Category Archives: All Bills

SB6430

SB6430 – Establishing a statewide industrial waste coordination program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; TriCities)
Current status – Vetoed by the Governor.
In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Referred to Ways and Means; Had a hearing there February 10th at 10:00 AM. Passed out of Ways and Means February 11th. Referred to Rules; passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House – (Passed the House)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 24th. Passed out of committee February 27th; referred to Appropriations. Passed out of there and referred to Rules March 2nd. Passed the House March 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor for signature.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would establish a statewide industrial waste coordination program to support and coordinate existing collaborations where underutilized resources of one company, such as waste, by-products, residues, energy, water, logistics, capacity, expertise, equipment, and materials are used by another company, and would support new opportunities for such industrial symbiosis projects.

The program would be administered by the Department of Commerce to provide expertise, technical assistance, and best practices to support local industrial symbiosis projects; it would be managed regionally, with a dedicated facilitator and technical and administrative support for each region.

The program would be required to develop inventories of current industrial waste innovation; generate a material flow data collection system to capture and manage data on resource availability and potential synergies provided voluntarily; establish guidance and best practices for emerging local industrial resource hubs; identify access to capital in order to fund projects; develop economic and environmental performance metrics for industrial or commercial hubs; host workshops and connect regional businesses, governments, utilities, research institutions, and other organizations to identify opportunities for resource collaboration; assist organizations throughout the life cycle of projects, from identification of opportunities to full implementation; develop economic cluster initiatives to spur growth and innovation; and make any additional recommendations to the legislature in order to incentivize and facilitate industrial symbiosis.

If funds were appropriated, the program would be authorized to establish a program offering competitive grants for researching, developing, and deploying local waste coordination projects. Grants could be used for existing industrial symbiosis efforts by public or private organizations; emerging opportunities including projects arising from the industrial waste coordination program established by the act, conceptual work by public utilities on redirecting their wastes to productive use, or existing inventories or project concepts involving converting specific biobased wastes to renewable natural gas; research on product development using a specific waste flow; feasibility studies to evaluate potential biobased resources; or feasibility studies for publicly owned utilities evaluating shifting to multiutility operations or potential symbiotic connections with other regional businesses. Grants would be limited to under $500,000, would require a one-to-one match from nonstate funds, would have to be distributed geographically, and would be awarded considering factors such as time to implementation and scale of expected economic or environmental benefits.

The bill extends the current legislation exempting some financial, commercial, and proprietary information from public disclosure to cover this program.

SB6352

SB6352 – Eliminates the option for expedited review of alternative energy resource facilities by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 22nd District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently, proposed energy facilities and alternative energy resource facilities may both apply to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for an expedited review, and the Council may grant that if it finds that the environmental impact of the proposed facility is not significant or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level under the State Environmental Policy Act’s standard, and the project is found to be consistent and in compliance with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances after a hearing.

The bill would remove this option for alternative energy resource facilities, on the grounds, according to the findings, that an expedited review for these particular facilities “creates an unfair advantage for those facilities, which have the special privilege of being able to opt out of the local review process if the local review process reveals local concerns.”

HB2550

HB2550 – Makes achievement of net ecological gain in environmental, land use, and development laws the State’s policy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; San Juan Islands and Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Shewmake, Kloba, Lekanoff, Callan, Ramel, and Pollet)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. A much less ambitious substitute bill passed out of committee February 4th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations February 8th; did not pass out of Appropriations by the cutoff for finance committees; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The substitute retains the requirement for a report on the issue, and drops everything else. (It also rewrites the definition of “net ecological gain”, but I don’t think the changes are substantive.)

Summary –
The bill says it’s the policy of the state that the laws in the Shoreline Management Act, the Growth Management Act, the Model Toxics Control Act, and the section of the code governing construction projects in the waters of the State result in the achievement of net ecological gain, except where otherwise specified in statute. Net ecological gain is defined as a standard for a project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts on ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed enough by measures taken to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts so that the gains exceed the losses.

The measures are to be applied according to a mitigation hierarchy, in the following order – first avoiding impacts; then minimizing unavoidable ones; then rehabilitating or restoring sites; and then offsetting remaining impacts through positive management interventions such as restoration of other degraded habitat, averted risks to habitats or ecosystems, and protection of areas where there is imminent or projected loss of ecological integrity. Measures to compensate for or pay damages for loss of ecological integrity caused by a project, policy, plan, or activity that falls short of achieving net ecological gain are the final, least acceptable stage. Agencies that have the authority to establish a standard of ecological or habitat protection or are not otherwise bound to a different standard of ecological protectiveness would be required to use these.

The Office of Financial Management would be required to report to the Legislature assessing how to incorporate this standard into the State’s land use, development, and environmental laws and rules, addressing each of those where the existing standard is less protective of ecological integrity than the new standards. The report would include an assessment of opportunities and challenges for local government implementation of the standard under different environmental, development, and land use laws; recommendations on funding, incentives, technical assistance, monitoring and other use of scientific data, and other considerations about integrating the standard into each environmental, development, and land use law or rule; recommendations on instances in which it could be achieved using voluntary or incentive-based programs and on where regulations would probably be required; and assessments of how applying this standard is likely to achieve substantial environmental or social co-benefits.

The bill includes activities regulated under the Puget Sound Water Quality Act in the definition of “infrastructure development” in the Aquatic Resources Mitigation Act. It would require the approval of an aquatic resources mitigation plan through a memorandum of agreement between the project proponent and either the Department of Ecology or the Department of Fish and Wildlife, or both, rather than having that be a possibility. (It also removes the provisions about mitigation for “non-infrastructure development”, for reasons that aren’t clear to me – perhaps because they were only intended to cover the Puget Sound Water Quality activities that are now included under the “infrastructure development, or perhaps because the new net ecological gain standards would cover them…)

HB2536

HB2536 – Changes the definition governing the patterns of land use and development in the rural element of counties’ comprehensive planning.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Environment February 4th at 3:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Under the bill, the definition of “rural character” that governs the patterns of land use and development for the rural element in counties’ comprehensive plans in the Growth Management Act would be amended. The new version would be:

“Rural character” refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan that must provide opportunities to support natural growth of families in the communities to prevent out-migration of people that were born in those communities. Rural character refers to patterns of land use and development that prevent high density development throughout the landscape. Land uses are adaptable with the use of land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat, farming and farm-related industries, natural resource usage and manufacturing, and tourism. Rural character includes but is not limited to access to cell phone, broadband, and wireless technology; health care and wellness services for humans and animals; a variety of services and opportunities for children; markets, restaurants, and food services; industries to support agricultural tourism and outdoor recreation; and home-based economic opportunities that diversify rural economies.

HB2528

HB2528 – Recognizing contributions of forest products to the state’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramos (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources January 28th. A substitute passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Appropriations February 6th; had a hearing there February 8th. A 2nd substitute passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules; passed the House February 16th. House concurred in the Senate’s amendments March 9th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Had a hearing on a proposed striker February 20th; amended and passed out of committee that day. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 28th. Significantly amended and passed out of committee March 2nd; referred to Rules. 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.
SB6355 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The substitute 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.

The 2nd substitute, in Appropriations, removed the modified provision requiring Commerce to support the forest products industry.

The striker in the Senate committee excluded state trust lands from the provisions dedicating any future revenue from state forests’ participation in carbon markets to specified goals. It made the Department of Natural Resources responsible for managing the revenue account, in cooperation with the Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture, and the amendment dropped the entire section about the Department of Commerce. The amendment in Ways and Means eliminated the grants program and the potential study to determine how many acres in the state could be returned to forest.

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.

HB2518

HB2518 – Minimizing leaks in natural gas pipelines.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsors Ybarra, Boehnke, Tarleton, Mead, Fitzgibbon, Lekanoff, Ramel, Callan, Peterson, Slatter, Davis, Doglio, Pollet, and Cody)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Amended and passed the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 30th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 10th. A 2nd substitute passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor by the prime sponsor and passed by the House February 16th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing February 20th; passed out of committee February 25th, and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 5th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(A House bill analysis is available.)

Comments –
The substitute requires the UTC to provide conditions for the recovery of interim costs between rate cases. It removes the list of values required in cost-benefit analyses, and reduces some reporting requirements. It exempts proprietary data, trade secrets, and information that would adversely affect public safety from public disclosure.

The 2nd substitute no longer counts emissions from intentional releases or operational practices as leaks that have to be included in the annual reports to the UTC, but it still requires the Commission to estimate emissions associated with operational practices along with those from leaks, apparently by using information that’s already being reported, or by ordering additional information from the companies. The floor amendment in the House made some minor adjustments in details.

Summary –
Requires the Utilities and Transportation Commission to begin a proceeding to increase
the certainty that utilities will recover the costs associated with measures approved by the commission that they undertake to reduce hazardous leaks and fugitive emissions from their gas pipelines.

Gas companies can submit proposed projects and changes to operational procedures to reduce hazardous leaks and nonhazardous fugitive releases, ranked according to risk, severity, and complexity to the UTC. These proposals must include a cost-effectiveness analysis and propose one of several ways of calculating a cap for the annual expenditures that would be recoverable through a mechanism to be approved by the commission. The cost-effectiveness analysis has to include: The value of the leaked gas; the cost of greenhouse gas emissions associated with that, calculated in accordance with a Federal standard which currently works out to $65/metric ton; the value of the reduction in risk from gas leaks; and the cost of the measures. The proposal must also address the expected impact to ratepayers and other factors the commission may require.

Beginning July 1, 2020, each gas pipeline company has to submit a report to the UTC on
the environmental and economic performance of its system, including all known leaks from transmission and distribution pipelines, and from all components, including pumps, valves, pipes, and pneumatic devices. Reports must include a sizable list of items, including a plan for fixing leaks, plus any others the UTC requires. The Commission is to produce an estimate of pipeline leakage in 1990, and an annual report for Ecology based on this current data, including the total volume of leaked gas and its market value; the volume and value of leaks that have not been fixed and of those the company does not intend to fix; and a projected timeline of the expected reductions from the plans submitted by gas companies. ( The report is also to review of opportunities and obstacles to reducing gas leakage statewide, including workforce availability, infrastructure investments, permitting, technical and legal obstacles, and any other information the Commission decides is relevant.)

