Category Archives: Buildings

HB2957

HB2957 – Regulating indirect sources under the Clean Air Act and reducing building emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Seattle)
Current status – Introduced in the House Committee on Appropriations March 2nd and scheduled for a hearing and executive session the same afternoon at 1:30 PM. An amended substitute passed out of committee (at 1:50 AM…); referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments – There’s a staff bill analysis available.

The substitute’s additional definition of “indirect emissions” for the purposes of the act restricts them to emissions from “fuels” ; it also adds what seems like a vague and inadequate definition of “leakage”. It allows the Department of Ecology to get additional data from producers and distributors if that’s needed to calculate the indirect emissions it’s authorized to regulate. It rewrites the section on credits for biofuels to improve the prose, without changing the substance as far as I can see. It now specifies the energy-intensive and trade-exposed facilities that the Department can treat with special consideration, to the extent needed to prevent leakage, by using a list of industry classification codes. (It also specifies that the special consideration does not extend to their products.) The amendment adds an additional preemption, prohibiting local air authorities, cities and counties from adopting a clean fuels standard or low carbon fuel standard until January 1, 2023, if Ecology adopts a clean fuels standard or low carbon fuel standard by January 1, 2021.

Summary –
The bill responds to the recent Supreme Court decision holding that Ecology didn’t have the statutory authority to regulate fossil fuel production and distribution through the Clean Air Act because that didn’t authorize it to regulate indirect emissions. The bill revises the definitions of emissions to specify both direct and indirect ones, and explicitly authorizes Ecology and local air authorities to use the Act to regulate the emissions from the production and distribution of any product in the state emitting over 25,000 tonnes a year of greenhouse gases, and of all fossil fuels.

It requires Ecology to adopt a rule, taking effect after October 1, 2021, that specifies emission thresholds for regulated sources. It authorizes Ecology to collect fees to cover the administrative costs of the program, to rely on market-based mechanisms including bankable tradeable credits to achieve emission reductions, and to provide special consideration for energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries, but only to the extent necessary to address leakage. Ecology is to provide biofuels with credits that adjust their obligations to take account of the difference between their lifecycle emissions and those of whatever fossil fuels they’re expected to replace. If it regulates direct or indirect emissions sources other than fossil fuels, it has to provide a mechanism for using credits or offsets from forest carbon sequestration in meeting those obligations.

The bill directs the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow timely recovery of prudent and reasonable compliance costs by utilities.

It would delay implementing the 2018 residential energy code until July 1, 2022, if the Legislature provided policies and funding for existing residential retrofit programs that produced larger greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

It prohibits any local caps, taxes or fees on greenhouse gas emissions, and any local restrictions on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings until 2023.

It would make the new Clean Air Act authority null and void if a more comprehensive program that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and was forecast to achieve the State’s targets were enacted.

SB6681

SB6681 – Amends the residential energy code to prioritize reducing construction costs rather than increasing energy efficiency.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee onEnvironment, Energy & Technology. Failed to get out of committee by the 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2667 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill amends the process for developing the residential energy code to prioritize reducing construction costs rather than increasing energy efficiency. It removes the State Building Code Council’s energy efficiency code design standards. It shifts from authorizing the Council to amend the residential energy code to increase efficiency to authorizing amending it to reduce construction costs. It delays implementation of the 2018 residential energy code, and requires the Council to review and amend that by 2021, specifying that the purpose of the review must be reducing construction costs and providing the least burdensome alternatives for compliance, and that the Council may not increase, but may decrease, the energy efficiency requirements of the 2018 code.

It leaves the current legislation for the non-residential energy code in place.

HB2372

HB2372 – Specifies that the four legislative members of the Building Code Council are voting members.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hoff (R, 18th District, Southwest Washington)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 28th at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6464 would do the same thing, through slightly different wording.

Summary –
The State Building Code Council currently consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor, two Representatives and two Senators, and a non-voting employee of the electrical division of the department of labor and industries. The bill specifies that the legislators are voting members. (I don’t know if there has has been some question about that, or if this is just tidying things up…)

HB2744

HB2744 – Including the use of low carbon materials and contractors’ disclosure of labor law compliance in the awarding of state construction contracts.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County) (Co-Sponsors Duerr, Davis, Fitzgibbon, Ramel)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Capital Budget Committee on January 28th; substitute passed out of committee February 6th. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In the 2018 session, Representative Doglio introduced HB2412, “Buy Clean” legislation roughly modeled on California’s. It would have had state agencies awarding construction contracts require environmental product declarations for various materials. It was replaced by a substitute bill, which would simply have had the University of Washington develop methods to collect environmental product declarations for building materials, test them on six public works projects, and report to the Legislature on the results. That didn’t make it out of the House Rules Committee, but the study was funded in the capital budget and completed in January 2019.

