Category Archives: All Bills 2024

SB6039

SB6039 – Promoting the development of geothermal energy resources.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Shewmake, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 10th. Amended to limit the collaborative assessment of development opportunities and risks to the three most promising sites and make other small changes. Passed out of committee January 19th, and referred to Ways & Means. Scheduled for a hearing there at at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2129 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the amendment,

Summary –
The bill would require the Washington Geological Survey to create a comprehensive database of publicly available subsurface geologic information for the state in coordination with various agencies, to maintain it, and to make a searchable interface for it available on the Survey’s website. The Survey would acquire, process, and analyze new subsurface geologic data, would characterize the hazard of induced seismicity for high-potential geothermal play areas, and would provide technical assistance on the proper interpretation and application of subsurface geologic data and hazard assessments.

The Department of Natural Resources would be required to update the State’s geothermal resources lease rates to make them competitive with those adopted by the Federal government and other states in the West. The update would also try to optimize the State’s competitiveness in attracting exploration and development projects, balancing that goal with its obligation to trust beneficiaries.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the Department of Commerce would create a competitive geothermal exploration cost-share grant program incentivizing deep exploratory drilling to identify locations suitable for the development of geothermal energy. The grants could be used to offset the direct costs associated with that drilling; awards to private applicants would be limited to half the overall cost of the project and awards to public and tribal applicants would be limited to two-thirds of the cost. Commerce would consult with the Survey to develop a method for awarding the grants, using nine criteria the bill specifies.

The bill would require Ecology, Commerce and the Survey to collaborate in identifying opportunities and risks associated with the development of geothermal resources, consulting with tribes and a variety of other stakeholders. They’d be required to consider the potential impacts of geothermal resources development on the rights, interests, and resources of potentially affected tribes; on listed endangered species, and on overburdened communities. They’d also explore the capacity for geothermal resources to help the state meet its clean energy generation requirements and greenhouse gas emissions limits, and develop factors to guide the identification of preferable sites for the development of geothermal resources including geologic suitability and proximity to electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure. There’d be interim and final reports to appropriate committees of the Legislature.

SB6005

SB6005 – Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2049 is a companion bill in the House.
See also HB1900.

Comments – The House bill is a revised version of HB1131, which was introduced by the same sponsors last session, was much amended, and eventually died in Rules. (Its companion bill, SB5154, died in Ways and Means.) The new version is 104 pages long, so trying to summarize its details seems ill advised; I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Summary
The bill would create a system funded and managed by producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use, and would create new requirements for postconsumer recycled content.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on their activities and the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, and pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program. Producers would fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues. Each organization would also provide up to $5 million/year or 4% of its annual expenditures for a packaging financial assistance program providing grants for governments, non-profits and private organizations to support programs to reduce the negative environmental impacts of covered products through reuse.

In consultation with stakeholders, an advisory council and the UTC, producer organizations would have to develop five year plans for dealing with their covered materials. These would have to meet a long list of requirements plus any added by Ecology, would be due by October 1st 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology) and would have to be implemented by January 2029 and updated regularly. Each organization’s plan would set performance rates including an overall recycling rate for its covered products, a recycling rate for each category of covered materials, a source reduction rate for eliminating plastic components, and (starting with its second plan) a minimum reuse rate. Proposed rates would have to be justified if they differed from those in the most recent performance rates study, and improve over time until Ecology determined that the maximum technically achievable process had been reached. Reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2030. There are requirements for outside evaluations if organizations fail to achieve these rates, and Ecology could require corrective actions or impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for failures to comply with the bill’s requirements.

Plans would also include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing it. and for consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Producer organizations would structure members’ fees to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging.

A consultant would do the needs assessment of the solid waste system, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The advisory council, stakeholders and the UTC would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Ecology would be required to consider a variety of factors to identify materials and methods for the uniform statewide collection of covered products for recycling, categorizing them as suitable for residential curbside collection, drop-off collection, and alternative collection. (Approved pilot programs could try curbside collection of additional materials that were not on Ecology’s list.) The bill would prohibit claiming covered products were recyclable if Ecology didn’t categorize them that way, and prohibit making deceptive claims about their percentages of recycled content or their compostability.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse the costs of regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. (They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover the different categories of materials on Ecology’s list, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. .

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There’d be requirements about labor, health and the responsible management of materials at recovery facilities; for reporting on those by producer organizations; and for detailed reporting on their operations by processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to plastic containers for household cleaning products; personal care products; beverages, milk and wine; plastic tubs for food products, thermoform containers; and plastic single-use cups. Producers of these products would have to belong to producer responsibility organizations and and maintain certification of their compliance with the bill’s requirements from accredited third parties. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2025 and 2036. The producer responsibility organizations would report to Ecology annually on their members’ use of postconsumer recycled content. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet them. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic; it also makes changes to the definitions of producers.

In addition –

The bill would create an advisory council with representatives appointed by the Director of Ecology from ten groups. It would review, comment, advise, and make recommendations on the needs assessment, Ecology’s lists, producer organizations plans, reports, and other aspects of the bill’s programs.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

Beginning in 2029, jurisdictions’ solid waste plans would have to provide for curbside collection of source separated recyclables from single-family and multi-family residences served by curbside garbage collection. (Counties could choose to require the collection of materials that Ecology categorized for curbside recycling collection at drop-off locations in areas regulated by the UTC.) Ecology would create a model comprehensive solid waste plan jurisdictions could adopt rather than developing their own plans for source separation programs.

SB5992

SB5992 – Requiring applicants seeking energy facility site certification for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Warnick (R; 13th District; SouthCentral Washington) (Co-Sponsor King, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 24th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2042 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
My guess is that this is about the proposal for a pumped storage facility at Goldendale.

Summary –
The bill would require applicants seeking site certification through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.

SB5973

SB5973– Guaranteeing owners of units in common interest communities opportunities to install their own heat pumps.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice on January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute which would have several sections making changes to the current common interest communities statutes expire if SB5796, which replaces those, passed. Out of committee on January 25th; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would prohibit an association of apartment owners, a condominium owners’ association, a homeowners’ association, or other associations with the power to create rules for the members of common interest communities from effectively prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the installation or use of a heat pump for a unit owner’s personal use. They might require applications for approval which would be handled in the same way as applications for architectural changes. They’d be prohibited from charging a fee for the installation, and would have to approve applications if the installation was reasonably possible, complied with the association’s reasonable relevant architectural standards, and would be installed by a qualified HVAC contractor. The owner would have to have a permit, comply with local building codes, meet applicable health and safety standards, and pay for the installation. The owner and subsequent owners would be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the heat pump, as well as any damages resulting from its installation, use, or removal. They’d be responsible for removing equipment if that was reasonably necessary for work on aspects pf the property in which the residents held a common interest. An association that willfully violated the bill’s requirements would be liable for actual damages, as well as paying attorneys’ fees and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 if an owner prevailed in court.

SB5965

SB5965– Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2068 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments
The bill sets a greenhouse emissions reduction requirement, but it looks to me as if it lets retailers and manufacturers set their own targets wherever they like for quite a few things, and I’m not sure if it’s intended to do more about situations where a disclosure would simply say “We’re doing very little about that”, or if it simply intends to get clear about what is and isn’t happening at this point.

Summary
The bill would require every clothing retailer or manufacturer doing business in the state and having more than $100 million in annual gross revenue to disclose various environmental policies, processes, and outcomes, including the significant real or potential adverse environmental impacts of its operations and targets for prevention and improvement. They’d have to identify the suppliers of at least 50% of the volume in their supply chain, from raw materials to final production, making a good faith effort to prioritize the ones involving the largest environmental risks. They would have to report on their policies, processes, and activities for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for potential adverse impacts, including the findings and outcomes of those activities. They’d have to identify relevant policies for responsible conduct of businesses such as theirs and provide information on steps they’d taken to embed those in their own policies and management systems. They’d have to disclose any areas of significant environmental risk they’d identified in their activities and business relationships, and the adverse impacts of those — identified, prioritized, and assessed in the context of their own activities and business relationships. They’d need to disclose the criteria they’d used to prioritize those risks, as well as any actions or plans to prevent or mitigate them. If the information was available, they’d have to include estimated timelines, targets, and benchmarks for improvement and their outcomes. They’d need to disclose measures to track implementation and results, and their provision of or cooperation in any remediation.

