicit input from stakeholder organizations and experts on potential low global warming  substitutes and  equipment before adopting rules about refrigeration or air conditioning systems that use them.

Senate Environment, Energy and Technology Striker –
It made a number of minor technical and procedural changes, which are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes at the beginning of the substitute, and there’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the second substitute at the beginning of that. The House made one minor amendment on the floor, and passed one joke amendment. (They’re at the bottom of the bill page.)

Original bill –
The bill expands the provisions of the 2019 legislation limiting the uses of hydrofluorocarbons (HB1112). It authorizes setting a limit on the global warming potential of any substitute for the chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and other Class I and Class II chemicals regulated under the Federal Ozone Protection Act that’s used as a refrigerant, and authorizes regulating their use in stationary air conditioning in steps over time. (The findings say these are conditional, but I don’t think the language of Section 8 of the bill actually says that.) It does authorize the Department of Ecology to regulate the use of refrigerants in light duty vehicles, conditional on another state’s doing that, and subject to the EPA’s rules on the acceptable conditions for using various substitutes.

The bill requires Ecology to establish a refrigerant management program to lower the emissions from those  to the levels of achievable superior performance established for the EPA’s voluntary greenchill program. It requires operators of equipment with more than 50 pounds of charging capacity to register it with the department. (Larger equipment using a refrigerant that is not a Class I or II chemical, and has a global warming potential less than 150 is also exempt.) Owners of registered equipment must inspect them for leaks periodically and after recharging them, as well as providing leak rate documentation to prospective purchasers. The Department is to establish requirements for reporting on systems, and for repairing leaks; it may establish regulations for servicing them, a policy for applying for exemptions, and a system for collecting fees to cover the costs of the program.

The bill extends the current rules for reducing emissions from ozone-depleting substances to cover these substitutes. (Those include requiring recovering them when servicing, repairing, or disposing of various cooling equipment, and prohibiting their use in containers for consumers to use in recharging appliances or vehicle air conditioning systems.) The bill directs the state building code council to adopt codes allowing the maximum use of substitutes with lower global warming potentials, and intended to minimize leakage.  It establishes a state procurement preference for recycled refrigerants.

It also says that utilities “must consider” the nonenergy impacts associated with the generation of electricity as well as from other sources, including refrigerants, in assessing the cost-effective, reliable, and feasible energy conservation they’re legally required to pursue.

The bill requires the Department to make recommendations on the end-of-life management and disposal of refrigerants to the Legislature by December 1st 2021, after soliciting feedback from potentially impacted parties and the public. These must include the legal and financial obligations of manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, equipment owner-operators and service technicians to support or participate in the program; a funding mechanism for refrigerant recovery and disposal activities including a financial incentive for the recovery and emission-reducing management of refrigerants; and performance goals and operational standards for activities to collect, transport, and recycle, reuse, or dispose of refrigerants.

Details –
The bill doesn’t cover chillers. It allows manufacturers to disclose a product’s compliance with the regulations as an alternative to identifying the substances used in labels on products and equipment. It extends the current penalty system for violations of the air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements.

HB1046

HB1046 – Requires private utilities to buy power from community solar projects, credit participants’ bills, and make 40% of that power available for use by low-income consumers and service providers. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bateman (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-sponsor Duerr – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Executive session scheduled but no action taken February 4th and 5th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
Community Solar Washington has a flyer about the bill.

Comments –
All three of the private utilities testified in opposition to the bill, starting at one hour into the hearing. They argued that it doesn’t place any limits on the size or location of projects or require utility approval of them, that utilities would have to buy power from projects that didn’t have enough subscribers, that any extra costs that might involve as well as startup costs and undefined operating expenses would be shifted to ratepayers, that any net metering unfairly lets solar owners avoid paying the share of the system’s fixed costs that’s included in charges for the kWhs they would be paying for except for the net metering credits they’re receiving, and that it’s unfair that the bill’s requirements only apply to private utilities. They prefer the compromises embodied in the community solar bill that passed last session, but was vetoed because of pandemic fiscal concerns, HB2248.

Summary –

Requires private utilities to buy power on contracts for at least 20 years from community solar projects certified by the Utility and Transportation Commission, to make 40% of that power “available for use” by low-income consumers and service providers, and to credit participants’ bills with their share of the revenue from a project’s power production at the retail rate.

The UTC is to create rules for how projects can qualify for the program. These must at least minimize the shifting of costs from the program to ratepayers that don’t own or participate in a project; incentivize customers to participate; protect participants from undue financial hardship; and protect the public interest.

A project must have at least one system in a utility’s Washington service area, and ownership of a project or participation in one is limited to customers in that area. Their annual returns are limited to their average annual consumption of electricity. (Any revenue above that is to be used by the utility in support of low-income customers or service providers.)

The UTC may set the rates at which a utility buys power from a project and credits participants’ bills for their shares of that production, as well as the rates at which it buys any unsubscribed power. These must allow a utility to recover all its prudent costs for starting up a project or modifying it, as well as any costs it incurs as a result of a power purchase agreement with a project. The associated renewable energy certificates may belong to the utility, or be retired on behalf of the project participant.

Details –
The bill simply amends the section on the previous rules about engaging in business and registering with the UTC for community solar companies  (RCW 80.28.375) to apply to the new community solar project managers it creates. (The production credit program those rules applied to has reached the cap on its enrollment and costs well ahead of schedule.)

It no longer limits the size of projects, and allows customers to participate as direct owners of a project as well as through leases, loans, power purchase agreements, and other financial arrangements. (I think direct ownership would allow individuals to benefit from the 26% federal investment tax credit on the cost of their share of the project.)

HB1039

HB1039 – Reports on, updates, and expands school bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative McCaslin (R; 4th District; Spokane Valley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 4th. Executive session scheduled February 11th, but no action taken.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to review and update its bicycle and pedestrian safety curriculum in coordination with a specified list of agencies and stakeholders. The new version is to “include more hazard avoidance skills and address the additional distractions associated with the use of modern technology when individuals are walking, biking, or driving,” as well as a plan to increase bicycle and safety education throughout the state and improve opportunities in distressed areas while reducing disparities in communities of color and other marginalized communities.

It requires the Washington State Patrol to create a bike safety awareness program for third to fifth grade students as part of its current elementary school bicycle awareness program, coordinating with OSPI and consulting with bicycling groups and the traffic safety commission’s active transportation safety council. It’s to include the same specified skills and content and be deployed in at least two school districts with up to 15,000 students on either side of the Cascades. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to fund presentations of the Patrol’s new bike safety awareness program to students by state or local officers as part of the safe routes to schools program.

It also requires the Department of Health to report to the House and Senate Transportation Committees on its head injury prevention program by September 1st, 2021.

SB5026

SB5026 – Authorizes ports’ purchases of zero and near zero emissions cargo handling equipment; prohibits purchase of automated container cargo handling equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsor Cleveland – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Transportation January 25th; referred to the Committee on Housing and Local Government and had a hearing there on Tuesday, February 2nd. Passed out of committee February 10th, and referred to Rules. Passed out of Rules, amended on the floor and passed by the Senate February 23rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Local Government. Had a hearing on March 10th, and passed out of committee March 12th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes purchases of zero and near zero emissions cargo handling equipment for the use of a port district, a port development authority, or its tenants or lessees. It also prohibits the purchase of any container cargo handling equipment that’s remotely operated or remotely monitored. (I think the floor amendment in the Senate would make the bill expire ten years from now, at the end of 2031, though the staff summary only says it expires the prohibition on fully automated equipment.)

HB1036

HB1036 – Implements a low-carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island) (Co-Sponsor Slatter – D)
Current status – This bill has been replaced by HB1091, an updated version. (The only substantive change requires fuels to have associated emissions at least 20% below 2017 levels to generate credits.) Assigned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Department of Ecology is to establish rules to reduce the intensity of transportation fuels, including electricity, used in the state. They’re to take effect January 1st, 2023, and to reduce the full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions attributable to fuels other than electricity to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (By 2031, Ecology is to update them so emissions from transportation sources will meet the state’s target of a 95% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.)

The rules are to create a system of trackable, verifiable, tradeable, and bankable credits, generating a credit (or a deficit) when the production, importing, or dispensing of fuel with a lower (or a higher) carbon intensity than the department’s standard results in the emission of a metric ton of CO2e. The estimates of greenhouse gas emissions may not privilege fuels from any particular places, and must reflect the carbon intensity of each electric utility’s mix of generation sources. The rules must include cost containment mechanisms, such as provisions allowing  the department to establish a credit clearance market and sell credits at a price it sets after the end of each compliance period, a similar means for complying if participants haven’t been able to acquire enough credits to meet the requirements by the end of a period, and a similar means of ensuring that the prices of credits don’t significantly exceed those of credits in similar programs in other jurisdictions. (Such mechanisms must be designed to financially disincentivize participants from relying on them rather than reducing emissions.) Persons associated with the supply chains of transportation fuels covered by the program and those generating credits from fuels that aren’t not covered by the program may elect to participate in the market. (The department may also designate an entity to aggregate and use credits generated by any persons covered by the program that generate credits but choose not to participate.)

Electricity and fuels used by aircraft, vessels, railroad locomotives, and military vehicles are not covered by the program. Fuel for off-road logging vehicles, construction and mining, and agriculture isn’t covered until 2028, but can be used to generate credits and trade them before then. Ecology is also authorized to allow the generation of credits associated with electric or alternative transportation infrastructure that already exists when the bill becomes effective.

The rules must allow generating credits from providing zero emission vehicle refueling infrastructure and other low carbon fuel infrastructure including, fast charging battery electric vehicle infrastructure and hydrogen electric vehicle refueling infrastructure. They may allow generating credits from any activities that reduce emissions in the state, including carbon capture and sequestration projects, such as innovative crude oil production projects including carbon capture and sequestration; refinery investments in it; or direct air capture projects; and fueling of vehicles with electricity the department certifies as net-zero. (This must include electricity for which a renewable energy credit or other environmental attribute has been retired or used only for purposes of the program; electricity produced using a zero emission resource that’s directly supplied as a transportation fuel by its generator, and the smart charging of an electric vehicle when the carbon intensity of grid electricity is comparatively low.) The department’s to periodically consult with and advisory panel, including representatives of forestland and agricultural landowners, on how to best incentivize and allot credits for sequestration through activities on agricultural and forestlands. It may set yearly limits on the credits that can be generated by emissions reducing activities that it chooses to include, providing those “take into consideration” the return on investment needed for it to be financially viable.

Before each compliance period, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Agriculture and Ecology, is to estimate whether the expected supply of low-carbon fuels will generate enough credits to meet the program’s compliance requirements.

Utilities must spend half of their low carbon fuel standard revenues from supplying retail customers of projects supporting the use of electrification or renewable hydrogen in transportation. Sixty percent of that must go to projects in or directly benefiting areas with high levels of air pollution or disproportionately impacted communities identified by the department of health. Ecology may adopt requirements, developed in consultation with utilities, for spending the other half of these revenues.

Details –
Calculations of life-cycle emissions may include “changes in land use associated with transportation fuels and any permanent greenhouse gas sequestration activities”, and may consider the efficiency of a fuel as used in a powertrain.

The department may obtain additional information it needs to estimate fuel emissions from suppliers and utilities; companies covered by the program should be allowed to demonstrate appropriate carbon intensity values to the department if that doesn’t counter the reduction goals of the program or prove administratively burdensome.

It’s to try to harmonize the rules with those of other states that have adopted low carbon fuel standards or similar requirements for low-carbon transportation fuels and that supply (or might supply) significant quantities of those to the state, or get them from us.

There are variety of reporting requirements. The bill allows Ecology to collect fees from participants to to cover the costs of administering the program.  It extends the current penalties  for violations of air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee is to report to the Legislature on a variety of issues about the program after five years, including its costs and benefits, associated emissions reductions, and its effects on employment and fuel prices. The bill removes a poison pill provision about the transfer of transportation funds  which has been intended to block adoption of the standard.

SB5022

SB5022 – Implements a minimum recycled content requirement for plastic beverage containers, prohibits the sale and distribution of some polystyrene products, and establishes optional serviceware requirements. (Changed title)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsor Rolfes – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing for a substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 26th. Passed out of committee February 3rd; referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 16th. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 18th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker and further amended on the floor; passed the Senate March 2nd. Senate concurred in the House amendments April 19th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing on March 11th and 12th. Replaced by another striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing April 1st. Was replaced by yet another striker, amended, and passed out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd. Amended on the floor and passed by the House April 7th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1118 is an identical companion bill.
The sponsors have a flyer summarizing the bill. (My summary, based on my reading of the original text of the bill, differs from this in some ways.)