Some of the changes in the substitute are summarized on the last page of the House Bill Report for that.

Summary –
This new bill covers projects receiving funds from the capital budget for buildings with more than five thousand square feet of occupied or conditioned space, renovations of such buildings that cost more than 50% of the assessed value, and transportation projects funded or carried out by the Department of Transportation that cost over $1 million and use more than a minimal amount of covered materials.

After 18 months in which it would just be encouraged, bidders for contracts on these projects would be required to include environmental product declarations providing robust full life-cycle assessments of the associated greenhouse gas emissions for any concrete; rebar; structural steel and unit masonry; wood; wood products; and gauge metal products intended for decking, wall or floor system studs that they proposed using. Successful bidders would be required to submit additional facility specific environmental product declarations for materials before their installation, if those declarations for the particular facilities producing their materials already existed.

The Department of Commerce would set a maximum acceptable global warming potential for each category of material, at approximately the eightieth percentile of the product weighted distributions of the emissions intensity of each category of product, and express that as a number stating the maximum acceptable facility specific global warming potential for each category. (If funds were made available for it, the Department could provide at least half the cost of developing their environmental product declarations to small businesses.) It’s to report on its methods to the Legislature, and to adjust the acceptable value downward every three years. In each cycle, the value’s to be set at the lower of:
(a) the 90th percentile of the values submitted during the previous three years, stepped down at a rate which would get the acceptable value to zero by 2050, or,
(b) the maximum acceptable value in 2023, stepped down at a rate which would get to a 50% reduction by 2030. (After that, the maximum acceptable value from 2030 would be stepped down at a rate which would get it to zero by 2050.)

Beginning July 1, 2023, when a bid for a primary structural material from a company meeting the State’s other criteria for responsible bidders doesn’t exceed the maximum acceptable global warming potential for the material, an awarding authority must award the contract to the bid with prices lower than the engineer’s estimate that uses the lower carbon eligible material. [I think this means that if there’s more than one otherwise acceptable bid under the engineer’s estimate the contract must go to the bid using the lowest carbon material, even if that’s higher than other bids below the estimate. A “primary” structural material isn’t defined in the bill; I think this just means what the bill does define as “structural materials” – ones that support loads in a building as part of “its primary structure”, or support loads in a transportation project, or form a “primary lateral system” resisting wind and earthquake loads.] It must consider awarding a contract to a bid that uses the lower carbon eligible primary structural material if the bid is no greater than fifteen percent above the lowest bid; and it may award a contract to a bid that uses the lower carbon eligible material even if the bid is more than fifteen percent above the lowest bid.

After 18 months in which it would just be encouraged, the bill would require bidders or proposers for one of these project contracts to report on their compliance, including their subcontractor’s compliance, with the domestic and applicable international labor laws in countries where they produce goods or services. The Office of Financial Management is to incorporate requirements for state agencies to consider lower carbon building materials and domestic labor law compliance declarations in existing business processes and tools including, but not limited to, facility planning, predesign, and budget instructions. [As far as I can see, the bill doesn’t require taking the compliance reports into account in awarding contracts, though perhaps that’s required somehow by some other existing law…]

Beginning in 2023, to the extent that it’s practical, state contracts and the building code are to use performance based specifications for concrete and unit masonry used structurally, not prescriptive specifications.

The bill concludes by amending quite a few sections of the current laws about awarding contracts for various kinds of projects, by agencies and various jurisdictions, to say that they have to consider the additional criteria allowed or required in the bill, if those rules are applicable.

SB6496

SB6496 – Authorizes public utilities to support shifting homes and buildings from fossil fuels to electricity if it’s in the public interest.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; San Juan Islands & Anacortes)
Current status – Hearing scheduled for January 29th in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology has been cancelled.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2586 is a companion bill in the House.

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

Summary –
This bill authorizes municipal utilities and PUDs to fund incentives and programs to shift homes and buildings from fossil fuels to electricity if they have developed a beneficial electrification plan that would provide a net benefit to the utility or customers by improving the management of the grid, reducing customer costs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, or providing other public interest benefits.

Plans can include consideration of multiple options for electrifying various energy uses; the impact of beneficial electrification on the utility’s load and whether demand response or other load management opportunities are operationally appropriate; an assessment of conservation measures to offset load impacts; system reliability and distribution system efficiencies; potential greenhouse gas emission reductions; potential indoor and outdoor air quality benefits; and the overall benefits and costs of planned action, including the cost of greenhouse gas emissions calculated according to a Federal estimate which works out to $62/metric ton this year. Plans have to prioritize allocating benefits to vulnerable populations in their service areas.

SB6464

SB6464 – Specifies that the four legislative members of the Building Code Council are voting members.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wilson (R, 13th District, Moses Lake)
Current status – Read and passed out of the Senate Committee on State Government, Tribal Relations & Elections on January 17th. Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government at 8:00 AM January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2372 would do the same thing, through slightly different wording.