The bill specifies that the emissions from pipelines reported to the UTC by gas companies are to be included in the Department of Commerce’s biannual estimate of the State’s current greenhouse gas emissions.

SJM8018

SJM8018 – Joint memorial urging development of a Federal nuclear waste repository.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sharon Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Passed by the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 30th. Referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff. Placed in the Senate “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Joint memorial requesting that Congress, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency establish and develop a site for the permanent siting and development of a Federal nuclear waste repository.

HB2611

HB2611 – Study promoting circular bioeconomy throughout the state.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Technology & Economic Development January 29th. Passed out of committee with a minor amendment February 4th; referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6435 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
Maybe the bill means that the report should identify potential ways to develop these things rather than actually doing it, since it seems unlikely that the University could do complete much research on new ways to produce high value chemicals of new methods for wastewater treatment in the two years of this study… (The bill doesn’t say anything about funding the study either.)

The committee amendment in the House added investigating the use of hardwood forest slash, mill wastes, and other residuals from sustainably managed forests to the study.

Summary –
The bill would direct the University of Washington to study ways to expand the use of renewable biological resources in the production of fuels, chemicals, and other materials in the State and report to the Legislature by July 2023. This would include:
(a) Developing new processes using biomass resources to produce high value chemicals and products, and high volume fuels in Washington, including processes to fractionate feedstocks, such as woody biomass;
(b) Developing biomass systems that provide effective water treatments, with an emphasis on cleaning municipal treatment wastewater and roadway stormwater;
(c) Identifying and assessing optimal locations throughout Washington state to site a biorefinery factory; and
(d) Identifying and analyze policy options that can promote the further development of a circular bioeconomy here.

HB2570

HB2570 – Requiring cities and counties to adopt zoning and development rules making it easier to build ADUs in their urban growth areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; Kent)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 10th. An amended 2nd Substitute passed out of Appropriations February 11th. 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 –
There’s a staff summary of the changes in the substitute on page 5 of the House Bill Report on it.

In the amended 2nd substitute the mandatory ADU policies only apply in cities with at least 5,000 people and GMA-planning counties with at least 50,000. It eliminates the limits on impact plan review fees and allows requirements for owner occupancy for all ADUs. It lets cities require an additional parking space for any ADUs more than a quarter mile from a major transit stop. It expands the exemption from challenges under the State Environmental Policy Act to any ADUs in an urban growth area.

Summary –
Requires cities with more than 2,500 residents and counties with more than 15,000 that are planning under the Growth Management Act to adopt various zoning and development regulations for ADUs in their urban growth areas by July 2021.

They must allow at least one ADU on all lots in zoning districts that allow single-family homes, though detached ADUs can’t be on lots under 3,500 sq ft. They have to achieve at least three of the following goals:
1. Allowing at least two ADUs on any lot on which there’s a single or multi-family residence.
2. Keeping the maximum gross floor requirement below 1,000 sq. ft.
3. Keeping maximum roof heights for ADUs above 24 feet.
4. Adopting pre-approved architectural plans for use under at least some building and permitting requirements.
5. Allowing detached ADUs on a lot line if it borders an alley.

They cannot require off-street parking for an ADU, require owner occupancy of the main building or the ADU, and can’t charge permitting, plan review or impact fees that are more than half those for a single-family residence. They can’t charge connection fees or capacity charges for attached ADUs. They can’t require a new separate utility connection except when site-specific technical, environmental, or financial considerations require that, and in those cases the charges have to be proportionate to the burden of the ADU on the water or sewer system; can’t exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service; and can’t be inconsistent with water availability requirements, water system plans, small water system management plans, or established policies adopted by the water or sewer utility.

It exempts these changes and actions implementing these regulations from challenges under the GMA or the State’s environmental impact law.

The bill also encourages, but doesn’t require:
1. Exempting them from impact fees and additional tree retention requirements,
2. Allowing them to be sold as condominiums,
3. Allowing fire department access to them by way of a public street of fire depatment approved access,
4. Having no more than 200 sq ft. as the minimum gross floor area requirement,
5. Allowing them to cover at least 60% of the rear yard,
6. Not requiring more setbacks than those for a single family home,
7. Not requiring them to look be in the same style as the main residence,
9. Not counting their floor area as part of the maximum allowed area of other residences on the lot.
10.Letting them be within five feet of a property line with the written permission of the current adjacent owner, and
11. Not requiring any particular location for entrances.

SB6399

SB6399 – Reduces emissions from on-demand transportation.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lilas (D; 21st District; Lynwood) (Co-sponsors Nguyen, Carlyle, Lovelett, Kuderer, Stanford, Wellman, Billig, Saldaña, Das, C. Wilson, and Hunt)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Scheduled for a hearing February 10th at 1:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2310 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary – Requires companies scheduling rides or consumer food or goods deliveries through digital technology such as webpages or smartphone apps to provide data to create a baseline of their emissions, and to reduce them over time. (The bill exempts a variety of traditional transportation services like taxis and limousines, however.)

Details :
By July 1st, 2021, the Department of Ecology is to create a state-wide baseline for the 2018 greenhouse gas emissions from these companies’ vehicles – per customer mile and per food or goods delivery mile. By July 1st, 2022, it’s to adopt requirements, beginning in 2023, for reductions of those emissions; they’re to include annual targets and goals for increasing the percentage of passenger-miles traveled and customer food delivery-miles traveled using zero emission vehicles.

Beginning in January 2023, each company must submit a plan for making these reductions that are acceptable to Ecology. They’re to include ways to increase the proportion of their trips and the proportion of their vehicle miles made by zero emission vehicles, ways to decrease their average greenhouse gas emission rates, and ways to increase the proportion of passenger-miles traveled or customer food delivery-miles traveled relative to overall miles traveled. Their plans also have to consider incentives to encourage increasing the share of miles traveled by passengers whose walking, biking, or other active or zero emission modes of transportation are facilitated by using the companies’ vehicles, and incentives to increase the total miles they cover delivering food by walking, biking, or other zero emission transportation modes.

Ecology’s to do its best to have the rules minimize negative impacts on low-income and moderate-income drivers and to support providing clean mobility for low-income and moderate-income individuals. The rules for ride-hailing companies are to support the goals of the Growth Management Act. Ecology’s authorized to collect a fee from the companies to cover the expenses of administering the program.

SB6435

SB6435 – Study promoting circular bioeconomy throughout the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Frockt (D; 46th District; Seattle, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2611 is a companion bill in the House.

HB2586

HB2586 – Authorizes public utilities to support shifting homes and buildings from fossil fuels to electricity if it’s in the public interest.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; San Juan Islands & Anacortes)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th. An amended substitute passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the House by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6496 is a companion bill in the Senate,

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

The substitute bill drops the original’s list of things a utility “may consider” in a plan. Instead it requires a plan to identify options and program schedules for electrifying various end-uses or other energy sources, and it specifies that a utility must determine that the sum of the benefits of a plan equals or exceeds the sum of its costs. It lists some benefits that may be included and some costs that must be. (It also says the utility may “differentiate the level of benefits and costs accrued to highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations” in this process; perhaps that implies it might proceed with a plan for that set of customers even if benefits didn’t exceed costs for all of its customer base…) It also simplifies the definition of beneficial electrification, but as I read the change, it doesn’t have practical implications.

The amendments require a utility to request the input of any natural gas company with customers in its service area on the development of a beneficial electrification plan, and require the cost analysis for a plan to demonstrate that the electricity serving the increased load will have a lower greenhouse gas emissions profile than direct use, highly efficient, gas.

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.

Shift Zero has a flyer about the bill.

SB6306

SB6306 – Creates the Washington Soil Health Initiative.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lilas (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate –
Passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 3rd. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 28th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there on February 29th, and was passed out of committee and referred to Rules on March 2nd. Passed the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The amendments in Ways and Means simply specify that the program has to operate within the limits of its appropriated budget.

Summary –
The Initiative is to develop collaborative soil health research, education, demonstration projects; and to develop technical assistance activities to identify, promote, and implement soil health stewardship practices that are grounded in sound science. It would be jointly administered by the Department of Agriculture, the Conservation Commission, and Washington State. Its goals would include helping agricultural producers implement good soil health practices and improve farm profitability; supporting the increased nutritional benefits from healthy soils, and enhancing the environmental functions of the state’s soils, such as sequestering carbon and increasing water retention.

The University would have primary responsibility for establishing a regionally dispersed network of long-term agro-ecological research and extension demonstration sites, compiling and developing information on the nutritional effects of soil health, and developing a statewide soil health map to guide future public and private investment in the initiative.

The Department would be primarily responsible for developing a statewide “state of the soils” baseline assessment of soil health practices and indicators; developing accurate and cost-effective standard methods and tools for assessing soil health; and developing and promoting a marketing program focused on the benefits of products from healthy soils.

The Commission would have primary responsibility for providing outreach and education materials to help conservation districts, cooperative extension, and local governments raise awareness of the importance of soil health; providing technical support in coordination with WSU’s extension service to encourage and support farmers, ranchers, and land managers interested in implementing soil health practices; and training volunteers willing to take ongoing soil health measurements and submit them to the state soil health monitoring database.

These organizations are to collaborate in jointly appointing new members to the current Washington soil health advisory committee, and in convening, staffing, and developing agendas for its meetings. They’re to assess the needs of the program, to build their capacities and fill gaps to improve their reach and effectiveness; to prioritize in-state sourcing of needed resources; employ adaptive management in running the program; to develop equitable criteria for the awarding of soil health grants; and to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature every two years including an assessment of progress in meeting the initiative’s goals and objectives, a work plan detailing any proposed legislation, budget requests or administrative rules, and a prioritized list of proposed actions needed to fulfill each collaborating agency’s responsibilities in the upcoming biennium.

HB2515

HB2515 – Requires new cars and pickups sold or registered in the state to be powered by batteries or fuel cells, starting in 2030.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Macri (D; 43rd District; Seattle)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 10th at 1:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Starting with the 2030 models, new cars and pickups sold or registered in the state would have to be battery powered fully electric vehicles or fuel cell vehicles. (Emergency services vehicles would be exempted.) In consultation with a number of other state agencies that deal with transportation, the State Transportation Commission would develop a plan for meeting the requirement during a transition period beginning in 2021.