Beginning in 2027, they’d be required to establish, track, and disclose progress towards various performance targets, which the bill would require them to meet. They’d have to report independently verified figures for the annual volume of material they’d produced, including a breakdown by material type, and figures for how much production had been displaced with recycled materials as compared to growth targets. They’d have to establish and disclose quantitative baseline and reduction targets for energy and greenhouse gas emissions, water, and chemical management. (Their greenhouse gas emissions reporting would have to be independently verified, and conform to a World Resources Institute target guidance and to its reporting standard.) They’d have to disclose targets for impact reductions, and plans for tracking due diligence implementation and results including, where possible, estimated timelines and benchmarks for improvement.

The bill would authorize civil suits against retailers and manufacturers alleged to be failing to comply with the bill’s requirements, and would authorize suing Ecology to make it investigate alleged violations or make it enforce the requirements. Ecology would publish an annual report on compliance, Violating a disclosure, performance target achievement, or reporting requirement of the bill’s would be subject to a penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation in the case of a first offense, and up to $20,000 for each repeat offense.

HB2129

HB2131 – Promoting the development of geothermal energy resources.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Mena, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 29th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6039 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary
The bill would require the Washington Geological Survey to create a comprehensive database of publicly available subsurface geologic information for the state in coordination with various agencies, to maintain it, and to make a searchable interface for it available on the Survey’s website. The Survey would acquire, process, and analyze new subsurface geologic data, would characterize the hazard of induced seismicity for high-potential geothermal play areas, and would provide technical assistance on the proper interpretation and application of subsurface geologic data and hazard assessments.

HB2144

HB2144– Providing for a beverage container deposit return program implemented by a distributor responsibility organization, if it and Ecology agree on a plan.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stonier (D; 49th District; Clark County) (Co-Sponsor Berry, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 9th; amended and passed out of committee January 18th. Scheduled for a hearing in Finance at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments
This is a new version of part of HB1131, which died in Rules last session.

In the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the amendment.

Summary
The bill would allow a group of distributors handling the majority of beverages in qualifying containers sold in or into Washington to form a distributor responsibility organization to operate a deposit return system. (I think it covers glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans.) If they did, other distributors would have to join them, or fulfill all the requirements of the bill independently. The organization would submit a plan for Ecology’s review explaining how it would achieve performance targets, with attention to the volume of sales in different areas and to providing convenient drop off locations in rural areas, small cities, communities close to the ferry system, economically strained areas, and underserved urban areas. It would include education and outreach activities. It would describe how this system would coordinate with other recycling systems and producer responsibility organizations. If Ecology and the organization couldn’t reach an agreement on the plan the system would not be created, and the containers would be subject to any other Washington producer responsibility legislation.

If it came into existence, containers would be refundable for 10 cents and display that on their labels; charges for the refund value of the containers would not count as gross income in calculating the business and occupation tax, and they wouldn’t be subject to the litter tax if they were shown as an item on receipts. Drop-off locations could be located at dealers, any retail establishment, any publicly owned facility, or any other location convenient for consumers. There would also be a convenient bulk drop-off system for containers in the organization’s bags. The organization could use automated equipment to count returned containers and issue redemption vouchers for the deposits; it would not have to provide refunds for contaminated containers, ones that were so damaged that the brand was illegible, or ones it had reasonable grounds to believe were sold outside the state. Dealers over 5,000 square feet and selling more than 100,000 containers a year would have to install a self-service kiosk provided by the organization to print redemption vouchers, pay customers for them, and sell bags for the program at a price established by the organization. (They could choose to let customers redeem their vouchers for store credit rather than cash.) The organization would reimburse dealers for their payments to consumers, and pay the full deposit for containers purchased in the state and returned by recovery facilities, governmental entities, and other processing facilities if the containers had been collected and separated according to the organization’s standards and are delivered directly to one of its processing facilities. (The containers would have to be separated by material type, not contaminated with other materials, and in substantially the same shape as when they were purchased.) It would have to have a way to accept direct, sorted returns in commercial quantities at its facilities for an additional refund premium if they were returned by non-profits that served very low-income individuals who relied on regular container refunds for daily income and that the organization approved.

The organization would reimburse the Department of Ecology for the costs of administering the system. It would pay up to $15 million a year for five years to offset demonstrated losses that local governments and operators of curbside or drop-off recycling programs experienced as a result of scrap material being diverted to the deposit return system.

Starting in 2029, at least 60% of all qualifying beverage containers would have to be redeemed for reuse or recycling through system; this requirement would increase to at least 80% starting in 2032 and at least 1% of the beverages by the end of that year would have to be in reusable packaging. There would be specified annual reporting by the organization and third party auditing of some financial issues. Ecology could collect a annual fee of 10 cents from the organization for each container below that year’s performance target. The Department might choose to propose that the organization add additional drop-off areas as an alternative to the financial penalties or along with a reduction in those. There are also minor possible penalties for other violations of the requirements.

The organization would establish a Consumer Convenience Advisory Council with representatives from various stakeholders to work with it to identify potential convenient bag drop-off locations. provide input on the location of new drop-off sites, and consult along with Ecology in selecting a third-party firm to conduct consumer convenience assessments. These would be done in the fourth and ninth years of the program, paid for by the organization, and designed to identify any barriers to achieving the performance requirements and to make recommendations if the number of drop-off locations in the plan hasn’t been reached or the redemption rate is significantly below the performance targets. The organization would update its plan in the year after the assessment, taking any recommendations into account.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would consult with the organization, study the impacts of the requirements on the litter rates of beverage containers and other covered products as well as possible improvements to the litter tax, and report to the Legislature.

HB2131

HB2131– Promoting the establishment of thermal energy networks.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Slatter, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 16th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 23rd. Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6138 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

Summary –
The bill would authorize electrical and gas companies to own, operate, or manage nonemitting thermal energy networks piping fluids for transferring heat in and out of buildings to improve energy efficiency and/or eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions of current heating and cooling, domestic hot water or refrigeration. Investor owned projects would have to be reviewed and approved by the UTC, which could authorize the recovery of the costs in rates; public projects would be reviewed and approved by their governing bodies.

The bill would create a pilot project program, giving investor owned gas companies priority for developing projects in their service areas if they notified the UTC of their intention to do a project within a year after the bill took effect and deployed a project within 30 months. The bill would require the UTC to consider a considerable number of factors in deciding whether to approve projects, including the customers and low-income customers served, the use of the existing natural gas workforce and efforts to transition it to thermal energy work, maintaining infrastructure safety and reliability; its ability to meet 100 percent of the customers’ demand for space heating; public health benefits, coordination with any electric utility providing service to the area, and its potential to enable gas pipeline decommissioning and supplant the need for gas pipeline replacement and the associated costs. (There are other items, as well as a list of optional factors that the UTC might take into consideration.) Companies would have to include pilot projects in their RFP’s requests for energy resources, and if a company determined it could deploy a pilot project at the lowest reasonable cost itself instead of deploying one through a heat purchase or energy services agreement, it would be authorized to do that. The UTC might authorize merging a company’s rate bases for its gas and thermal network operations; if a company did that it would have to monetize any benefits it received from Federal and State incentives and use them to mitigate rate impacts on customers.

The bill would require the Department of Commerce to create a grant program to support gas company projects in the program, subject to the availability of amounts specifically appropriated for that. Grants would cover the difference between the company’s lowest reasonable cost resources under its current business practices and the costs of building and operating the pilot project. In reviewing grants, Commerce would consider the same factors that the UTC would be required to take into account in deciding whether to approve them.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would review the program and report on it to the appropriate committees of the Legislature.

HB2120

HB2120 – Allowing cities to grant nuclear facilities an additional four years to complete projects and qualify for the tax breaks available for new manufacturing in targeted urban areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Shavers, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance on January 25th and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The State currently provides a tax break to encourage new manufacturing and industrial uses on undeveloped or underutilized lands in targeted urban areas. The law requires projects to be completed within three years to qualify, but cities are authorized to extend that period by up to two years under certain circumstances. The bill would allow extensions of up to six years for nuclear facilities.