Comments –
The bill says a lot about collections, but almost nothing about how producers are expected to deal with the responsibility of sorting or processing the products they’ve collected, though I think its definitions of what counts as a measured “recycled” material imply that responsibility.

It says producers are required to invest in recycling and reuse infrastructure and marketing development, including paying for equipment upgrades, new technology, and new facilities, but without any discussion of how those investments are to be determined or what limits there may be to them.

The bill’s language is all about jurisdictions and companies collecting “source separated” materials. I think most collection processes currently let residents put everything in one bin, and try to separate everything later.

It says jurisdictions “may” contract with producer organizations to provide collection services, and that if producers contract for services with them they have to pay their reasonable costs. (I assume that is also supposed to mean that jurisdictions can’t ask for more than that, though the bill doesn’t seem to say that.)

I have no idea how many different producer responsibility organizations would emerge from the bill’s requirements. It allows the creation of one producer organization for all materials, one for each category of material, and even separate organizations for some big brands, like a company running its own bottle deposit program.

Summary –
House floor amendments –
One of these revised the provisions for collecting fees from producers to cover Ecology’s costs. The other lets Ecology temporarily exclude containers from the content requirements if a producer demonstrates annually that it isn’t technically feasible to meet them because of Federal health or safety requirements, added consumer electronics and personal care products representatives to the stakeholder committee, and made some other minor adjustments.

Appropriations striker and amendments –
(The materials folder for this meeting doesn’t have the usual indications of whether amendments were approved or not, so I’m assuming they were all approved, which may not be right.) The striker retained some of the changes in the committee striker, and made other small adjustments; the changes are summarized at the end of it. One amendment would exempt styrofoam food service containers from the prohibition if they had at least 25% postconsumer recycled (PCR) content beginning in 2023, 50% PCR content beginning in 2030, and 75% PCR content beginning in 2035; the others made minute changes.

House committee striker and amendments –
The striker made a lot of small changes and adjustments which are summarized at the end of it. One amendment would make the requirements for postrecycled content in plastic mini wine bottles the same as those for dairy milk bottles. The other would create an impartial third party facilitator for the stakeholders’ advisory committee, with specified qualifications and responsibilities; have its members selected by the facilitator rather than Legislative leaders; and making some other minor changes that are summarized at the end of it.

Striker and other Senate floor amendments –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made in the striker at the end of that. (It added recycled content requirements for plastic trash bags and for household cleaning and personal care product containers, and made quite a few other small changes.) The other amendments created a stakeholder advisory committee to make recommendations on developing recycled content requirements for plastic packaging, and made a tiny technical clarification.

Substitute –
The substitute heard in committee would actually only implement a minimum recycled content requirement for plastic beverage containers, prohibit the sale and distribution of some polystyrene products, and establish optional serviceware requirements; it doesn’t include provisions about extended producer responsibility any more. There’s now a staff summary of these and other changes in the substitute, at the end of the bill report. (The amendments in Ways and Means were minor, but one changed the actual title of the bill to reflect the big changes made in the substitute.)

Original –
The bill creates producer responsibility requirements for brand owners of products, covering all packaging and paper goods sold or supplied to customers for residential use. (It expands the recommendations of the studies on plastics ordered by the Legislature a few years ago.) Producers are responsible for paying for collecting recyclables by contracting with cities and with private contractors currently collecting source separated material, or by setting up parallel operations. They are responsible for processing materials up to the point at which they could be reused. (For example, plastics would have to be ready to be flaked or pelletized; metals would have to be ready to be smelted.) The bill exempts producers selling, distributing or importing less than a ton of material, or with aggregate revenue of less than $1 million from covered products.

Their responsibilities can be met by joining producers’ organizations, or individually. Producers’ plans for meeting the requirements must be informed by public comment, as well as consultation with stakeholders and an advisory committee with specified membership; submitted by July 1, 2024; reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology; and implemented within the next year. The Department is authorized to add requirements to these plans. (They’re to be updated on a five year cycle.)

Plans must cover how producers will:
1. use and interact with existing recycling programs and infrastructure, including a description of procurement practices;
2. increase the reuse, refill, and recyclability of covered products;
3. work with and achieve the goals of underserved and underrepresented communities that bear a disproportionate share of adverse environmental, social justice, and economic impacts through socially just management practices including community outreach and engagement in the appropriate language of the impacted communities and meaningful consultation;
4. increase the efficiency of the system for collecting and managing covered products through reuse and recycling;
5. retain producers’ right of first refusal on recycled materials produced from products they collect;
6. identify market engagement strategies to improve effectiveness and efficiency and ensure open competition among waste management service providers when obtaining collection and recycling services, including strategies that involve the use of competitive tenders or open-market financial incentives;
7. describe how they intend to meet the bill’s requirements for providing convenient collection of materials, including the jurisdictions where curbside collection is available, the location of permanent collection facilities, the types and locations of alternate collection methods, and the locations of services collecting materials in public places;
8. list the products they are required to collect and the types of facilities or locations where those are to be collected;
9. include a plan to minimize the amount, cost, and toxicity of residuals from the collection and processing of covered materials, including residuals from materials recovery facilities or similar facilities producing specification-grade commodities for sale (but not residuals from further processing of end market-ready material);
10. include a plan for collecting, transporting, and processing covered products to ensure responsible management and recycling, including meeting the bill’s reuse and recycling performance requirements, providing material that will assist producers in meeting its recycled content requirements, and ensuring covered products intended for collection don’t contain toxic substances;
11. provide for equitable provision of recycling collection services in the state; and environmentally sound and socially just management practices for worker health and safety;
12. describe how producer fees and adjustments to them will encourage design for recycling and litter prevention;
13.  include a plan for reducing contamination from covered products at compost or other organics processing facilities, including improving decontamination equipment and conducting packaging contamination composition studies;
14. plan for the education and outreach the bill requires, including how cities and counties will be involved in and reimbursed for education and outreach activities supporting the achievement of the bill’s requirements; and,
15. describe the dispute resolution process to be used, as needed, with residents, collectors, processors, producers, and end-market users of materials.

Producers are required to manage the products they collect in an “environmentally sound” and “socially just” manner, with human health and environmental protection standards equivalent to or better than those required in the US and other countries in the OECD. (“Environmentally sound” means they comply with laws and rules protecting workers, public health, and the environment; provide for adequate recordkeeping, tracking, and documenting of the fate of materials within the state and beyond; and include environmental liability coverage for the producers.  “Socially just” means that their practices allow every individual the same economic, political, and social rights, privileges, and opportunities, and that they don’t disproportionately impact any community, and in particular communities in the state or elsewhere, with disproportionately higher levels of adverse environmental, social justice, and economic impacts.) [Among other things, these definitions apparently mean that any recycling in other countries must comply with US labor and environmental standards.] They have to track and verify that products collected by their programs are managed responsibly, and report on that publically. (They also have to document how they’ve used domestic and local collection and processing infrastructure, and the extent to which using those to meet the requirements of the bill is technologically feasible and economically practical.)

The bill requires “all covered products” to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2030.  (Converting covered materials to energy, fuels, or landfill cover does not count as recycling them.) By 2026, at least 5% of all covered products must actually be reused, and at least 55% must actually be reused or recycled. By 2030, at least 10% of all covered products must actually be reused, and at least 75% must actually be reused or recycled. (There are also requirements specifying percentages of reuse and recycling by 2026 and 2030 for different categories of materials, increasing from those for flexible plastics to those for glass.) It prohibits the sale or distribution of various styrofoam containers, packing peanuts, and restaurant items. It creates fines of $250 for violations of the styrofoam rules (and of up to $1,000 for repeat violations). Violations of the rest of the new chapter are subject to fines of up to $1,000 a day (and of up to $10,000 a day for willful or negligent  violations).

The bill includes requirements for the use of post-consumer recycled content in covered products, with varying dates and percentages for different products and materials, ranging from 10% of the content of flexible plastics by 2026 and 50% by 2030 up to 50% of the content of paper packaging by 2026 and 75% by 2030. Beverage containers are to include at least 25% recycled plastic starting in 2025, and at least 50% by 2030. The bill allows producers or their organizations to trade credits to meet these obligations.

Ecology is authorized to waive or reduce the bill’s requirements for post-consumer recycled content in a variety of ways in response to a number of specified factors, and must consider doing that every two years and in response to producer petitions, but no more than once a year. Starting in 2028, Ecology would also be authorized to modify or lower the reuse and recycling performance requirements in response to the markets for them and other specified factors, to expand them to include other materials, and to set requirements for dates beyond 2030.

The bill requires producer organizations to invest in reuse and recycling infrastructure and market development in the state, including installing or upgrading equipment to improve sorting and mitigate impacts of commodities at existing sorting and processing facilities, and capital expenditures for new technology, equipment, and facilities.

The bill requires producers to develop education and outreach programs to provide clear, equitable, socially just, and consistent information to residents, supporting the achievement of the reuse and recycling requirements. Programs must:
1. use consistent and easy to understand messaging to reduce residents’ confusion about the recycling and end-of-life management options available for different products;
2. establish a process for answering customer questions and resolving their concerns;
3. provide resources that are appropriate for the communities served and reach diverse ethnic populations, including through meaningful consultation with communities with higher levels of adverse environmental and social justice impacts;
4. develop and provide materials about the program for retailers, collectors, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations;
5. inform producers and retailers about their obligation to sell only covered products from producers participating in an approved plan; and
6. evaluate the effectiveness of education and outreach efforts.

Producer organizations must ensure convenient collection services for their covered products are available in jurisdictions where they supply them. Curbside collection of covered products (except for products designated for “alternative collection” because they aren’t suitable for curbside pickup) must be provided wherever there’s curbside garbage collection; in other areas, free and accessible access to permanent collection facilities must be provided at all solid waste transfer, disposal, and processing sites. At least 90% of residents must have access to a permanent site within 15 miles, and to an additional permanent site for every 30,000 residents in urban areas; underserved areas have to be provided with reasonably located and frequent collection events.

Jurisdictions may or may not choose to collaborate or contract with producers to provide collection services, or education and outreach activities required by the bill. In areas where solid waste collection is provided by companies regulated by the UTC, source separated curbside collection of recyclables for residents is to be provided where there’s curbside garbage collection (though companies can be exempted by the UTC if they haven’t already been providing that service or relinquish their right to provide it.) If they do provide it, producers must pay for the service according to the rates established by the commission, and pay any taxes and fees that would otherwise be paid by residents.

When producers contract with jurisdictions or companies to provide services required by the bill they have to use open, competitive, and fair procurement practices; compensate cities and counties that provide collection or outreach services for all their reasonable costs; ensure that all contracted service providers meet minimum operating standards, operate in an environmentally sound and socially just manner, meet high labor standards, demonstrate procurement from and contracts with women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses, provide fair opportunities without discrimination; and maintain the records and chain of custody documentation needed to decide if they’ve met the bill’s requirements.

Details –

The Department of Ecology is to collect annual payments from producers that cover the costs of administering the program, and is authorized to establish equitable ways to divide those costs among producers. (Producers are prohibited from charging consumers “non-reimbursable point of sale fees” to cover these costs.) Producer organizations charging their members for the costs of implementing the plan must structure those in “an environmentally sound and socially just manner that encourages the use of design attributes that reduce the environmental impacts of covered products”, through steps such as adjusting charges to favor designs that facilitate reuse and recycling and the use of recycled content; discourage the use of materials that increase the costs of managing covered products; and encourage other design attributes that reduce the environmental impacts of covered products, including the potential to create litter.

There are various reporting, auditing, and verification requirements; Ecology’s authorized  to expand these. Appeals of penalties for violations are to be handled through Ecology’s existing appeal processes.

Producers and producer organizations must establish and fund advisory committees with a specified range of representatives. They can sue for their costs for dealing with materials created by other producers who haven’t participated or haven’t met the bill’s requirements.

Programs using any advanced technology to convert used plastic polymers into recycled material have to provide Ecology with a third-party assessment of its potential impacts on air and water pollution, the release or creation of any hazardous pollutants, and the full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the facility, including the final use of products.