The plan would include:
(a) An estimate of the number of new and used electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles registered in Washington each year during the transition;
(b) An estimate of the number, type, year of installation, and location profile of the charging stations needed for prompt, efficient, and cost-effective fueling of the vehicles during the transition period, and of the yearly investments required to build them;
(c) An analysis of the generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades and build-out needed and the investment required for those;
(d) An analysis comparing the estimated purchase prices of new electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles during the transition;
(e) An analysis comparing their estimated total costs of ownership during the transition ;
(f) An analysis of yearly job gains and losses during the transition as a result of the 2030 requirement;
(g) An analysis of its effects on state transportation revenues, and recommendations as to alternative sources of revenue to replace the gas tax;
(h) An estimate of the yearly decreases in gasoline and diesel sales as a result of the requirement, and of the money that would have otherwise been spent elsewhere retained in Washington;
(i) An analysis of the impacts on equity for low-income persons, and strategies for maximizing that in implementing the requirement;
(j) An assessment of potential impacts on passenger vehicle operations and charging infrastructure from developments in autonomous and shared services; and
(k) Recommendations for effectively coordinating with neighboring provincial and state jurisdictions so that infrastructure investments are coordinated, accessible, and sufficient to ensure an enduring, cost-effective, and adaptive transition.

The plan is to be submitted to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation issues, and updated in 2025 and 2028.

By January 1, 2024 the Transportation Commission is to develop rules consistent with this plan to implement the 2030 requirement. (In the process, it is to maximize equity and total benefits to the state while minimizing costs and risks; minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying with the regulations; rely upon the best available economic and scientific information about existing and projected technology capabilities; consult with a list of stakeholders in order to minimize duplicative or inconsistent requirements; and revise and adopt rules to accelerate or otherwise facilitate the intent of this law.)

The Transportation Commission is to appoint a committee to advise it in developing the scoping plan and to inform the rule-making process, composed of representatives from communities in the state that are likely to experience the greatest benefits or disadvantages from the act act including rural communities, communities of color, and low-income communities. (Members are to be chosen from people nominated by community members and other stakeholders.)

It’s also to appoint an economic and technology advancement advisory committee to advise it on ways to facilitate investment in and implementation of technological research and development opportunities that will help in shifting to electric vehicles, including demonstration projects; on funding opportunities; and on developing partnerships and technology transfer opportunities.

It’s to consult on effective strategies and methods with other states, the federal government, and to use the recommendations of the advisory committee and of consultations
in developing the scoping plan and adopting rules.

HB2505

HB2505 – Revives B&O tax exemption for Bonneville funds utilities spend on low-income bill assistance or weatherization.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Robinson (D; 38th District; Everett and Marysville)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6172 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

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

HB2496

HB2496 – Providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mead (D; 44th District; Everett & Marysville)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 3 at 1:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans have to include performance goals for target collection rates and targets for the percentages of materials recovered through recycling. (They must collect and provide for the end-of-life management of batteries in an amount roughly equivalent to the national market share of the batteries of producers participating in the plan.)

There have to be collection sites for batteries under 12 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for hefty batteries between twelve and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people.

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

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2024, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

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

Details –
Producers selling less than 5,000 batteries a year in the state don’t have to participate.
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; it doesn’t cover batteries sealed in products.

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

The bill amends various sections of the Public Records Act about limits on the disclosure of financial, commercial and proprietary information to cover this program, and it authorizes the Pollution Control Hearings Board to deal with appeals.

HB2495

HB2470 – Lets utilities use new solid waste to energy plants for some “carbon-neutral” power under the Clean Energy Transformation Act.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments
The findings say that nine of the State’s thirteen landfills, including King County’s, are expected to run out of space and close by 2040, and that waste-to-energy in King County would save $4 billion to $7 billion over fifty years and have lower greenhouse gas emissions than shipping the waste to a landfill by train.

Summary –
Last year’s Clean Energy Transformation Act (the 100% Clean Electricity bill) allowed utilities to provide up to 20% of the requirement for greenhouse gas neutral power after 2030 in a number of ways, including using power from a waste-to-energy plant constructed before 1992. (This meant the plant in Spokane.) This bill allows them to use power from new plants, under the same conditions. (The Department of Ecology and the Department of Commerce have to do a life-cycle analysis that concludes this would provide a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to best practice management of the waste in the jurisdiction through any other available methods, including waste reduction, recycling, composting, and minimizing the use of a landfill. The plants also have be operated in compliance with federal laws and regulations and meet state air quality standards.)

It also allows a utility to get up to 10% of its power from a plant meeting these conditions after 2045, when the law says 100% of the State’s electricity is supposed to come from nonemitting electric generation and renewable resources.

HB2486

HB2486 – Extends tax breaks for marine electric motors for another ten years.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; San Juan Islands and Anacortes) (By request of the Governor)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance. Had a hearing February 6th. Did not pass out of committee by the cutoff for finance committees.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
New fully electric vessels with batteries that provide at least fifteen kilowatts of continuous power and outboard motors that meet that standard are currently exempted from the sales and use taxes until 2025. The bill would extend those exemptions for another ten years.

HB2472

HB2472 – Requires comprehensive full life cycle estimates of fossil fuel emissions in state environmental evaluations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollett (D; 46th District; Northeast Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 21st . 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 would require the State’s environmental assessments to include the upstream emissions associated with the production, gathering, transmission, storage, and distribution of fossil fuels, and those of the energy used for extraction, processing, and transporting them. They would also have to include the emissions associated with their downstream end use or combustion.

The bill would direct the Department of Ecology to adopt a rule requiring agencies and local governments to consider upstream and downstream emissions in permitting, planning, and other regulatory processes involving the environmental review or permitting of projects that use fossil fuels as a fuel source or as the primary component of the project. The rule is to estimate a weighted average for all the sources of each fuel; these assumptions would then be uniformly applied to covered fossil fuel proposals and projects. It’s not to create utility-specific rates, facility-specific rates, or project-specific rates. These assumptions would then be uniformly applied to covered fossil fuel proposals and projects, so these estimates would no longer be done on an individual project by project basis.

Details –
The Department of Ecology would create a rule by December 1, 2021, establishing a cumulative emissions rate for each fossil fuel including emissions that “may be presumed to occur prior to the end use of a fossil fuel or prior to or after the final point of commerce for a fossil fuel in Washington.” Ecology is to apply a precautionary principle and err on the side of applying comprehensive and inclusive assumptions about emissions rates. (The rule is also to include consideration of induced load or growth in fuel or energy consumption or electricity generation associated with a project.) (The Utilities and Transportation Commission, the chair of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Commerce would consult in the process.)

The bill amends current laws to specify the use of this method for estimating emissions in a range of State administrative processes, ranging from utility integrated resource planning to evaluations of proposed actions under the Clean Air Act.

Ecology is to review and update the rule every three years.

HB2470

HB2470 – Regulations for automated vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hudgins (D; 11th District; Renton, Tukwila, Kent, and South Seattle) (By request of the Uniform Law Commission)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportation. Scheduled for a hearing February 10th at 1:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments
I don’t know if a company like Google qualifies as a manufacturer of “motor vehicle equipment” and would be able to put AVs on the road under the bill, or not…

Summary –
The bill provides for the registration of automated vehicles. It requires that anyone putting them on the road must have participated in a substantial manner in developing the system that controls them, must have submitted a safety self-assessment or equivalent report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and must be registered as a manufacturer of vehicles or “motor vehicle equipment” under its rules.

Persons applying to register as an “automated driving provider” must swear they are capable of undertaking the associated responsibilities; swear that sufficient evidence demonstrates that the automated driving system of each of their vehicles is capable of complying with all the traffic laws; and irrevocably appoint the Department of Transportation as a lawful agent for service of process in a lawsuit arising from the automated operation of their vehicles.

Details –
The bill creates a number of exceptions in the traffic laws to do things like allowing automated vehicles to stand unattended when current cars aren’t allowed to, and allowing personal electronic devices to be used in operating them, even though using a smartphone while driving a regular car isn’t legal.

HB2429

HB2429 – Bans manufacturing and distributing styrofoam containers, packing material and coolers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(This is a companion bill to Senator Das’s SB6213.)

Comments –
There are other reasons for banning styrofoam, but really comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of using these items with those of the alternatives requires a complicated full life-cycle analysis. (HFCs have been often been used in the production of styrofoam, and they have a global warming potential between 12,000 and 14,800 times that of CO2; their use as propellants in Washington was banned by HB1112, and it banned some styrofoam board, but not containers.)

The only lifecycle comparison I found in a casual Google search was done as a project by a group of seniors in a UBC environmental studies projects class; for what it’s worth they concluded that the global warming effects of styrofoam takeout containers were a lot lower than those of ones made from plastic, corn-based biodegradeable plastic, and aluminum. If everything went to the landfill, paper containers were slightly better than styrofoam ones.

Summary –
The bill bans the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene containers, packing material and coolers, starting July 1st, 2021. After two notifications of violations, food service operators and food packagers are subject to fines of up to $250/day for their third and subsequent violations.

Details –
There are some exceptions, including styrofoam containers for drugs and medical devices, and containers in which food’s been packaged and sealed before they’re delivered to a service establishment. The bill doesn’t apply to packaging in containers from out of state. It provides for outreach and education about the ban by the Department of Ecology, and for an appeals process.

HB2427

HB2427 – Adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsors Springer, Shewmake, and Doglio)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 23rd. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 16th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Senate Committee on Local Government; had a hearing February 25th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6453 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The substitute rewrites the new goals. It drops supporting the State’s vehicle miles traveled goals and taking steps to mitigate climate change, but retains the more or less equivalent goal of reducing emissions. It shifts the goal of nurturing environmental, economic, and human health to the narrower one of protecting people and property from natural hazards exacerbated by the changing climate.

The substitute only requires the new goals for counties required to do reviews and evaluations under the “Buildable Lands” program (that is, ones west of the Cascades that had over 150,000 residents in 1996), and for counties with over 300,000 people and cities within those. It adds that it’s the Legislature’s intent to have the changes adopted by these jurisdictions as part of the next scheduled update under the GMA.

