Category Archives: All Bills

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*****

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.

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.

HB2748

HB2748 – Requires relatively large employers providing a parking subsidy to offer a cash out option.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham)
Current status – Passed the House Committee on Labor & Workplace Standards January 30th. Referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the House by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In a parking cash out an employer offers a cash allowance to an employee as an alternative to the subsidy they’d otherwise get to provide the employee with parking. For what it’s worth, the findings say, “According to some studies, parking cash out programs tend to reduce driving to work by twenty percent or more.”

Summary –
The bill requires employers with fifty or more employees in the state that provide a parking subsidy to offer a cash out option to the employees who get it. The subsidy’s set at the difference between what it would cost the employer to provide a parking space and what, if anything, the employee would pay for it.

A program may require employees who choose the cash option to certify that they’ll comply with guidelines designed to avoid neighborhood parking problems, with a provision that employees who don’t comply with the guidelines will no longer be eligible for it.

The bill exempts employers who are easing parking and would have to pay penalties if they reduced the number of spaces.

HB2744

HB2744 – Including the use of low carbon materials and contractors’ disclosure of labor law compliance in the awarding of state construction contracts.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County) (Co-Sponsors Duerr, Davis, Fitzgibbon, Ramel)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Capital Budget Committee on January 28th; substitute passed out of committee February 6th. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In the 2018 session, Representative Doglio introduced HB2412, “Buy Clean” legislation roughly modeled on California’s. It would have had state agencies awarding construction contracts require environmental product declarations for various materials. It was replaced by a substitute bill, which would simply have had the University of Washington develop methods to collect environmental product declarations for building materials, test them on six public works projects, and report to the Legislature on the results. That didn’t make it out of the House Rules Committee, but the study was funded in the capital budget and completed in January 2019.

Some of the changes in the substitute are summarized on the last page of the House Bill Report for that.

Summary –
This new bill covers projects receiving funds from the capital budget for buildings with more than five thousand square feet of occupied or conditioned space, renovations of such buildings that cost more than 50% of the assessed value, and transportation projects funded or carried out by the Department of Transportation that cost over $1 million and use more than a minimal amount of covered materials.

After 18 months in which it would just be encouraged, bidders for contracts on these projects would be required to include environmental product declarations providing robust full life-cycle assessments of the associated greenhouse gas emissions for any concrete; rebar; structural steel and unit masonry; wood; wood products; and gauge metal products intended for decking, wall or floor system studs that they proposed using. Successful bidders would be required to submit additional facility specific environmental product declarations for materials before their installation, if those declarations for the particular facilities producing their materials already existed.

The Department of Commerce would set a maximum acceptable global warming potential for each category of material, at approximately the eightieth percentile of the product weighted distributions of the emissions intensity of each category of product, and express that as a number stating the maximum acceptable facility specific global warming potential for each category. (If funds were made available for it, the Department could provide at least half the cost of developing their environmental product declarations to small businesses.) It’s to report on its methods to the Legislature, and to adjust the acceptable value downward every three years. In each cycle, the value’s to be set at the lower of:
(a) the 90th percentile of the values submitted during the previous three years, stepped down at a rate which would get the acceptable value to zero by 2050, or,
(b) the maximum acceptable value in 2023, stepped down at a rate which would get to a 50% reduction by 2030. (After that, the maximum acceptable value from 2030 would be stepped down at a rate which would get it to zero by 2050.)

Beginning July 1, 2023, when a bid for a primary structural material from a company meeting the State’s other criteria for responsible bidders doesn’t exceed the maximum acceptable global warming potential for the material, an awarding authority must award the contract to the bid with prices lower than the engineer’s estimate that uses the lower carbon eligible material. [I think this means that if there’s more than one otherwise acceptable bid under the engineer’s estimate the contract must go to the bid using the lowest carbon material, even if that’s higher than other bids below the estimate. A “primary” structural material isn’t defined in the bill; I think this just means what the bill does define as “structural materials” – ones that support loads in a building as part of “its primary structure”, or support loads in a transportation project, or form a “primary lateral system” resisting wind and earthquake loads.] It must consider awarding a contract to a bid that uses the lower carbon eligible primary structural material if the bid is no greater than fifteen percent above the lowest bid; and it may award a contract to a bid that uses the lower carbon eligible material even if the bid is more than fifteen percent above the lowest bid.

