Category Archives: All Bills 2022

SB5528

SB5528 – Allows a regional transit authority to create enhanced service zones with improved service from rail or high capacity systems, to be approved by residents of the zone and financed by them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Pedersen (D; 43rd District; Seattle); Co-Sponsor Rep. Liias (D; 21st District; Everett)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2062 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
It’s hard to see how the operators of commercial parking facilities without attendants are supposed to be able to keep track of how many of the vehicles that used them were exempt from a commercial parking tax.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 24th; passed out of committee the 28th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to prevent a regional transit authority from proceeding with improvements financed by an enhanced service zone if they will delay the estimated completion date of high capacity improvements in an existing voter-approved regional transit plan by more than six months rather than preventing this if it would create a material and unreasonable delay. Passed by the House March 3rd.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 13th; replaced by a substitute making changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 11th.

Summary –
The bill would authorize regional transit authorities to create enhanced zones to improve rail or high capacity service in ways that directly benefited residents of the zone. A zone would have to be recommended to the authority by an advisory committee whose members represented the proposed zone, and then authorized in a special election by the voters in the zone. The improvements would be financed by increasing the maximum rate of the local special motor vehicle excise tax available to regional transit authorities in counties with a population over 1.5 million from .85% to 1.5% within the enhanced zone, and/or through a local commercial parking tax.

The parking tax could be imposed as a tax on commercial parking businesses in the zone, based on the number of stalls or gross proceeds, or as a tax “for the act or privilege of parking a motor vehicle in a facility operated by a commercial parking business.” In that case, it would still be collected and paid by operator of the facility, but it might be a fee per vehicle or proportional to the charge for parking, and might vary according to a number of reasonable factors including the facility’s location, the time of day, or the duration of the parking. It would also apply to leased spaces as well as temporary parking, unless those were for buildings’ residents. Carpools, vehicles with a disabled parking placard, and government vehicles would be exempt.

An enhanced service zone would have to be within the transit authority’s boundaries and include at least all of a city or town within them; it could also include one or more entire adjacent cities or towns and adjacent unincorporated areas. There might also be multiple enhanced service zones encompassing the same city or town, or adjacent unincorporated area.

HB1623

HB1623 – Requires the next annual meeting of Commerce, the UTC, electric utilities, and other stakeholders to specifically address the extent to which we’re at risk of rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacy events.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; Klickitat County) (Co-sponsor Rep. Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Vetoed by the Governor.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th; replaced by a substitute eliminating language in the findings stressing risks and adding language about the benefits of transitioning off fossil fuels and steps that are reducing risks, and passed out of committee January 14th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 10th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 16th, and passed out of committee the 22nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 1st.

Summary –
RCW 19.280.065 requires the Department of Commerce and the UTC to convene a meeting with utilities and other stakeholders at least once a year to discuss the current, short-term, and long-term adequacy of energy resources to serve the state’s electric needs, and address specific steps the utilities can take to coordinate planning. The convenors provide a summary of each meeting, and any recommended actions, to the Governor and the Legislature.

This bill would require the meeting in 2022 to address the extent to which we’re at risk of rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacy events; survey stakeholders for recommendations on policy options to prevent severe blackouts; focus discussion on the extent to which an aggressive timeline for building and transportation system electrification may require new state policies for resource adequacy; and seek to identify regulatory and statutory incentives to enhance and ensure resource adequacy and reliability during a clean energy transition. (It would also make the requirement for annual meetings expire January 1, 2030 rather than January 1, 2025.)

HB1620

HB1620 – Creates an extreme weather response grant program to help fund community cooling and heating centers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Leavitt (D; 28th District; Tacoma) (Co-sponsors Reps. Boehnke – R & Shewmake – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections February 16th, and passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 26th; passed out of committee the 28th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Community & Economic Development on January 12th; passed out of committee January 14th. Referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there January 24th, was amended to add activities needed for safety if there’s “severe poor air quality from wildfire smoke” to the list of reimbursable local costs. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of Appropriations January 27th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 9th.