The amendments on the House floor add language about the variable ability of different cities to achieve the goals of the bill through planning, and require a UW study of the heat island effects on human health, salmon and ecology of cities over 100,000 people.

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.”

SB6272

SB6272 – Increases the State’s emissions reductions targets more.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2311 is the identical companion bill in the House.
(There’s a Senate bill report.)

Comments –
The bill would raise the State’s targets farther than last session’s HB1113, which has been reintroduced. (That bill would set them to match the Paris Accords’.)

Summary –
The bill leaves the State’s current greenhouse gas emissions target of a reduction to 1990 levels by 2020 (which we will not meet) in place. It raises the next target from a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035 to a 45% reduction by 2030. It adds a target for 2040 of a 70% reduction, and it increases the target for 2050 from a 50% reduction from 1990 levels to a 95% reduction. It adds a requirement for achieving net-zero emissions state-wide by 2050.

The targets are about reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere; they don’t address removing CO2 by increasing sequestration. However, the bill also says that “separate and apart” from reducing emissions to meet the targets, it’s the policy of the State “to prioritize sequestration activities in amounts necessary to achieve the carbon neutrality goal established in RCW 70.235.020, and at a level consistent with pathways to limit global warming to one and one-half degrees.” It says the State should promote voluntary and incentive based sequestration on natural and working lands and recognize the potential for sequestration in products and product supply chains associated with working lands. It requires agencies to seek all practical opportunities to cost-effectively maximize carbon sequestration in their operations, contracting, and grant-making activities.

Details –
Commerce’s reports on emissions are now to include those from wildfires.

State agencies’ goals are increased to a 45% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, a 70% reduction by 2040, a 95% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050, and net zero emissions by state government as a whole by then as well. Agencies are now to report every two years to the efficiency and environmental performance office at the Department of Commerce on their plans for reaching these targets and Commerce is to report to the Legislature on those (and on the budget required to implement them).

HB2405

HB2405 – Authorizes counties to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed)
Amended by the sponsor in a minor way and passed out of the House Committee on Local Government January 24th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on Saturday February 8th. A 2nd substitute with major changes passed out of Appropriations February 11th; referred to Rules. Replaced on the floor with a striker by the prime sponsor and passed by the House February 18th. House concurred with the Senate amendments March 6th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; had a hearing February 25th. Replaced by a striker and voted out of committee February 27th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of committee March 2nd, and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 5th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6222 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
This bill reintroduces the most recent version of Representative Doglio’s HB1796, which she brought forward as a striker on the floor in the 2019 session, but which was never considered. (The striker shifted from authorizing municipalities to authorizing counties, and made a couple of further legal adjustments which are summarized by staff at the end of that version.

Property assessed clean energy financing programs make the repayment of a loan for an energy efficiency upgrade a lien on the property, which is repaid through the property tax billing process, and which stays as an obligation of the new owners if the building changes hands. Thirty states have established these programs. However, it isn’t clear that they’re legal in Washington, because our Constitution prohibits any gift of public funds to private parties.

ShiftZero, a coalition of green building organizations, has been promoting this idea, and has obtained a serious legal opinion which says that they would be legal if they were structured the way they are in Texas, because that relies entirely on private financing, rather than lending any state funds. (However, it isn’t clear whether the State using its property tax mechanism to implement a private loan and other details in this bill are constitutional here. Presumably, a court will settle those questions if the bill passes.) ShiftZero has a flyer about the bill.

The amendments in the House Local Government Committee added reducing or eliminating lead in water for drinking or cooking to the list of qualified projects, and would allow counties to narrow that list to focus on their climate action goals.

The 2nd substitute adopted in Appropriations removes allowing Commerce to establish a loan loss reserve/credit enhancement program, and removes a county’s responsibility to enforce delinquent assessments and C-PACER financing installment payments. (Presumably these steps help avoid the Constitutional issues. I think that means lenders would have to recover through a lien on the property if the borrower defaulted.) It also specifies that neither the state nor any county is required to use public funds to fund or repay the assessments authorized through a C-PACER program.

The House striker requires counties to establish a program, whether or not money’s appropriated for that, and limits them to doing that and recording the liens. It adds a list of items specifying the details of Commerce’s responsibilities in administering the program, which are summarized by staff on the last page of the striker.

The changes in the Senate committee striker are summarized by staff on its last two pages. Among other things, it now bases the lien on the property owner entering into voluntary assessment agreement to repay the loan, lets Commerce contract out the administration of the program, lets it provide grants to counties to help them set up programs, and allows it to create a program guidebook including various standard legal forms which counties would be required to use.

Summary –
The bill authorizes counties to set up programs like this for energy efficiency, water conservation, renewable energy, and resiliency projects in agricultural, commercial, and industrial properties; and in multifamily properties with five or more units.

A county can impose fees on property owners who want to participate in order to pay for the reasonable costs of administering the program, provided the fees don’t exceed the municipality’s actual costs. It can contract with another county or entity to administer loans, or administer them in cooperation with other counties.

The Department of Commerce is also to set up or contract for the administration of a program to administer these loans, and a county could contract with Commerce to participate in that program. However, the county itself would remain responsible for collecting payments on a loan, and for foreclosing on the property if that became necessary.

If Commerce contracted with a third party to administer the statewide program, it would have to be done efficiently and transparently, including:

Making any services offered to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers;
Making information about any properties joining the program available to all interested and qualifying third-party capital providers so the owners could receive impartial terms from them;
Disclosing any financial interest the administrator had in any of the services provided to property owners to the public;
Allowing financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers, and;
Working in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop a program guidebook and documents or forms.

If funding were appropriated, Commerce could set up a loan loss reserve or credit enhancement program to support financing of qualified projects.

Last session’s history
In 2019, a substitute bill passed out of the House Committee on Local Government. The various legal adjustments in the substitute are summarized on p. 6 of the House Bill Report. Representative Doglio introduced this striker on the floor, but it was never considered, and the bill was still in the house of origin by cutoff.

SB6222

SB6222 – Authorizes counties to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 22nd District; San Juan County, Whatcom, Skagit)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2405 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Comments –
This bill reintroduces the most recent version of Representative Doglio’s HB1796, which she brought forward as striker on the floor in the 2019 session, but which was never considered. (The striker shifted from authorizing municipalities to authorizing counties, and made a couple of further legal adjustments which are summarized by staff at the end of that version. (The House bill is now under Representative Duerr’s sponsorship.)

A county can impose fees on property owners who want to participate in order to pay for the reasonable costs of administering the program, provided the fees don’t exceed the county’s actual costs. It can contract with another county or entity to administer loans, or administer them in cooperation with other counties.

If Commerce contracted with a third party to administer the statewide program, it would have to be done efficiently and transparently, including:

Making any services offered to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers;
Making information about any properties joining the program available to all interested and qualifying third-party capital providers so the owners could receive impartial terms from them;
Disclosing any financial interest the administrator had in any of the services provided to property owners to the public;
Allowing financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers, and;
Working in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop a program guidebook and documents or forms.

If funding were appropriated, Commerce could set up a loan loss reserve or credit enhancement program to support financing of qualified projects.

SB6231

SB6231 – Extends the remodeling property tax exemption to adding an ADU.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 48th District; Bellevue)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing Stability & Affordability January 15th. A substitute passed out of committee January 27th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means on February 20th; amended and voted out of committee March 2nd. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 11th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House and passed March 12th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor,
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a Senate Bill Report.

Comments –
Rather than adding ADUs to the improvements that can currently qualify for a tax exemption, the substitute narrows the exemption so it only applies to building ADUs. The amendment in Ways and Means returns to the original provision about improvements, and adds a report to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the measure.

Summary –
Currently, physical improvements to single family residences that add less than 30% to the value of the building are exempt from property taxes for three years. The bill extends this exemption to the construction of an ADU.

SB6223

SB6223 – Enhances opportunities to participate in community solar projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; San Juan County, Whatcom, Skagit)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(HB2248 is a companion bill in the House.)

Summary –
The bill extends the expiring community solar incentive program, retaining many of its provisions, but it would allow subscribers who invest in a project to get net metering payments from their share of it in the same way they would if the panels were on their own roofs. (With net metering, you get a credit at the retail rate on your bill each month for the electricity your share of the project produced, so it’s as if the utility was not charging you for that power, and you can carry that credit forward if you have a surplus and use it to reduce later bills. (The credits are only good until the end of each year, though, so you don’t want to subscribe for more power than you’ll use in that time.)

The bill would also extend the $0.10/kWh production incentive credit that the current program ended with to all the subscribers of projects that had at least 40% of their subscriptions from any combination of low-to-moderate-income households and low-to-moderate-income service providers like housing authorities and food banks. The incentives would last for eight years; subscribers could receive up to 50% of the cost of their share of the project from them. However, the bill would provide an additional $0.10/kWh incentive credit to the low-to-moderate-income households; they would also be eligible to get production incentives for up to 100% of their costs. (These are defined as customers with up to 115% of the household median in their area. Average household median income for the state is about $64,000, though it varies a lot.) (In addition, the bill would also allow utilities that created community solar projects to meet requirements for energy assistance to low-income households under the Clean Energy Transformation Act by not charging for or discounting part or all of the costs of those subscriptions; they could also retain the RECs associated with the production of power from these shares of a project.)

As I read the bill, service providers can subscribe to projects, but aren’t eligible for the additional incentive. One of these organizations has to certify the income status of each of the low-to-moderate income households subscribing, which sounds as if it may not be attractive to people in that category who aren’t currently depending on those services. Projects can’t be bigger than one thousand kilowatts; at least 40% of all the subscriptions have to be for less than twenty kilowatts; and no customer can subscribe to more than 40% of a project. (However, customers can subscribe to more than one project, but not for more than their total estimated annual usage, or for more capacity than 100 kW AC.)

Details –

The bill would stop certifying projects under the current incentive program at the end of June 2020. Projects could apply for precertification under the new program for six years, between the first of July 2020, and the end of June 2026. (They’d get another two years to complete them; but as I read the bill they wouldn’t be eligible for the incentives. The previous two sentences may not be right; I don’t think the bill’s current language is consistent about how the timetables for projects and incentives relate toward the end of the period.)