After 18 months in which it would just be encouraged, the bill would require bidders or proposers for one of these project contracts to report on their compliance, including their subcontractor’s compliance, with the domestic and applicable international labor laws in countries where they produce goods or services. The Office of Financial Management is to incorporate requirements for state agencies to consider lower carbon building materials and domestic labor law compliance declarations in existing business processes and tools including, but not limited to, facility planning, predesign, and budget instructions. [As far as I can see, the bill doesn’t require taking the compliance reports into account in awarding contracts, though perhaps that’s required somehow by some other existing law…]

Beginning in 2023, to the extent that it’s practical, state contracts and the building code are to use performance based specifications for concrete and unit masonry used structurally, not prescriptive specifications.

The bill concludes by amending quite a few sections of the current laws about awarding contracts for various kinds of projects, by agencies and various jurisdictions, to say that they have to consider the additional criteria allowed or required in the bill, if those rules are applicable.

HB2722

HB2722 – Requires increasing recycled content in plastic beverage containers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mead (D; 44th District; Everett and Marysville) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Peterson, Doglio, Goodman, Gregerson, Slatter, Tarleton, Davis, Duerr, Ramel, Walen, Cody, Senn, Pollet)
Current status – Vetoed by the Governor.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 3rd. Amended substitute passed out of committee February 6th. Replaced by the prime sponsor’s striker on the floor and passed by the House February 13th. On March 7th, the House refused to concur in the Senate’s amendments; bill returned to the Senate, which may recede from the amendments. On March 11th, the House concurred in the Senate’s new version.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Scheduled for a hearing February 20th at 10:00 AM, but not heard. Had a hearing February 25th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee February 27th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of committee March 2nd and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 5th, and returned to the House for concurrence. On March 10th, as I understand it, the Senate receded from its previous changes, replaced the bill with a new striker which was amended on the floor, and then passed that version. The new version went back to the House for possible concurrence.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6645 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House –
The substitute reduces the requirement for the first four year period from 15% to 10%. It shifts from assessing fines per container for violations to fines per pound; they would now be from $0.5 to $0.15 per pound when manufacturers have at least seventy-five percent of the required recycled content; from $0.10 to $0.20 per pound when they have between fifty percent and seventy-five percent of that; from $0.15 to $0.25 per pound when they have between twenty-five and fifty percent of it; from $0.20 to $0.30 per pound when they have at least fifteen percent but less than twenty-five percent of it; and $0.25 to $0.30 when they have less than fifteen percent of the required recycled plastic. (There’s about a pound of plastic in ten 2-liter bottles or in forty-five single serving bottles, so a fine that was one cent per container or ten cents for the 2-liter bottles would now be between $0.15 and $0.25, but a fine that would have been $0.45 for the single bottles would now still be between $0.15 and $0.25.)

The substitute also gives manufacturers room to negotiate with Ecology about other things besides the size of the fines, requiring the Director to consider whether the minimum recycled content requirements should be waived or reduced at least once a year, and requiring the Department to consider equitable factors in deciding whether to assess a fee and its amount including the nature and circumstances of the violation; actions taken by the manufacturer to correct it; the manufacturer’s history of compliance; and its size and economic condition. (In addition, it directs Ecology to consider granting a waiver, reduction, or extension of the fees to a manufacturer that has demonstrated progress toward meeting the requirements if it hasn’t met them or anticipates that it won’t be able to.) The amendment merely exempts wine pouches and bladders from the requirements.

The striker limits the containers the bill covers to bottles. It moves the initial compliance date back to 2022, and makes minor adjustments in some other time periods. It adds emissions associated with the transportation of recycled plastic to the items Ecology is to take into account. It now specifies that Ecology must consider equitable factors in decisions about fines; adds consideration of whether violations were due to circumstances beyond the manufacturer’s reasonable control or were unavoidable; and limits the use of fines to supporting the State’s new recycling development center.

In the Senate –
The committee striker makes minor technical adjustments, and moves the date at which manufacturers become subject to fines for failing to meet the requirements back a year, to January 1, 2023.

The new striker removes some ambiguity about when manufacturers become subject to fees for violations, gives the Pollution Control Hearings Board authority to review appeals of fees and of any adjustments of recycled content rates, and makes some technical changes. The floor amendment preempts local authority to implement recycled content requirements for plastic beverage containers.

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 of 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.