Summary –
If funding were appropriated for it, the State Military Department would develop and implement an extreme weather response grant program to help counties, cities, and towns that have emergency management organizations; joint local emergency management associations; and tribes with the costs of responding to community needs during periods of extremely hot or cold weather. Funding would be available to communities that could demonstrate they lacked the resources to address those needs and the costs were incurred to benefit socially vulnerable populations.

Grants could be provided through the State’s disaster response account for establishing and operating warming and cooling centers, including renting equipment, buying supplies and water, staffing, and other associated costs; transporting people to centers; buying fans or other supplies needed for cooling of congregate living settings; providing emergency temporary housing; and other activities necessary for life safety during extremely hot or cold weather.

HB1631

HB1631 – Creates a sustainable farms and fields advisors network to assist interested food producers and processors.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Referred to Appropriations. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill contains a list of things the advisors are supposed to do, but it also says interlocal agreements between each group of conservation districts are supposed to set the workload and priorities for the advisor that group hires.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development January 11th; passed out of committee January 26th.

Summary –
The bill would create a sustainable farms and fields advisors network to help agricultural producers and food processors increase energy efficiency, use green energy, sequester carbon, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The State Conservation Commission would develop the network and groups of adjacent conservation districts would each hire, host, and share the services of an advisor. The advisors would consult with interested farmers and food processors to help them develop sustainable farms and fields plans to reduce their carbon footprint by increasing energy efficiency, increasing their utilization and production of green energy, sequestering carbon, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They would also inform conservation districts, farmers, and food processors about local, state, and federal funding opportunities, including the State’s sustainable farms and fields grants (assuming that program was funded this session), to help achieve these goals. Each group of districts would establish a committee to develop a prioritized list of farmers and food processors interested in working with the advisor, and each advisor’s workload and priorities would be set according to an interlocal agreement established between those districts.

The Commission would hire a coordinator for the advisors, who would also be responsible for disseminating current information about energy efficiency and climate-smart practices and funding opportunities, applying for grants, writing progress reports, and other needed activities. In consultation with Washington State and the University of Washington, the Commission would evaluate and update the most appropriate carbon equivalency metric to apply to the sustainable farms and fields grant program by July 1, 2024. (Unless it identified a better metric, it would consider the storage of 3.67 tons of biogenic carbon for one hundred years as the equivalent of avoiding one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, and calculate annual storage as a linear proportion of that.)

The Commission would report to the Legislature and the Governor every two years on the sustainable farms and fields grant program and the advisors, including grants awarded, projects funded, greenhouse gas emissions reduced, and carbon sequestered. It would also update, at least annually, a public list of projects and pertinent information including a summary of state and federal funds, private funds spent, landowner and other private cost-share matching expenditures, the total number of projects, and an estimate of carbon sequestered or emissions reduced.

HB1619 – 2022

HB1619 – Updates some State appliance efficiency standards and adds others.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island, Southwest Seattle) Co-Sponsor Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; South Seattle, Tukwila)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 16th, and passed out of committee the 22nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 1st.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th; substitute passed out of committee January 14th. (The substitute exempts kitchen range hoods, removes cables with plugs for regular household 15 and 20 amp circuits from the efficiency requirements, and removes the original bill’s exemption for publicly available chargers.) Referred to Rules, amended by the prime sponsor on the floor and passed by the House February 10th. ( The floor amendment exempts EV charging cords that plug into standard household 120 V outlets from the requirements, and allows Commerce to delay or suspend requirements in the public interest.)

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would remove the State’s current efficiency requirements for residential pool pumps and uninterruptible power supplies. It would require portable air purifiers, commercial ovens, and electrical vehicle supply equipment to meet the current Energy Star standards as of January 1, 2024. It would expand the definition of residential ventilating fans to include fans supplying inside air as well as exhaust fans, and have them reach the most recent Energy Star standard by January 1, 2024. It would update the requirements for portable electric spas by reference to the recent update of California’s standard, and change the requirement for commercial hot food holding cabinets from 40 watts/cubic foot to the Energy Star standard (version 2.0).