SB5008

SB5008 – Revives B&O tax exemption for Bonneville funds utilities spend on low-income bill assistance or weatherization.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Robinson (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Short)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 21st; referred to Ways & Means. Had a hearing there on March 11th, and passed out of committee March 18th. Referred to Rules March 19th, and passed the Senate April 11th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing April 16th; referred to Rules, and passed the House unanimously April 22nd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
An identical measure (HB2505) was sponsored in 2020 by Senator Robinson (who was then a Representative). It passed both houses unanimously and was signed by the Governor, then vetoed right afterwards as the pandemic’s potential effects on the budget became clear.

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

Summary –

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

SB5007

SB5007 – Uses savings from suspending conservation and planning requirements for utilities to fund customer assistance and write off unpaid bills.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van de Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim)
Current status – Assigned to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
In the four years from 2022 through 2026, the bill would relieve utilities getting at least 80% of their power from clean sources from their obligations to create integrated resource plans and report on their compliance with I-937’s requirements.  If a utility’s costs for customer bill assistance, losses from unpaid bills, and conservation in the four years from 2020 through 2024 met or exceeded the level of its expenditures on energy conservation in 2018 and 2019, the bill would count that as meeting its obligation to pursue all cost-effective energy conservation.

The bill says any utility savings from these changes must be used for “financial support to customers that have been economically impacted by COVID-19”, but doesn’t provide any details about how these are supposed to be determined or equitably distributed. (As noted above, it specifies that a utility’s losses from any unpaid customer bills are to be treated as “indirect customer assistance”.)

SB5000

SB5000 – Creates a different sales and use tax exemption for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hawkins (R; 19th District; Wenatchee) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 21st; had a hearing on a substitute bill in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 26th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of Transportation February 11th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 18th. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 3rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Finance. Had a hearing March 15th, and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing March 29th and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules. Passed the House April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The State’s current tax exemptions for clean alternative fuel vehicles already cover the same vehicles. However, the current exemptions will step down on August 1st, 2021; again two years later; and then end July 31st, 2025. This bill’s exemptions might last through 2030, if its caps at 650 new and 650 used vehicles aren’t reached before then. (The bill specifies that you can’t claim both its exemptions and the current ones.) During the overlap, which exemptions are more generous may depend on the cost of the sale or lease, and which period it occurs in; I haven’t tried to work through the various possibilities.

The program is to be funded by transfers from the electric vehicle account established in RCW 46.17.324, which has received a $75 piece of the EV registration fees since October 2019. (That fee will currently expire in 2025, five years before the expiration of this pilot program, but I don’t know how much money may have accumulated in the account.)

Summary –
Amendments in Ways and Means –
One allowed PUDs to produce renewable hydrogen from non-emitting sources (like nuclear) as well as from renewable resources; the second one removed the feasibility study.

Substitute –
The substitute adds a study of the feasibility of converting public fleet vehicles to hydrogen fuel cell technology including infrastructure needs, manufacturing capabilities, estimated price differences and total cost of ownership comparisons for diesel, electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; and recommendations on how to cost-effectively deploy and operate fuel cell technology. The 2nd substitute, by Senator Hobbs, made the WSDOT study of the feasibility of converting pubic fleets to hydrogen dependent on specific funding for that being included in the transportation budget,

Original bill –
Establishes a pilot program exempting the sale or lease of fuel cell passenger cars, light duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles from 50% of the State’s sales and use taxes. Completely exempts up to $16,000 of the cost of the sale or lease of a used fuel cell vehicle from these taxes.

The exemptions would be available for up to eight years, beginning on July 1, 2022; however, the exemptions for new vehicles and for used ones would each be capped at 650 transactions. (There are reporting requirements, and provisions for an analysis of the program’s effectiveness in promoting the technology by the joint legislative audit and review committee.)

Bills By Progress

Zach Stednick now maintains a webpage that displays a table showing the status of all the climate bills, arranged in rows by their bill numbers.

Passed by the House

  • HB1012
    Creating an extreme weather response grant program.
  • HB1589
    Requiring steps to transition off natural gas.
  • HB1955
    Repeals redundant 2019 bill requiring utilities to calculate and report the greenhouse gas emissions of their fuel mix.

To Rules in the house of origin

  • HB1185
    Updating and expanding the state's producer stewardship program for lighting products.
  • HB1368
    Requiring and funding purchases of zero-emission school buses after September 2035.
  • HB1433
    Adopting a standard method for use in programs for the energy labeling of existing residential buildings.
  • HB1924
    Including fusion technology in state clean energy policies.
  • HB1948
    Ensuring that methods for calculating a utility's load under the Energy Independence Act don't discourage voluntary investments in renewables.
  • HB1976
    Allowing the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State's energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.
  • HB2028
    Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers' ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
  • HB2039
    Streamlining the appeals process for environmental and land use matters.
  • HB2069
    Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
  • HB2120
    Allowing cities to grant nuclear facilities an additional four years to complete projects and qualify for the tax breaks available for new manufacturing in targeted urban areas.
  • HB2156
    Creating consumer protections for purchasers of solar energy systems.
  • HB2173
    Authorizing executive sessions by public natural gas utilities to allow them to comply with the Climate Commitment Act's prohibition on disclosing auction participation plans.
  • HB2199
    Creating tax exemptions for amounts received through transactions involving the Climate Commitment Act's allowances, offset credits, or price ceiling units.
  • HB2465
    Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
  • SB5812
    Requiring a study of best practices for responding to electric vehicle fires.
  • SB5919
    Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
  • SB5945
    Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers' ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
  • SB6047
    Authorizing executive sessions by public natural gas utilities to allow them to comply with the Climate Commitment Act's prohibition on disclosing auction participation plans.
  • SB6089
    Eliminating certain minimum requirement equivalencies for becoming electrical inspectors.
  • SB6229
    Allowing the Department of Transportation to set the matching requirement for a Green Transportation Capital Grant at the level it deems appropriate.
  • SB6256
    Creating consumer protections for purchasers of solar energy systems.
  • SB6278
    Creating an organic and regenerative agriculture action plan for the State.
  • SB6291
    Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.

Out of First Committee in the Senate

  • SB5570
    Authorizing electric utilities to establish revolving energy efficiency loan programs. (Dead.)
  • SB5973
    Guaranteeing owners of units in common interest communities opportunities to install their own heat pumps.
  • SB6016
    Creating a green energy community fund to support schools and nonprofits in communities where public utilities' renewable energy projects are located.
  • SB6039
    Promoting the development of geothermal energy resources.
  • SB6052
    Assessing petroleum products supply and pricing.
  • SB6058
    Facilitating linkage of Washington's carbon market with the California-Quebec market.
  • SB6092
    Requiring large businesses to report all their associated greenhouse gas emissions.
  • SB6121
    Regulating and encouraging biochar production from agricultural and forestry biomass.
  • SB6180
    Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
  • SB6240
    Providing the reduced B&O tax rate for producing alternative jet fuel to much smaller companies in distressed areas.
  • SB6278
    Creating an organic and regenerative agriculture action plan for the State.
  • SB6281
    Increasing funding for reforestation after wildfires and other destructive events.

Out of First Committee in the House

  • HB1185
    Updating and expanding the state's producer stewardship program for lighting products.
  • HB1574
    Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
  • HB1870
    Providing local communities with technical support and matching funds for federal grant applications.
  • HB1935
    Creating a Washington State Green Schools Program.
  • HB1936
    Creating a B&O tax credit for farmers participating in conservation programs.
  • HB2049
    Improving solid waste management outcomes.
  • HB2073
    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from anesthetics and studying alternatives for reducing the ones from a pesticide.
  • HB2082
    Requiring a study of the employment and workforce education needs of the electrical transmission industry.
  • HB2131
    Promoting the establishment of thermal energy networks.
  • HB2144
    Providing for a beverage containers deposit return program implemented by a distributor responsibility organization, if it and Ecology agree on a plan.
  • HB2201
    Facilitating linkage of Washington's carbon market with the California-Quebec market.
  • HB2301
    Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
  • HB2333
    Assessing the potential of state-owned natural and built assets to generate offset credits for carbon markets.
  • HB2336
    Assessing the suitability of state-owned lands for agriculture and renewable energy.
  • HB2401
    Managing refrigerant gases used in appliances or other infrastructure.
  • SB6180
    Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
  • SB6303
    Providing several fifteen year tax incentives to encourage energy storage system and component parts manufacturing in Washington.

Heard in Senate Committee

  • SB5826
    Requiring rates or charges authorized by the UTC to recover utilities' costs in implementing the Climate Commitment Act to be listed on customers' bills. (Dead)
  • SB5876
    Streamlining the application processes for state voluntary programs funding water and salmon ecosystem investments. (Dead)
  • SB5965
    Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry. (Dead)
  • SB5992
    Requiring applicants seeking energy facility site certification for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it. (Dead)
  • SB6138
    Promoting the establishment of thermal energy networks. (Dead)

Heard in House Committee

  • HB1078
    Requires local urban forestry ordinances to include a tree bank provision for replacing trees, in order to avoid blocking development that involves removing them.
  • HB1900
    Implementing strategies to achieve higher solid waste recycling rates. (Dead)
  • HB1981
    Setting a preferential B&O tax rate for manufacturing fuel and/or fuel assemblies for nuclear reactors.
  • HB2051
    Reducing emissions from small off-road engines. (Dead)
  • HB2068
    Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry. (Dead)
  • HB2234
    Revising the utility energy assistance programs for low-income households. (Dead)
  • HB2249
    Studying the impact of including general market participants in all the auctions of allowances for the Climate Commitment Program. (Dead)
  • HB2253
    Providing fair access to community solar. (Dead)
  • HB2262
    Creating and enforcing energy efficiency standards for replacement tires. (Dead)
  • HJM4003
    Advocating a Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty. (Dead)

HB2955

HB2955 – Gives a $30 rebate on the registration fee for hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles that were driven less than 6,000 miles in the previous year.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 29th District; Tacoma) (Co-sponsors Paul, Macri, Ramel, Young, and Fitzgibbon)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – I’m not sure. This may be NTIB, in which case I guess it could still move this session…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Would give a $30 rebate on the annual registration fee for a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle if it had been driven less than 6,000 miles in the previous year.

HB2957

HB2957 – Regulating indirect sources under the Clean Air Act and reducing building emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Seattle)
Current status – Introduced in the House Committee on Appropriations March 2nd and scheduled for a hearing and executive session the same afternoon at 1:30 PM. An amended substitute passed out of committee (at 1:50 AM…); referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –  There’s a staff bill analysis available.

The substitute’s additional definition of “indirect emissions” for the purposes of the act restricts them to emissions from “fuels” ; it also adds what seems like a vague and inadequate definition of “leakage”. It allows the Department of Ecology to get additional data from producers and distributors if that’s needed to calculate the indirect emissions it’s authorized to regulate. It rewrites the section on credits for biofuels to improve the prose, without changing the substance as far as I can see. It now specifies the energy-intensive and trade-exposed facilities that the Department can treat with special consideration, to the extent needed to prevent leakage, by using a list of industry classification codes. (It also specifies that the special consideration does not extend to their products.) The amendment adds an additional preemption,  prohibiting local air authorities, cities and counties from adopting a clean fuels standard or low carbon fuel standard until January 1, 2023, if Ecology adopts a clean fuels standard or low carbon fuel standard by January 1, 2021.

Summary –
The bill responds to the recent Supreme Court decision holding that Ecology didn’t have the statutory authority to regulate fossil fuel production and distribution through the Clean Air Act  because that didn’t authorize it to regulate indirect emissions. The bill revises the definitions of emissions to specify both direct and indirect ones, and explicitly authorizes Ecology and local air authorities to use the Act to regulate the emissions from the production and distribution of any product in the state emitting over 25,000 tonnes a year of greenhouse gases, and of all fossil fuels.

It requires Ecology to adopt a rule, taking effect after October 1, 2021, that specifies emission thresholds for regulated sources. It authorizes Ecology to collect fees to cover the administrative costs of the program, to rely on market-based mechanisms including bankable tradeable credits to achieve emission reductions, and to provide special consideration for energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries, but only to the extent necessary to address leakage. Ecology is to provide biofuels with credits that adjust their obligations to take account of the difference between their lifecycle emissions and those of whatever fossil fuels they’re expected to replace. If it regulates direct or indirect emissions sources other than fossil fuels, it has to provide a mechanism for using credits or offsets from forest carbon sequestration in meeting those obligations.

The bill directs the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow timely recovery of prudent and reasonable compliance costs by utilities.