Utilities can currently receive annual tax credits (up to the greater of 1.5% of their 2014 sales or $250,000) for community solar production incentives if they choose to provide them; for projects under the new program that are certified by the end of June 2026, the bill increases that to the greater of 1.75% of sales or $300,000. Total incentives under the new program are capped at $20 million.

SB6213

SB6213 – Bans manufacturing and distributing styrofoam containers, packing material and coolers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Amended and passed by the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 30th. Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 10th. A second substitute passed out of Ways and Means and was referred to Rules on February 11th. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2429 is the companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill bans the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene containers, packing material and coolers made from petroleum, starting July 1st, 2021. After two notifications of violations, food service operators and food packagers are subject to fines of up to $250/day for their third and subsequent violations.

The amendments in the Committee on Environment include an intent section expecting that the new recycling development center and the current study of plastic packaging will provide better options for dealing with it, and declaring that the state intends to ban all styrofoam by 2025. They allowed the manufacture of the covered products (but continued to restrict their distribution and sale within the state.) They now also exempt coolers for shipping perishable commodities from a retail establishment; egg cartons for more than 12 eggs; and packaging for raw meats, seafood, and vegetables. They remove all the requirements for food service establishments, food packagers, and local health jurisdictions, presumably because banning the sale and distribution of these items means they won’t be available in the first place. They clarify that packing peanuts, but not other loose packing materials, have to be compostable after June 1, 2022. After January 1, 2021 the bill would preempt any local ordinances restricting the products it covers.

The amendments in Ways and Means expanded the exemptions to include fruit trays, coolers used for biological materials, and all egg cartons; expanded the definition of “manufacturer” to include importers and distributors, making them subject to the same penalties for violations, and raised the level of second and subsequent fines to up to $1,000; it would now preempt any local ordinances that had not been passed by June 1st of this year. The floor amendment moves the date for banning covered products and packing peanuts back a year, to 2023.

HB2389

HB2389 – Repeals the photovoltaic product stewardship program and requires a report on a comprehensive alternate.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
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.)

Summary –
The bill would repeal the current photovoltaic module stewardship and takeback program.
It 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).

HB2379

HB2379 – Inventorying and incentivizing the reduction of potential greenhouse gas emissions from sulfur hexafluoride.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Smith (R; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy, January 16th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is roughly 22,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over one hundred years and can remain in the atmosphere for up to 3,200 years. It’s used the standard insulator in electrical transmission and distribution equipment, and as a refrigerant and a fire suppressor. (It’s also been used to fill tennis balls…)

Summary –
The bill adds assessing the volume of sulfur hexaflouride in the state’s gas-insulated electrical equipment, and an estimate of the potential greenhouse gas emissions from it to Commerce’s biannual report to the Legislature. It adds utilities’ investments in any projects that reduce these emissions during the equipment’s useful life and when retired from service to the list of energy transformation projects they can count as offsets in providing “carbon-neutral” power during the period between 2030 and 2045 when that’s required by the Clean Energy Transformation Act.

SB6195

SB6195 – Authorizes $500 million in bonds to fund DNR’s 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz & Lewis Counties)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 6th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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 program by issuing up to $500 million in general obligation bonds over the next eight biennia.

HB2343

HB2343 – Authorizes increasing neighborhood density and reducing parking requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & NW Seattle) (Co-sponsors Frame, Macri, Doglio, Tharinger, Pollet)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 16th. Substitute passed by the committee January 28th. Referred to Rules; passed by the House nearly unanimously February 16th. House concurred in the Senate amendments.

In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Housing Stability & Affordability; had a hearing February 24th. Replaced by a striker, significantly amended, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules; passed the Senate March 3rd.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a House Bill Analysis.

Comments-
The substitute clarifies that the maximum parking limits for multi-family housing depend on having at least one route providing 15 minute transit service. (Having four routes with service once an hour, for example, doesn’t qualify.) It exempts counties as well as cities from this requirement under certain circumstances.

It shifts from exempting projects from appeals on aesthetic grounds if they’ve “undergone” design review to exempting them if they are “subject to” it, and makes the definition of what counts as “design review” a good deal more general. It modifies the definition of permanent supportive housing, which the GMA says cities may not prohibit in any areas zoned multi-family. The current language simply says this housing is intended to support “a person living with a disablility”. The new language says it “prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing …”

The striker in the House committee adds a section that makes some changes to the ongoing reporting on housing supply and affordability by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at the University of Washington that’s required by current law. Senator Das’s amendment added quadplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, and townhouses to the recommendations for upzoning residential neighborhoods that are exempted from appeals. It also added the following items to the list of actions cities are encouraged to take:

(a) Adopting maximum allowable limits on SEPA exemptions for certain types of construction;
(b) Adopting standards for administrative approval of final plats;
(c) Authorizing administrative review of preliminary plats;
(d) Adopting other changes in permitting processes to make them more efficient for customers;
(e) Eliminating conditional use permits for all housing types except essential public facilities;
(f) Allowing off-street parking to compensate for lack of on-street parking when private roads are proposed or a parking demand study shows less parking is required;
(g) Developing local programs that offer financing, design, permitting, or construction for homeowners to build ADUs, with the option of imposing an affordability requirement for home ownership or renting the unit; and
(h) Developing programs that offer financing, design, permitting, or construction for homeowners to convert single-family homes into duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes, with the option of imposing an affordability requirement for ownership or renting the unit.

Summary –
The bill revises various ways to authorize increased neighborhood residential density created in last session’s HB1923, and removes that bill’s restrictions on cities’ rules for permitting ADUs. HB1923 exempted any steps implementing those recommendations before April 1, 2021 (except adopting a sub-area plan) from administrative or judicial appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act or the Growth Management Act; the new bill extends that window to 2023, and removes analysis of impacts on parking from the requirements for SEPA environmental impact statements and checklists. It adds an exemption from appeals on aesthetic grounds if a project has “undergone” design review to HB1923’s exemption limiting the grounds for appeals based on transportation impacts.

Details –

The bill removes the prohibitions on parking requirements for ADUs, owner occupancy requirements, restrictions on their rental or separate sale, restrictions on their size below 1,000 sq ft, and on the imposition of any impact fees above the projected impact of the ADU. (It authorizes cities to encourage building ADUs by eliminating several of these restrictions instead.)

The bill increases HB1923’s limits on parking requirements for low-income housing within a quarter mile of a transit stop to include stops with service twice an hour as well as those with fifteen minute service, and now limits market-rate multi-family housing within a quarter mile of a transit stop with fifteen minute service to one parking space per bedroom or .75 space per unit.

It shifts from recommending authorizing a duplex, triplex, or courtyard apartment on “each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single family residences” to recommending authorizing them on “one or more parcels for which they are not currently authorized.” (This still allows a city to authorize them on each parcel if it chooses to, of course.)

It adds recommendations for creating one or more medium density zones with lots under 3,500 sq. ft, and single family residences under 1,200 sq. ft. It adds recommendations for authorizing ADUs in zones where they are currently prohibited, removing parking and owner occupancy requirements for them, and relaxing limits on their size.

It makes HB1923’s grants to cities planning to implement at least two of the recommendations available to cities under 20,000 people as well as larger ones.

SB6172

SB6172 – Revives B&O tax exemption for Bonneville funds utilities spend on low-income bill assistance or weatherization.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz & Lewis Counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 28th. Passed out of committee February 6th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 20th; passed out of Ways and Means February 28th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2505 is a companion bill in the House.

HB2311

HB2311 – Increases the State’s emissions reductions targets beyond the Paris Accords’.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue, Redmond, & Kirkland)
Current status –
In the House – (Passed)
A substitute bill passed the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 23rd. Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations; had a hearing there February 3rd. Passed out of Appropriations with a very minor amendment February 8th. Referred to Rules February 11th. Passed out of the House with a floor amendment February 16th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing February 20th; 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 the Senate March 5th.
Next step would be – To the Governor for his signature.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6272 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The bill would raise the State’s targets farther than last session’s HB2313, which has been reintroduced and which would set them to match the Paris Accords’.

The House substitute adds a section about the State’s intent, with items about environmental justice; supporting good jobs and creating economic benefits; and maintaining manufacturing and avoiding leakage. It specifies that the targets are about reducing anthropogenic emissions and includes the tonnes of reductions implied by the percentage targets. The amendment in Appropriations adjusted the language about carbon sequestration and added carbon storage to the goals for State agencies. The floor amendment specifies that agencies don’t have to maximize sequestration in their land-management activities, and only requires DNR to act in in cooperation with the landowners when it is promoting carbon sequestration on the private lands and trust lands that it supervises , not when it’s requiring it.

Details –
Commerce’s reports on emissions are now to include those from wildfires.

HB2310

HB2310 – Reduces emissions from on-demand transportation.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & NW Seattle) (Co-sponsors Ramel, Macri, Doglio, Cody, Hudgins, Pollet)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 14th. Substitute bill passed out of committee January 28th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; a 2nd Substitute with a minor amendment passed out of committee February 8th, and was referred to Rules February 11th. Passed the House February 16th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 24th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6399 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – “Electrifying Ride-hailing: Part 1 – Six Reasons Why Uber and Lyft Must Go Electric”, by the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Research and Deputy Director for the Clean Vehicles Program, discusses a number of recent pieces of research that provide pretty impressive reasons for doing this.

In the amended Second Substitute, the bill only applies to passenger services; the Department of Ecology is now to consult with the companies and report to the appropriate committees on how to reduce emissions from the food and goods delivery services the original covered.

It now specifies that Ecology ‘s baseline estimates should take account of periods when data on a vehicle’s movement may be recorded even though it’s not being driven as part of providing service for customers; of situations in which a car is being driven for more than one company, and of passenger-miles provided by zero-emissions transportation or transit that’s been offered through a company’s digital network.

It delays the date for implementing these plans for a year, until 2024, and allows Ecology to adjust the required date for submitting plans. It now requires a plan to outline the actions that the company will take to ensure that it will not increase negative financial outcomes for drivers. The department may now allow plans to get credit toward their targets by providing, funding, or financially supporting electrification infrastructure used to support these vehicles’ charging. The bill now specifies that Ecology can’t release any information that would be an invasion of privacy under current law, including the identification of passengers. It requires a report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature every two years on the reductions in emissions and vehicle miles achieved under these plans, and on the efficacy and sufficiency of incentives created by the Legislature to support shifting to zero emission vehicles.