SB5945

SB5945 – Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers’ ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Conway (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade; passed out of committee January 9th (without ever having a hearing, as far as I know), and referred to Labor and Commerce. Had a hearing there on January 25th and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2028 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
SB6304 would authorize direct sales by EV manufacturers.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit direct sales or leases of vehicles to retail customers. (Tesla sells directly to customers like this, without dealers, and Rivian and other new EV companies are adopting this model.)

The bill would prohibit offering consumers a subscription service for any vehicle feature that uses components and hardware that are already on the vehicle when it’s purchased or leased and that is typically offered to a consumer as an upgrade at that point, if it would function after activation without ongoing costs to or support by a dealer, manufacturer, distributor, or a third-party service provider. (The prohibition doesn’t apply to navigation system updates, satellite radio, roadside assistance, software-dependent driver assistance or driver automation features, or services that rely on cellular or other data networks.)

It would prevent manufacturers and distributors from creating programs or policies encouraging or requiring dealers to install direct current fast charging stations, unless those required public access to the stations and they reimbursed the dealer for half of the cost of installing and maintaining them when the dealer gave them half the net income from charging. They wouldn’t be allowed to encourage or require a dealer to install DC fast charging if the dealer could obtain access to stations that satisfied the program or policy within five miles of the dealership. A program or policy would have to be reasonable in light of all existing circumstances including local conditions; supply and time constraints; and advances in vehicle technology and grid integration. They would have to allow a new dealer to purchase or lease goods or services of like kind and quality from an alternative vendor if goods or services are to be supplied by a vendor chosen by the manufacturer or distributor.

It would also prohibit manufacturers from implementing an incentive program that did not provide an equal opportunity for all dealers to qualify because of their location or sales volume, that predetermined the price of a vehicle, that limited eligibility based on nonvehicle product penetration, or that required use of specific software or service vendors to qualify. If manufacturers provided parts for repairs to dealers free or at a reduced rate, they’d be required to compensate the dealers for using those at the same rate that they’d have compensated them for parts supplied to do repairs under warranty. The bill also changes the method for calculating the rate at which manufacturers compensate dealers for the labor and diagnostic work involved in warranty repairs.

SB5951

SB5951 – Repealing the State’s authorization to allow charging by the public at locations where it’s providing the power.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Schoesler (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would repeal the current provision authorizing the State to allow charging by the general public and by people who are there conducting business with the State at locations where it’s providing the power.

HB2073

HB2073– Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from anesthetics and studying alternatives for reducing those from a pesticide.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th. Replaced by a substitute postponing the designation of sulfuryl fluoride as a greenhouse gas and making some other changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it; passed out of committee January 23rd. Scheduled for a hearing in Appropriations at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to commission a study that analyzes the evidence supporting the treatment of sulfuryl fluoride (a fumigant pesticide) as a greenhouse gas. It would determine the potential sources of sulfuryl fluoride and of other gases with a high global warming potential that are used for anesthetic purposes in Washington, including Sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, halothane, and nitrous oxide; and determine how they’re used in Washington and estimate the emissions from them. It would recommend potential points of regulation for each of them and measures for reducing or eliminating their emissions. The study would be due by July 1st, 2025.

Ecology would also be required to consult with a list of medical and environmental stakeholders in developing a guidance document intended to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic gases with a high global warming potential, without unduly limiting the judgment or needs of medical, dental, or veterinary professionals in providing safe and effective care. The Department would be required to consider:
(a) the efforts of other jurisdictions to restrict the use of such gases or otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of anesthesia;
(b) the guidance documents or best practices prepared by national and international anesthesiology professionals and guidance documents published in peer-reviewed medical journals; and,
(c) existing practices in place at facilities and by practitioners in Washington to limit greenhouse gas emissions associated with anesthesia use.
After July 1, 2026, facilities at which anesthetic gases were used, and the medical, dental, or veterinary practitioners that use such gases, would have to use anesthesia in a manner consistent with the guidance document.

Producers or suppliers of sulfuryl fluoride would be included in the Climate Commitment Act’s annual report if their greenhouse gas emissions exceeded 10,000 metric tons of CO2e. Ecology would also consult with the Department of Agriculture and stakeholders and report to the Legislature on the availability of alternative chemicals or practices that would be less hazardous to humans or the environment than the current uses of sulfuryl fluoride. By October 1st, Ecology would consult with the Department of Health and stakeholders, considering these studies, and recommend any further statutory changes needed to appropriately and effectively reduce these emissions.

HB2082

HB2082– Requiring a study of the employment and workforce education needs of the electrical transmission industry.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fosse (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Low, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Post-Secondary Education & Workforce on January 17th. Amended twice and passed out of committee January 23rd; referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
The amendments made some changes in the requirements for the report and recommendations, as well as some changes in the representation in the workgroup and minor changes in its rules.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for the bill’s requirements, it would have the Department of Commerce or a consultant it selected conduct a study of the employment and workforce education needs of the electrical transmission industry.

A report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature would be due by November 1, 2025, including:
(1) Estimates of jobs needed to expand electrical transmission capacity to meet the state’s clean energy and climate goals;
(2) An inventory of existing training programs and the anticipated need for expanding them or adding others to meet current and future workforce needs;
(3) The numbers of apprentice line workers, line clearance tree trimmers; and substation technicians;
(4) Demographic data for the workforce;
(5) Identification of gaps and barriers to a full electrical transmission workforce pool including the loss of workers to retirement in the next five, 10, and 15 years, and other retention issues;
(6) A comparison of wages between different jurisdictions in the state and between Washington and neighboring states, including any incentives they offer;
(7) Available data on the number of line workers, line clearance tree trimmers; and substation technicians that completed training in the state and left to work elsewhere and on the number of out-of-state workers who come to Washington to meet workforce needs on large scale electrical transmission projects;
(8) Key challenges that could emerge in the foreseeable future based on factors such as growth in demand for electricity and changes in energy production and availability; and
(10) Recommendations for the training, recruitment, and retention of the current and anticipated electrical transmission workforce.
(A preliminary report would be due this November.)

Commerce would also convene a work group by this November to provide advice, develop strategies, and make recommendations on efforts to support the provision of what the industry needs to meet the state’s climate goals. The work group would consist of eight members, four from labor organizations around the state, two from different private utilities, and two from different public utility districts. The work group would review Commerce’s reports and, if appropriate, recommend any changes needed to address issues raised in the reports to the Legislature. It would review the status of the workforce issues periodically, and provide ongoing input and recommendations to the Legislature, state and local agencies, labor, and utilities regarding the needs and challenges of the industry.

HB2069

HB2069 – Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; South Central Washington) (Co-Sponsor Doglio; D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute also allowing sales to end-use customers and including CO2 byproducts of biological processes in industrial or manufacturing facilities as “biogenic CO2”. Passed out of committee January 30th, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5919 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would authorize public utility districts to wholesale biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of processing biogas from landfills, anaerobic digesters, and wastewater treatment facilities. (Capturing CO2 from biogas can result in a negative CO2 emission, depending on the situation and how you do the calculations.)

HB2068

HB2068– Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5965 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB2049

HB2049– Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Doglio & Fitzgibbon, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 9th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6005 is a companion bill in the Senate.
See also HB1900.

Comments – The bill is a revised version of HB1131, which was introduced by the same sponsors last session, was much amended, and eventually died in Rules. (Its companion bill, SB5154, died in Ways and Means.) The new version is 104 pages long, so trying to summarize its details seems ill advised; I’ve tried to cover the important points.

In the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the substitute.

In addition –

SB5909

SB5909 – Reimbursing tow truck operators for the towing, transport, and storage of electric vehicles; providing grants to protect facilities from risks associated with storing them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor Lovick, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 4:00 PM on Tuesday January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Department of Licensing to develop a program reimbursing tow truck operators for towing, transporting, and storing electric vehicles. Reimbursements would be limited to a maximum of $10,000 per vehicle; funding for them would come from the additional $75 transportation electrification fee that’s currently charged for the registration of plugin vehicles each year.

It would require the Department of Commerce to create a program awarding grants to registered operators for retrofitting storage facilities to provide for additional protections to accommodate electric vehicles.

