Category Archives: All Bills 2021

SB5081

SB5081 – Places the burden of proof in any enforcement action on the Department of Ecology (and applies to four other agencies). (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; Skagit County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 2nd. No action taken in scheduled executive session February 4th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill places the burden of proof in any enforcement actions by the Departments of Ecology, Agriculture, Health, Natural Resources, or Fish and Wildlife on the agencies.

SB5093 – 2021

SB5093 – Reducing emissions from natural gas space and water heating in residential and commercial buildings. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-sponsor Slatter – D) (By request of the Governor)
Current status – Assigned to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Dead bill; never had a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This is a companion bill to HB1084.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1130

HB1130 – Mandates 50% reductions in utility bills and 50% improvements in reliability. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County) (Co-sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 22nd.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
This bill would mandate reducing gas and electric bills, including taxes and fees, by 2031 – to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50 percent below 2020 levels. It would mandate reducing cumulative power outages and energy supply disruptions to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50% below 2020 levels. It specifies that “to the the extent practicable” the rules developed under the recent 100% Clean Electricity Act” have to incorporate the objective of reaching those targets.

The public counsel unit of the office of the Attorney General would be required to report to the Legislature by December 1, 2022 on the actions necessary to achieve these improvements using existing statutory authority; and to recommend any additional statutory authority necessary to achieve them. The report would have to be be based on an analysis of the cumulative cost impact of power outages in the state since 1990 and of the impact of a range of percentage reductions in the number and duration of outages since then and extending to 2050; as well as of the cumulative cost savings and economic and employment impact of the additional cash flow in the economy resulting from the proposed reductions in utility bills. (To the extent that it was practical, the report would state the bill costs and reliability experience of residents in Indian country and of other historically disadvantaged communities separately, as well as any particular benefits that those communities may experience from improved reliability and lower bill costs.)

The bill declares that it’s the intent of the Legislature to supply the public counsel unit with financial resources to develop the plan by providing at least as much as has been appropriated by the state since 2013 to fund agency review and third-party consulting on the removal of dams on the lower Snake river and the evaluation of Washington’s potential for high-speed rail. It specifies that the research Commerce does on energy assistance for low-income households must include collecting data on delinquent utility accounts, vehicle charging costs, and trends in those, and provide its aggregated data on the issue differentiated by city, county, and legislative district in order to increase political accountability.

HB1125

HB1125 – Incentivizing energy conservation and efficiency by landlords; expanding rate discounts. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 21st and 26th. Executive action scheduled but not taken January 29th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Carlyle’s SB5295 includes nearly identical provisions for efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties, with the addition of required reporting on the results to the UTC and WSU’s energy program every two years,

Summary –
Authorizes the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow private electric and gas utilities to invest in energy efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties that wouldn’t currently be cost-effective unless the owner paid part of the initial cost. They’re to be allowed a return on these investments over a period of time that reduces the customer’s energy burden and minimizes the impact on the customer’s bill, while incentivizing the company to make them. These investments are to be secured by the meter, and repaid over time through an “energy services charge” on the regular bills paid by tenants or the building owner. (If the owner pays the bill, there has to be a site-specific services agreement; if tenants pay it, the owner has to provide them with at least thirty days notice before work on the project begins, including a description of the work being done and the expected benefits of the conservation measures.)

Utilities must prioritize these investments to reduce the energy burden of low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and customers in highly impacted communities while meeting their comfort and productivity needs. The bill also expands the authority of private electric utilities to provide discounts for low income customers, allowing them to create discounts to reduce the energy burden of communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization; and to ensure that the benefits of the transition to clean energy are equitably distributed.

HB1118

HB1118 – Makes producers responsible for the recycling, reuse, and composting of packaging and paper products for residential use, and for post-consumer recycled content in them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5022 is an identical companion bill.
The sponsors have a flyer summarizing the bill. (The summary, based on my reading of the current text of the bill, differs from this in some ways.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details –

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

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

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

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

HB1114

HB1114 – Includes mitigation of urban heat island effects using tree planting and cool roof programs in utility energy conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Amended twice and voted out of committee February 12. Referred to Rules February 15th. Passed the House unanimously February 25th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules March 17th, and passed the Senate unanimously on March 24th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Estimating the energy savings associated with planting trees in urban areas is pretty complicated – trees of different ages, species and sizes in different locations would have different effects. Street trees often die in eight or ten years, and trees planted in subdivisions get removed by homeowners who are tired of raking leaves or want more sun. I think the bill’s language implies that the private utilities are supposed to estimate the energy savings in their planting programs (which would qualify for an extra 2% return on their investments), but all the bill says about that is that program performance is to be measured in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted.”

Summary –
As amended –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the first amendment at the end of it, and of the second amendment at the end of that. (The significant changes added provisions about environmental justice.)

Original bill –
The bill specifies that installed materials and equipment for cool roofs are included in the State’s utility energy efficiency programs, and now says that the use of tree planting for conservation by utilities is “highly” encouraged. (It specifies that utility tree planting programs should reduce the peak-load demand for electricity in residential and commercial business areas during the summer months; reduce winter demand for energy in residential areas by blocking cold winds from reaching homes, protect public health by removing harmful air pollutants; use the natural processes of trees to lower temperatures and absorb carbon dioxide; lower electric bills for ratepayers by limiting electricity consumption without reducing benefits; relieve financial and peak-load demand pressure on the utility; protect water quality and public health by reducing and cooling stormwater runoff and keeping pollutants out of waterways, with special attention given to those vital for salmon; ensure the trees are planted in locations that limit the amount of public funding needed to maintain infrastructure; and measure program performance in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted”.)

It “encourages” PUDs to assist their customers in the acquisition and installation of materials and equipment, for compensation or otherwise, for the conservation or more efficient use of energy, including through a cool roof program. The use of appropriate tree plantings for energy conservation is “highly” encouraged as part of these programs.

It now specifies that municipal utilities are authorized to fund tree planting as part of their energy conservation programs.

It adds tree planting programs and cool roof programs to the energy efficiency programs on which private utilities are authorized to earn a 2% incentive rate of return.

The bill also allows PUDs, private gas and electric companies, and municipal utilities to fund tree planting programs with the voluntary donations for urban forestry they’re already authorized to encourage their customers to make.

HB1091

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1084 – 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1075

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1057

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

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

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

HB1053

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

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

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

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

HB1050

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1046

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

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

Summary –

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1039

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

Summary –

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

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

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

SB5026

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

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

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

HB1036

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

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

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

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

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

SB5022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details –

SB5008

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

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

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

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

Summary –

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

SB5007

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

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

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

SB5000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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