It would delay implementing the 2018 residential energy code until  July 1, 2022, if the Legislature provided policies and funding for existing residential retrofit programs that  produced larger greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

It prohibits any local caps, taxes or fees on greenhouse gas emissions, and any local restrictions on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings until 2023.

It would make the new Clean Air Act authority null and void if a more comprehensive  program that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and was forecast to achieve the State’s targets were enacted.

SB6684

SB6684 – Code requirements for EV ready charging infrastructure in additional buildings.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Saldaña, Nguyen, Hobbs, and Lovelett)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
State law currently requires EV ready charging infrastructure for five percent of the parking spaces in new hotels and motels, and in Group B and Group R-2 buildings. The bill would expand that to require more spaces, and to cover single family residences and some other residential buildings.

Summary –
The bill requires the Building Code Council to add rules requiring a 40 Amp circuit and the wiring to make it easy to add 240 volt Level 2 chargers for new buildings in group B (which includes office buildings and ones containing professional or service businesses); in hotels and motels; in group R-2 (which includes buildings with sleeping units or more than two dwelling units that have primarily permanent occupants); and in group R-3 (which includes single family residences and some other residential buildings like boarding houses).

This infrastructure for at least one charger is to be provided in private parking for an individual dwelling. In multi-family buildings with one to six surface parking spaces, each space is to have it. If there are seven to twenty-five surface spaces, at least six must be ready for chargers. If there are more surface spaces, and in parking garages serving multi-family residences, and in all other residential uses twenty percent of the spaces must be EV ready. Ten percent of the spaces in non-residential uses have to be EV ready. If accessible parking is also provided, at least one of the accessible spaces has to be ready for charger installation.

The Council has to allow limited reductions in the number of required spaces or provide exemptions if there’s substantial evidence that the added electrical load would require on-property power transformation on the utility’s side of the meter, or would require upgrading the existing residential service.

SB6682

SB6682 – Adds $0.03/kWh to the price of electricity from “electric vehicle charging stations.”
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require an electric utility to add a surcharge of $0.03/kWh to the price of electricity at “electric charging stations” served by the utility, and to examine by the beginning of 2021 the technological feasibility of adding  the same surcharge to electricity used for residential chargers. (It defines an “electric charging station” by reference as “a public or private parking space that is served by charging equipment”, which seems as if it might include residential chargers, but the context makes it clear that it’s not intended to.)

SB6355

SB6355 – Recognizing contributions of forest products to the state’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim) (Co-Sponsors Short, Takko, King, Mullet, Salomon, Zeiger, Conway, Sheldon, Liias, Warnick, Honeyford, and Wagoner)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 28th. A substitute passed out of committee February 6th. Referred to Rules February 11th; placed on second reading February 17th. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2528 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The substitute keeps the bill in synch with the House version. It adds aquatic lands to the current list of potential sequestration resources in carbon markets, and it adds promoting and investing “in industry sectors that act as sequesterers of carbon” to the short list of what must be done with any revenue the state gets from carbon markets. It adds supporting “other business sectors capable of sequestering and storing carbon” to the declaration of the State’s policy, and switches from language about supporting an “indivisible industrial sector” to supporting a “synergistic” one.

It no longer specifies that the policy of the State is to utilize net flux stock-change carbon accounting principles; now its policy would simply be to use principles consistent with established guidelines, “such as” the IPPC’s and the US national greenhouse gas inventory’s. It expands the possible recipients of grants for carbon sequestration to include nonprofit organizations, local governments, Indian tribes, and state agencies as well as private landowners, and it widens the list of projects that might be funded to include urban forests and “forestlands” rather than “working forests.” It removes the requirement that reforestation and afforestation projects receiving grants would have to remain forested for at least fifty years. Rather than requiring the Department of Commerce to simply promote the forest products industry, it would now require it “when doing so maintains or enhances the forest sector’s contribution to climate change mitigation,” but that doesn’t seem like a significant change, since the bill continues to maintain that the whole industry, as it currently exists, has to be supported in order to contribute.

Summary –
The bill adds language to the findings for the State’s current greenhouse gas legislation (RCW70.235) about sequestering carbon through sustainable forestry and forest products, and about supporting industry sectors that sequester carbon.

It adds a section to that legislation saying that the industrial forest sector is a significant net sequesterer of carbon, and that this value, which is only provided through the maintenance of “an intact and indivisible industrial sector,” is an integral component of the state’s efforts to mitigate carbon emissions. It says that satisfying the goals of that legislation “requires supporting, throughout all of state government, the economic vitality of the forest products sector.” It says it’s the policy of the state to support “the complete forest products sector,” including mills, pulp and paper, and the harvesting and transportation infrastructure that’s necessary to continue the rotational harvest cycle. It says it’s the policy of the state to utilize net flux stock-change carbon accounting principles consistent with the IPCC’s and the national greenhouse gas inventory. It concludes by saying that any state carbon programs must support these policies.

It creates a forest carbon reforestation and afforestation account to be used by the State Conservation Commission, less reasonable administrative costs, in funding competitive grants for private landowners and organizations that work with them to advance the state’s carbon sequestration goals. (Grants are to leverage the sequestration and storage benefits of the State’s investment, and can provide funding for reforestation after a wildfire for which the landowner was not responsible; funding for projects to return fallow land capable of supporting trees to working forest; and funding to plant sustainable forested buffers along nonforested fish bearing streams.) Recipients have to agree to maintain all the land in “forested uses” for a minimum of fifty years. The account can also be used for a study to estimate how many acres of deforested land in the state could be returned to working forests without having an effect on food production.

It adds actively promoting markets for the state’s forest products, including “any products of an indivisible industry sector necessary for the maintenance and expansion of the sector” to the list of the Department of Commerce’s responsibilities.

SB6681

SB6681 – Amends the residential energy code to prioritize reducing construction costs rather than increasing energy efficiency.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee onEnvironment, Energy & Technology. Failed to get out of committee by the 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2667 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill amends the process for developing the residential energy code to prioritize reducing construction costs rather than increasing energy efficiency. It removes the State Building Code Council’s energy efficiency code design standards. It shifts from authorizing the Council to amend the residential energy code to increase efficiency to authorizing amending it to reduce construction costs. It delays implementation of the 2018 residential energy code, and requires the Council to review and amend that by 2021, specifying that the purpose of the review must be reducing construction costs and providing the least burdensome alternatives for compliance, and that the Council may not increase, but may decrease, the energy efficiency requirements of the 2018 code.

It leaves the current legislation for the non-residential energy code in place.

HB2829

HB2829 – Declaring a climate emergency and authorizing possible actions by the Governor.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kirby (D; 29th District; Tacoma) (Co-sponsors Tarleton, Riccelli, Pollet, and Macri)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 6th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill declares a climate emergency and authorizes the Governor to declare an energy emergency, modifying the current legislation for energy emergencies (in RCW 43.21G.040), which is intended to deal with a short term energy supply crisis.

An energy emergency would authorize the Governor to suspend or modify any agency’s rules about its energy consumption, or about the production of energy, and to order any state agency or local government to implement programs about its consumption of energy which have been developed by the governor or the agency – “for the purposes of limiting greenhouse gas emissions and building resiliency to the effects of climate change.” The Governor would also be authorized to issue orders to:
(a) implement programs, controls, standards, and priorities for the production, allocation, and consumption of energy;
(b) suspend and modify any standards or regulations affecting or affected by the use of energy, including air and water pollution rules, and:
(c) establish and implement programs and agreements to coordinate the State’s energy programs and actions with the Federal government’s, other states’, and other localities’.

The bill would exempt these powers from some of the time limits in the current law, but it seems to leave the limits of RCW 43.21G.040(1)(b) in place; those say an energy emergency is limited to 30 days unless the Legislature is in session or the Governor calls it into session within 30 days. It isn’t clear how this provision meshes with the bill’s provision that the Governor would have to announce the intention to declare an emergency by December 1st, specifying the steps he or she intended to take, and would not be able to proceed until after the conclusion of the next Legislative session, to give the Legislature an opportunity to add to, limit, or otherwise amend the proposals.`(I think that means there’s no time limit on the emergency powers unless the Legislature imposes a new one during that session.)

The Governor would have to have any plans for steps affecting the production, allocation, and consumption of energy, or for modifications to the laws in place, reviewed by the joint committee on energy supply and energy conservation. (That’s made up of four senators and four representatives, paired from each party.) However, the governor merely has to “review” any recommendations they may make.

SB6659

SB6659 – Minimum requirements for testing autonomous vehicles in the Department of Transportation’s pilot program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsors Randall, Lovelett, Nguyen, Keiser, C. Wilson, Frockt, and Saldaña)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2676 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill requires an insurance policy covering at least five million dollars per occurrence for bodily injury, death, or property damage for vehicles being tested under the Department of Transportation’s autonomous vehicle self-certification testing pilot program.

Organizations testing autonomous vehicles have to provide the Department with contact information, the local jurisdictions where testing is planned, the vehicle identification numbers, and proof of an insurance policy that meets the requirements. They must notify the department about any traffic incidents and any traffic infractions involving an autonomous motor vehicle within ten days, and about any disengagements of the autonomous driving system system that are made to avoid a possible traffic incident. The information has to include whether the autonomous driving system was operating the vehicle at the time of or immediately before the traffic incident or infraction, and details about any traffic incidents including any loss of life, injury, or property damage that resulted from them.

The bill authorizes the Department to charge a fee to cover the program’s administrative costs, and the Department’s to provide an annual update to the Legislature’s transportation committees summarizing the reported information.

HB2918

HB2918 – Insurance requirements for peer-to-peer car sharing businesses.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Corry (R; 14th District; Yakima, Klickitat and Skamania counties)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Business.
Next step would be – A striker for HB2773 replaced the language of that bill with this one’s.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
As I read the bill, the car sharing company is not made liable for damage to the shared car itself; it may provide coverage for that, but is not required to.

(HB2773 is another bill on the subject, dealing with the same issues with some differences in language and detail which may matter to lawyers. ) It’s now been replaced by a striker that substituted the language of this bill for its original text.

Summary –
The bill makes a peer-to-peer car sharing company liable for bodily injury, or property damage to third parties, or uninsured and underinsured motorist or personal injury protection losses during the period when an owner’s car is being used by another driver, and when it’s being delivered to that driver. It’s liable for the amount stated in the car sharing agreement, which must at least satisfy the State’s minimum insurance coverage requirements. However, it’s not liable if the owner makes an intentional or fraudulent material misrepresentation or omission to the company before the car sharing period in which the loss occurred; or is acting in concert with a driver who fails to return the vehicle according to the terms of the agreement. (There’s a provision I don’t understand which says the company is liable for these damages “notwithstanding the definition of car sharing termination time” provided in the bill.)

Companies are required to ensure that there is insurance coverage, at least at the levels the State requires, for the owner and the driver, and that it recognizes that the vehicle will be used in a peer-to-peer sharing program or doesn’t exclude that. (The coverage may be provided by the owner, the driver, the company, or some combination of those. I think that Section 4(7)(b) means that the company is not required to provide any coverage, only to ensure that there is the minimum.) If the company is providing all or part of the required insurance it assumes the primary liability if there’s a dispute about who was in control of the car at the time the loss occurred or it’s failed to provide required information about liability coverage to the driver or driver, but it’s to be indemnified by the owner’s insurance company if it’s determined that the owner was in control of the car at the time of the loss. The car sharing company is also required to provide the minimum coverage if the driver or owner doesn’t have insurance that provides it, and to notify owners with liens on their cars that allowing them to be shared through the program may violate the terms of the lien. If an insurance company chooses to defend or indemnify a claim against an owner or a driver for a loss while a car was being shared, and the company’s policy excluded that coverage, it can seek reimbursement from the car sharing company’s insurer.

Insurance companies may exclude any and all coverage for vehicles used in peer-to-peer sharing programs. Car sharing companies are required to keep records on the times cars were used, the fees paid by drivers, and the revenues received by owners for at least the length of the applicable personal injury statute of limitations.

Car sharing agreements have to inform the owner and the driver that they’re potentially liable for any economic loss that violating the terms and conditions of the agreement causes the company, and that their car insurance policies will not cover those. They have to inform them that the company’s insurance may not cover them if the car is shared past the termination time in the agreement, that owner’s liability insurance may not provide coverage for a shared vehicle, and if there are conditions under which the driver has to have a policy providing primary coverage with certain limits to book a shared vehicle. The agreement also has to provide the daily rate, fees, any applicable insurance or protection package costs that are charged to the owner or the driver, and an emergency telephone number for roadside assistance and other customer service.