HB2714

HB2714 – Valuing the carbon in forest riparian easements.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hoff (R; 18th District; Southwest Washington) (Co-sponsors Fitzgibbon, Orcutt, Blake, Chapman, Lekanoff, Van Werven, Tharinger, and Kretz)
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 and Natural Resources January 28th. Substitute bill 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 unanimously February 16th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks; had a hearing February 28th; replaced by a striker, amended, passed out of committee, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6498 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The committee substitute adds some language to the findings that supports applying sustainable management techniques to currently unmanaged forests and transferring carbon from standing forests to wood products.

It also requires the Department of Natural Resources to calculate the amount of carbon stored in qualifying timber in future riparian easements, and specifies that landowners are free to monetize the value of the stored carbon in existing easements through markets. It requires any state program that places a value on carbon to include this carbon, and specifies that if the State starts valuing carbon, it must reimburse landowners for the value of the stored carbon in easements as well as for the value of the timber, or allow owners to market the stored carbon separately.

The striker in the Senate committee no longer requires DNR to calculate the amount of carbon in future easements, and it removes the provision I’ve summarized in the last clause of the previous paragraph, beginning with “and specifies that if….”. (I don’t think that actually made a substantive change in the bill, since as I read it, I think that other language in it had the same effect…) However, the amendment changed the language which said that any state program that placed a value on carbon must include the value of the stored carbon in easements to say one “may” do that.

Summary –
The bill amends the current legislation about compensating landowners for forest riparian easements, specifying that the fair market value of the qualifying timber has to include any value attributable to the carbon stored in it, or reserve that value to be otherwise used or marketed by the landowner.

SB6498

SB6498 – Valuing the carbon in forest riparian easements.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz and Lewis Counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 30th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2714 is a companion bill in the House.

SB6496

SB6496 – Authorizes public utilities to support shifting homes and buildings from fossil fuels to electricity if it’s in the public interest.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; San Juan Islands & Anacortes)
Current status – Hearing scheduled for January 29th in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology has been cancelled.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2586 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Currently, these utilities can provide incentives or programs to support shifting if there’s a direct economic benefit for customers or for them.

Summary –
This bill authorizes municipal utilities and PUDs to fund incentives and programs to shift homes and buildings from fossil fuels to electricity if they have developed a beneficial electrification plan that would provide a net benefit to the utility or customers by improving the management of the grid, reducing customer costs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, or providing other public interest benefits.

Plans can include consideration of multiple options for electrifying various energy uses; the impact of beneficial electrification on the utility’s load and whether demand response or other load management opportunities are operationally appropriate; an assessment of conservation measures to offset load impacts; system reliability and distribution system efficiencies; potential greenhouse gas emission reductions; potential indoor and outdoor air quality benefits; and the overall benefits and costs of planned action, including the cost of greenhouse gas emissions calculated according to a Federal estimate which works out to $62/metric ton this year. Plans have to prioritize allocating benefits to vulnerable populations in their service areas.

HB2652

HB2652 – Creates standards for producing, labeling, and advertising ammonia made with renewable resources.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources January 24th. Motion to pass a substitute out of committee, with what seem like minor technical changes, failed February 6th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
According to the findings, Washington has low-cost and curtailed power during the spring runoff which could be used to produce ammonia fertiizer relatively cheaply, and with low emissions. (Producing fertilizer from fossil fuels creates 2.9 metric tons of CO2e emissions for each ton of fertilizer.) Renewable ammonia would still be more expensive, but the standards are intended to help create a market for it.

Summary –
The bill would create a certification and labeling program for renewable ammonia and products made using it. The materials and the energy used to make it would have to be renewable resources. (Those are defined to include renewable natural gas; renewable hydrogen; biodiesel that isn’t derived from crops raised on land cleared from old growth or first growth forests; and biomass energy.) Renewable ammonia could also be labeled as “green ammonia” or “sustainable ammonia”; manufacturers and wholesalers would have to be certified to use those labels on products.

The bill authorizes the Department of Agriculture to develop rules for the program, which must cover its full cost, and include the creation of a public registry of manufacturers, processors, producers, and products that have received certification. (They may also include rules covering the number and scheduling of on-site visits, both announced unannounced, by certification personnel; recordkeeping requirements; and the submission of product samples for chemical or other analysis.) It’s authorized to take actions, conduct proceedings, and enter orders needed to carry out the program, including inspecting manufacturing facilities and processing facilities. It may conduct evaluations in retail stores to verify compliance with the labeling and advertising requirements; can issue cease and desist orders about violations; and can impose a fine of up to $1,000 plus the costs of investigating and taking appropriate administrative and enforcement action for a violation.