SB5526

SB5526 – Requires a report to the Legislature on the global availability of lithium and rare earth minerals used in battery manufacturing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Had a hearing in Business, Financial Services & Trade January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff. Sent to the “X” file February 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
I hope the study will take account of recent work by Amory Lovins, the founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, about how the substitution of other materials, technological innovations, and increasing recycling are rapidly reducing the need for rare minerals in these applications. (See “RMI Reality Check: Greener, Friendlier Alternatives Exist for Rare Minerals in Batteries“)

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would also have Commerce research successful approaches and methods used to develop infrastructure for recycling EV batteries, including incentives for manufacturers to extract critical materials from them for reuse and requirements for designing them to support recycling. It would have the Department collaborate with Ecology in drafting legislation to establish a statewide recycling program for EV batteries, and allow collaborating with PNNL and the Joint Center for the Deployment and Research in Earth Abundant Materials as well. It specifies that this work is subject to appropriation, and requires a report to the Legislature by June 30th 2023.

Original bill –
The bill would require the Department of Commerce to report to the Legislature on the global availability of lithium and rare earth minerals used in battery manufacturing, since “the State is increasingly encouraging new energy storage technologies such as electric vehicles and electric grid scale battery storage … dependent on rare earth minerals and difficult-to-source earth components.”

HB1603

HB1603 – Shifting funding obligations for non-highway transportation programs from the transportation budget to the general fund.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce County, Yelm & Lacey) (Co-sponsor Rep. Stokesbary – R, Auburn)
Current status – Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would shift funding obligations for non-highway transportation programs from the transportation budget to the general fund. Beginning July 2025, the general fund would be responsible for financing projects that correct fish barriers on public lands; Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades to transportation facilities; new buildings where primarily state transportation employees work; mobility and public transit-related grants, social services, and programs, such as regional mobility grants, rural mobility grants, vanpool grants, and any pilot or expired grants that are to be continued; programs designated as green or clean fuel programs, such as green transportation capital grants, the clean alternative fuel vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure program, and the clean alternative fuel car sharing program for underserved and low-income communities; programs that provide tax incentives for the purchase or lease of battery electric or alternative fuel vehicles, as well as for other equipment that supports vehicle conversions to alternative fuels; safe routes to schools grants; bicycle and pedestrian pathways that are not an integrated part of a highway project or are administered by any agency other than the department of transportation; capital and operation costs for intercity passenger rail service; assistance funding for freight rail programs; and stormwater facility upgrades and maintenance near highways where untreated runoff containing 6 CPPD and 6 CPPD quinone is killing significant amounts of salmon. It would allow any projects in the nickel, transportation partnership, and connecting Washington transportation packages to get additional appropriations from the general fund if the funding for them through the transportation appropriations act was insufficient to pay for their associated obligations .

The bill would establish a legislative work group to implement the transition. In particular, the bill would replace the annual transfers from the transportation multi-modal account of $2.5 million for rail capital improvements; $45 million for the regional mobility grant program; and $10 million for the rural mobility grant program with transfers from the general fund. It would stop providing the general fund with payments from the electric vehicle account in the transportation budget to cover the lost revenue from the tax exemptions for light and medium duty fuel cell plug-in electric vehicles. It would stop providing the general fund with payments from the multi-modal account in the transportation budget to cover the lost revenue from the sales and use tax exemptions for commercial clean alternative fuel vehicles (which are currently capped at $32.5 million), and for the the lost revenue from the tax exemptions for alternative fuel infrastructure (which are currently capped at $32.5 million).

The bill also declares the Legislature’s intent to fund commute trip reduction programs from the general fund, along with currently expired multi-modal pilot programs (if they’re ever renewed), such as the student ORCA card pilot program, the transit coordination grant program, and the green transportation capital grant program.

SJM8006

SJM8006 – Senate Joint Memorial expressing support for a National Infrastructure Bank.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business February 21st; passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade January 13th. Passed out of committee January 25th, and passed by the Senate February 15th.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would communicate the Legislature’s support for the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank, and its reasons for that support, to the President and both houses of the United States Congress.