SB5919

SB5919 – Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; South Central Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 16th. Replaced by a substitute also allowing sales to end-use customers and including CO2 byproducts of biological processes in industrial or manufacturing facilities as “biogenic CO2”. Passed out of committee January 26th, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2069 is a companion bill in the House.

SB5918

SB5918 – Providing fossil fuel facilities that aren’t owned or operated by utilities with free Climate Commitment Act allowances to cover their emissions from generating power delivered in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim) (Co-Sponsor MacEwen, R)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1965 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would provide fossil fuel facilities that aren’t owned or operated by utilities with free Climate Commitment Act allowances to cover their emissions from generating power delivered in the state. It would also provide them to cover their costs in complying with the Acts’ requirements. These free allowances would continue through 2044. The bill says that it’s providing them “in order to mitigate the cost burden of the program on electricity customers,” but it doesn’t actually include any requirement for reducing customers’ costs.

HB2051

HB2051 – Reducing emissions from small off-road engines.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at 8:00 AM January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would adopt California’s small off-road engine and equipment emissions standards for engines and equipment produced after January 1st, 2027. Those apply to engines with less than 25 horsepower, which are primarily used for lawn, garden, and other small off-road equipment, and are intended to reduce their emissions to zero by 2035 where that’s feasible. The Washington bill wouldn’t apply to chainsaws, generators, licensed on-road motor vehicles, off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, marine vessels, snowmobiles, or model airplane, cars, and boats. The bill would also allow the Department of Ecology to delay the start of restrictions for certain kinds of small off-road engines or equipment if it determined that suitable zero emissions technology was not yet available as a replacement.

The bill would require Ecology to create a five year program providing grants for local governments to replace working outdoor power equipment powered by liquid, gaseous or fossil fuels with zero emissions equipment. It would prioritize grants providing the greatest
benefits to vulnerable populations or reducing the most hazardous or frequent occupational exposures caused by outdoor power equipment. It declares the Legislature’s intent to provide $5 million a year for the program.

The bill would also create a sales and use tax exemption for zero emissions outdoor equipment producing less than 25 horsepower, and for push lawnmowers. It would add programs, activities, or projects that reduce and mitigate impacts from greenhouse gases and pollutants on vulnerable populations, including the outdoor power equipment grant program and transfers to the general fund to offset revenue losses from the tax preferences, to the list of things that can be funded using revenue from the Climate Commitment Act.

HB2050

HB2050 – Requires posting stickers on fuel pumps showing the effects of State and Federal taxes and the Climate Commitment Act on fuel prices.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Goehner (R; 12th District; Chelan County) (Co-Sponsor Barkis, R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to produce a sticker for display on fuel pumps showing the Federal and State fuel tax rates in cents per gallon. The Department would also calculate companies’ cost per gallon of complying with the Climate Commitment Act using the average cost of allowances in a given year, and would produce another sticker showing that in cents per gallon. The climate commitment stickers would be updated at least every three years, and the fuel tax stickers would be updated whenever there was a change in those tax rates.

Stickers would be mailed to fuel pump owners who requested them, as well as being displayed and updated on pumps in the course of government fuel pump inspections.

HB2039

HB2039 – Streamlining the appeals process for environmental and land use matters.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 23rd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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

Summary –
Currently, a superior court can certify final decisions of the pollution control hearings board, the shorelines hearings board, and the growth management hearings board that meet certain criteria for direct review by a court of appeals, rather than reviewing them itself. In addition, if one of these boards decides that one of its final decisions involves urgent statewide or regional issues or that its appeal is likely to create significant precedents the board can submit the decision to a Court of Appeals to be considered for direct review. The bill would eliminate this second process and would authorize a superior court to transfer decisions that met those criteria to the higher court as direct appeals.

In land use cases under the bill, a superior court would no longer require the consent of all the parties in order to transfer a case to a court of appeals for review. It would be authorized to do that if it found that:
1) the transfer would serve the interest of justice,
2) it wouldn’t cause substantial prejudice to any party, including any unrepresented party, and,
3) the review could occur based on an existing record.

The bill authorizes the presiding officer for these boards and for the shorelines hearings board to consolidate multiple appeals that arise out of the same project when he or she finds that will expedite disposition of the appeals; avoid duplication of testimony; and will not prejudice the rights of the parties.

The bill adds a number of penalties, orders, and decisions to the list of those that can be appealed to the pollution control hearings board, and expands the current rules for the board about notice, appeals, and the use of penalty revenue to cover additional cases. It would provide for handing penalties for violations of the State’s standards for mercury and products containing flame retardant chemicals through this board’s procedures.

HB2042

HB2042 – Requiring applicants seeking energy facility site certification for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Corry (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5992 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comment –
My guess is that this is about the proposal for a pumped storage facility at Goldendale.

HB2040

HB1981 – Creating a rebate program to compensate vehicle owners for increases in fuel costs due to the Climate Commitment Act.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Connors (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Dye, R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would provide a rebate to compensate vehicle owners for increases in fuel costs due to the Climate Commitment Act. It would take any revenue from the Act between July 1, 2022 and June 30th 2024 that hadn’t been appropriated for other purposes by the Legislature in the 2022 and 2023 sessions and divide that by an estimate of the number of people expected to renew their vehicle licenses between July 1 2024 and June 30 2025 to calculate the amount of the rebate. The Department of Licensing would send each owner a check in the summer of 2024, accompanied by an explanation of the source of the funds. (Rebates would go to the owners of trucks, light vehicles, and a variety of other small vehicles like motorcycles. You’d get one rebate even if you owned more than one vehicle; you’d get the same rebate regardless of how much fuel you’d bought; and as I read the bill, owners of electric cars would also get rebates.)

Although the bill would only authorize the rebates in fiscal 2025, the findings declare the Legislature’s intention to continue the program if the Climate Commitment Act is not repealed by initiative in the November 2024 election. (Since the checks would arrive in the summer before that election, accompanied by an explanation of the source of the funds, they would presumably also remind people of the effect of the Climate Commitment Act on fuel prices.)

SB5877

SB5877 – Requiring gas and electric bills to include a complete, itemized list of any rates and charges imposed by a utility to recover costs of complying with the Climate Commitment Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require customers’ gas and electric bills to include a complete, itemized list of any rates and charges that are being imposed by the utility to recover the costs of complying with the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap and invest bill).

SB5876

SB5876 – Streamlining the application processes for state voluntary programs funding water and salmon ecosystem investments.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 15th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would require the Puget Sound Partnership, the Department of Ecology, the Recreation and Conservation Office, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Conservation Commission to work together to create a streamlined application process for state voluntary programs funding water quality, watershed restoration, and salmon recovery. They’d be required to work on improving grant application processes and streamlining management processes for recipients; improving connectivity and accountability between project proponents and agencies; streamlining and improving the accuracy of reporting of accomplishments by recipients; and improving collaboration and information sharing among grant managers. They’d agree on a biennial work plan selecting priority projects and deliverables; create working groups and identify agency staff to support projects, and identify representatives of the agencies to serve as a working group supporting coordination and communication between other working groups and agency leaders. (Agencies could make substantive changes to the work plan that they agreed on at any time.)

The agencies would be required to use an interagency forum for staff members making grants to share updates, develop common resources, leverage successes, and consider innovative approaches; maintain regular dialogue with applicants to identify administrative challenges, barriers, and gaps; engage agency leaders in prioritizing and implementing improvements to funding systems; and secure and mobilize resources to move a clear plan of work agreed on by the agencies forward.

In addition to improving administrative processes for voluntary funding programs within their existing authority, they might develop policy recommendations about improvements for consideration by the Legislature; develop joint application forms; or establish other working groups including invited experts and stakeholders to support discussions, provide additional technical capacity, and improve coordination.

The agencies would be required to make an annual report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature on their actions and administrative improvements.

SB5875

SB5875 – Restricts the Building Code Council’s authority to adopt residential Energy Code measures increasing efficiency to those where the benefits aren’t outweighed by considerations of housing affordability, development costs, feasibility, or “other similar factors”.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would restrict the Building Code Council’s authority to adopt residential Energy Code measures increasing efficiency to those where the benefits aren’t outweighed by considerations of housing affordability, development costs, feasibility, or “other similar factors”.