Companies can only enter sharing agreements with legally authorized drivers. They’re responsible for any equipment they install in the car, and can’t charge an owner if it’s stolen, unless the owner caused that; if a driver damages or loses their equipment, they can try to recover for that loss. They must verify that there are no outstanding safety recalls on cars registering for the program, and notify owners that if they receive new recalls they’re responsible for taking cars out of the program until the problem’s been fixed.

SB6665

SB6665 – Extends the sales and use tax exemption for hog fuel to 2045.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Takko (D; 19th District; Longview) (Co-sponsors Short and Van De Wege)
Current status – …
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2848 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The tax preference statement for the bill says it’s “the legislature’s specific public policy objective to extend the expiration date of these tax preferences in order to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least seventy-five percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan.” I don’t know if that actually requires facilities to do anything to meet that objective…

Summary –
The law currently exempts hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel from the sales and use tax until 2024. The bill extends that tax exemption to 2045.

HB2892

HB2892 – Responds to Supreme Court ruling by specifying that Ecology has the authority to regulate direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases. (Reportedly NTIB.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Seattle) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 3rd; a substitute bill by the prime sponsor with several accompanying amendments of his passed out of committee February 6th. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6628 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The Washington Supreme Court recently ruled (5-4) that the State’s Clean Air Rule can’t apply to companies that sell or distribute petroleum or natural gas because they don’t make their own emissions — other people burn the fuel they provide. The Court held that the Department of Ecology is currently only authorized to regulate “actual emitters.”

The staff ‘s summaries of the changes in the substitute and the amendments are currently available in the folder with the materials for the committee meeting.

Representative Fitzgibbon has apparently shifted his efforts on this issue to a new bill, introduced, heard, and passed out of Appropriations on March 2nd – HB2957.

Summary –
The bill amends the State’s Clean Air Act to specify that it applies to direct or indirect emissions, and to say explicitly that the Department of Ecology “may require persons who produce or distribute fossil fuels or other products that emit greenhouse gases in Washington to comply with air quality standards, emission standards, or emission limits on emissions of greenhouse gases.”

 

SB6645

SB6645 – Requires increasing recycled content in plastic beverage containers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsors Carlyle; Wellman; Lovelett; Nguyen; Saldaña; Kuderer; Randall; Wilson, C.; Salomon; Liias)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 4th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2722 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t currently seem to say that manufacturers have to report the number of their containers covered by the bill to Ecology each year, though that’s assumed in other sections.

Summary –
The bill requires increasing in the average annual level of post-consumer recycled plastic in a manufacturers’ beverage containers, beginning with at least 15% in the period between the beginning of 2021 and the end of 2024. The requirement goes up to 25% from January 2025 through the end of 2030; increases to 50% from then to the end of 2034, and is 75% after that.

It requires manufacturers’ to report to the Department of Ecology each year on the percentages of virgin plastic and recycled plastic in the containers they sold or distributed in the state during the previous year. They’re subject to the following fines (adjusted for inflation) if they fail to meet the requirements:
(a) $0.0025 for each container when they have at least seventy-five percent of the required recycled content;
(b)$0.005 for each container when they have between fifty percent and seventy-five percent of that;
(c) $0.01 for each container when they have between twenty-five and fifty percent of it;
(d) $0.015 for each container when they have at least fifteen percent but less than twenty-five percent it; and
(e) $0.02 for each container when they have less than fifteen percent of the required recycled plastic.
Ecology’s authorized to conduct audits and inspections and there’s an additional penalty of $1.15/pound for any over-reporting of recycled content it discovers through those or some other means.

The bill doesn’t apply to polycoated cartons, foil pouches, drink boxes, refillable plastic beverage containers, infant formula, medical containers, or others Ecology decides to exempt.

SB6628

SB6628 – Responds to Supreme Court ruling by specifying that Ecology has the authority to regulate direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 29th. An amended substitute passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff, but referred back to Rules by motion on February 26th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2892 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments – The Washington Supreme Court recently ruled (5-4) that the State’s Clean Air Rule can’t apply to companies that sell or distribute petroleum or natural gas because they don’t make their own emissions — other people burn the fuel they provide. The Court held that the Department of Ecology is currently only authorized to regulate “actual emitters.”

The substitute adds findings, and its definitions specify that the act applies to indirect emissions as well as direct ones in a somewhat different way. (It doesn’t seem like a substantive change to me.) It adds sections requiring the UTC to provide prudent and timely cost recovery for measures that utilities take to comply with the act, and requiring the Department of Ecology  to try to integrate new state greenhouse gas requirements with existing ones, and to try to design new requirements to help companies comply with those and with existing regulations at the lowest cost possible. It also adds facilities that can make over 100 million gallons of renewable fuel a year to the list of projects of statewide significance that can apply for expedited permitting and other support.

Summary –
The bill amends the State’s Clean Air Act to specify that it applies to direct or indirect emissions, and to say explicitly  that the Department of Ecology “may require persons who produce or distribute fossil fuels or other products that emit greenhouse gases in Washington to comply with air quality standards, emission standards, or emission limits on emissions of greenhouse gases.”

 

SB6627

SB6627 – Reducing waste associated with non-compostable single-use food service products.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2656 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
Food services businesses that provide opportunities for consuming food on site would be prohibited from supplying customers with single use utensils, straws and condiment packets unless they asked for them. Businesses without on-site opportunities for eating and places with a drive-up window would have to ask if customers wanted them before providing any. They would have to be provided as separate items. (Utensils are defined as things like knives and chopsticks; they don’t include things like plates, bowls, cups, or bottles.) The bill would preempt local ordinances prohibiting businesses from providing them unless customers asked for them.

Beginning January 1, 2021, they can’t use styrofoam products for serving or packaging food.

Starting October 1st, 2021, and every year through 2029, the Department of Ecology is to identify the counties and cities with independent solid waste management plans that are served by composting facilities that can effectively deal with compostable food service products. Starting July 1, 2022, food service businesses in those jurisdictions are prohibited from selling or providing food in or with plastic, coated fiber, or coated paper catering trays and produce bags.

Starting on a date to be determined by the Department, they’re prohibited from selling or providing clear plastic food wrap and shrink wrap; plastic containers for uniquely shaped foods like deviled eggs and cupcakes; flexible plastic packaging used to preserve moisture and freshness; and plastic containers for hot meats such as ribs and rotisserie chicken. The Department is to determine the starting date for prohibiting each of these categories by seeing whether at least two suitable and readily available alternatives for the category exist and whether at least two vendors make a suitable alternative commercially available. If they do, the prohibition of that category of items is to begin a year later, and the Department is to repeat this process once a year for any categories it hasn’t yet established a starting date for. On January 1, 2030, these rules are to become effective for all the product categories.

Food service businesses may use durable, reusable food service products; recyclable fiber-based, glass, or metal food ones; recyclable plastic bottles and beverage containers made from high density polyethylene (HDPE) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET); prepackaged foods in plastic; and compostable food service products the Department has verified as free of per and poly fluoroalkyl substances.

It can grant one year waivers from the requirements, and renew them, if applicants show that a restricted category of plastic food service product doesn’t have at least two suitable and readily commercially available alternative products; that there aren’t at least two vendors making a suitable alternative commercially available; or that enforcing the requirements would cause undue hardship.

The bill creates a fee of one cent per item on plastic food service items that aren’t recyclable or compostable; and a fee of up to one cent per item on ones that are, based on the average net cost of recycling or composting each material type and form, and the amount of it used in plastic food service products sold in the state. (I think this means that if it cost $1,000/ton to recycle some kind of item, and there were 10 tons sold in the state, then the fee per item should be set to cover the estimated cost of recycling all of them, or to collect a total of $10,000 in my example.) The fees are to be adjusted for inflation, and products covered by a statewide plastic packaging product stewardship program are exempted. The money can be spent on administering the program; for the State’s solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education; for assisting local solid waste programs, and for supporting statewide composting.

Ecology is to create education and outreach programs about these requirements, and can assess fines of up to $100 a day for violations of them for small retail food service businesses and up to $5,000 a day for larger ones.

In preparation for the 2030 statewide restrictions on plastic food service products, Ecology’s to report every two years on the status of composting infrastructure available to local jurisdictions, and on whether adjusting the State’s definition of “compostable” would help assure that those products could actually be composted and managed effectively by facilities.

The bill adds compostable food products to the items that local solid waste management plans have to consider, and requires them to assess the logistical and economic feasibility of developing infrastructure, including appropriate collection services, to allow widespread commercial composting of the organics and compostable food service products from their jurisdiction by 2030.

SB6622

SB6622 – Retains the photovoltaic product stewardship program and requires a report on a comprehensive alternate.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Substitute passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB2389 proposes an almost identical task force but it repeals the current law rather than leaving it in place.

The findings say that the PV product stewardship program the Legislature created in 2017 through SB5939, which passed with large majorities in both houses, has “created uncertainty for manufacturers who may cease to sell panels in the state.” (The only problem it mentions is that the current system only applies to small system panels sold after July 2017, so it’s unclear what will happen to earlier panels and ones from larger systems; they apparently say they’re worried about ending up with two sets of requirements.)

The House committee substitute merely changes the bill’s title to “Investigating a comprehensive, statewide photovoltaic module recovery, reuse, recycling, and end-of-life program,” instead of “Establishing…”

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to appoint a stakeholders’ task force to develop recommendations by December 1, 2021 for financing and managing the recovery, reuse, and recycling of photovoltaic modules and their components (and for disposing of the remaining materials).

This bill adds reviewing programs in other countries to the new task force’s work, and adds several more specified members to it. It tidies up the language of the current photovoltaic module stewardship and takeback law, but it leaves that in place while the recommendations are being developed.

HB2848

HB2848 – Extends the sales and use tax exemption for hog fuel to 2045.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Clallam County) (Co-Sponsors Orcutt, Tharinger, Walsh, Blake, Tarleton, Springer, Maycumber, Fitzgibbon, and Lekanoff)
Current status – Vetoed by the Governor.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance February 6th; passed out of committee February 8th. Referred to Rules. Passed the House February 13th. House concurred in Senate changes March 11th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Scheduled for a hearing February 20th; not heard. Had a hearing February 26th; replaced by a striker and voted out of committee February 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on March 2nd. Passed out of committee March 9th; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 10th. Returned to the House for consideration of concurrence with Senate changes.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6665 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The tax preference statement for the bill says it’s “the legislature’s specific public policy objective to extend the expiration date of these tax preferences in order to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least seventy-five percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan.” I don’t know if that actually requires facilities to do anything to meet that objective…

Summary –
The law currently exempts hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel from the sales and use tax until 2024. The bill extends that tax exemption to 2045.

The striker only extends the exemption to 2034, and it specifies that the retirement plans mentioned in the intent statement include defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, and employee investment plans with employer contributions.

HB2656

HB2656 – Reducing waste associated with non-compostable single-use food service products.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; Kent)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th. Substitute with a number of small amendments passed out of committee January 6th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there February 10th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6627 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – The substitute and the amendments are currently available in the folder with the materials for the committee’s meeting.

Summary –
Food services businesses that provide opportunities for consuming food on site would be prohibited from supplying customers with single use utensils, straws and condiment packets unless they asked for them. Businesses without on-site opportunities for eating and places with a drive-up window would have to ask if customers wanted them before providing any. They would have to be provided as separate items. (Utensils are defined as things like knives and chopsticks; they don’t include things like plates, bowls, cups, or bottles.) The bill would preempt local ordinances prohibiting businesses from providing them unless customers asked for them.

Beginning January 1, 2021, they can’t use styrofoam products for serving or packaging food.

Starting October 1st, 2021, and every year through 2029, the Department of Ecology is to identify the counties and cities with independent solid waste management plans that are served by composting facilities that can effectively deal with compostable food service products. Starting July 1, 2022, food service businesses in those jurisdictions are prohibited from selling or providing food in or with plastic, coated fiber, or coated paper catering trays and produce bags.

Starting on a date to be determined by the Department, they’re prohibited from selling or providing clear plastic food wrap and shrink wrap; plastic containers for uniquely shaped foods like deviled eggs and cupcakes; flexible plastic packaging used to preserve moisture and freshness; and plastic containers for hot meats such as ribs and rotisserie chicken. The Department is to determine the starting date for prohibiting each of these categories by seeing whether at least two suitable and readily available alternatives for the category exist and whether at least two vendors make a suitable alternative commercially available. If they do,  the prohibition of that category of items is to begin a year later, and the Department is to repeat this process once a year for any categories it hasn’t yet established a starting date for. On January 1, 2030, these rules are to become effective for all the product categories.