SB5495

SB5495 – Prohibits scrap metal dealers from buying a catalytic converter from anyone but a business or the owner of the vehicle from which it came.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in Law & Justice January 25th; replaced by a substitute, passed out of committee, and referred to Ways and Means February 3rd. Had a hearing February 5th; replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file February 17th
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1815 addresses converter thefts, by requiring unique identifying marks on them and creating a task force on the issue; so does HB1873, which is identical to this bill except that it would make a second or subsequent violation of the current law’s prohibitions on removing identifying marks from metal property, or entering into a transaction where they’ve been deliberately and conspicuously altered, a Class C felony. See also HB1994.

Summary –
Substitutes –
The initial substitute would have made unlawful possession and attempting the unlawful sale or purchase of a catalytic converter crimes. It appropriated $4 million to have the State Patrol develop a comprehensive enforcement strategy targeting metal theft, including a grant and training program for local law enforcement and a database on people who attempt to purchase or sell unlawfully obtained metals or attempt to conduct transactions under the influence of controlled substances. It removed a couple of the original’s new regulations on scrap metal businesses.

The 2nd Substitute (which I’m assuming overrides a couple of successful previous amendments to the first substitute in the same session) reduces the appropriation to $2 million; shifts the administration of the law enforcement strategy targeting metal theft and the grant program to the Criminal Justice Training Commission and the responsibility for the database to Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs; and makes a couple of other small changes in the rules about metal transactions.

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

It makes it a gross misdemeanor, and a civil infraction subject to a $1,000 fine, for any scrap metal business and for any owner, partner, or employee of one to purchase or receive private metal property knowing that it’s stolen.

SB5494

SB5494 – Prohibits products that contain olefins derived from methanol manufactured from natural gas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit the sale or distribution of products containing olefins derived from methanol manufactured from natural gas, on the grounds (according to the bill’s findings) that the Department of Ecology refused to permit the proposed Kalama methanol plant because “the manufacturing process does not comply with Washington’s rules for reducing global emissions” and that it’s only consistent for us to not support its being done anywhere else.

SB5493

SB5493 – Reopens the Renewable Energy System Incentive Program, but only for residential systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Renewable Energy System Incentive Program established by ESSB 5729 in 2017 for residential and commercial renewable energy projects and for community solar projects reached its $100 million cap early in 2019, though the bill would have allowed new enrollments for another two and a half years if the funding had not been used up. This bill would reopen the program for residential systems only.

It would place a new $100 million cap on the program as a whole. Incentives would still be distributed to customers by participating utilities, with funding for those provided to each utilitiy as credits against its taxes, up to an annual limit of one and one-half percent of its power sales in 2014 or $250,000, whichever was greater. The reopened program would phase down the incentives in the same way, going from $0.16/kWh for systems certified in 2022 down to $0.10/kWh in 2025, and stepping the Made in Washington bonus from $0.05/kWh down to $0.02/kWh. Annual payments for a residential system would still be limited to $5,000. There would still be a one-time application fee of $125.

Details –
Utility participation in the program is still voluntary. Puget Sound Energy submitted a letter withdrawing from it in December 2019. (Apparently, PSE and some other utilities withdrew from the program because the law required the Energy Program to keep accepting applications after the money for funding them ran out, confusing people and supporting some misleading sales pitches by some bad actors; withdrawing from the program shut down applications in a utility’s service territory.) I don’t know if they’ll renew their participation now or not, though it would seem likely. A comment on the WSU Energy Program’s web page about its administration of the program does make it sound as if residential projects on PSE’s waiting list at that point might well be eligible for a renewed program.

The bill drops the requirements for a report on the program to the Legislature.

SB5492

SB5492 – Requires Ecology to develop a program for collecting, managing, and recycling wind turbine blades, paid for by the manufacturers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology Wednesday January 19th at 8:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –

According to a recent Bloomberg article 85% of the steel, copper, electronics, and gearing in the turbines themselves can be recycled or reused, but the fiberglass blades “can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed.” (One company presses them into pellets and uses them in fiber board.) They’re a tiny part of the state’s waste stream; the Electric Power Research Institute estimates that all blade waste through 2050 will equal roughly .015% of all the waste going to landfills in 2015 alone. It isn’t at all clear that the life-cycle carbon footprint of recycling them won’t be larger than just landfilling them. Perhaps the bill is intended to create business for some company or organization, or make wind projects more expensive, but the time, energy, and money it will take to do this might well be better spent on many other kinds of waste that we could actually recycle or reuse effectively, or on other kinds of climate action projects altogether…

The bill’s a revised version of Senator Wilson’s SB5174, which died in the Senate Rules Committee last session. It currently requires stewardship plans to be submitted by July 1, 2024, even though Ecology isn’t required to have finished the guidance for them until January 1, 2024.