SB5872

SB5872 – Requires a human safety operator in any autonomous vehicle operated on the highway.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 4:00 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require a human safety operator to be physically present in any autonomous vehicle operated on the highway to monitor the its performance and intervene if necessary, including operating it, stopping it, or shutting it off. The safety operator would have to meet any State or Federal requirements for operating a motor vehicle.

HB1981

HB1981 – Setting a preferential B&O tax rate for manufacturing fuel and/or fuel assemblies for nuclear reactors.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Stearns, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance on January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax rate on the manufacturing of nuclear fuel and/or assemblies at 0.25 percent. (Fuel assemblies are the collections of fuel rods or elements that make up the core of as reactor.) It would apply to the gross proceeds from sales for businesses selling these at retail or wholesale; it would apply to the value of the product for businesses manufacturing them; and it would apply to the gross income of the business activity for businesses paid to process them. These rates would apply for ten years.

HB1976

HB1976 – Allowing the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fosse (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Appropriations; sent on to Rules January 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.

HB1965

HB1965 – Providing fossil fuel facilities that aren’t owned or operated by utilities with free Climate Commitment Act allowances to cover their emissions from generating power delivered in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Port Angeles) (Co-Sponsor McEntire, R)
Current status – Prefiled
Next step would be – Referral to a committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5918 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB1955

HB1955 – Repeals redundant 2019 bill requiring utilities to calculate and report the greenhouse gas emissions of their fuel mix.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 9th; passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House January 29th. Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Department of Commerce, which requested this bill, says that the reporting required by the 2019 bill that would be repealed “…is unnecessary because more complete and stringent reporting requirements were enacted by the Legislature in 2021” (presumably in the Climate Commitment Act).

HB1948

HB1948 – Ensuring that methods for calculating a utility’s load under the Energy Independence Act don’t discourage voluntary investments in renewables.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Under the bill, when retail customers chose to participate in a program in which a utility covered by the Energy Independence Act purchased power for delivery to its system from sources that the Act counted toward meeting its requirements for increased use of renewables, and then retired the associated renewable energy credits on behalf of the customer, that power would not count as part of the utility’s load. It also wouldn’t count toward meeting its requirements.

(If those voluntary purchases by customers are counted as part of the utility’s load they raise its requirements, which are defined as a percentage of its load, but if the customer is claiming the credit for the renewable characteristics of the purchases, they don’t contribute to meeting that increase in the utility’s requirements. The bill would avoid that problem by excluding this power from the Act’s calculations.)

HB1935

HB1935 – Creating a Washington State Green Schools Program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bergquist (D; 11th District; Renton) (Co-Sponsor McEntire, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Education January 15th and passed out of committee on the 29th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Superintendent of Public Instruction create a voluntary program to expand resource conservation practices in public schools, including waste reduction, energy reduction, water conservation, urban forestry education, and environmental preservation. It would provide education and leadership opportunities for students seeking to promote conservation practices in their schools. It would complement existing programs, provide opportunities for establishing new ones, support instruction on climate aligned with related state learning standards, and collaborate with DNR on schoolyard greening projects, schoolyard forests, and career learning opportunities within the National Forest’s school forest network and other urban forestry projects.

If money were appropriated for it, the bill would have OSPI create two grant programs. One would provide one year grants of up to $15,000 to to help create or expand these programs in schools; applications for these would have to demonstrate the involvement of a student-based team, group, or club in the selection and support of the projects proposed for funding. The other program would offer grants of up to $600 per school each year to support stipends for school-based advisors who assisted students in learning about, promoting, and implementing resource conservation practices in school facilities. School districts, charter schools and state-tribal education compact schools would be eligible to apply for either of these programs.

HB1936

HB1936 – Creating a B&O tax credit for farmers participating in conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute limiting the credit to participants in State conservation programs and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a tax credit for farmers receiving grant funds from the Washington State Conservation Commission or indirectly from it through a conservation district or other public entity; participating in a Conservation Commission or conservation district conservation program; or participating in a US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation program. It would allow them to treat 25 percent of their expenditures for purchasing new equipment, infrastructure, seed, seedlings, spores, animal feed, and amendments in the previous year as a credit against their business and occupation taxes.They’d be allowed to roll any unused credit over and apply it against their tax bills for the next two years.

SB5826

SB5826 – Requiring rates or charges authorized by the UTC to recover utilities’ costs in implementing the Climate Commitment Act to be listed on customers’ bills.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwan (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 24th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the UTC to consider and perhaps approve tariff schedules that contain rates or charges requested by utilities to recover their costs for implementing requirements of the Climate Commitment Act. The Commission would require utilities to include any corresponding rate increase or charge as a line item on each customer’s bill.

HB1924

HB1924 – Including fusion technology in state clean energy policies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy Monday January 8th; amended to delete adding these facilities to the list of projects of statewide significance and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council’s annual report to the Governor and legislative committees to include a recommendation on whether and when fusion energy could be expected to be an appropriate category for which to develop a nonproject environmental impact statement.

It would also add fusion energy facilities or facilities manufacturing or assembling component parts for them to the list of projects of statewide significance that are supposed to get expedited permitting and review of various kinds so they can be completed more rapidly.

SB5812

SB5812 – Requiring a study of best practices for responding to electric vehicle fires.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation on January 18th. Replaced by a substitute adding consultation with “a representative of the towing and recovery industry, and other entities” to the study, and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be –Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Washington State Patrol do a study of electric vehicle fires in consultation with the Department of Ecology and local fire protection districts. It would cover impacts to the environment and nearby residential areas; health impacts to responding firefighters; best practices for fire response; and best practices for clean-up and disposal. A report on its findings and policy or legislative recommendations would be due to appropriate committees of the Legislature by January 1st, 2025.

HB1900

HB1900 – Implementing strategies to achieve higher solid waste recycling rates.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Reeves, Walen, Rule, Chapman, Bronoske, and Wylie; Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at 8:00 AM January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
See also HB2049.

Summary –
The bill would expand the State’s current postconsumer recycled content requirements to cover more containers for household cleaning and personal care products; the caps and lids on beverage containers; polypropylene tubs; various single use plastic cups; and PET containers for consumable goods like clam shells and egg cartons and for durable goods. The new requirements begin on different dates for different products, and increase in steps. It would add the percentage of postconsumer recycled content they contain to the information required on the packaging of plastic trash bags. One way a producer can currently qualify for a de minimis exemption from the requirements is by having only a single category of a covered product for sale in the state with revenue less than $1 million a year; the amended law would require global gross revenue less than $5 million a year as well as annual total resin use less than a ton to qualify. (The current standard seems to have been left in the new definitions section at this point, though.)

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to produce a study by 2027 to allow the public to determine whether a particular material handled in curbside programs or other solid waste facilities is recyclable in the state and routinely becomes feedstock for the production of new products or packaging. (The study’s also to identify materials and forms that aren’t sorted for recycling and are considered contaminants.) The research is to be updated in 2030, and at least every five years after that. Material would be considered recyclable in the state if the material in that form was collected for recycling by jurisdictions with at least 60% of the state’s population, was sorted into defined streams for recycling by large volume transfer or by facilities that serve at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, and was sent on to be reclaimed to state standards. To count as recyclable, most packaging and products would have to be designed to avoid any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recycling. Demonstrating that at least 75% of a product or packaging sorted or aggregated in the state was reprocessed into new products or packaging would also qualify it as recyclable. Initially, a product or packaging that was not collected in curbside programs would be considered recyclable if at least 60% of it had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and transported to a facility to be sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material and form; that requirement would increase to 75% in 2033. (Products and packaging would also count as recyclable if they complied with a Federal or State program about their recyclability or disposal that was established after 2025 and Ecology’s director determined that including them wouldn’t increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive the public.)

Ecology would develop and publish a list of recyclable materials suitable for curbside collection and one of materials suitable for residential drop-off collection. The bill specifies ten materials to be included in the initial list for curbside collection, and two for drop-offs. It would require the department to update the lists at least every five years, after consulting with the advisory committee, and after considering a variety of factors the bill specifies.