Food service businesses may use durable, reusable food service products; recyclable fiber-based, glass, or metal food ones; recyclable plastic bottles and beverage containers made from high density polyethylene (HDPE) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET);  prepackaged foods in plastic; and compostable food service products the Department has verified as free of per and poly fluoroalkyl substances.

It can grant one year waivers from the requirements, and renew them, if applicants show that a restricted category of plastic food service product doesn’t have at least two suitable and readily commercially available alternative products; that there aren’t at least two vendors making a suitable alternative commercially available; or that enforcing the requirements would cause undue hardship.

The bill creates a fee of one cent per item on plastic food service items that aren’t recyclable or compostable; and a fee of up to one cent per item on ones that are, based on the average net cost of recycling or composting each material type and form, and the amount of it used in plastic food service products sold in the state. (I think this means that if it cost $1,000/ton to recycle some kind of item, and there were 10 tons sold in the state, then the fee per item should be set to cover the estimated cost of recycling all of them, or to collect a total of $10,000 in my example.) The fees are to be adjusted for inflation, and products covered by a statewide plastic packaging product stewardship program are exempted. The money can be spent on administering the program; for the State’s solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education; for assisting local solid waste programs, and for supporting statewide composting.

Ecology is to create education and outreach programs about these requirements, and can assess fines of up to $100 a day for violations of them for small retail food service businesses and up to $5,000 a day for larger ones.

In preparation for the 2030 statewide restrictions on plastic food service products, Ecology’s to report every two years on the status of composting infrastructure available to local jurisdictions, and on whether adjusting the State’s definition of “compostable” would help assure that those products could actually be composted and managed effectively by facilities.

The bill adds compostable food products to the items that local solid waste management plans have to consider, and requires them to assess the logistical and economic feasibility of developing infrastructure, including appropriate collection services, to allow widespread commercial composting of the organics and compostable food service products from their jurisdiction by 2030.

HB2645

HB2648 – Tightens the solar PV module stewardship program in some small ways.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Smith (R; 10th District; Island County; Skagit & Snohomish)
Current status – Bill signed, but Section 2 – Study of recycling – vetoed by Governor.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th at 3:30. Amended and passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Rules. Amended on the floor by the prime sponsor and passed by the House February 16th. House concurred with Senate amendments March 10th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing February 20th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 28th. Passed out of committee March 2nd and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 7th. Returned to the House for possible concurrence with Senate amendments.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Governor’s Veto
Governor Inslee signed the bill, but vetoed Section 2, which created a task force to report to the Legislature and make recommendations on potential methods for managing end-of-life photovoltaic modules, because of coronavirus budget concerns.

Comments – The bill only requires notifying retailers, distributors, and installers about violations of the requirement for an approved stewardship plan, but it only imposes potential fines on the manufacturer of the panels.

The amendment in the House committee narrows manufacturers’ obligation to provide takeback locations to regions in which their modules “were used.” It delays the implementation and enforcement of the act for a year, until dates in 2023. It requires the Department of Ecology to create a task force to report to the Legislature and make recommendations on potential methods for managing end-of-life photovoltaic modules, including ones from utility scale projects. It lists a number of issues the report must cover, and a number of required members for the task force, but Ecology can add more.

The floor amendment replaces the Ecology task force with a WSU work group, subject to appropriations.

The committee striker in the Senate delays the date for submitting a stewardship plan by 2.5 years, until July 1, 2022; delays the reporting requirement for manufacturers by an additional year, until 2024; and delays enforcement by six months, until July 1, 2023.

Summary –
It would expand the current legislation to cover ground mounted panels connected to the grid. It would cover modules manufactured for use in the state as well as those for sale; and include panels acquired through remote offerings such as sales outlets, catalogs, or the internet. It would prohibit distributors, retailers, and installers from selling panels that weren’t covered by an approved stewardship plan, not just manufacturers, and would require the Department of Ecology to send a warning ordering them to stop if the manufacturer had not submitted a plan and gotten it approved by Ecology within thirty days.

SB6597

SB6597 – Allows triple trailer rigs on State highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sheldon (D, 35th District, Mason County) (Senator Sheldon caucuses with the Republicans.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 28th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2692 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The EPA has a flyer about combination freight vehicles that estimates turnpike double and triple trailers reduce fuel use by 21%. (Some studies also suggest they’re involved in fewer accidents, though that may reflect other factors, like their getting better drivers at this point.)

Summary –
Currently, the law prohibits operating any semi with a trailer longer than fifty-three or with two trailers longer than sixty-one feet on state highways. (It exempts empty double trailers or semitrailers weighing less than 26,000 pounds if they’re part of the inventory of a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, and the entire rig is less than eighty-two feet.)

The bill requires the Department of Transportation to implement rules allowing semis with three trailers to operate on designated State highways; the rules may include other operating conditions the Department specifies to ensure a safe and efficient highway system. (This is dependent on federal approval of a variance to the freeze of state law imposed by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, so presumably DOT also has to apply for the variance.)

The Department is also to produce an annual status and performance report on the volume of triple trailer traffic, and the segments of the trucking industry taking advantage of the variance; and on their impacts on highway safety, traffic movement, and the environment.

SB6586

SB6586 – Imposes a per mile fee on electric and hybrid vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Hobbs, Liias, and Conway)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 29th. Substitute by the prime sponsor passed out of committee February 10; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The proposal would charge an plug in car owner driving an average amount, say 11,000 miles, $385 a year if they only drove on electricity, plus the gas tax on any fuel they used when they weren’t relying on the battery. It would charge a hybrid owner $220 a year plus the regular gas tax.

The substitute leaves the fees to be specified in future legislation, or according to the recommendations in the plan if the Legislature doesn’t do that. It adds options for variable rates to the items the plan’s to cover, and extends the fee to State light vehicles. The plan would no longer have the Transportation Commission serve in a policy role that ensures independent oversight, reporting to the Legislature, and appropriate public input;  it leaves the Department of Transportation as the lead agency in charge of administering and operating the system. (It’s not clear from the language whether this is only during a transition plan, while the bill leaves the ultimate long term role of the Commission open, or if this is to be ongoing…)

Transportation Choices has a flyer about road use charges.

Summary –
Starting January 1st 2024, the bill would charge plug-in vehicles that can go thirty miles or more on the battery three and a half cents per mile, and other hybrids two cents a mile, in addition to other fees and taxes. The proceeds would have to be used for road preservation and maintenance.

By December 1, 2021, the Department of Transportation and the Transportation Commission would develop a plan for imposing the fee, incorporating the ongoing work of the Commission evaluating road usage charges. It would have to include:
(a) Different mileage reporting options;
(b) Recommended methods and rates for achieving cost efficiency, fairness, minimal administrative cost, payment compliance, consumer choice, and preserving individual privacy;
(c) Alternatives to allow for monthly or quarterly payment;
(d) Any recommended statutory changes, including suggested offsets or rebates to recognize other taxes and fees paid by electric and hybrid vehicle owners;
(e) Recommendations to align the system better with other vehicle charges and to establish a potential framework for broader implementation of a per mile funding system, including analysis of the preferred method for addressing Eighteenth Amendment considerations; and
(f) A recommended implementation and governance structure under which the Department would operate the system, but the Commission would ensure independent oversight, appropriate public input, and report to the Legislature.

SB6578

SB6578 – Expedites a pumped storage project by designating them as projects of statewide significance.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Honeyford (R; 15th District; Eastern Yakima County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 4th. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff; placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2819 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
In 2012 SB6044 slightly expanded the powers of PUDs along the Columbia by authorizing them to sell water to privately owned utilities for use in pumped storage projects, and to sell power from such projects. FERC recently approved a permit authorizing a three year study for a 1,200 MW pumped storage project that National Grid wants to build in Goldendale, using water supplied by the Klickitat County PUD. According to that linked article, “The project would be on land owned by NSC Smelter at the former Columbia Gorge Aluminum smelter site, which is designated a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act contaminated site and subject to a cleanup effort being overseen by the Washington Department of Ecology. However, the department has said the pumped storage project will not hinder the cleanup process. … The commission also said the pumped-storage developer has shown its project boundary does not include any land subject to further cleanup activities. Still, FERC said the developer will have to show any future licensing for the project will not impede the cleanup.”

The substitute bill adds a requirement for consultation with affected tribes to the process for any project of statewide significance.

Summary –
The bill would make pumped storage projects using water rights approved by the legislature for that purpose developments of statewide significance, which require:
(1) Expedited permit processing for the design and construction of the project;
(2) Expedited environmental review processing;
(3) Expedited processing of requests for street, right-of-way, or easement vacations necessary for the construction of the project;
(4) Participation of local officials on the team assembled under the requirements of RCW 43.157.030(2)(b); and
(5) Such other actions or items as are deemed necessary by the office of regulatory assistance for the design and construction of the project.

HB2819

HB2819 – Expedites a pumped storage project by designating them as projects of statewide significance.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; Klickitat County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 3rd. Passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 18th.

In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks; had a hearing and passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6578 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
In 2012 SB6044 slightly expanded the powers of PUDs along the Columbia by authorizing them to sell water to privately owned utilities for use in pumped storage projects, and to sell power from such projects. FERC recently approved a  permit authorizing a three year study for a 1,200 MW pumped storage project that National Grid wants to build in Goldendale, using water supplied by the Klickitat County PUD. According to that linked article, “The project would be on land owned by NSC Smelter at the former Columbia Gorge Aluminum smelter site, which is designated a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act contaminated site and subject to a cleanup effort being overseen by the Washington Department of Ecology. However, the department has said the pumped storage project will not hinder the cleanup process. … The commission also said the pumped-storage developer has shown its project boundary does not include any land subject to further cleanup activities. Still, FERC said the developer will have to show any future licensing for the project will not impede the cleanup.”

The floor amendment changed current law to require counties and cities with development projects of statewide significance to create a plan for consultation with affected tribes as part of the approval process.

Summary –
The bill would make pumped storage projects using water rights approved by the legislature for that purpose developments of statewide significance, which require:
(1) Expedited permit processing for the design and construction of the project;
(2) Expedited environmental review processing;
(3) Expedited processing of requests for street, right-of-way, or easement vacations necessary for the construction of the project;
(4) Participation of local officials on the team assembled under the requirements of RCW 43.157.030(2)(b); and
(5) Such other actions or items as are deemed necessary by the office of regulatory assistance for the design and construction of the project.

HB2811

HB2811 – Develops K-12 field work experiences in environmental and sustainability education.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Jesse Johnson (D; 30th District; Federal Way)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations January 30th. Passed out of committee February 3rd; referred to Rules. Passed the House February 12th. House concurred in the Senate amendments March 10th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education. Had a hearing February 21st; amended and passed out of committee February 24th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 6th; returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – Referral to the Governor for signature.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(There’s a House Bill Analysis.)
SB6124 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The list of requirements for the “qualified non-profit” eligible for funding under the bill essentially specifies some particular organization, apparently the Pacific Education Institute. The committee amendment in the Senate made minor changes to the language which might make the process slightly more competitive.

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

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

SB6329

SB6329 – Prohibits labeling or advertising for plant-based alternatives from containing any terms for foods containing meat, including “meat”, “burger”, “sausage”, etc.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R, 13th District, Moses Lake)
Current status – Had  a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2696 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – If you’re interested in the potential disruption of the current meat and dairy industry by precision fermented proteins like the heme in Impossible Burgers, you might read Tony Seba’s “Rethinking Food and Agriculture.”

Like the substitute for the House companion bill, the Senate substitute shifts from requiring “imitation” or the phrase, “this product does not contain meat”, to requiring at least one of several possible words or phrases that indicate that the product does not contain meat, like “plant-based,” “veggie,” or “meat-free.”

Summary –
The bill prohibits using “identifiable meat terms” in labeling or advertising food that doesn’t contain meat, unless there’s a disclaimer in the same type immediately after the term saying, “This product does not contain meat,” or the term is preceeded by “imitation” in the same type, like “imitation burger.”

Using the terms without the disclaimers would qualify as misbranding and presumably subject one to legal penalties, though I don’t know what those are.

