Category Archives: All Bills 2023

HB1138

HB1138 – Increasing preparations and funding for drought emergencies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Port Angeles) (Co-Sponsor Dent – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks March 16th. Replaced by a striker restoring the transfer to the emergency drought response account of enough money from the general fund to raise its balance to $3 million when a drought emergency is declared and passed out of committee March 23rd. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Passed out of committee April 3rd and referred to Rules. House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 13th; passed out of committee on the 17th. Had a hearing in Appropriations January 6th. Amended to remove both specified transfers of funds and require Ecology to report on expenditures from the drought response account after each emergency; passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Summary –
The bill would require transferring $2.5 million from the general fund to the drought preparedness account at the beginning of each biennium, and would allow using the money to plan for droughts as well as to prepare for them. It would allow the Department of Ecology’s grants to public entities to reduce current or future hardship caused by drought conditions to be used for projects even if they were not going to be completed while a drought emergency order was in effect. It would require transferring enough money from the general fund to raise the balance in a new emergency drought response account to $3 million when a drought emergency was declared; the account could only be used to provide relief for the immediate hardship caused by water unavailability. This process would be limited to one transfer in any fiscal year. (The funds could only be spent after appropriation, so I’m not sure when that appropriation for spending in an emergency would be expected to take place.)

The bill would have the chair convene the Joint Legislative Committee on Water Supply During Drought from time to time when a drought advisory was in effect, in addition to when a drought emergency order was, or when the chair determined, in consultation with Ecology, that it was likely such an emergency order would be issued within the next year.

HB1135

HB1135– Authorizing using impact fees for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Walen – D)
Current status – Passed out of the House Committee on Local Government January 20th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Commitee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5452 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current definition of the public facilities on which impact fees may be spent to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

HB1123

HB1123– Authorizing tribes or counties to prohibit local siting of a solar or wind project by passing a resolution saying they would prefer a nuclear plant. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Still in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council from recommending the siting of a wind or solar project in a county or “affected tribal area” if the county commissioners or tribal council passed a resolution saying the community or the tribe would prefer the local siting of a nuclear energy facility. (It would also prohibit the Governor from approving an application for certification of a wind or solar energy facility if such a resolution had been passed.)

HB1117

HB1117– Requiring the annual meeting of agencies, utilities and stakeholders to address the extent to which the state risks rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; Goldendale) (Co-Sponsors Dye – R & Leavitt – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker includes some of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s energy analytics experts in the annual stakeholders’ meetings and requires the conveners to invite them to provide relevant analytics to inform the discussion in 2023 if regional energy analytics capability has been established by the lab.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy  January 12th. Amended to make a couple of minor changes and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously March 4th.

Summary –
The law currently requires the UTC and the Department of Commerce to jointly convene a meeting of utilities, grid operators, and other stakeholders at least once a year to discuss power system planning and the adequacy of electric energy resources. The convenors provide a summary of each meeting to the Governor and the Legislature.

The bill would specify that the meeting in 2023 “must specifically address” the extent to which residents are at risk of rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacy events, and the extent to which proposed laws and regulations for building and transportation electrification may require new policy for resource adequacy. Stakeholders would be surveyed for recommendations on policy options to prevent severe blackouts, and the meeting would seek to identify regulatory and statutory incentives to enhance and ensure continuing resource adequacy and reliability.

SB5129

SB5129 – Planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Hunt & Mullet – Ds; Fortunato, Holy, McCune, and Short – R’s)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th. Reintroduced in 2024 and placed on 2nd reading January 17th.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill’s findings declare that planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology aligns with the Legislature’s goals for a comprehensive energy strategy and that the strategy should include consideration of measures to promote its development. They say it can help the state meet its long-term electricity emission reduction goals, and that the state should examine the various ways the rapidly evolving technology will support our future energy infrastructure and economy.

The bill would add advanced nuclear reactor technology to the strategy’s list of more efficient and cleaner energy sources to use in reducing dependence on fossil fuel energy sources. It would add the management of spent nuclear fuel to the list of technologies that the Department of Commerce is to actively seek to maximize federal and other nonstate funding and support for.