The bill would raise the State’s goal for recycling of covered products to 60%. It would set a goal for a 50% reduction in the sale and use of packaging that was not recyclable under the law by 2030, and a 75% reduction by 2035. It would require tracking and reporting on progress toward those, and it would have Ecology hire a consultant to conduct a statewide study to determine the costs and investments needed to achieve a 60% overall recycling rate for the materials listed as suitable for residential collection by the department. The consultant would consider each jurisdiction planning under the solid waste management act, evaluating its current capacity and the gaps, needs and costs for it to achieve the bill’s performance targets. The final scope of the study is supposed to be determined after considering comments and recommendations from stakeholders, each jurisdiction, and the advisory committee, but Section 208 of the bill specifies several pages of factors that the study’s required to take into account.

If funding were specifically provided for it, Ecology would contract with with a research university or an independent consultant to study the plastic resin markets, analyzing market conditions and opportunities in the state’s recycling industry for meeting the bill’s minimum postconsumer recycled content requirements, and determining the data needs and tracking opportunities to support a more effective, fact-based public understanding of the industry.

The bill would add a committee with representatives from a long list of specified stakeholders to advise and make recommendations on the program to Ecology. After considering recommendations, the director of Ecology would appoint members, with as much diversity of various kinds as was practical.The committee would elect its own chair and vice-chair and create its bylaws.

Starting in 2028, the bill would prohibit consumer packaging and paper products from making any deceptive or misleading claims about their recyclability in the state through symbols like the chasing arrows or statements. (However, it doesn’t allow local jurisdictions to restrict the distribution or sale of covered products because of symbols or statements implying they’re recyclable if those were required by some other state or by Federal laws or regulations or Federal Trade Commission green guides; if they were part of some widely adopted third-party system; or if they incorporated by reference the ASTM standards for coding resins…)

The bill requires Ecology to establish annual fees paid by producers to cover the costs of administering the postconsumer recycled content program. It makes the other work it assigns to the Department eligible for funding from the cap and invest program. It requires the UTC to consult with jurisdictions and regulated collection companies, then report to the Legislature on how to improve processes for providing discounts for low-income customers, including ways to add customers and make administration easier.

Producers of covered products would have to register their products and brand names with Ecology individually or through a group’s representative, and would have to report annually on the pounds of covered products they’d sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state. The bill would require reports from producers to the State including certification of compliance by a nationally recognized independent third party with the names, locations, and contact information of all their sources and suppliers of postconsumer recycled content, the quantities and dates of their purchases, and how that material was obtained. It would allow producers to petition Ecology to review and adjust the required content percentages for a type of container or product or category for the following year; Ecology would have to consider a number of factors in the process, and the producers would have to supply the department with the information needed for the review. After providing two written warnings, the department would be authorized to fine producers that were out of compliance with the bill’s registration or labeling requirements up to $1,000 a day. Each year it would be authorized to penalize producers twenty cents a pound for any difference between the required minimum percentage of postconsumer recycled plastic in a given product and the percentage actually used in the previous year, though it could grant producers a reduction in the penalty given certain conditions.

HB1908

HB1908 – Creates a grant program for utility scale renewable energy and innovative grid scale storage projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

If specific funding were appropriated for it, the bill would create a grant program for electric generation from a renewable or nonemitting resource and for grid-scale storage projects using “new or emerging technologies whose practical applications are still largely unrealized at a commercial scale”. (It isn’t clear that all renewable resources would be eligible for funding, since the bill also says that “stable, dispatchable, utility-scale clean energy technologies” are what the funds may be used for.)

The program would be administered by the Department of Commerce; it would prioritize projects capable of catalyzing Federal or private funding. Grants would be available to joint operating agencies, utilities, tribes, and commercial project developers. The bill’s findings declare the Legislature’s intention to provide $100 million in funding for it, and the bill directs Commerce to develop guidelines for applications on the assumption that funding will be available for the 2027-2029 biennium.

HB1904

HB1904 – Using cap and invest revenue to pay for hybrid electric ferries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walsh (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill’s opening says says the Legislature finds “that all costs associated with building hybrid electric ferries and their associated infrastructure must be paid for using Climate Commitment Act revenues.”

However, the bill’s actual provisions simply say that some unspecified amount of revenue from the Act must be used by the Department of Transportation to design, purchase, and construct hybrid electric ferry vessels and install associated and necessary infrastructure for their operation. (“Ferries” are already on the list of projects that transportation appropriations from the Act’s revenues may be used for; the bill would change that item to read “All aspects of ferry vessel construction and supporting electrification infrastructure”, which actually still seems to allow using those funds for conventional ferries as well.)

HB1887

HB1887 – Loosening the cap & invest program’s requirements, expanding its biofuels exemption, providing refunds for exempted fuel purchases, & temporarily lowering license fees.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5783 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –

The bill would exempt all biomass fuels from coverage under the Climate Commitment Act, dropping the current requirement that exempted biofuels have to have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% lower than those of the fossil fuels for which they’re substituted.

It would replace the current requirement for future reductions in the cap sufficient to achieve the covered entities’ share of what’s necessary to achieve the state’s climate targets with annual 3.6% reductions for 2024 through 2040, and 3.1% reductions for 2041 through 2049.

It would require the Department of Ecology to put an additional 5% of the allowance budgets for the twelve years from 2031 through 2042 into the price containment reserve account and to auction all of those additional allowances in separate auctions during 2024.

The bill would use any revenue above the October 2022 estimates from the cap and trade auctions in 2024 and 2025 that was not otherwise appropriated by the Legislature to reduce or replace the license fees for light and heavy vehicles in fiscal 2025 and 2026.

It would create a work group to examine consumer fuel pricing in the state including members of the transportation committees; academic experts; and the representatives of various agencies, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocacy organizations. The group would review:
a) Issues including previous studies and evaluations of fuel pricing, trends in that, factors causing Washington prices to be higher than the national average and how those factors have changed over time; and margins and profits at the fuel production, distribution, and retail levels,
b) State tax policies, environmental protections, and regulatory factors that may impact fuel pricing and make the state’s marketplace more or less competitive,
c) Supply dynamics affecting the fuel markets in the state, and,
d) Potential reporting and audit requirements that would make fuel pricing more transparent to consumers.
This work group would provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature.

The bill would require Ecology to create an on-line portal allowing the farm fuel users and freight haulers of agricultural products that are exempted from the bill’s coverage to submit documentation each quarter applying for a remittance based on any covered fuels they purchased during that quarter. (If they chose to use it, this would offer an alternative to the current system, which provides them with exemption certificates to be used when purchasing fuel.) The remittance would be equal to 0.008% of the auction price for that quarter for each gallon. (To illustrate roughly how this is supposed to work, as I understand it – since covered fuels emit something like 21 pounds of CO2e/gal, 100 gallons of fuel would emit about a metric ton of CO2e. Suppose the auction price were $50/metric ton, and all the cost for the credits to cover the emissions were passed on to the exempted buyer; they’d pay an extra $50. However, 0.008% of $50 is $0.40; and the rebate for the 100 gallons of fuel would be about $40. It’s not going to be exact, since various fuels with different emissions per gallon are getting lumped together and there will be various lags between the auction prices and whatever their effects on consumer prices turn out to be.)

The bill would provide $25 million for remittances in 2024; in fiscal 2025 and 2026 it would provide what was appropriated, and specifies that the climate investment account and the air quality and health disparities improvement account that get the money for investments from the Climate Commitment Act have to be appropriated at least as much as they were expected to get in the 2022 estimate. In subsequent years those would get the remaining revenue after specified funding for the carbon emissions reduction fund, which is dedicated to reducing transportation emissions, and whatever was appropriated for remittances.)

Those exempted users might choose to have remittances held by the department as credits based on the auction settlement price instead, and would be able to trade them with covered entities that needed credits to meet obligations under the bill through a mechanism the department would create and manage . The department would be allowed to develop other alternatives for handling these exemptions as well. Ecology would also be required to convene a work group with a variety of stakeholders to review the rules and process for handling these exemptions and to develop recommendations for the Legislature to ensure their full use and benefit.