 

 

SB6398

SB6398 – Expands transportation policy goals; requires evaluating projects using performance metrics for the goals before the Legislature considers them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldana (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 28th at 3:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2688 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill revises and expands the current list of policy goals for the State’s transportation system. Under the bill, public investments in transportation would be supposed to support the achievement of:

(a) Accessibility: To improve affordable access to the places and goods Washington residents, organizations, and businesses need to live, work, study, play, and pray;
(b) Safety: To provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation users, the transportation system, and anyone interacting with the system;
(c) Environment and climate: To enhance the quality of life through transportation investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and toxics, promote energy conservation, and protect lands and waterways;
(d) Health and resilience: To promote healthy people and communities through pollution-free transportation, multimodal transportation, integrated land use and transportation projects, clean active transportation, and appropriate infrastructure;
(e) Equity and environmental justice: To eliminate historic and persistent barriers and prioritize investments meeting the goals in this section for highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations, which includes direct inclusion in decision making;
(f) Preservation: To maintain, preserve, and extend the life and utility of prior transportation systems and service investments that meet current and future needs and goals; and
(g) Economic vitality: To promote and develop transportation systems that support and enhance affordability, access to opportunity, and good jobs.

(These changes drop a section on increasing mobility and reducing congestion; add the sections about accessibility, health and resilience, and equity and environmental justice; and revise the language of the other sections in a variety of ways, placing more emphasis on progressive goals like affordability, good jobs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.)

The bill also requires projects and any reductions in projects to be evaluated on specified performance metrics for each of these goals, and to meet a performance threshold to be established by the Department of Transportation, before their inclusion in a budget authorization or their consideration by the Legislature. The evaluation process is to include representatives from the active transportation division, the public transportation division, the multimodal planning division, and the ferries, in conjunction with the Department of Ecology, the Interagency Council on Health Disparities, the Department of Health and the Department of Commerce, and is to include a public input process that is inclusive of vulnerable populations in highly impacted communities, as identified by the department of Health. The analysis is to be published on the Department’s website.

There are several pages of metrics which you can find on the last pages of the bill.

HB2372

HB2372 – Specifies that the four legislative members of the Building Code Council are voting members.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hoff (R, 18th District, Southwest Washington)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 28th at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6464 would do the same thing, through slightly different wording.

Summary –
The State Building Code Council currently consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor, two Representatives and two Senators, and a non-voting employee of the electrical division of the department of labor and industries. The bill specifies that the legislators are voting members. (I don’t know if there has has been some question about that, or if this is just tidying things up…)

SB6529

SB6529 – Revises the State’s urban forestry program to include tribes, and to prioritize salmon and environment justice goals.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2768 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
This bill does a great deal of redlining to make very minor alterations in the current laws; Sections 9 and 10 contain most of the significant changes, as far as I can see.

Summary –

The bill requires the Department of Natural Resources to do and periodically update a statewide inventory of urban and community forests, using protocols established by the Forest Service, to produce statistically relevant estimates of the quantity, health, composition, and benefits of urban trees and forests.

It requires the Department to prioritize regions for delivery of urban forestry programs, policies, and activities by including criteria related to human health and salmon recovery.

It’s to identify these regions using analyses and tools including:
(a) Assessing tree canopy cover and urban forestry inventory data, using recent information when it’s available;
(b) Identifying highly impacted communities at the census tract level using health disparity mapping tools such as the Department of Health’s Washington tracking network;
(c) Using salmon and orca recovery data including the Puget Sound Partnership action agenda and other regional and statewide recovery plans and efforts to target program delivery in areas where there are significant opportunities related to salmon and orca habitat and health; and by;
(d) Using the department’s twenty-year forest health strategic plan.

It may consult with other state agencies; a statewide organization representing urban and community forestry programs; health experts; and salmon recovery experts as part of this analysis, and may hire consultants to get more information or collaborate with local governments to inventory prioritized urban forests where adequate data is not available. It’s to identify areas where urban forestry will generate the greatest combination of benefits related to canopy needs, health disparities, and salmon habitat.

The bill expands the current law to include tribal lands, and requires the Department to consult with the appropriate tribes in watersheds where urban forestry work is taking place.

Fifty percent of the resources used in delivering the policies, programs, and activities of the program, including ones for establishing and maintaining new trees and for maintaining existing canopy must benefit vulnerable populations and be delivered within a quarter mile of highly impacted communities. The most resources must be allocated to the highest impacted communities within these areas. It must encourage communities to include participation and input by vulnerable populations in the development of forestry plans, through community organizations and by members of the public.

The Department must provide technical assistance and capacity building resources and opportunities to cities, counties, federally recognized tribes, and other public and private entities in developing and coordinating policies, programs, and activities promoting urban and community forestry. It can use existing inventory tools or develop additional ones to help them collect tree data that informs management, planning, and policy development. (The Department may consult with the Department of Commerce in the process, on issues including the intersections between urban forestry programs and growth management act planning.) The Department is to help cities’ urban forest managers access carbon markets by working to ensure these inventory tools are compatible with existing and developing urban forest carbon market reporting protocols. It can use existing tools, and develop innovative ones to support urban forestry programs including comprehensive tool kit packages (tree kits) that can easily be shared, locally adapted, and used.

The department may use existing tools to help communities develop urban forestry management plans, which may include:
(a) Inventory and assessment of the jurisdiction’s urban and community forests utilized as a dynamic management tool to set goals, implement programs, and monitor outcomes that may be adjusted over time;
(b) Canopy cover, reforestation and canopy expansion, forest stand and diversity goals;
(c) Maximizing vegetated stormwater management;
(d) Environmental health goals specific to air quality, habitat for wildlife, and energy conservation;
(e) Standards for tree selection, siting, planting, pruning and maintenance for new and established trees, including disease and pest management;
(f) Staff and volunteer training requirements emphasizing appropriate expertise and professionalism;
(g) Wood waste utilization;
(h) Community outreach, participation, education programs, and partnerships with nongovernment organizations;
(i) Time frames for achieving plan goals, objectives, and tasks;
(j) Monitoring and measuring progress toward those benchmarks and goals;
(k) Consistency with the urban wildland interface codes developed by the State Building Code Council;
(l) Maximizing building heating and cooling energy efficiency through appropriate siting of trees; and,
(m) A number of other items.

The department can use existing tools to help communities develop urban forestry ordinances, including such elements as:
(a) Tree canopy cover, density, and spacing;
(b) Tree conservation and retention;
(c) Vegetated stormwater runoff management using native trees and appropriate nonnative, nonnaturalized vegetation;
(d) Clearing, grading, protection of soils, reductions in soil compaction, and use of appropriate soils with low runoff potential and high infiltration rates;
(e) Appropriate tree siting and maintenance for vegetation management practices and programs to prevent vegetation from interfering with or damaging utilities and public facilities;
(f) Native species and nonnative, nonnaturalized species diversity selection to reduce disease and pests in urban forests;
(g) Tree maintenance;
(h) Street tree installation and maintenance;
(i) Tree and vegetation buffers for riparian areas, critical areas, transportation and utility corridors, and commercial and residential areas;
(j) Tree assessments for new construction permitting;
(k) Recommended forest conditions for different land use types;
(l) Variances for hardship and safety;
(m) Variances to avoid conflicts with renewable solar energy infrastructure, passive solar building design, and locally grown produce; and
(n) Permits and appeals.

HB2768

HB2768 – Revises the State’s urban forestry program to include tribes, and to prioritize salmon and environmental justice goals.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramos (D; 5th District; Issaquah) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Did not pass out of opposite house by fiscal cutoff; sent to the “X” file.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources January 28th. Substitute passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 8th. Passed out of Appropriations February 11th; referred to Rules. Passed the House February 16th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 25th; referred to Ways and Means and had a hearing there February 29th. Passed out of committee with a minor amendment March 2nd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6529 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
(The carbon sequestration bill Representative Ramos introduced at the request of DNR in 2019 , HB2047, has gone to the House Rules “X” file.)

This bill does a great deal of redlining to make very minor alterations in the current laws; Sections 9 and 10 contain most of the significant changes, as far as I can see.

The substitute specifies that the bill’s provisions don’t apply to lands subject to or designated under the forest practices act; to natural area preserves; natural resources conservation areas; or to land subject to timber and forestland taxation or open space, agricultural, and timberlands taxation. It directs the Department of Natural Resources to conduct pilot projects in at least two watersheds, one on each side of the Cascades, to identify areas where urban forestry will generate the most combined benefits for canopy, health disparities, and salmon. It no longer requires a statewide urban and community forest inventory.

Summary –

The bill requires the Department of Natural Resources to do and periodically update a statewide inventory of urban and community forests, using protocols established by the Forest Service, to produce statistically relevant estimates of the quantity, health, composition, and benefits of urban trees and forests.

It requires the Department to prioritize regions for delivery of urban forestry programs, policies, and activities by including criteria related to human health and salmon recovery.

It’s to identify these regions using analyses and tools including:
(a) Assessing tree canopy cover and urban forestry inventory data, using recent information when it’s available;
(b) Identifying highly impacted communities at the census tract level using health disparity mapping tools such as the Department of Health’s Washington tracking network;
(c) Using salmon and orca recovery data including the Puget Sound Partnership action agenda and other regional and statewide recovery plans and efforts to target program delivery in areas where there are significant opportunities related to salmon and orca habitat and health; and by;
(d) Using the department’s twenty-year forest health strategic plan.

It may consult with other state agencies; a statewide organization representing urban and community forestry programs; health experts; and salmon recovery experts as part of this analysis, and may hire consultants to get more information or collaborate with local governments to inventory prioritized urban forests where adequate data is not available. It’s to identify areas where urban forestry will generate the greatest combination of benefits related to canopy needs, health disparities, and salmon habitat.

The bill expands the current law to include tribal lands, and requires the Department to consult with the appropriate tribes in watersheds where urban forestry work is taking place.

Fifty percent of the resources used in delivering the policies, programs, and activities of the program, including ones for establishing and maintaining new trees and for maintaining existing canopy must benefit vulnerable populations and be delivered within a quarter mile of highly impacted communities. The most resources must be allocated to the highest impacted communities within these areas. It must encourage communities to include participation and input by vulnerable populations in the development of forestry plans, through community organizations and by members of the public.

The Department must provide technical assistance and capacity building resources and opportunities to cities, counties, federally recognized tribes, and other public and private entities in developing and coordinating policies, programs, and activities promoting urban and community forestry. It can use existing inventory tools or develop additional ones to help them collect tree data that informs management, planning, and policy development. (The Department may consult with the Department of Commerce in the process, on issues including the intersections between urban forestry programs and growth management act planning.) The Department is to help cities’ urban forest managers access carbon markets by working to ensure these inventory tools are compatible with existing and developing urban forest carbon market reporting protocols. It can use existing tools, and develop innovative ones to support urban forestry programs including comprehensive tool kit packages (tree kits) that can easily be shared, locally adapted, and used.

The department may use existing tools to help communities develop urban forestry management plans, which may include:
(a) Inventory and assessment of the jurisdiction’s urban and community forests utilized as a dynamic management tool to set goals, implement programs, and monitor outcomes that may be adjusted over time;
(b) Canopy cover, reforestation and canopy expansion, forest stand and diversity goals;
(c) Maximizing vegetated stormwater management;
(d) Environmental health goals specific to air quality, habitat for wildlife, and energy conservation;
(e) Standards for tree selection, siting, planting, pruning and maintenance for new and established trees, including disease and pest management;
(f) Staff and volunteer training requirements emphasizing appropriate expertise and professionalism;
(g) Wood waste utilization;
(h) Community outreach, participation, education programs, and partnerships with nongovernment organizations;
(i) Time frames for achieving plan goals, objectives, and tasks;
(j) Monitoring and measuring progress toward those benchmarks and goals;
(k) Consistency with the urban wildland interface codes developed by the State Building Code Council;
(l) Maximizing building heating and cooling energy efficiency through appropriate siting of trees; and,
(m) A number of other items.