Summary –
The State Building Code Council currently consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor, tw Representatives and two Senators, and a non-voting employee of the electrical division of the department of labor and industries. The bill specifies that the legislators are voting members. (I don’t know if there has has been some question about that, or if this is just tidying things up…)

SB6335

SB6335 – Adding proportional greenhouse emissions reductions and resiliency to growth management planning.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2609 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The first section of this bill, which adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes, and is summarized in the first paragraph below, is identical to all of Senator Salomon’s SB6453.

Summary –
The Growth Management Act currently lists fourteen goals that are supposed to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations for cities and counties planning with that framework. The bill adds a fifteenth, which says that they’re supposed to ensure that their own comprehensive plans and development regulations, and the regional policies, plans, and strategies for their countywide planning framework (under RCW 36.70A.210) and for their regional transportation planning (under RCW 47.80) “adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support state greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements and state vehicle miles traveled goals; build resilient infrastructure; and nurture environmental, economic, and human health.”

This bill adds a new climate change and natural hazards resiliency element to comprehensive planning under the GMA for the following counties and cities within those counties – counties west of the crest of the Cascades that OFM estimates had more than 100,000 residents in 2019, and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 500,000 residents; counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 200,000 residents in 2019 and an unincorporated population of less than 40,000; and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 90,000 residents and an unincorporated population of less than 15,000.

The Department of Commerce, in consultation with several other agencies, is to develop an baseline estimate from 2017 data of the share of the State’s transportation and land use greenhouse gas emissions from those emissions in the regions in which multiple counties subject to the act plan together through formal structures, and for each remaining city and county. Then the Department is to calculate the proportional share of reductions that each county or multicounty region would need to acheive for the state to reach its 2035 and 2050 emissions reductions targets.

The new element must be designed:
(a) To result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation and land use systems within the planning jurisdiction consistent with that share of the State’s targeted reductions: and
(b) To result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled consistent with the state transportation policy goals (in RCW 47.01.440); and
(c) To avoid, and build resiliency to, the worst impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems through specific actions consistent with the best available science that institute adaptation or resiliency measures. (These may include actions designed to address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of reasonably anticipated changes to temperature and precipitation.

This new part of the plans must be finalized no later than two years before the comprehensive plan review and revision deadlines specified in RCW 36.70A.130. Other jurisdictions are encouraged to develop a climate change and natural hazards resiliency element in their planning, whether or not they’re doing it under the GMA.

As part of its technical assistance program, the Department of Commerce is to develop a model climate change and natural hazards resiliency plan element that may be used by counties, cities, and multiple county planning regions for developing and implementing climate change and natural hazards resiliency plans and policies. Counties and cities that adopt this element are to treated as in compliance with the GMA’s requirements until January 1st, 2029. A review and update of comprehensive plans must take place by June 30th 2025. If they occur before June 30th, 2029, adoption of the model plan element, development regulations in accordance with it, changes in countywide policies in accordance with it that affect the fiscal impact analysis required by the GMA, and the adoption of a regional emissions and vehicle miles reduction plan by a regional transportation planning organization to address the reductions required by the new element are not subject to appeal. (The comprehensive plan of each county or city would now be required to be consistent with these regional transportation plans.)

Regional transportation organizations including at least one jurisdiction the act applies to would be required to adopt a regional emission and vehicle miles reduction plan addressing all their member jurisdictions implementing the goals for reducing annual per capita vehicle miles traveled; and reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector according to the share of reductions assigned to them by the Department of Commerce.

HB2609

HB2609 – Adding proportional greenhouse emissions reductions and resiliency to growth management planning.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th at 3:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6335 is a companion bill in the Senate.

The new element must be designed
(a) To result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation and land use systems within the planning jurisdiction consistent with that share of the State’s targeted reductions: and
(b) To result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled consistent with the state transportation policy goals (in RCW 47.01.440); and
(c) To avoid, and build resiliency to, the worst impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems through specific actions consistent with the best available science that institute adaptation or resiliency measures. (These may include actions designed to address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of reasonably anticipated changes to temperature and precipitation.

HB2667

HB2667 – Amends the residential energy code to prioritize reducing construction costs rather than increasing energy efficiency.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Clallam County) (Co-Sponsors Maycumber, Tharinger, Hoff, Vick, Blake, Dufault, Van Werven, Barkis, Eslick, Springer, Kretz, and Schmick)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 29th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6681 is a companion bill in the Senate.

It leaves the current legislation for the non-residential energy code in place.

HB2570

HB2570 – Requiring cities and counties to adopt zoning and development rules making it easier to build ADUs in their urban growth areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; Kent)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 10th. An amended 2nd Substitute passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the House by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
There’s a staff summary of the changes in the substitute on page 5 of the House Bill Report on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB2586

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

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

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

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

Shift Zero has a flyer about the bill.