HB2651

HB2651 – Addresses food waste by standardizing labels for food’s freshness or expiration.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources January 24th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
If labels on food for sale in intrastate commerce after January 1, 2022 to use a quality date or a safety date, the bill requires using the phrases “best if used by” or “best if used or frozen by” to indicate the quality date; and the phrases “use by” or “use by or freeze by” to indicate the safety date. (Labels could also say that the food was best used or consumed within a specified number of days of being opened; or indicate the date on which it was packed or packaged.) The bill prohibits using a sell by date or the phrases “pull by” or “pull date”, but perishable packed food with a shelf life of less than thirty days would still be required to indicate a pull date with a month and day.

The enforcement of the rules must be based primarily on complaints filed with the Department of Health or a local health jurisdiction with delegated enforcement authority. (The Department could create a webpage or a hotline for handling complaints, but would not have to investigate each one or handle them in a specified length of time. The penalty for a violation is limited to $500, but each day on which a non-compliant item is sold counts as a violation.

The bill requires retail spaces over 10,000 sq. ft. that sell food to display at least three signs with specified text to educate consumers about the labeling system.

SB6464

SB6464 – Specifies that the four legislative members of the Building Code Council are voting members.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wilson (R, 13th District, Moses Lake)
Current status – Read and passed out of the Senate Committee on State Government, Tribal Relations & Elections on January 17th. Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government at 8:00 AM January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2372 would do the same thing, through slightly different wording.

Summary –
The State Building Code Council currently consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor, tw 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…)

HB2696

HB2696 – Prohibits labeling or advertising for plant-based alternatives from containing any terms for foods containing meat, including “meat”, “burger”, “sausage”, etc.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dent (R, 13th District, Moses Lake) (Co-Sponsors Blake, McCaslin, Callan, Eslick, Springer, Griffey, Boehnke, Maycumber, Dye, Chandler, Kretz, and Schmick)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources January 29th. Substitute passed out of committee February 5th; referred to Rules February 10th. Failed to pass out of the House by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6329 is a companion bill in the Senate.

The substitute shifts from requiring 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 preceded 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.

SB6335

SB6335 – Adding proportional greenhouse emissions reductions and resiliency to growth management planning.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2609 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The first section of this bill, which adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes, and is summarized in the first paragraph below, is identical to all of Senator Salomon’s SB6453.

Summary –
The Growth Management Act currently lists fourteen goals that are supposed to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations for cities and counties planning with that framework. The bill adds a fifteenth, which says that they’re supposed to ensure that their own comprehensive plans and development regulations, and the regional policies, plans, and strategies for their countywide planning framework (under RCW 36.70A.210) and for their regional transportation planning (under RCW 47.80) “adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support state greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements and state vehicle miles traveled goals; build resilient infrastructure; and nurture environmental, economic, and human health.”

This bill adds a new climate change and natural hazards resiliency element to comprehensive planning under the GMA for the following counties and cities within those counties – counties west of the crest of the Cascades that OFM estimates had more than 100,000 residents in 2019, and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 500,000 residents; counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 200,000 residents in 2019 and an unincorporated population of less than 40,000; and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 90,000 residents and an unincorporated population of less than 15,000.

The Department of Commerce, in consultation with several other agencies, is to develop an baseline estimate from 2017 data of the share of the State’s transportation and land use greenhouse gas emissions from those emissions in the regions in which multiple counties subject to the act plan together through formal structures, and for each remaining city and county. Then the Department is to calculate the proportional share of reductions that each county or multicounty region would need to acheive for the state to reach its 2035 and 2050 emissions reductions targets.

The new element must be designed:
(a) To result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation and land use systems within the planning jurisdiction consistent with that share of the State’s targeted reductions: and
(b) To result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled consistent with the state transportation policy goals (in RCW 47.01.440); and
(c) To avoid, and build resiliency to, the worst impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems through specific actions consistent with the best available science that institute adaptation or resiliency measures. (These may include actions designed to address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of reasonably anticipated changes to temperature and precipitation.

This new part of the plans must be finalized no later than two years before the comprehensive plan review and revision deadlines specified in RCW 36.70A.130. Other jurisdictions are encouraged to develop a climate change and natural hazards resiliency element in their planning, whether or not they’re doing it under the GMA.