Details :
By July 1st, 2021, the Department of Ecology is to create a state-wide baseline for the 2018 greenhouse gas emissions from these companies’ vehicles per customer mile and per food or goods delivery mile. By July 1st, 2022, it’s to adopt requirements, beginning in 2023, for reductions of those emissions; they’re to include annual targets and goals for increasing the percentage of passenger-miles traveled and customer food delivery-miles traveled using zero emission vehicles.

SB5412

SB5412 – Creates a low carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing on a proposed substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 16th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(HB1110 began as an identical companion bill in the House last session; it passed out of the House with amendments, and out of the Senate Environment Committee with further amendments, but didn’t get out of the Transportation Committee there before cutoff.)

2109 Legislative History
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 30th, 2019. Still in committee at the 2019 cutoff date; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Ecology to create rules to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels used in Washington to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and to 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (Fuels for aviation, shipping, and locomotives are exempted.)

Comments –
Governor Inslee’s 2020 budget proposal would provide $1.5 million for the Department of Ecology to implement the program.

Rep. Fitzgibbon’s LCFS bill, HB 2338, which passed out of the House Environment and House Transportation committees in 2018, would have created a standard at the same level. Carbon Wa’s testimony in support of that bill included quite a bit of useful analysis.

Climate Solutions has produced a flyer supporting the bill in 2019.

Details :

Standards –

Must be based on a full lifecycle analysis of the emissions associated with each fuel, including its production, storage, transportation, and combustion, as well as associated changes in land use.
Must measure the emissions from electricity for each electric utility based on its mix of power sources.
Ecology can require additional reporting from fuel distributors and utilities if it’s needed.
The department may create additional exemptions to avoid mismatched incentives among programs, fuel shifting among markets, or other unintended consequences.
It must decide whether or not emissions reductions under the clean fuels program will count toward meeting the requirements of the clean air rule, and vice versa.

– Credits and trading

Ecology must create a system for generating, banking, trading, and verifying credits for emissions reductions. Participation in this system is voluntary, and it’s also open to suppliers and users of aviation, shipping, and locomotive fuels who make reductions in their associated emissions. Credits may be awarded for producing, importing, or dispensing fuels for use in the state, and for other activities that reduce the emissions associated with transportation fuels. They may not be awarded for any fuels with emissions above 80% of the standard.

The bill extends the penalties for violations of the Clean Air Act to violations of this act. Ecology may charge a fee to cover the costs of the program; these and any penalties collected under the program go into a new clean fuels fund account, which can only be spent through appropriations.

– Cost containment mechanisms

These may include creating a credit clearance market to put a ceiling on prices by making credits available at a level Ecology sets, and/or some similar method to provide credits to participants who have not been able to attain them. (These mechanisms must be designed to financially discourage people from relying on them instead of reducing emissions.)

Ecology can create an entity to aggregate and use credits for emissions reductions made by parties that choose not to participate in the credit market.

– Relations with other states

Ecology should seek to adopt rules that work well with the systems in other jurisdictions that have adopted clean fuels standards (such as Oregon, California, and British Columbia), and in ones we import fuels from or export fuels to.

– Electric utility reinvestments

Half the revenue from credits earned by an electric utility must be reinvested in transportation electrification projects, and 60% of that (30% of the total) must be spent on projects in places where air pollution is bad enough so they’ve been identified as non-attainment or maintenance areas under the National Air Quality Act. Ecology may adopt requirements for the reinvestment of the other half of this revenue, in consultation with the utilities.

– Reporting
Requires an annual report about the program on Ecology’s website, and an annual report to appropriate committees of the Legislature, starting in 2022, including draft legislation for any recommended changes to achieve the program’s goals more efficiently.

Requires a fuel supply forecast by Commerce, in consultation with Ecology and the Department of Agriculture, at least 90 days in advance of each compliance period; this must include a prediction about whether sufficient credits from low carbon fuels (and banked credits) will be available to meet the program’s requirements.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee must report to the Legislature on the impacts, costs and benefits of the first five years of the program before the end of 2027.

– Removes “poison pill” provisions

In 2015, Republicans inserted provisions into the transportation package to transfer the state’s funds for bicycling and transit to highway projects if a clean fuel standard was created; the bill removes those.

SB6135

SB6135 – Adds more reporting on reliability to the 100% Clean Electricity Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sheldon (D-Caucusing with Republicans; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle & Short)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy, and Technology January 21st. Substitute by the prime sponsor passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 27th. Referred to Rules March 28th. Passed by the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The substitute adds findings, and completely replaces the original required reporting on the system with a requirement for an annual meeting of stakeholders to discuss the current, short-term, and long-term adequacy of energy resources, and to address specific steps the utilities can take to coordinate planning. The meetings are to be convened by the Department of Commerce and the UTC, and they’re to provide a summary of each of them, including any specific action items, to the Governor and the Legislature.

Summary –
The original bill required a report from the Department of Commerce to the Legislature on system reliability by January 1, 2022, two years ahead of the first full report on the system in the original legislation, and provides for updates every four years after that. (That is, there will now be a full report at least every four years, and an update every four years, in between each of the full reports.)

In addition, the bill would have required Commerce to provide specific recommendations for legislative action if it should determine that risks to the reliability of the system have developed.

SB6124

SB6124 – Develops K-12 field work experiences in environmental and sustainability education.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hunt (D; 22nd District; Thurston County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education January 15th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(There’s a Senate Bill Report.)
HB2811 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The list of requirements for the “qualified non-profit” eligible for funding under the bill essentially specify some particular organization, apparently the Pacific Education Institute.

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…

SB6091

SB6091 – Continues the work of the Washington Food Policy Forum
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; parts of Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln, and Yakima County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
A substitute bill with very minor changes passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd; referred to Senate Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 3rd; passed out February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate February 12th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources. Had a hearing February 21st; passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of Appropriations March 2nd and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The Legislature set up the Food Policy Forum (Forum) in 2016 to make recommendations for improving the state’s food system. (Some of these are about supporting small farms and local food in various ways.) The Washington State Conservation Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and the Office of Farmland Preservation convened a group of food system stakeholders to do this work. They produced several reports, and in 2019 the Legislature provided further funding for them to develop a report on preferred implementation approaches for their recommendations.

Summary –
The bill thoroughly rewrites the language of HB1562, the previous extension of the Forum, with ongoing minor shifts in emphasis and focus, but almost no fundamental change in the setup or functioning of the Forum, as far as I can see. (There’s somewhat less language about urban diet issues and somewhat more about rural agricultural issues, unsurprisingly, since the prime sponsor of the previous bill was Representative Gregerson, from SeaTac.) The Director of the State Conservation Commission now has to have the agreement of the Director of the Department of Agriculture in appointing the participants for the next round of the Forum, and staff is now to come from both agencies, but it’s to continue to make recommendations on pretty much the same wide range of food issues, and it’s to produce another report to the Legislature by the end of October, 2021.

Governor’s Proposal – 2020 Supplemental Budget

Governor Inslee has released his proposal for the 2020 supplemental budget. His proposals for reducing emissions propose funding for:

Raising the State’s emission reduction targets to match the Paris Accord’s – in the form of a 45% reduction from 2010 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050.
A study of ways to increase sequestration on state forest, agricultural, and aquatic lands. ($1.4 million)
Implementing a Clean Transportation Fuels Standard (1.5 million).
Additional EV charging at State facilities ($4.1 million).
Implementing Zero Emission Vehicle legislation.
Requiring ride hailing companies like Lyft and Uber to reduce their emissions.
A comprehensive analysis by Commerce to develop a 2050 Energy Vision identifying the most effective strategies to reduce emissions for key energy users and customers.
A $20 million extension of the renewable energy system tax incentive for community solar projects.
Developing new rules that he directed Ecology to adopt by September 2021 to “strengthen and standardize the consideration of climate change risks, vulnerability, and impacts” in State Environmental Policy Act assessments for major industrial and fossil fuel projects. (These are to include upstream and downstream emissions.)
Continuing to implement last session’s 100% Clean Electricity bill.

HB2248

HB2248 – Enhances opportunities to participate in community solar projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County)
Current status – Vetoed by the Governor.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 16th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 10th; passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules; returned to Rules on February 26th. Replaced with a striker by the prime sponsor on the floor and passed out of the House February 27th. House concurred in Senate changes March 12th.

In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means; had a hearing there on March 2nd. Replaced by a striker and voted out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 11th and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence in the changes.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB6223 is a companion bill in the Senate.)

Comments –
There’s a staff summary of the changes on page 7 of the House Bill Report on the substitute.

Interestingly, Republican Representative DeBolt, from Lewis County, is a cosponsor of this bill. (Transalta plans to put a 180MW solar project on their reclaimed coal mine site near Centralia, in his district, to complement its nearby Skookumchuck wind project, and there’s now considerable local interest in developing other renewable energy projects.)

The amended House substitute provides participating utilities an additional credit against their taxes each year of the larger of 0.0025% of their sales or $50,000.

There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the House striker on its last page. They include extending the enrollment period for the program by five years, to 2031; expanding potential subscribers to include tribal and public agencies serving low-income communities; creating a biennial cap of $5 million to spread the available funding out over time, distributed among utilities in proportion to their retail sales; and establishing a target cost of $3/watt for projects, which the WSU extension service administering the program can review and adjust each biennium. It also drops the net metering provisions.

There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the Senate Ways and Means striker on its last page. (It’s in the folder for the bill on the page with the committee materials for the meeting.) As I read the striker’s new language about compensation, on p. 19:
It limits the portion of the one-time initial payment for administrative costs to the startup costs for the qualifying subscribers rather than paying for all the costs of administering those memberships.
It now says that the other portion of the initial payment is “not to exceed” the cost of the proportion of the project providing benefits to qualifying subscribers rather than saying it’s to equal that.
It reintroduces net metering for community solar projects of up to 100 kWs behind the meter, but only for the customer being billed for that meter, rather than providing virtual net metering for all subscribers.
It says that “For all other community solar projects, compensation must be determined at a value set by the participating utility and paid to the administrator or subscribers according to the agreement between the project and the utility.”
It also requires the Energy Office to allocate the incentive funds among participating utilities in an equitable way, and clarifies a few other details.