Summary –
The bill requires Ecology to develop “guidance” for a program for collecting, managing, and recycling wind turbine blades by January 2024. It’s supposed to be a “self-directed” program, and is supposed to be implemented and paid for by their manufacturers, but it must be based on one or more stewardship organizations operating and implementing as agents on their behalf, and it has to be approved by Ecology. (“Manufacturers” are defined to include retailers and importers of blades; they would be allowed to participate in an approved national program instead, if there were one Ecology determined has requirements substantially equivalent to the State’s.)

Plans must describe how manufacturers will finance the system and include an adequate funding mechanism ensuring blades can be delivered without cost to the last owner or holder to takeback locations within the region in which they were used and that are as convenient as reasonably practicable; accept all blades sold in or into Washington after July 1, 2024; identify how stakeholders including installers, demolition firms, and recycling and treatment facilities will receive information needed to properly dismantle, transport, and treat the blades; and establish performance goals, including one for reusing and recycling at least 85% of the weight of collected blades.

There are reporting requirements, fees to cover Ecology’s administrative costs, and penalties on manufacturers of up to $10,000 a blade (after an initial warning) for each sale or installation of one without an approved stewardship plan. (The bill prohibits installations, and provides for issuing warnings to installers, but it only applies penalties to manufacturers.)

HB1607

HB1607 – Allows the Safe Routes to Schools program’s funding to be used for planning, developing, and installing safe routes to new schools being constructed.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Rude (R; 16th District; Walla Walla)
Current status – Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have appropriations to the Safe Routes to Schools program made out of the general fund rather than from the Multi-Modal Account and the Transportation Partnership Account, and would allow the program to pay for the planning, development, and installation of safe routes from nearby neighborhoods to schools under construction as well as to existing schools. It would require the Secretary of Transportation and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to report to the Legislature on whether administration of the program should be shifted from the Department of Transportation to OSPI, and (if they recommended a transfer) on options for one that would satisfy Federal requirements.

HB1518

HB1518 – Allows state agencies to purchase paper made with lower CO2 emissions as well as 100% recycled paper.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stonier (D; 49th District; Clark County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government and Elections February 9th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations. Had a hearing March 10th, 2021. Did not advance further that session. Reintroduced and had a new hearing in the committee the first day of the 2022 session; amended to take effect immediately and passed out of committee January 13th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the House unanimously January 28th.

In the Senate –

Summary –
State law currently requires purchasing 100% recycled paper for use in copiers and printers, or paper at the highest recycled content that can be used effectively by existing machines. The bill would also allow the purchase of paper that emitted at least 40% less than “standard copy paper”, which is defined as emitting 1,186 kilograms of CO2 per metric ton of paper produced, instead of 100% recycled paper. It would allow the purchase of paper “produced in a process that yields a high reduction in carbon dioxide” in situations where the current law requires the purchase of paper with the highest usable recycled content for machines that can’t use 100% recycled paper effectively.

SB5366

SB5366 – Requires environmental product declarations and reporting on labor issues for materials used in constructing and renovating State buildings.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Referred to State Government & Elections.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This is a companion bill to HB1103.

In the Senate 2021 –
Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections; was not heard. Reintroduced in 2022.

Comments –
Unlike Representative Doglio’s 2020 bill, HB2744, this simply requires reporting, rather than prioritizing low carbon materials in awarding contracts. (That bill passed the House Committee on the Capital Budget, but died in Appropriations; there was a good deal of testimony at the hearing).

Summary –
This new bill covers projects receiving funds from the capital budget for new buildings with more than 25,000 sq ft of occupied or conditioned space, and renovations of such buildings that cost more than 50% of the assessed value.