As part of its technical assistance program, the Department of Commerce is to develop a model climate change and natural hazards resiliency plan element that may be used by counties, cities, and multiple county planning regions for developing and implementing climate change and natural hazards resiliency plans and policies. Counties and cities that adopt this element are to treated as in compliance with the GMA’s requirements until January 1st, 2029. A review and update of comprehensive plans must take place by June 30th 2025. If they occur before June 30th, 2029, adoption of the model plan element, development regulations in accordance with it, changes in countywide policies in accordance with it that affect the fiscal impact analysis required by the GMA, and the adoption of a regional emissions and vehicle miles reduction plan by a regional transportation planning organization to address the reductions required by the new element are not subject to appeal. (The comprehensive plan of each county or city would now be required to be consistent with these regional transportation plans.)

Regional transportation organizations including at least one jurisdiction the act applies to would be required to adopt a regional emission and vehicle miles reduction plan addressing all their member jurisdictions implementing the goals for reducing annual per capita vehicle miles traveled; and reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector according to the share of reductions assigned to them by the Department of Commerce.

HB2609

HB2609 – Adding proportional greenhouse emissions reductions and resiliency to growth management planning.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th at 3:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6335 is a companion bill in the Senate.

The new element must be designed
(a) To result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation and land use systems within the planning jurisdiction consistent with that share of the State’s targeted reductions: and
(b) To result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled consistent with the state transportation policy goals (in RCW 47.01.440); and
(c) To avoid, and build resiliency to, the worst impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems through specific actions consistent with the best available science that institute adaptation or resiliency measures. (These may include actions designed to address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of reasonably anticipated changes to temperature and precipitation.

SB6453

SB6453 – Adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2427 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB2676

HB2676 – Minimum requirements for testing autonomous vehicles in the Department of Transportation’s pilot program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsors Boehnke, and Hudgins)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing February 10th; passed out of committee with a minor clarifying amendment February 11th. Referred to Rules. Replaced with a striker by the prime sponsor on the floor and passed by the House February 19th. House concurred with Senate amendment March 10th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 25th. Amended and passed out of committee March 2nd. Referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 6th, with a floor amendment making minor adjustments to reporting requirements. Referred to the House for concurrence.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6659 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The striker in the House moves the effective date back a year to 2021, requires written advance notice to law enforcement for the area where testing will occur, and makes some small adjustments reducing the reporting requirements which are summarized by staff at the end.

The amendments in the Senate Transportation Committee make minor changes to the requirements about advance notification of testing, shift the date by which umbrella insurance coverage is required to 90 days after the end of the session, and narrow the requirements for reporting of problems to collisions and moving violations when the vehicle is in autonomous mode.

HB2688

HB2688 – Expands transportation policy goals; requires evaluating projects using performance metrics for the goals before the Legislature considers them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation, January 22nd.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6398 is a companion bill in the Senate.

(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.

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

SB6491

SB6491 – Tax exemptions for integrated electric boat motors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means; scheduled for a hearing there on February 20th at 3:30
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
(I think the definition of integrated electric motors may mean the exemptions basically apply to outboards; HB2486, which would extend the current tax breaks for marine electric motors for another ten years, seems to have a somewhat broader definition.)

Summary –
The bill creates a ten year sales and use tax exemption for any watercraft propulsion system that contains contains a motor, battery, charger, and gear reduction device in a single unit.

SB6432

SB6432 – Bans offshore oil projects and any oil or gas infrastructure on shorelines of statewide significance.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Bainbridge Island)
Current status –
In the Senate (Passed)
Amended and passed by the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 30th. Referred to the Senate Rules Committee. Amended by the prime sponsor on the floor and passed the Senate February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 27th; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments – The staff notes on the amendment say it clarifies the bill’s prohibition; I think the summary below is still right. (The sponsor’s amendment on the floor simply adjusted the bill’s descriptions of covered areas to match other statutory references.)

Summary –
The bill prohibits offshore drilling for oil or gas. It prohibits leasing state aquatic lands, tidelands, or submerged lands on the Pacific coast for purposes of oil or gas exploration, development, or production, or for infrastructure to handle extracted oil and gas transported through state waters off the coast. (The actual language in the bill is about “state waters associated with the outer continental shelf”; I’m not sure how much ocean this includes, but I think the definition in the bill extends to the 200 mile limit.)

It prohibits infrastructure for handling or transporting extracted gas and oil on the Shorelines Management Act’s shorelines of statewide significance.