The department can use existing tools to help communities develop urban forestry ordinances, including such elements as:
(a) Tree canopy cover, density, and spacing;
(b) Tree conservation and retention;
(c) Vegetated stormwater runoff management using native trees and appropriate nonnative, nonnaturalized vegetation;
(d) Clearing, grading, protection of soils, reductions in soil compaction, and use of appropriate soils with low runoff potential and high infiltration rates;
(e) Appropriate tree siting and maintenance for vegetation management practices and programs to prevent vegetation from interfering with or damaging utilities and public facilities;
(f) Native species and nonnative, nonnaturalized species diversity selection to reduce disease and pests in urban forests;
(g) Tree maintenance;
(h) Street tree installation and maintenance;
(i) Tree and vegetation buffers for riparian areas, critical areas, transportation and utility corridors, and commercial and residential areas;
(j) Tree assessments for new construction permitting;
(k) Recommended forest conditions for different land use types;
(l) Variances for hardship and safety;
(m) Variances to avoid conflicts with renewable solar energy infrastructure, passive solar building design, and locally grown produce; and
(n) Permits and appeals.

HB2773

HB2773 – Regulations for peer to peer vehicle sharing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kirby (D; 29th District; Tacoma) (Co-sponsor Vick)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business February 5th. Replaced by a striker which substituted the language of HB2918 for this bill’s, and passed out of committee February 7th; referred to Rules. Passed the House nearly unanimously February 19th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions, Economic Development & Trade; had a hearing February 25th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB2918 was another bill on the subject, dealing with the same issues with some differences in language and detail which may matter to lawyers. This bill had some additional provisions which are summarized here at the end, below the asterisks.

This bill has now been replaced by the language of HB2918. The staff note at the bottom of the striker doing that, which is currently available in the folder with the materials for the committee meeting,  discusses the new bill as if it merely made a few adjustments to the State’s current law governing P2P car sharing, which seems to be RCW 48.175.  However, I don’t see that cited in either of these bills, or in the staff report for the original HB2773, and I don’t see why the staff says that… so I can’t offer much help about what’s really going on here.

Summary –
The bill makes a program connecting peer-to-peer vehicle owners with people driving their cars assume the full liability of a car owner for any bodily injury or property damage to third parties, uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits, and personal injury losses during the sharing period in the amount stated in an agreement. (That may not be less than those set forth in chapter 46.29 RCW,  which I think means at least twenty-five thousand dollars for bodily injury or death of one person in an accident, fifty thousand dollars for bodily injury or death of two or more people, and ten thousand dollars for property damage.) The program is liable even if its insurance has lapsed or it doesn’t have coverage. It’s not liable if there’s been a serious misrepresentation or omission by the car’s owner before the trip in which the accident occurred or if the owner acts in concert with a driver who fails to return the vehicle in accordance with the agreement.

Companies are required to ensure that there is primary liability coverage, at least at the minimum levels the State requires, for the owner and the driver, and that the insurance recognizes that the vehicle will be used in a peer-to-peer sharing program or doesn’t exclude that. (The coverage may be provided by the owner, the driver, the company, or some combination of those. I think that Section 7 means that the company is not required to provide any coverage, only to ensure that there is the minimum.) If the company is providing all or part of the required insurance it assumes the primary liability if there’s a dispute about who was in control of the car at the time the loss occurred or it’s failed to provide required information about liability coverage to the driver or driver, but it’s to be indemnified by the owner’s insurance company if it’s determined that the owner was in control of the car at the time of the loss. The car sharing company is also required to provide the primary minimum coverage if the driver or owner was supposed to, but actually doesn’t have insurance that provides it.

The company has to notify owners with liens on their cars, when they first register and again “prior to the time the owner makes the vehicle available for use”, that allowing a car to be shared  may violate the terms of the lien. If an insurance company chooses to defend or indemnify a claim against an owner or a driver for a loss while a car was being shared, and the company’s policy excluded that coverage, it can seek reimbursement from the car sharing company’s insurer.

Insurance companies’ liability policies may exclude any and all coverage for vehicles, including those used in peer-to-peer sharing programs. Car sharing companies are required to keep records on the times cars were used, the fees paid by drivers, and the revenues received by owners for at least the length of the applicable personal injury statute of limitations.

Car sharing agreements have to inform the owner and the driver that they’re potentially liable for any economic loss that violating the terms and conditions of the agreement causes the company, and that their car insurance policies will not cover those. They have to inform them that the company’s insurance may not cover them if the car is shared past the termination time in the agreement, that owner’s liability insurance may not provide coverage for a shared vehicle, and if there are conditions under which the driver has to have a policy providing primary coverage with certain limits to book a shared vehicle. The agreement also has to provide the daily rate, fees, any applicable insurance or protection package costs that are charged to the owner or the driver, and an emergency telephone number for roadside assistance and other customer service.

Companies can only enter sharing agreements with legally authorized drivers. They’re responsible for any equipment they install in the car, and can’t charge an owner if it’s stolen, unless the owner caused that; if a driver damages or loses their equipment, they can try to recover for that loss. They must verify that there are no outstanding safety recalls on cars registering for the program, and notify owners that if they receive new recalls they’re responsible for taking cars out of the program until the problem’s been fixed.

*****

This bill includes car-sharing agreements as transactions covered by the State’s consumer protection act, unless a violation is the result of false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided to the company by an owner or driver. It specifies the conditions for delivery of notices and disclosures for master or member agreements for peer-to-peer car sharing companies and any other rental car companies that may provide cars to drivers in similar ways,  without a visit to a retail service location, executing an agreement, or giving the customer the terms and conditions at the time of service. In these situations, companies do not have to physically compare a driver’s license and the driver if they have previously verified that the customer is a licensed driver and requires documentation that verifies the customer’s identity before they take possession of the vehicle.

The bill allows airports to require rental car companies or car sharing companies providing cars parked on airport property, or used for (or advertised as being available for) trips to or from the airport to sign contracts with reasonable standards, regulations, procedures, and fees.

HB2713

HB2713 – Requires the State and local governments to use compost and reimburses farmers for using it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Bill signed, but Governor vetoed Section 4, which created a pilot program to reimburse farmers who purchased compost from solid waste recycling facilities.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations February 5th. Substitute passed out of committee February 7th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 10th; passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 16th. House concurred in the Senate amendments March 9th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; had a hearing February 25th. Amended and passed out of committee February 26th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 28th. Passed out of committee and referred to Rules on March 2nd. Passed the Senate March 5th. Returned to the House for possible concurrence.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In the House –
The substitute also provides exceptions to the requirement for using compost in projects if the total cost would be financially prohibitive; if its application of compost will have detrimental impacts on the soil used for a specific crop; if the project consists of growing trees in a greenhouse; or if the available compost hasn’t been certified as free of crop-specific pests and pathogens.

It now encourages local governments to buy back compost, rather than requiring that. It requires participants in the pilot program to comply with agricultural pest control rules before transporting or applying compost, and it limits reimbursements in the program to compost that’s from a facility with a solid waste handling permit and hasn’t been created by the operation seeking reimbursement.

The floor amendment prioritizes reimbursements in the pilot program to small farming operations, and makes them subject to appropriations, and makes a couple of small adjustments.

In the Senate –
The Senate committee amendment makes a few small changes in the details of the pilot grant program.

Summary –
The bill requires state agencies and local governments to consider whether compost can be used in projects when they’re planning them. If it can be used, they’re to do that, unless it isn’t available within a reasonable time, doesn’t meet existing purchasing standards, or doesn’t meet Federal or State health and safety standards. They’re encouraged to give priority to compost that’s produced locally, compost that’s certified by a nationally recognized organization, and compost that’s produced from municipal waste.

Local governments with residential composting services must have purchasing agreements with their processors to buy back at least fifty percent of the compost produced from their organic waste, and the processor’s required to charge a fair competitive market rate. They’re encourage to buy compost made from at least 8% food waste.

The Department of Agriculture is to create a three-year pilot program, beginning July 1 2020, to reimburse farming operations in the state for the costs of purchasing and using compost products, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor. (The Department is to create a new position for a program manager with the knowledge and expertise necessary to facilitate the division and distribution of reimbursements and manage the day-to-day coordination of the program.) Payments are limited to fifty percent of the costs and capped at fifty thousand dollars a year; farmers can’t be paid for compost that they’ve transferred, or intend to transfer to another individual or entity, whether for compensation or not .

HB2413

HB2413 – Funds DNR’s Forest Health plans through an annual surcharge of $5 on property and casualty insurance policies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & NW Seattle)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Braun’s SB6195 is an alternative proposal, which would authorize $500 million in State bonds over the next eight biennia to fund forest health activities, and focuses more narrowly on actively managing working forests.

Summary –
In 2017, the Legislature passed SB5546 unanimously, directing the Department of Natural Resources to address wildfire risk by developing a forest health assessment and treatment framework, with the goal of assessing and treating 1.25 million acres by 2033.

DNR’s response, the 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan, would approach the problem through active management, using strategies like thinning and prescribed burns. This bill would authorize funding the plan through an annual surcharge of $5 on property and casualty insurance policies, which companies could include in their rates or bill customers for directly.  (Medical liability policies would be exempted.)

At least $25 million a biennium would be appropriated, and used for:
(a) Fire preparedness activities consistent with the goals of DNR’s “10-year wildland fire protection strategy” including funding for full-time firefighters, investments in firefighting equipment and in technology;
(b) Fire prevention activities consistent with all of  DNR’s forest health plans, including the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise USA program and the fire-adapted communities network programs to help communities take action before, during, and after wildfires;
(c) Activities to restore and improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to drought, insect infestation, disease, and other threats,  including forest management such as thinning and use of prescribed fire; postfire recovery activities, such as reforestation; and research and design related to cross-laminated timber, other emerging products, and markets for them. (Funding priority has to be given to programs, activities, or projects aligned with DNR’s  plans , and prioritized according to some provisions in current law.);
(d) Funding of fire prevention, preparedness, or recovery activities for other state agencies consistent with DNR’s  plans, and;
(e) Funding for developing and maintaining tracking and reporting systems to ensure accountability and transparency in wildfire prevention and preparedness activities and costs.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, in consultation with DNR and the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, would report to the legislature on the amount raised, the number and type of policies surcharge applies to, the effectiveness of the spending, and on recommendations about any necessary or advisable adjustments.

The bill says that the Legislature “may direct” DNR’s forest health advisory committee and its wildland fire advisory committee  to provide recommendations for these investments. The committees would be required to identify highly impacted communities using environmental justice or equity focused tools, such as the Washington tracking network’s environmental health disparities tool, to identify highly impacted communities (as defined in RCW 19.405.020). If the committees were directed to provide recommendations, they would have to use analysis of how to benefit those communities as a factor in determining their recommendations.

Details –
The surcharge wouldn’t count in the calculations the Insurance Commissioner does about whether other states or countries are imposing more taxes , fees, or other charges on our insurers than we’re imposing on their insurers.

HB2692

HB2756 – Allows triple trailer rigs on State highways.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D, 22nd District, Olympia)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6597 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The EPA has a flyer about combination freight vehicles that estimates turnpike double and triple trailers reduce fuel use by 21%. (Some studies also suggest they’re involved in fewer accidents, though that may reflect other factors, like their getting better drivers at this point.)

Summary –
Currently, the law prohibits operating any semi with a  trailer longer than fifty-three or with two trailers longer than sixty-one feet on state highways. (It exempts empty double trailers or semitrailers weighing less than 26,000 pounds if they’re part of the inventory of a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, and the entire rig is less than eighty-two feet.)

The bill requires the Department of Transportation to implement rules allowing semis with three trailers to operate on designated State highways; the rules may include other operating conditions the Department specifies to ensure a safe and efficient highway system. (This is dependent on federal approval of a variance to the freeze of state law imposed by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, so presumably DOT also has to apply for the variance.)

The Department is also to produce an annual status and performance report on the volume of triple trailer traffic, and the segments of the trucking industry taking advantage of the variance; and on their impacts on highway safety, traffic movement, and the environment.

HB2756

HB2756 – Requires utilities to let customers opt out of smart meter installations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shea (R, 4th District, Spokane Valley) (There’s no longer a legislative web page for him, since he’s been suspended from the Republican caucus.)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill requires utilities to provide an option allowing retail customer to opt out of having a smart meter installation on their premises. They must provide an opt-out form for customers on request, and may make the option available through a web page. They could assess a cost-based fee for the option, mitigated to the fullest extent possible so as not to create a disincentive for customers.

Utilities would be required to provide general information and notices about advanced metering infrastructure deployment and grid modernization efforts through bill inserts or on their web sites. They would also have to provide individualized customer notices, using methods like bill inserts, separate mailings, door hangers, or electronic notification. These would have to include an explanation of the infrastructure changes; the ratepayer benefits of advanced metering infrastructure and grid modernization; an estimated timeline for smart meter installations in the area; an explanation of opt-out options or where to find additional information; and company contact information for further inquiries.