HB1870

HB1870 – Providing local communities with technical support and matching funds for federal grant applications.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Ryu; D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development January 9th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Appropriations; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
To the extent funding was specifically made available for it, the bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to provide technical assistance to local communities developing competitive applications for federal funding (or to contract for providing it), and would prioritize grants from Commerce’s current program supporting associate development organizations in recruiting, hiring, and retaining grant writers to support applications for Federal funds.

The bill would have Commerce create a resource guide for applicants for federal grants, including links to federal applications and relevant resources, and contact information for departmental assistance. It would require Commerce to create a state pool of matching funds for local communities competing for Federal grants, and to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the program every two years.

HB1868

HB1868 – Restricting new gas outdoor lawn equipment and providing grants and tax breaks for electric alternatives.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to adopt rules to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from outdoor power equipment with less than 25 horsepower produced on or after January 1, 2026 (or as soon after that as was feasible). Equipment used by governments or their contractors for emergency management or emergency response and equipment for which a suitable zero emission alternative didn’t exist would be exempted.

The bill would create a six year sales and use tax exemption for zero emissions versions of the equipment, and encourage retailers to publicize that. It would add any programs, activities, or projects that reduce and mitigate impacts from greenhouse gases and pollutants on vulnerable populations (including the bill’s outdoor power equipment grant program and transfers to the general fund to offset revenue losses from the tax preferences) to the list of what might be funded by revenue from the cap and invest program.

It would also create a grant program to replace the fossil fueled outdoor power equipment used by local governments with zero emission alternatives. This would be funded with $5 million a year from the cap and invest program for the next five years; Ecology would be required to prioritize grants that resulted in the greatest benefits to vulnerable populations or reduced the most hazardous or frequent occupational exposures caused by the existing equipment.

SB5783

SB5783 – Loosening the cap & invest program’s requirements, expanding its biofuels exemption, providing refunds for exempted fuel purchases, & temporarily lowering license fees.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Central King County) (Co-Sponsors Van De Wege, Conway, and Cleveland – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1887 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

SB5594

SB5594 – Allowing fully autonomous vehicles with requestable remote intervention on public roads, with nearly the same rules as for human drivers’. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke, (R; 8th District; Kennewick) (Co-sponsors Nguyen, Liias, and King)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Transportation February 7th. Still in committee by cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 4:00 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill would allow a fully autonomous vehicle on all public roads without a human driver if:
1) It was licensed in the normal way, could carry out all the real-time operational and tactical functions required to operate in traffic (except for things like selecting a destination), and could comply with the traffic and vehicle safety laws and rules;
2) It would achieve “a minimal risk condition” to reduce the risk of crashes if a failure of the automated driving system rendered it unable to do everything needed to drive in traffic;
3) It would issue a request to intervene whenever the system wasn’t capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task, with the expectation that the person responsible for it would respond appropriately; and
3) It displayed the manufacturer’s label indicating that it complied with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, including reference to any exemption granted by the NHTSA, when it was manufactured.

Operating such a vehicle on a public road would require submitting a law enforcement plan to the State Patrol describing how to communicate with a fleet support specialist available when it’s in operation; how to safely remove it from the road and how to tow it; how to recognize whether it’s in autonomous mode; and any other information the manufacturer or owner deemed necessary about hazardous conditions or public safety risks associated with its operation. Until 2029, it would require the owner of the vehicle to submit the most recent voluntary self-assessment that’s been provided to NHTSA to the Department of Licensing, and to provide notice to the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the area where the vehicle will be operating “within 14 days of operation” including the owner’s contact information and a copy of the interaction plan. The owner would have to register the vehicle in the usual way, and submit proof of financial responsibility that was satisfactory to the Department showing that vehicle was covered by insurance or proof of self- insurance that satisfied the requirements for other vehicles, as well as carrying an umbrella policy providing at $5,000,000 of coverage per occurrence for bodily injury, death, or property damage resulting from the operation of the vehicle.

On-demand transportation service networks using these vehicles would have to be permitted to operate under the standard state laws governing transportation network companies, taxis, and other ground transportation for-hire of passengers . Fully autonomous commercial vehicles would be allowed, under the provisions for other commercial vehicles. Provisions for other vehicles that reasonably applied only to a human driver would be excepted.

If one of these vehicles were involved in an accident or a collision it would have to remain on the scene when that would be required of other vehicles, and the owner would have to report the event in the usual way. By February each year until 2028, the owner would have to submit a report covering reported crashes or collisions from the previous year to the Department and all municipalities where the vehicle had operated for more than five days.

The bill would give the Department of Licensing exclusive responsibility for governing autonomous vehicles, automated driving systems, and on-demand autonomous vehicle networks and would prohibit all other agencies and jurisdictions from having taxes, fees, or other requirements limiting their operations.

SB5570

SB5570 – Authorizing electric utilities to establish revolving energy efficiency loan programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Trudeau, Hasegawa, Keiser, Nguyen, Nobles, Pedersen, Randall, Rolfes, Saldaña, Valdez, and C. Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a 2023 hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 8th. Died in committee at cutoff. Apparently reintroduced in 2024, and had a hearing in that committee January 9th. Amended and passed out of committee that day; referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2024 –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the amendment.

Summary –
The bill would create an Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Capitalization Grant program in the Department of Commerce, if funds were specifically appropriated for it. Electric utilities would be able to apply to the Department for funding to establish a revolving loan program making loans to low and middle income households for energy efficiency and weatherization projects, including repairs needed to achieve energy savings. A list of participating contractors would be provided as part of the loan application process, and a separate billing system or an on-bill repayment program would be provided. The loans would be interest free and secured with a lien on the property, and priority in awarding them would be given to properties in overburdened areas. The funds would be exempt from the public utility tax, and all loan repayments would have to be deposited into the revolving loan account.

Deferred loans for income-qualified customers owning and occupying their home could cover the full cost of a project. They’d have to allow repayment to be deferred until the home is sold, when the loan balance would be paid as part of the sales transaction; and would have to allow customers to qualify based on their payment history with the utility.

Forgivable loans could be made to property owners with income-qualified tenants. These would require an energy audit of the property. It would have to be continuously occupied by income-qualified tenants for five years after the upgrades; and the owner would have to keep the rent during that period within the fair market rent determined by HUD. If the owner failed to meet those requirements, the loan balance would be transferred to a new loan and become due on the sale of the home.

A utility could contract with a third party to implement the program, and could apply energy savings from cost-effective measures financed through a loan program toward achieving its conservation acquisition targets under the Energy Independence Act.

HB1574

HB1574 – Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Rule (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Dye & Walsh – Rs; Duerr, Doglio, Lekanoff & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Still in committee by 2023 cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and had a hearing in that committee on January 24th. Passed out of committee January 31st and referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would shift the current grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program for equipment purchases to grants for cost-share purchases; and shift recipients of its grants from land-owners to agricultural producers. It would shift the intended distribution of funds from one across crop types and soil management to one across commodities. It would allow conservation districts and other public entities to apply for grant funds to operate equipment sharing programs.

The bill would spell out that the current allowable uses of the grants include practices that reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that increase soil carbon, practices that collect, treat, and store manure and agricultural waste to reduce emissions; practices that “increase sequestration in standing vegetation” as well as ones that increase it in soils; and practices that reduce the intestinal emissions of livestock.

It would require funds appropriated through the program for the specific purpose of improving and encouraging climate-smart agricultural waste management and climate-smart livestock management to be used for:
1) Cost-share grants for anaerobic digester development, including projects that codigest manure with other organic waste;
2) Technical and financial assistance for climate-smart livestock management practices;
3) Grants to research institutions for innovative research and for demonstration projects with greenhouse gas emissions reduction benefits, including dairy nutrient management projects;
4) Creating an ongoing advisory committee including specified stakeholders and administered by the State Conservation Commission and Department of Agriculture to inform the agricultural community about opportunities to participate in carbon emissions reduction programs, inform researchers and policymakers of practical implementation challenges, and guide these grant awards, and
5) Creating at least one position at the Commission and other positions as needed with expertise in livestock nutrient management and carbon markets to disseminate information and provide support to agricultural producers applying for funding opportunities.