Beginning July 1st 2021, before the final project payment, firms would be required to submit any available environmental product declarations providing robust full life-cycle assessments of the associated greenhouse gas emissions for 90% by weight of any structural concrete; structural steel; reinforcing steel, including rebar; and engineered wood in the project. They’d also have to submit specified information about measures taken to promote labor rights in the supply chain, and a detailed list of working conditions in the final manufacturing facility and in facilities at which production processes that contribute to 80% or more of the product’s cradle-to-gate global warming potential occur. Starting a year later, they’d be required to submit product declarations and labor data for all the covered materials before the final payment, and starting a year after that, they’d have to submit them before the material was installed. If a firm can’t meet the requirements, it bears the burden of providing evidence to show that the data does not exist in a form that is recorded or transferable; that the requirements would be a hardship relative to the size of the firm or the product supplier based on a specific estimate of costs to collect and transfer the information; or that the requirements would disrupt the selected firm’s ability to perform its contractual obligations. [I’m not sure how the first of these items fits with the point of going from requiring “available” product declarations at the beginning to just requiring them the next year…]

Details –
If funds are made available, the Department of Commerce is authorized to provide financial assistance to small businesses, covering at least half what it costs them to produce one of the required environmental product declarations. Starting January 1, 2026, the environmental product declarations would be required to report actual data quality assessments including variability in facility, product, and upstream data for key processes.

The UW’s College of Built Environments is to create a publicly accessible database for covered projects to anonymize and report the required data and promote transparency.

HB1389

HB1389 – More detailed regulations and lower insurance requirements for peer-to-peer car sharing businesses.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Corry (R; 14th District; Yakima, Klickitat and Skamania County) (Co-Sponsor Eslick – R)
Current status – House concurred in the Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2021 –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business February 3rd. Replaced by a substitute making minor changes, which are summarized by staff at its beginning, and passed out of committee January 27th.

In the House 2022 – Passed
Reintroduced; had a hearing in Consumer Protection & Business January 13th. Replaced by a substitute which rephrases the point that a peer-to-peer car sharing program does not have to have insurance to cover its assumption of a vehicle owner’s liability for bodily injury or property damage to third parties or uninsured and underinsured motorist or personal injury protection losses while the owner’s car is being shared and makes a few other small changes. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House 96-2 on February 12th.

In the Senate 2022 – Passed
Passed out of Senate Transportation February 17th. Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade February 22nd; passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to make the require peer-to- peer car sharing programs to be certain that shared cars have at least twice the minimum insurance required by state law, and passed by the Senate March 2nd.

Summary –
The bill is nearly identical to Representative Corry’s HB2918, which I summarized last year. A striker replaced HB2733 original language with HB2918’s, and it then passed the House nearly unanimously in 2020, but died in committee in the Senate. (This updated version only adds a few lines specifying that various provisions about rental cars don’t apply to peer to peer car sharing.) The bill deletes all of another much simpler set of regulations currently governing this area, Chapter 48.175 RCW., replacing those with finer grained and more specific requirements.

The current law requires companies to provide at least three times the liability coverage required for personal vehicles. This bill only requires them to provide the liability minimums for private vehicles, which are $25,000 for the injury or death of another person; 50,000 for the injury or death of two or more people, and $10,000 for damage to another person’s property. The current law also requires the company to provide collision or comprehensive coverage for at least the actual cash value of the vehicle, if it provides those. (I don’t think the bill’s language would requires a company to, though I’m not sure.)

SB5312 (2022 Session)

SB5312 – Facilitating transit-oriented development through grants to cities and counties paying the costs of preparing environmental analyses that can be used by applicants for development permits.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 18th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2021 – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing and Local Government January 27th; passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate 43-2 on February 16th.
In the House 2021 – Did not get a floor vote.
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 11th, amended and passed out of committee March 19th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing March 30th; replaced by a striker and passed out of Appropriations March 31st. Referred to Rules April 2nd; never reached the floor for a vote. Returned to Senate Rules, and passed again in 2022.

In the Senate 2022 – Passed
Reintroduced in Senate Rules in the 2022 session and passed January 12th. Returned to the House.
In the House 2022 –

Summary –

In 2021 _
House Appropriations striker –
The striker made several small changes which are summarized at the end of it.
House committee amendment –
This extended the period during which cities that planned to take at least two of the long list of options to increase density in RCW 36.70A.600 could apply for planning grants. (It would now include actions until April 1, 2025 instead of April 2021.)