Details –

SB6108

SB6091 – Cancels Sound Transit 3 funding (and future Sound Transit funding) within Pierce County.
Prime Sponsor – Senator O’Ban (R; 28th District; Pierce County)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation February 4th at 3:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator O’Ban also has four bills from last session (SB5044, SB5043, SB5042, and SB5037) proposing various reductions in Sound Transit’s funding.

Summary –
Within Pierce County, the bill cancels any taxes approved by regional transit authority voters after January 1, 2015 (ie in the measure for funding Sound Transit 3). It cancels any bonds issued under that authority that contain a clause allowing it, and it restricts the spending of any revenue already collected to legal expenses for cancelling bonds or refunds to voters.

It also cancels, within Pierce County, any taxes approved in the future by the regional transit authority voters.

HB2206

HB2206 – Allows extension of sewers and other urban government services outside the urban growth area.
Prime Sponsor – Representative MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 4th at 3:30 PM
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The proposed amendments would leave the Growth Management Act in a rather contradictory state, since they would only remove some of the language saying that the patterns of land use for rural elements in counties’ comprehensive plans are supposed to “reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development” while adding that counties can, in fact, choose to build sewer lines and provide other urban services to support that sort of development…

Summary –
The bill explicitly adds the construction of sewer lines to the definition of “rural government services.” It also removes various language prohibiting counties from providing services that permit low-density sprawl, or restricting their ability to expand “urban government services” into the designated rural areas of their comprehensive plans.

SB6082

SB6082 – Specifies that various current limitations on car manufacturers’ practices do not apply to Tesla’s direct sales model.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce February 4th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Car dealers in a number of states have filed lawsuits or lobbied for legislation trying to keep Tesla from selling its cars through its own showrooms, without relying on dealerships. There’s currently an exception in Washington law that allows Tesla to do that. The bill would expand the exception to any manufacturer that only makes electric vehicles. (I’m told that Rivian is lobbying for it at this point.)

Summary –
The bill amends a current law that limits how manufacturers can discriminate among or compete with dealers to specify that its provisions don’t apply to any manufacturer of all electric vehicles.

SB6019

SB6019 – Tax exemptions for waste to energy plants
Prime Sponsor – Senator Palumbo (D; 1st District; parts of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish & eastern King County)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Establishes various tax incentives, expiring in 2030, for new waste to energy plants built within a mile of an existing landfill, and for new manufacturing within five miles that uses the power from such a plant. (It also says that they have to be operating under Federal and State environmental laws and regulations, except that “permit actions to site an energy recovery facility may be exempt from compliance” with the State’s Environmental Policy Act.)

Details:

It exempts such plants from the B&O tax; exempts the sale of the power the plants produce from the public utility tax; and exempts the purchase of machinery, materials and equipment for them, and labor and services for their construction, from sales and use taxes.

It exempts the purchase of machinery, materials, and equipment for such manufacturing facilities, and labor and services for their construction, from sales and use taxes, provided that the new plant maintains at least twenty-five family living wage jobs for at least ten years.

SB5981

SB5981 – Creates a cap and trade system.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 21st. Still in committee by the 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Scheduled for a hearing on a draft substitute, February 4th 2020 at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2020 Substitute –
The substitute delays any implementation of its provisions until a new act providing at least $2 billion per biennium in new transportation funding has been passed. It creates a fourth destination for the revenue, the Strategic Transportation Investment Account, though the draft leaves the division of funding between the four accounts open. This account must be used to provide cost-effective congestion relief, enhance all modes of mobility, assist highly impacted communities, and address the impacts of the transportation system on carbon pollution and other quality of life issues, including impacts to salmon. This funding can include projects to reduce congestion and improve air quality, including multimodal alternatives; ones to reduce carbon emissions from transportation including ones to accelerate the deployment of zero emission vehicles or deploy grid infrastructure for vehicle charging; and fish barrier correction projects.

The new version specifies that Ecology must allocate allowances to electric utilities between 2021 and 2035 covering their average annual emissions over each previous three year period, and that it’s to adopt rules “providing the method for distribution of no-cost allowances” to them between 2035 and 2050. (I assume this means the rules would gradually step down their allowances in some way to be determined in the future.) The substitute exempts emissions associated with electricity exported from the state. The State would actually get the allowances back immediately, auction them, and then give the proceeds to the utilities, to be used exclusively to minimize the bill’s impacts on customers. Each utility would have to develop a plan, conforming to rules from the UTC or the Department of Commerce, with a portfolio of mechanisms for aiding customers, like weatherization, energy efficiency, electrification of heating in buildings, electric vehicle incentives, and infrastructure. At least half the money would now have to go to rate relief.

Natural gas suppliers would be covered by a similar scheme, but their starting allocation in 2022 is left open in the draft, and it would be required to step down annually between then and 2035 in proportion to the gas utilities’ share of the reductions needed to meet the State’s 2035 target. Their plans would have to give the highest priority to assisting low-income customers, and use at least twenty-five percent of the money for rate relief for residential customers. Proceeds from the sale of allowances are used for investments to reduce emissions, including efficiency and renewable gas projects. The UTC is to provide for timely recovery for prudent and reasonable costs associated with complying with the act, and gas companies are prohibited from passing costs on to customers whose emissions are covered by its other provisions.

The substitute specifies that energy efficiency projects, carbon capture, and sequestration may be used to provide offsets. (It would no longer allow the aggregation of temporally separate offset activities.) It raises the limit on using offsets between 2024 and 2034 from 6% to 8%. The current bill requires certain percentages of offset projects to provide direct environmental benefits to the state. The substitute lets projects within the state count toward those requirements, and raises the required percentage between 2024 and 2034 from 50% to 90%. It says Ecology can restrict the use of offsets from areas and plants failing to meet air quality standards; eliminates the provisions allowing the use of up to an extra 5% of offsets from tribal lands; directs Ecology to keep the total quantity of allowances and offsets below the total of required compliance obligations “to the extent practicable,” and adds a regular review of the offset protocols.

The substitute drops the section prohibiting regional air quality agencies and other jurisdictions from directly regulating greenhouse gas emissions through a cap, charge, low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuels standard, or charge upon sale or use. It adds some progressive requirements about standards that have to be met by parties receiving project contracts, and moves various dates forward a year.

Summary of the 2019 bill –
Raises the State’s targets for greenhouse gas reductions to match the Paris Accords’. Creates a state greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade program requiring allowances for each metric ton of emissions above a gradually decreasing cap. Allowances are sold at auction, and can be sold or traded within the state and in linked programs in other jurisdictions. Requires setting a floor and a ceiling on prices for allowances, and mechanisms for increasing or decreasing the allowances available to help keep prices within that range.

Details –
The cap is to be set and adjusted over time so that covered entities contribute their proportional share of the overall State reductions needed to meet the new targets.

Covered entities
You need allowances if your facility emits more than 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2 equivalents (on its own or when the emissions associated with your direct purchases of electricity are included); if the associated emissions from your generating electricity in the state, importing it, or supplying natural gas are above that level; or if you’re a supplier of other fuels like gasoline or diesel that would produce emissions above that level when combusted. You can also opt-in to the program if you’re responsible for emissions but aren’t required to participate (if, for example, you can make reductions cheaply and want to make money by selling the allowances you earn), or if you just want to trade in the market. Allowances can be banked and used in later years. There’s a penalty of $200 per allowance, adjusted for inflation starting in 2025, for failing to provide enough of them to cover your emissions in a given year, as well as a penalty of up to $10,000 for violations of the rules.

Offsets
Between 2021 and 2023 up to 8% of an entities’ obligations may be met with approved offset credits, provided at least 75% of those reduce emissions in the state; through 2034 up to 6% of them may be met with offsets if at least 50% of those reduce emissions in Washington. At any point another 5% may be met through offsets on tribal land in the US or a linked jurisdiction. (The bill may intend this to mean tribal land in the state, but it doesn’t say so.) The bill creates an advisory committee to provide guidance on rules to increase offset projects with other environmental benefits in the state while prioritizing projects that “benefit highly impacted communities, Indian tribes, and natural and working lands.”

Exemptions
The bill exempts biomass from various approved sources, all biofuels, aviation fuel, coal burned at the Transalta plant, marine fuel burned outside the state, vented or unintentional emissions, and military installations.

Between 2021 and 2035, it provides a gradually decreasing number of free allowances to energy-intensive trade exposed industries in eleven categories, and to any others the Department of Commerce may identify through quantitive criteria about their energy use and trade exposure. (However, the bill also says in Section 14(1) that they don’t have to start complying until 2023…) The number of free allowances is to decrease at the same rate needed for reductions in allowances for covered entities as a whole to result in meeting the targets; facilities with relatively lower emissions are to receive more allowances. (The Department’s to review the program every two years to see if it is avoiding significant leakage from the transfer of activities out of state, or awarding more free allowances than are necessary for that goal.)

If a 100% Clean Electricity bill passes, the bill requires the Department of Ecology to develop rules, in consultation with Commerce and the UTC, providing utilities with enough free allowances through 2035 to avoid the bill’s impacting rates or charges. It provides natural gas utilities free allowances for the gas sold to low-income customers, so the company does not have to pay to offset those emissions. (I think that the bill requires the value of those allowances to be spent funding measures to benefit low-income consumers such as weatherization, conservation, and help paying bills.)

Investments
The bill creates a climate oversight board with a lot of members, including representatives of the Governor, the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Auditor, four legislators, two tribal representatives, various stakeholders, and an indeterminate number of other experts. (It isn’t clear how some of these people are to be selected.) It’s responsible for ongoing review of the cap and trade system and the funding provided by it, but the bill doesn’t say what happens to any conclusions it draws from that review, or what if any power it has to affect what it “reviews”.