HB2427

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

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

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

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

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

HB2405

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB6222

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB6231

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

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

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

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

HB2343

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details –

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

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

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

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

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

SB6172

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

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

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

HB1796

HB1796 – Authorizes jurisdictions to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government, February 12th at 10:00 AM. A substitute bill passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules; placed on 2nd Reading March 11th. Referred to Rules 2 Consideration March 21st 2019. Still in Rules by the 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Referred to the House Committee on Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB 5730 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.
The various legal adjustments in the substitute are summarized on p. 6 of the House Bill Report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1443

HB1443 – Extends lowered B&O tax rate to include mass timber products.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D, 24th District, Clallam County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources February 6th. Passed out of that committee February 13th; referred to Finance. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing in the Finance Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5467 was an identical companion bill in the Senate; it’s now dead – in the Senate X file.

Summary –

Mass timber panels (which are also called cross-laminated timber) can replace a most of the steel and concrete in large buildings, avoiding the emissions from producing those and sequestering the carbon from the trees for years.

The bill extends the current lower business and occupation tax rate for timber and wood products to apply to mass timber. (It’s 0.2904 percent rather than 0.484 percent until 2024)

SB5730

SB5730 – Authorizes jurisdictions to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Palumbo (D; 1st District; Snohomish County)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1796 is a companion bill in the House.

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

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

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

SB5353

SB5353 – Promoting redevelopment to support transit.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Zeiger (R; 25th District; Pierce County)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Local Government February 5th. Passed out of committee February 19th and referred to Ways and Means. Still in the house of origin by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by Ways and Means.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes certain counties to lower property taxes to encourage the development of more housing in areas around transit by expanding some current provisions for lowering taxes in other “residential targeted areas”.

Details:
Counties can reduce taxes on new housing units in residential targeted areas by using special lower valuations in their property tax assessments.

There are various requirements for when these can be created, including some about where they can be located. The bill expands the rules about permissible locations to allow them to be created by counties that want to promote transit supportive densities and efficient land use in an area that’s within an urban growth area; is in the potential annexation area of a city with a population of at least two hundred thousand; and is within a quarter mile of a corridor where bus service is scheduled at least every fifteen minutes for no less than ten hours per day. (The route must be in service or have planned service within five years).

SB5308

SB5308 – Oversight for municipal energy service contracts.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille counties)
Current status – Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by House at end of 2019 Session; Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff; placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on February 5th. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 20th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 27th; amended 2nd substitute with minor changes passed out of that committee February 28th. Placed on 2nd reading by Rules Committee March 5th. Passed by the Senate March 12th.
In the House –
Referred to the Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by House at end of 2019 Session

Comments –
The 1st substitute replaces the complaint provisions with a requirement for DES to consider contractors’ past performance and comments from municipalities in revising the registry. Almost all the minor changes made in Ways and Means are summarized on the first page of the 2nd substitute..

Summary –

Performance based energy service contractors sign contracts to increase buildings’ efficiency. They provide the capital, do the work, and guarantee a certain level of performance in return for long-term payments from the owners, who often gain from the savings on their utility bills.
Currently, if a city or county decides to negotiate one of these contracts, other State procurement requirements don’t apply to the project. The bill creates a system for overseeing their contracts.

Details –
The bill requires a conference with the Department of Enterprise Services by the parties to one of these contracts about the capabilities of the energy equipment and services, expected outcomes for the municipality, and whether other energy equipment and services might be better for the municipality’s purposes. Any proposed revisions have to be recorded and agreed to by all the parties.

The technical documents for these projects have to be prepared by an architect and/or a professional engineer.

The department has to provide third-party verification of the work within 90 days after it’s finished, to see that equipment and services are installed and performing correctly and that the municipality’s staff has been trained to use and maintain the equipment.

The bill requires withholding 10% of the any funding the department provides to help municipalities obtain a contract until monitoring is complete.

The bill creates a system for handling complaints about the work by cities and counties. These have to be filed within two years of the discovery of a defect. If a complaint is filed, 10% of any funding supplied by the department _must_ be withheld or recouped from the contractor, though it _may_ be provided to the contractor after the complaint is resolved. The department currently maintains a registry of these companies, and contractors are to be removed from that as soon as any complaint is filed, and only returned to it when it’s resolved.

The Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee must report to the Legislature by the end of 2020 on the structure of the performance-based contracting services program, including the roles of the department, contractors, municipalities; its cost-effectiveness; whether these contracts adequately protect municipalities from defects; whether they lead to superior outcomes for municipalities compared to general procurement practices that aren’t required for one of these projects; and whether the program limits the range of options for energy equipment and services available to municipalities.