Original bill –
The Department of Commerce currently awards grants or loans to cities and counties from the Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Fund. These can be used to assist them in preparing environmental analyses for the state that are integrated with “a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, plan element, countywide planning policy, development regulation, monitoring program, or other planning activity adopted under or implementing” the GMA; and improve the process for project permit review while maintaining environmental quality.

The bill says appropriations to the fund for the purpose of facilitating transit-oriented development may be used for grants to pay the costs associated with a somewhat different list of activities – the preparation of State Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statements, planned action ordinances, subarea plans, costs associated with using other tools under SEPA, and the costs of local code adoption and implementation of such efforts. It specifies these funds may only go to efforts that address environmental impacts and consequences, alternatives, and mitigation measures in sufficient detail to allow the analysis to be adopted in whole or in part by applicants for development permits within the area analyzed.

HB1280

HB1280 – Includes the cost of greenhouse gas emissions and the consideration of all-electric systems in the analysis of buildings the State’s constructing or leasing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-sponsor Duerr – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 1st, and passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 1st.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2022 –
Reintroduced in Rules January 10th, passed by the House January 21st.

In the Senate 2022 –

In the House 2021 – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 29th. Passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to the House Committee on the Budget, had a hearing there February 17th, and was passed out February 19th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the House March 9th.

In the Senate 2021 – Died; returned to the House in 2022
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; Had a hearing March 18th and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Rules; did not reach the floor.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t specify how “the costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption” are to be estimated, and whether that’s to include a social cost of carbon or not.

Summary –
The State currently includes energy costs in the life-cycle analysis it requires in considering the costs of buildings over 25,000 sq. ft. and critical facilities that it’s constructing or leasing. It also requires comparing the energy costs of at least three energy systems when designing or renovating one of these buildings; at least one of the potential systems has to “include renewable energy systems”, and at least one of them has to comply with the sustainability design guidelines for a LEED silver rating.

The bill requires considering at least one all-electric system rather that at least one complying with the LEED guidelines, and it requires “including the costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption” in the cost analysis.

SB5085

SB5085 – Sets the additional alternative fuel vehicle registration fee for electric motorcycles at $30 a year.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Bainbridge Island)
Current status – Referred to House Transportation. Had a hearing and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2022 – Passed
Reintroduced in Transportation; amended to reduce the fee for motorcycle registrations starting in November 2022 rather than 2021, and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Ways and Means, and passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 25th.

In the Senate 2021 – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing on February 18th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 8th.
In the House 2021 – Died in committee.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 15th. Died in committee. Still in committee at cutoff; Returned to Senate Rules.

Summary –
I regret to say my original summary of the bill misread a line at the end that would have removed the annual $75 transportation electrification fee currently paid by plug-in vehicles, other alternative fuel vehicles and hybrids. (However, the substitute dropped that, so what the bill would do now is all I thought it did originally – set the additional alternative fuel vehicle registration fee for electric motorcycles at $30 a year.)

HB1103

HB1103 – Requires environmental product declarations and reporting on labor issues for materials used in constructing and renovating State buildings.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Shewmake – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in Appropriations January 25th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5366 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House 2021-
Had a hearing in the House Committee on the Capitol Budget January 26th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 17th. Wasn’t heard before cutoff for bills in fiscal committees.

In the House 2022 –
Reintroduced in Appropriations.

Summary –
The substitute made a number of minor changes, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. The changes made by the first amendment are summarized at the end of that; the second amendment merely added one item to the reporting requirements.

Original bill –
This new bill covers projects receiving funds from the capital budget for new buildings with more than 25,000 sq ft of occupied or conditioned space, and renovations of such buildings that cost more than 50% of the assessed value.

The UW’s College of Built Environments is to create a publicly accessible database for covered projects to anonymize and report the required data and promote transparency.

HB1099

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

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

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

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

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

Summary –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5042

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

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

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

In the House 2022 –
Referred to Environment and Energy.

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

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