SB5562

SB5562 – Requiring steps to transition off natural gas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 1st. Replaced by a substitute to match the changes made in the companion bill by the House and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Ways and Means and had a hearing there on February 20th. Still in committee at fiscal cutoff. Reintroduced in Ways & Means for the 2024 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1589 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes made in the substitute to match the House’s changes are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the beginning of it. They include raising the threshold at which projects require labor standards from $1 million to $10 million, and requiring PSE to meet at least 2% of its annual load with conservation and energy efficiency resources, and to achieve “annual demand response” of at least 10% of its peak summer and winter loads, unless the UTC finds that higher percentages would be cost-effective.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit large gas companies serving more than 500,000 customers from providing gas service to new residential and commercial customers after June 30th 2023. (I’m pretty certain that Puget Sound Energy is currently the only company with this many customers.)

Every four years, the bill would require a large gas company to include a gas decarbonization plan for reducing its proportional share of the State’s greenhouse emissions reduction targets as part of its multiyear rate hearings with the Utilities and Transportation Commission. The plan would have to include programs to advance gas decarbonization measures for customers. It would have to prioritize investments that benefited low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; programs targeted to them; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would be required to include a portfolio of resources using alternative energy to the maximum practicable extent. It would have to meet a cost target which would be 2.5% of its approved revenue for each year of the plan. (It might include leak reductions approved by the commission if they demonstrated emissions reductions, whether or not those would produce the reduction targets in the plan.)

A plan would have to quantify the projected cumulative emissions reductions for each reduction period resulting from each portfolio presented; propose budgets resulting from each of those; quantify the cost of implementing each of them; project the annual emissions reductions that would result if each of them were extended through 2050; and describe the effects of the actions and investments in each one on the safety, reliability, and resilience of the company’s service. A plan would identify potential changes to depreciation schedules or other actions to align the large gas company’s cost recovery with statewide policy goals, including reducing greenhouse emissions, minimizing costs, and minimizing risks to the company and its customers. It would explain the company’s analysis of the costs and benefits of an array of alternatives, including the costs of emissions used in the calculations; describe the monitoring and verification methodology to be used in reporting; and include any other information the UTC required.

Starting in 2026, a combination utility providing both electric service to some customers as well as gas service to over 500,000 customers (ie. PSE) would have to file an electrification plan along with the gas decarbonization plan. It might include demand-side management strategies or transportation electrification plans, but it would have to include programs to advance electrification for customers, programs targeted to low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would have to include budgets; targeted numbers of installations; projected fuel savings; projected cost-effectiveness calculations, including the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and projected reductions in those; and other information deemed relevant by the UTC. It would have to meet the same cost target as the gas decarbonization plan would. It would have to provide documentation and data to show the plan was consistent with maintaining the reliability of the grid; and incentives to facilitate electrification, which might include programs for both new and existing buildings. (Products eligible for incentives would have to be Energy Star certified, if certification for that type of appliance existed.)

The bill would require these companies (ie. PSE) to calculate their reporting to the State about emissions from gas by including methane leaked from its transportation and delivery in distribution and service pipelines from the city gate to customer end use; emissions resulting from the combustion of gas by customers not otherwise subject to federal greenhouse gas emissions reporting (and excluding all transport customers); and emissions of methane resulting from leakage in the delivery of gas to other gas companies. They’d have to show their emissions baseline and projected cumulative emissions for the applicable emissions reduction period separately, and would have to show that the total reductions were projected to make progress toward achieving the reduction targets identified in the applicable decarbonization plan.

The UTC might approve, modify, or reject a proposed plan. It would take into account whether a gas decarbonization or electrification plan achieved reductions for each emissions reduction period; whether a plan demonstrated progress toward meeting its targets through maximizing the use of alternative energy resources; whether its investments prioritized serving low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; whether it resulted in a reasonable cost to customers; and whether it maintained system reliability. The commission would have to require a large gas company to achieve the maximum level of greenhouse gas emissions reductions practicable using alternative energy resources at or below the applicable cost target. (It might approve, or amend and approve, a gas or electric plan with greater costs if it found that the plan was in the public interest, costs to customers were reasonable, it included mitigation of rate increases for low-income customers, and its benefits including consideration of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions exceeded its costs.

Any combination utility with an electrification plan approved by the Commission would be required to get 40% of the total capacity and energy it needed to meet the requirements of the Clean Energy Transformation Act (aka the cap and invest bill) through power purchase agreements through which it bought energy, capacity, and environmental attributes from “resources” owned and operated by entities that were not affiliated with the utility, and that gave the utility rights to dispatch, operate, and control the resources in the same ways as the utility’s managing its own. [I think this subsection is supposed to read “renewable resources.] (The rest of the needed capacity and energy would have to come from resources owned and operated by the combination utility or an affiliate. Once the UTC approved a power purchase agreement included in an approved electrification plan, the utility would be allowed to set its rates to recover the operating expense of the purchases of “renewable resources” under the agreement as well as earning a return on those expenses at a rate no less than the authorized cost of its debt and no greater than its authorized rate of return.

The bill would require the UTC to start adopting depreciation schedules for any gas plant a combination utility had in service as part of considering a multiyear rate plan filed by a combination utility. The incremental depreciation for each year of the plan would be 1% of the utility’s gas revenue requirement for the preceding year. If the utility’s rate base for gas operations was less than or equal to 20% of the rate base for its electrical operations, and the utility chose to request the change, the Commission would merge the rate bases supporting gas and electric service in the next multiyear plan and adopt rates supporting recovery of the merged rate base. [I think this last provision means that if PSE’s gas business got small enough it could spread the costs of maintaining the gas system’s infrastructure over all its customers, not just the ones who were still using gas, and including the customers for electricity in the areas where it’s never sold gas.]

The bill would require a large gas company, with over 500,000 customers, to include community workforce agreements or project labor agreements, the payment of area prevailing wages, and apprenticeship utilization requirements in contracts with competitive bidding for projects costing over $1 million. It would encourage any entities providing retail electric service in the state to work with a large gas company providing service within their areas to identify opportunities for electrification and the provision of energy peaking service by the large gas company; to account for the costs of greenhouse gas emissions, set total energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals; develop and implement electrification programs in collaboration with large gas companies providing service in their area; and to include an electrification plan or transportation electrification program as part of a clean energy plan.

HB1589

HB1589 – Requiring steps to transition off natural gas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker, amended twice, and passed out of committee March 28th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file April 17th. Reintroduced in House Rules in 2024; passed by the House January 22nd. Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, and scheduled for a hearing there at 8:00 AM on Wednesday January 31st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5562 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Changes in the 2023 Senate –
The striker requires a gas company with other 500,000 customers to offer incentives for electrifying to customers using fossil fuels, prohibits incentives for gas appliances or4 equipment other than backups for electric heat pumps, specifies that half the capacity and energy needed to meet CETA’s requirements are to be owned by the utility, removes the provision allowing a utility to earn a rate of return on power purchase agreements, and makes a number of other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendments allow extending gas service to residential facilities that only use it for power during emergencies, and make a minor adjustment in the timeline for UTC decisions.

In the House – Passed in 2023
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 6th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 13th. Referred to Rules, replaced on the floor with a striker by the prime sponsor, and passed by the House March 6th.

Changes in the 2023 House –
The changes made in the substitute are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the beginning of it. They include raising the threshold at which projects require labor standards from $1 million to $10 million, and requiring PSE to meet at least 2% of its annual load with conservation and energy efficiency resources, and to achieve “annual demand response” of at least 10% of its peak summer and winter loads, unless the UTC finds that higher percentages would be cost-effective. The changes made by the striker, which are summarized by staff at the end of it, exempted certain uses from the ban on new connections, and made many changes to the planning requirements.

The bill would require these companies (ie. PSE) to calculate their reporting to the State about emissions from gas by including methane leaked from its transportation and delivery in distribution and service pipelines from the city gate to customer end use; emissions resulting from the combustion of gas by customers not otherwise subject to federal greenhouse gas emissions reporting (excluding all transport customers); and emissions of methane resulting from leakage in the delivery of gas to other gas companies. They’d have to show their emissions baseline and projected cumulative emissions for the applicable emissions reduction period separately, and would have to show that the total reductions were projected to make progress toward achieving the reduction targets identified in the applicable decarbonization plan.