SB5117

SB5117 – Altering the State Building Code Council’s procedures and authority. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1404 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would create a variety of new procedural rules for the Council. It would be required to discard any proposal that doesn’t include all the requested information, doesn’t have sufficient detail to be acted upon as of a deadline the Council sets, or that “exceeds the specific delegation of authority provided by the Legislature”. (It would not be allowed to rely solely on the broad delegation of authority in the current law.) A member of the Council would have to sponsor a proposal for it to move forward. The proposed text would have to be put in the Code Reviser’s format for finalized rules, and any proposed changes to that would have to be in writing, specify the legal authority for the amendment, and be available to all councilmembers and the public before a vote on a change could be taken. (The current process, in which members discuss and agree to many adjustments in phrasing and details in a draft during one or more meetings, would be explicitly prohibited.) The Council would be required to adopt policies to ensure it adheres to all of the requirements for rule making in the Administrative Procedures Act.

The bill says that if there’s “a concern” that the information provided in a proposal isn’t sufficient, inaccurately represents the actual impacts or costs, or if the assertions in the proposal “are questioned” by experts with knowledge of the industry or circumstances the Council “should” supplement the cost estimate information provided in a petition with independent research. At least two weeks before final adoption of nonemergency changes to the Code, the Council would have to make available for public comment:
(1) the currently required small business economic impact statement;
(2) the currently required cost-benefit analysis and the supporting information, for members to determine if the proposed rule is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply with it and if the probable benefits of the rule are greater than its probable costs;
(3) any independent, third-party analysis the Council commissioned;
(4) any supplemental cost estimate information and industry specific information provided in the process; and,
(5) any findings, determinations or recommendations of the Council’s economic impact work group, consultants, or employees.
The bill says all this information should be available for review and vetted by Council members prior to a final vote adopting any rule modification. If someone working in an industry subject to regulation under a proposed rule raised an economic or cost-related protest or provided a cost or economic analysis that was different, the protestor could request that the Council provide a substantive response to raised concerns, including an explanation of provisions in the rule addressing, mitigating, or reducing the cost or economic impacts of the rule.

The bill would specify various criteria for appointments to technical advisory groups. If a member represented a specific interest or group, it would allow any person of that group to petition the Council to have that member removed from the TAG on the grounds that the person doesn’t have the qualifications or characteristics necessary to represent the interest or group. The Council would be required to remove any technical advisory group member it found lacked the characteristics and qualifications necessary to fill the position.

The Council would be required to identify the sources of information it reviewed and relied upon in the course of adopting changes to the Code, to include that information in the rule-making file, and to post the materials it considered or relied upon on its website for at least a year. It would be required to create a distribution list to notify specified agencies about proposed rules and the associated materials before public hearings on them. It would also be required to notify individuals involved in providing state subsidized housing that the proposed rule would increase the cost and complexity of building construction and identify when public comment will be taken. If a proposal would change the design of school buildings, OSPI would have to be notified. Every three years, the Council would have to submit a report to the Legislature identifying provisions in the adopted codes that generated conflict, summarizing the different perspectives brought before the Council related to the conflict, and how the Council addressed it.

The bill would make the appointment of the managing director of the Council subject to confirmation by the Senate, and prohibit anyone registered as a lobbyist from serving on it. It would add a representative from a utility to the Council. It would require training on ethics in public service and the Council’s rules of procedure for anyone serving on it.

HB1084

HB1084 – Having the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board make project recommendations to the Legislature rather than making grants itself.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Ramos, Ryu – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation March 27th; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously on March 7th.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it.

Summary –
Under the bill, the State’s Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board would no longer be responsible for approving grants for public projects in designated strategic freight corridors. It would make recommendations about grants to the Legislature instead.

The Board would consult with various stakeholders and recommend a six-year investment program for the highest priority freight mobility projects in the state, including priority projects eligible for Federal grant funding for the Infrastructure Act; monitor the implementation of projects included in the program; identify critical emerging freight mobility issues not yet addressed by investments; and report to the Governor and the Legislature on its work by December 2024, and at least every two years after that. The Board would be authorized to provide technical assistance to project sponsors, not just to grant applicants, and to work with stakeholders on developing projects to address critical emerging issues.