The bill creates an environmental and economic justice panel, appointed by the Governor. The panel’s to include two members representing union labor; two members representing tribal governments; and five other members, including at least one tribal leader and at least two nontribal leaders representing the interests of vulnerable populations residing in “highly impacted communities”. (Those communities are to be identified by the Department of Health, considering “vulnerable populations” and environmental hazards; including census tracts that are partly or wholly on tribal land; and building on a particular analysis already completed by the UW.) The panel’s to be co-chaired by a tribal leader and a representative of the interests of highly impacted communities. It’s to make recommendations on the plans for spending this revenue and their implementation, evaluate the funding levels, and analyze the policies to determine if they produce the intended improvements. The Department of Ecology is to consult with the panel and “accord substantial weight” to its recommendations in developing implementation plans for spending from each of the funds the bill sets up, and in developing biennial spending plans for each of them. It’s to update the identification of highly impacted areas every two years “under advisement from” the panel.

Any agency receiving funding from the system must consult with Indian tribes “on all decisions that may affect Indian tribes’ rights and interests in their tribal lands.” (Perhaps this only covers decisions implementing this bill, but it doesn’t seem to say that.) The process must be independent of any public participation process required by state law, or by a state agency, and regardless of whether the agency receives a request for consultation. No project that affects tribal lands can be funded without “meaningful consultation” with affected Indian tribes. Any project that “directly impacts” tribal lands must have written consent from the relevant tribal governments.

40% of the revenue goes to an energy transformation account, to be spent on projects and programs in Washington that provide additional reductions in carbon pollution. These include residential, industrial, construction, transportation, and agricultural investments in renewable energy, efficiency, conservation, sequestration, and carbon emissions reductions. They have to provide real, specific, quantifiable, additional, and verifiable reductions for periods of time to be determined by the Department, and meet high labor standards. They have to be ranked and sortable based on quantitative performance metrics, including the avoided cost of a ton of carbon dioxide, though the bill does not say they have to be selected on that basis, or provide any criteria for deciding which projects that meet the basic standards will be selected, beyond saying 10% of these funds have to be spent in highly impacted areas.

35% of the revenue goes to an energy transition account, to provide funding to assist low-income households with increased energy prices; to help provide clean energy and low-carbon housing, transportation options, and technologies to people with greater barriers to accessing those, and where pollution is concentrated; and to support displaced fossil fuel-related industry workers. Spending has to be prioritized to help with additional energy and transportation costs resulting from policies and programs to reduce fossil fuel use, and to assist displaced workers, but it can also be used “to reduce carbon pollution and reduce vulnerable population characteristics or environmental burdens in highly impacted communities.” Thus, the money can be spent in a very wide variety of ways, including direct financial assistance, social and health services programs, energy bill subsidies, efficiency and weatherization services, affordable transportation, affordable housing, and improved community services. The Department must develop a worker support program for bargaining unit and nonsupervisory fossil fuel industry workers who are affected by the transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy, and may allocate additional funds to it if there’s an unexpected amount of dislocation.

25% of the revenue goes to a climate impacts resilience account. Expenditures from it are to prioritize funding and investments to benefit “highly impacted communities”. At least half of it’s to go to community preparedness and awareness “before, during, and after” wildfires; resources to help tribal communities deal with wildfires; relocating tribal communities impacted by flooding and sea level rise; and programs to increase awareness of and preparedness for impacts of climate change and to educate people about ways to reduce pollution. The remainder’s to be spent on “natural resources resilience and related purposes” including, but not limited to, funding for improving forest and natural lands’ health and resilience to climate change, including thinning and prescribed fire projects and wildland fire prevention; for reducing stormwater impacts; for reducing flooding risks; for improving the availability and reliability of water supplies for in-stream and out-of-stream uses; for fish barrier correction projects; for projects to prepare for sea level rise and restore habitats, including small forestland owner fish passage barrier projects; and for adapting to and remediating the impacts of ocean acidification.

Details –
There are provisions for entering into agreements linking the program and its auctions with other jurisdictions’. The bill requires creating an advisory committee to make recommendations about designing and implementing the system, and to report on its functioning every two years. It requires appointing an independent organization to monitor and report on the auctions and on secondary markets that buy and sell allowances. It requires creating an electronic system for handling allowances and the auctions, or sharing another jurisdiction’s.

It prohibits regional air quality agencies and local jurisdictions regulating greenhouse gas emissions through “a cap, charge, low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuels standard, or charge upon the sale or use”.

HB1984

HB1984 – Exempts any location processing, handling, or preparing food or beverages for sale or service to the public from any law intending to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 18th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
“Food processing plants” include any places where food or beverages are prepared, handled or processed for sale, or for service to the public without charge, in any way (other than merely washing, trimming and packaging vegetables and fruit for sale). It includes lunch counters, night clubs, vending machines, the Salvation Army, retail meat markets, school cafeterias, and so on, as well as canneries and processing plants.

I’m not sure how far the bill’s language about exemptions from measures “otherwise intended to support the achievement” of the State’s targets for emissions reductions goes. For example, if the state wanted to require grid-enabled water heaters in new restaurants, would those businesses be exempt? If the intent statement of a new energy efficiency bill included carbon reduction as one of the goals of the bill, would these businesses be exempt from that?

Summary –
The bill exempts all “food processing plants” from requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and any measures “otherwise intended to support the achievement” of the state’s targets for reducing those.

HB1985

HB1985 – Relief from greenhouse gas regulations for agricultural commodities and food products with lower embedded emissions than imported equivalents.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 18th. Still in committee by cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
“Food products” include animal feed, chewing gum, bottled water, and “articles used for components of any such article.” (I’m not sure if that includes the plastic bottle and the gum wrapper or not…)

If 95% of the imported apples being sold in Washington had lower emissions than your apples, you apparently could pick one of the producers of the 5% that didn’t as your competitor for the comparison.

I don’t see what the B&O taxes that may be included in the comparisons have to do with emissions, or how you’re supposed to estimate the emissions of “labor”. (Are you supposed to compare the energy use of 17 farmworkers with the emissions associated with manufacturing and operating a mechanical harvester that will do the same work?) There’s also no further specification of how to define or limit the scope of these life-cycle analyses, so there’s lots of room to get the comparisons to come out however you’d like them to by including or omitting thing like land use changes.) Doing these for food is notoriously complicated; in particular, it’s been estimated that transportation from the farm to the supermarket is only about 4% of its carbon footprint; lots comes from how much fertilizer and machinery you use.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Commerce to consult with Ecology and stakeholders and develop a model that allows producers of products and goods to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and transportation of products and goods imported from out of state.

If any rule is created limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of agricultural commodities or food products a business can have Ecology compare the emissions associated with a specified competitors’ import with the same type of item from Washington. (A business can also provide the department with a comparison of its own from “a reputable greenhouse gas emissions expert.”)

If the comparison estimates that an imported product has higher associated emissions than the Washington one, Ecology is to provide regulatory relief for the producer of the agricultural commodity or food product to assure they remain competitive in the global market. This includes providing an exemption from any rules addressing greenhouse gas emissions, including those that limit or price emissions, require purchasing credits, or add additional costs to production.

Details
The calculations are to “include the gross estimated carbon emissions” of the items, including transportation, and may include “labor, business and occupation taxes, energy use of vehicles involved in production or transport, and clean air credit purchasing.”

SB5970

SB970 – Authorizes $5 billion in bonds backed by revenue from SB5971.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hobbs (D; 44th District; Lake Stevens)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th. Passed out of committee to Rules March 6th 2019. Still in committee by the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status in 2020 session; referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB5971 raises the revenue to support these bonds. SB5972 appropriates the new funds.)

Summary –
The bill authorizes $5 billion in bonds for transportation projects, backed by new revenue from SB5971.

SB5972

SB972 – Appropriates the additional revenue for transportation from SB5971.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hobbs (D; 44th District; Lake Stevens)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th. Substitute bill passed out of committee to Rules March 7th 2019. Still in committee by the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status in 2020 session; referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB5970 authorizes $5 billion in bonds to fund the Forward Washington projects, backed by the additional revenue SB5971 would raise for that account.)

Comments –
The substitute states that up to $290 million is expected from the bonds authorized by SB5970 during this biennium, and makes appropriations for debt service. It reduces the appropriation for grid upgrades from $50 million to $45 million, and removes the statement about intending to fund the Chelan LINK transit facilities over time. It appropriates $3 million for vanpools from the Forward Flexible account rather than from the multi-modal transportation account.

Summary – Appropriations (from the new revenue only) for the 2019-2021 Biennium

From the new Forward Washington account:
DOT Facilities Maintenance, Operations, and Construction – $2 million
DOT Highway Maintenance – $50 million
DOT Traffic Operations – $5 million
DOT Planning, Data and Research – $0.1 million for Columbia River bridge governance study
Highway improvements projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $770.6 million (including $350 million for culvert replacement to support salmon and $50 million for storm water improvements).
Highway preservation projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $100 million
Ferry construction – $160 million
Local projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $23.6 million
Freight Mobility Investment Account – $2.5 million
Rural Arterial Trust Account – $3.5 million
Transportation Improvement Account – $9 million
County Arterial Preservation Account $3.5 million

Total = $1.3 billion (or $950 million without the culvert replacements for fish passage).

From the new Forward Flexible account:
Grant program for special needs transportation – $20 million
Transit coordination grants – $0.5 million
Bus and bus facility grants – $30 million
Transportation demand management – $4.5 million
Transportation grid electrification grants – $50 million
Complete Streets program – $9 million
Rail capital projects as listed in the LEAP Plan – $15 million
Washington Ports grants program – $10 million
Safe routes to schools – $6 million
Pedestrian and bike safety programs – $16.5 million
Freight Mobility Multimodal account – $2.5 million
Rural Mobility Grant Program – $11 million
Alternative fuel tax credits – $5 million
Distribution to cities and counties for transportation purposes – $37.5 million

Total = $220 million (or something slightly over $182 million if you figure that most of the city and county money will also go to road construction and repair, like the money in the Forward Washington account.)

The bill also designates the US 2 Trestle replacement; replacing the I-5 Bridge over the Columbia River replacement; fish passage barrier removal projects; the Hood River Bridge replacement; the Bridge of the Gods replacement; and all future bridges over the Columbia River that connect Washington with Oregon as projects of statewide significance under SB5847, which had a hearing in the committee February 19th. Those projects are estimated to cost at least $1 billon each; if SB5847 passes, it would have DOT appoint a project coordinator and assemble a dedicated team to expedite the planning and construction of each project.