The bill would discard the Board’s current rules for prioritizing project grants, and eliminate the current rules for allocating funds among projects, which have the first 55% of the funds go to the highest projects prioritized using criteria the law specifies, and then divide the rest equally among the Puget Sound region, Western Washington, and Eastern Washington. Instead, applicants would have to demonstrate a plan for “sufficient engagement” with overburdened communities impacted by the project, and for evaluation of project alternatives and mitigation measures addressing the impacts on these communities to the greatest extent possible. The Board would adopt other evaluation criteria for the six-year program of investments, including benefits to the state’s freight system, how much funding has already been secured for a project, readiness for construction, and regional distribution of projects. It would recommend appropriate levels of state funding for each project, ensuring funding is allocated to leverage the most partnership funding possible and that projects aren’t more appropriately funded by other sources. It would not recommend projects that appear to improve overall general mobility with limited enhancement for freight mobility.

The Board would be required to contract for a study of best practices for preventing or mitigating the impacts of freight systems in overburdened communities. The bill would add three members to twelve now on the Board – one for the package delivery industry; one for environmental protection interests; and one for overburdened communities. It would have the Department of Transportation coordinate with the Board in developing the periodic updates of the marine ports and navigation plan and the freight mobility plan that are parts of the multimodal transportation plan. It would add stronger environmental justice language and language about the climate benefits of enhanced freight mobility to the current law’s findings.

HB1085

HB1085 – Reducing plastic pollution.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on March 10th, and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules; passed by the Senate April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th, and passed out February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute made some minor changes in the bill’s details, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would have the building code require a bottle filling station or a combined filling station and drinking fountain in new construction where a drinking fountain is required. It would prohibit the sale or installation of overwater structures containing expanded or extruded plastic foam; and blocks or floats containing that foam and intended for use with such structures. (Floating homes would be exempted.) It would prohibit lodging establishments from providing personal health or beauty products in any single-use plastic packaging. (Enforcement of this requirement would primarily be based on complaints filed with the Department of Ecology, which would be required to create a forum for filing those, and would do education and outreach about the requirement.)

SB5094

SB5094 – Adding a climate resilience element to water system plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 20th and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 30th. Replaced by a substitute delaying the requirement by a year and passed out of committee February 2nd; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 22nd; passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 7th.

Summary –
After June 30th 2024, water system plans for Group A community public water systems serving 1,000 or more connections would have to include a climate resilience element. These systems would be required to determine which extreme weather events pose significant challenges to their system and build scenarios to identify potential impacts; to assess critical assets and the actions necessary to protect the system from the consequences of extreme weather events; and to develop reports on the costs and benefits of the system’s risk reduction strategies and its capital project needs.

The Department of Health would update its water system planning guidebook to assist water systems in implementing the requirement, and would provide technical assistance to systems based on their size, location, and water source, by providing references to existing State or Federal risk management, climate resiliency, or emergency management and response tools that might be used to satisfy the requirements. (If funds were appropriated, the University of Washington climate impacts group would assist the department in the development of such tools.)

The bill would also amend the water system acquisition and rehabilitation program, dropping the Public Works Board and the Department of Commerce as joint administrators with the Department of Health. The program would now be allowed to make loans as well as grants. Climate readiness projects, including the planning the bill requires and actions to protect a water system from extreme weather events, including infrastructure and design projects, would be eligible for financial assistance from the program.

SB5093

SB5093 – Updating the State’s climate resilience strategy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 13th, and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1170 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes match the ones made earlier in the House companion bill. They would require a workgroup on improving the coordination of funding for climate resilience; require Ecology to estimate agency costs for implementing the updated strategy; report on those to the Governor and Legislature by September 30, 2024; report every two years on appropriated funding for implementing the strategy. One specifies that agencies can only consider climate change impacts in their policies and programs to that extent that’s allowed under their statutory authority.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Ecology update and modernize the 2012 Integrated Climate Response Plan with the assistance of other state agencies. It amends the legislation for creating that plan to include a number of additional agencies, tribal governments, and the UW climate impacts group in the process. (The plan would now be updated every four years, with biannual reporting.) The bill would no longer require Ecology to serve as a “central clearinghouse” for relevant scientific and technical information about the impacts of climate change on the state. It would add explicit requirements for collaboration and engagement with various parties on environmental justice issues. It adds consideration of various time scales to the planning scenarios, and strengthens the language requiring agencies to prioritize climate resilience and adaptation in their planning. The bill would have Ecology recommend a durable structure for coordinating and implementing the state’s climate resilience strategy, including a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding across agencies, and work with OFM and other agencies on coordinating state responses to Federal funding opportunities for climate resilience.

The bill would rewrite and expand the requirements for the plan, dropping several topics, and now including:
(1) A summary of each agency’s current climate resilience priorities, plans, and actions;
(ii) Strategies and actions to address the highest climate vulnerabilities and risks to Washington’s communities and ecosystems;
(iii) A lead agency or group of agencies assigned to implement actions; and
(iv) Key gaps to advancing climate resilience actions, including in state laws, policies, regulations, rules, procedures, and agency technical capacity.

The expanded strategy is supposed to:
(i) Prioritize actions that both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate preparedness;
(ii) Protect the state’s most overburdened communities and vulnerable populations and provide more equitable outcomes;
(iii) Prioritize actions that deploy natural solutions, restore habitat, or reduce stressors that exacerbate climate impacts;
(iv) Prioritize actions that promote and protect human health; and
(v) Consider flexible and adaptive approaches for preparing for uncertain climate impacts.

Ecology would work with other agencies on identifying best practices and processes for prioritizing resilience actions and assessing the effectiveness of potential actions; developing a process for measuring progress and success towards statewide resilience goals; analyzing opportunities and gaps in current agency resilience efforts; and identifying other issues involved in developing policies and actions for the climate resilience strategy.

SB5092

SB5092 – Expanding the sales and use tax exemption for plug-in vehicles to include regular hybrids.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The current sales and use tax exemption applies to new and used cars, light duty trucks, and medium passenger vehicles that are exclusively powered by a clean alternative fuel (ie battery full-electrics and fuel cell vehicles). It also applies to plug-in hybrids that can go at least 30 miles on the battery. The bill would remove the thirty mile requirement. It would add a provision which says that the exemption would also apply to “vehicles that are classified as hybrid electric and gasoline vehicles but not plug-in hybrid vehicles.”

The bill says the exemption would apply to vehicles in the expanded current category “or” vehicles in this new second category. That second category isn’t very clear. It sounds as if it’s excluding plug-in hybrids from the exemption. However, since the expanded current category still clearly includes those, I think the phrase I quoted is just a clumsy way of trying to make it clear that the expanded exemption would also apply to regular hybrids, like the Prius, not just plug-in hybrids.

SB5091

SB5091 – Expanding tax incentives for hydrogen fuel cells.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing March 9th. Replaced by a second substitute specifying that the incentives are for green electrolytic hydrogen; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Returned to Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade for the 2024 Session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This made changes in dates, eligibility, and other details that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would create and expand 10 year tax incentives for the research, development, production, and sale of hydrogen fuel cells in the state. It would reduce the B&O tax on businesses manufacturing or selling fuel cells in the state to 0.2904 percent. It would provide a B&O tax credit for 1.7% of a business’s expenditures on fuel cell research and development each year. It would provide a credit eliminating the property or leasehold excise taxes on land used for manufacturing fuel cells. In addition, it would provide a credit eliminating the property tax on the machinery and equipment for manufacturing, research and development, and testing that’s already exempted from the sales tax, if the machinery and equipment were used in manufacturing fuel cells.

(It also says that the Legislature intends to extend the incentives if what seem like inevitable outcomes occur.)

HB1078

HB1078– Requires local urban forestry ordinances to include a tree bank provision for replacing trees, in order to avoid blocking development that involves removing them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor – Doglio – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 11th; replaced by a substitute, amended and passed out of committee February 3rd. Died in Appropriations in 2023. Reintroduced there in 2024; had a hearing on January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. (It dropped requirements for providing tree bank provisions as an option, and made other minor changes; the amendment simply revised language in the findings.)

Summary –
Tree banks are designated areas where trees can be planted to compensate for the removal of trees elsewhere in order to enable development. The tree bank provisions required in local urban forestry plans would have to conform to guidelines established by the Department of Natural Resources. Those would create criteria for designating areas to be used as tree banks. (They would have to be located in priority areas the Department identified using canopy analysis and inventories, mapping tools that identify highly impacted communities, data on habitat for salmon recovery, and DNR’s 20 year forest health strategic plan.)

The required guidelines would include the appropriate ratios of trees planted within the tree bank to trees removed elsewhere within the community; the appropriate species of trees to be used; and how to effectively support urban forest management plans through the use of a tree bank.

SB5068

SB5068 – Dedicating gradually increasing amounts of the sales and use taxes on motor vehicles to transportation projects and reducing existing transportation project debt.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See the Transportation section of the Topics index for several similar proposals this session.

Summary –
The bill would require the current use tax revenue and sales tax revenue from new and used retail sales of a vehicle, including private-party sales, to be diverted over time to a new transportation and maintenance account. (It would not include the tax on car rentals.) The bill would require that these funds be used for for “transportation projects, programs, and activities”, including reducing existing debt obligations for transportation projects and infrastructure. It would prohibit using them in any sort of new debt financing.

The bill would divert 10% of this revenue to the new fund starting in the 2025 fiscal year, and would increase the amount diverted by 10% in each subsequent year, diverting 100% of it beginning in 2034.

SB5057

SB5057 – Delaying the building performance standards by two years, and creating a work group on their financial impacts and building efficiency policy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah) (Co-sponsor Schoesler – R)
Current status – Had a hearing January 27th in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 22nd. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This reduces the delays in compliance for large buildings to one year, removes the two year delays for smaller buildings, adds a couple of people to the work group, has Commerce convene it instead of the WSU Energy Program, and provides for a financial hardship exemption. The amendment requires reporting on the financial impacts to all covered Tier 1 buildings, not just the State buildings, and adds a representative of the owners of those buildings to the work group.

Summary –
The bill delays the compliance dates by which covered commercial buildings would have to meet the State’s energy performance standards for two years. Buildings over 220,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by June 2028; those between 90,000 and 220,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by June 2029, and the remaining buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by 2030. It would also delay the date for completing the rules, the reporting dates, and the other dates for implementing the standards by the same amount.

It would delay the schedule for creating SB5722’s energy management and operations requirements for commercial buildings between 20,000 sq. ft. and 50,000 sq. ft. and multi-family over 50,000 sq. ft. and the eventual performance standards for those by two years as well.

The bill would also have the WSU extension energy program create a work group with the help of the State Energy Office. It would report on the financial impacts of complying with the performance standard for state-owned buildings, and make recommendations to the Legislature about building energy efficiency, including identifying investments or other strategies and timelines for increasing energy efficiency in the sector. It would provide a cost-benefit analysis of options to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, including energy efficiency; and “recommend any changes” to Chapter 285, Laws of 2019. This was HB1257, and includes the current performance standards and benchmarking requirements for commercial buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. (It also includes the cost-effective conservation requirements for gas utilities, setting the social cost of carbon, various provisions about renewable gas, and EV infrastructure requirements for the Building Code Council.)

The work group would include a representative for OSPI; one for each of the public four-year higher education institutions; one for the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges; one for DSHS; one for the Department of Corrections; one for Enterprise Services; and two from a national association for industrial and office parks.

HB1033

HB1033 – Committee on standards to increase composting of food waste and reduce contaminants in compost.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th, amended to add a representative from a regulated company providing curbside pickup to the advisory committee, and passed out March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 12th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute adds a representative of hospitality businesses to the stakeholder committee, allows interested tribes to participate through invitations from Ecology, and adds home composting to the list of things for the committee to consider.

Summary –
The bill would create a stakeholder advisory committee to make recommendations to the Legislature on standards to divert increased amounts of food waste from landfills to composting facilities and to reduce the inclusion of non-compostable materials.

The committee would consider:
(a) The goals of managing organic materials to increase food waste diversion and to ensure that finished compost is clean;
(b) The types of compostable products, and amounts if known, sold or distributed into Washington;
(c) Consumer confusion caused by noncompostable products that can lead to contamination issues;
(d) Compostable standards related to the breakdown of products in facilities;
(e) The acceptance of compostable products by organic materials management facilities in Washington, including consideration of organic certifications;
(f) Estimates of the percentage of compostable products used in Washington that are disposed of at organic materials management facilities;
(g) Financial incentives for organic materials management facilities accepting compostable products;
(h) Current laws related to compostable products and the enforcement of these laws;
(i) Any work product from other stakeholder advisory committees currently discussing similar topics in other jurisdictions or nationwide; and
(j) Policy options addressing contamination of organic waste streams and ways to increase the use of reusable and refillable items.

The committee members would be selected by Ecology and include at least one member from:
(a) Cities, including both small and large cities and cities located in urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents cities in Washington;
(b) Counties, including both small and large counties and urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents county solid waste managers in Washington;
(c) Municipal collectors, or companies providing curbside organic materials collection services or curbside organic materials management services under a municipal contract;
(d) Three organic materials management facility operators, including at least one operator of a facility that doesn’t currently accept compostable food service products and one operator of a facility that does currently accept them;
(e) An environmental nonprofit organization specializing in waste and recycling issues;
(f) Two manufacturers of compostable products, including at least one manufacturer of compostable food service products and one manufacturer of compostable plastic food service products;
(g) A distributor of compostable food service products;
(h) A statewide general business trade association;
(i) A retail grocery association;
(j) Two organizations that act as third-party certifiers of compostable products;
(k) The Department of Agriculture; and
(l) Two associations focused on organic materials recycling or composting.

An independent facilitator hired by the Department of Ecology would convene the committee, hire any needed subcontractors, provide staff support to the committee, prepare reports for its review, and deliver a report to appropriate legislative committees with its consensus recommendations on developing standards for managing compostable products, especially food service products. (The report’s to include the dissenting opinions on issues on which there wasn’t consensus.)

SB5039

SB5039 – Requires utility planning for wildfire risks and identification of best management practices.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 11th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Wednesday February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1032 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
Requires each electric utility to create a wildfire management plan by October 31, 2024 and update it every three years. An independent consultant selected by the State Energy Office after consultation with stakeholders and the public would develop the format for the plans and a list of recommended actions to be included in them, including best practice guidance for those actions. Each utility’s plan would include a review of its specific circumstances and incorporate the appropriate identified actions from the list; abutting utilities could develop collaborative plans. Private utilities’ plans would be reviewed by the Utilities and Transportation Commission and public utilities’ would be reviewed by their governing boards, in consultation with various other agencies. Reviewers would provide feedback to the utilities, but as I read the bill, it doesn’t quite require their approval of the plans. (They’re to “confirm” whether it contains the appropriate recommended actions.)  The bill also disclaims any State responsibility for subsequent problems.)

The consultant’s list is to include actions related to:
(a) Vegetation management along transmission and distribution lines and near associated equipment;
(b) Infrastructure inspection and maintenance repair activities, schedules, and record keeping;
(c) Modifications or upgrades to facilities and construction of new facilities to incorporate cost-effective measures to minimize fire risk;
(d) Preventative programs, including adoption of new technologies to harden utility infrastructure;
(e) Operational procedures;
(f) Identification of appropriate widths for vegetation management and rights-of-way, including the consideration of fire-resistant vegetation alternatives;
(g) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electric system along with associated communication plans for impacted parties and the public, including highly impacted communities, vulnerable populations, and persons reliant on electricity to maintain necessary life functions; and
(h) Public and interested parties’ engagement and communication plans addressing wildfire safety and risk mitigation.

Each electric utility’s protocols have to include plans for mitigating the public safety impacts of deenergizing portions of the system, considering the impacts on critical first responders, local and tribal governments, health and communication infrastructure, and those populations at increased risk. Decisions about whether or not to shut down parts of the system are reserved to the utilities.

SB5037

SB5037 – Preventing the Energy Code from prohibiting the use of natural gas in buildings. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsor MacEwen – R)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prevent the State Energy Code from prohibiting “the use of natural gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance, in any building.” (It would also remove achieving “the broader goal of building zero fossil-fuel greenhouse gas emission homes and buildings” from the language specifying what the Building Code Council is to design the Code to do.)

SB5018

SB5018 – Transferring estimated sales and use tax revenue from expenditures by the Department of Transportation from the general fund to the motor vehicle fund.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See the Transportation section of the Topics index for several similar proposals this session.

Summary –
The bill would transfer the estimated sales and use tax revenue from expenditures by the Department of Transportation from the general fund to the motor vehicle fund. It would apply to any revenue from the Department’s expenditures on purchases of “any tangible personal property, digital products, or labor.”

SB5017

SB5017 – Dedicating the sales and use taxes on motor vehicles to highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See the Transportation section of the Topics index for several similar proposals this session.

Summary –
The bill would require the use tax revenue and the six and five- tenths percent sales tax revenue from new or used retail sales of a vehicle, including private-party sales, to be used exclusively for highway purposes. (It would not apply to the revenue from car rentals.)

SJR8200

SB5030 – Placing a Constitutional amendment on the ballot requiring revenue from road use charges and similar measures to be used for highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would propose a Constitutional amendment to voters on the November 2023 ballot. If adopted, it would require “any state revenue collected from a road usage charge, vehicle miles traveled fee, or other similar type of comparable charge” to be used exclusively for highway purposes.

SB5030

SB5030 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; NW Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Short & Schoesler – Rs; Wellman – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1018 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in 2021 as HB1387, but did not get a hearing. It passed the House last year as HB1924, under Representative Tharinger’s sponsorship.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current sales and use tax exemptions for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel for ten years, until June 2034. (The bill declares the policy objective of the exemption is to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least 75 percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan, but this is not a requirement. It’s only to be used by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in evaluating the effectiveness of the exemption.)

JLARC reviewed a previous exemption in 2019. It estimated that the exemption would save the sixteen participating facilities $5.6 million over the 2021-2023 biennium. Employment had only gone down by 281 jobs between 2013 and 2017, from 5,139 jobs to 4,858, so that exemption easily met the stated policy goal of retaining at least 75% of the jobs.

HB1018

HB1018 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Tharinger (D; 24th District; NW Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Chapman & Fey – Ds; Orcutt & Abbarno – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Ways and Means March 23rd; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5030 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in 2021 as HB1387, but did not get a hearing. It passed the House last year as HB1924, under Representative Tharinger’s sponsorship.

In the House –
Passed out of the House Finance Committee  January 19th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current sales and use tax exemptions for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel for ten years, until June 2034. (The bill declares the policy objective of the exemption is to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least 75 percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan, but this is not a requirement. It’s only to be used by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in evaluating the effectiveness of the exemption.)

JLARC reviewed a previous exemption in 2019. It estimated that the exemption would save the sixteen participating facilities $5.6 million over the 2021-2023 biennium. Employment had only gone down by 281 jobs between 2013 and 2017, from 5,139 jobs to 4,858, so that exemption easily met the stated policy goal of retaining at least 75% of the jobs.

HB1012

HB1012 – Creating an extreme weather response grant program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Leavitt (D; 28th District; SW Pierce County) (Co-Sponsor Rep. Robertson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections March 14th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Reintroduced in the House for the 2024 Session, sent to Rules, and passed by the House on January 8th. Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House  2024 – Passed

In the House  2023 – Passed
Passed out of the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans January 13th ; had a hearing in Appropriations on January 30th. Amended and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Changes in Appropriations –
The amendment would narrow eligibility for the grants to areas where populations face “combined, multiple environmental harms and health impacts”,  and widen the definition of the people they might be used to benefit from those who are “socially vulnerable” to those who are “vulnerable” more generally.

Summary –
Subject to appropriation, the bill would have the State Military Department create a grant program to help cities, counties and towns that have emergency management organizations, and tribes, meet the costs of responding to community needs during periods of extremely hot or cold weather or in periods with severe poor air quality from wildfire smoke. Recipients would have to demonstrate that they lacked the local resources to address these needs and that the costs were incurred for the benefit of vulnerable populations.

Grants could be awarded for establishing and operating warming and cooling centers, as well as transporting people and their pets to them, and providing facilities for pets in them; purchasing fans or other supplies for cooling congregate living settings; providing emergency temporary housing such as rented hotel rooms; and other activities the department determined were necessary for life safety during these periods.