Category Archives: Buildings 2021

HB1436

HB1436 – Suspends many environmental and land use permit requirements until a year after withdrawal of all Covid-19 restrictive orders.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walsh (R; 19th District; Aberdeen)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Resources.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would suspend a range of environmental and land use permit requirements until a year after withdrawal of all of the Governor’s current Covid-19 restrictive orders and his pandemic emergency declaration. It would cover permits for controlling water and air pollution, for construction projects in State waters, and any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action. This includes “building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, [and] site-specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan”, but not the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included by RCW 36.70B.

SB5295

SB5295 – Multiyear and performance based rate setting for gas and electrical utilities; expanded assistance for low-income customers and vulnerable populations; and supporting energy conservation measures in rental housing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Short – R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 27th, replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker and passed by the Senate March 5th. Senate concurred in the House’s changes April 15th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 16th; amended and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Rules; amended on the floor and passed by the House April 7th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Representative Shewmake’s HB1125 had nearly identical provisions for efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties, without the required reporting on the results every two years. It’s dead for this session.

Summary –
House floor amendment –
This simply required utilities to propose grants and other assistance programs for low income customers as well as discount rates for them to the UTC for review.

House committee amendments –
One broadened the declarations of State policy about providing gas and electrical services to be declarations about energy services. One requires private gas and electrical companies to propose discount rates for low income customers, to be approved or modified by the UTC. One requires them to defer all revenues more than 0.5% above their approved rate of return for refunds to customers or allocation by the commission; requires, rather than authorizes them, to enter financial assistance agreements when requested with organizations that represent broad customer interests in regulatory proceedings; and specifies a number of other things about such agreements that are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment.

Senate Striker –
The prime sponsor’s striker authorizes the UTC to deal with multi-year rate plan proposals rather than requiring that; requires it to set performance measures in approving such plans rather than allowing that; and makes a number of other changes, mostly to the low-income assistance provisions, that are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes, at the beginning of the substitute, which removes the provision allowing utilities to invest in rental energy conservation in lieu of contributions from the owner and makes quite a few adjustments to the rules. (The amendment was minor.)

Original Bill –
The bill would replace the current processes for setting the rates of regulated private gas and electric utilities with multiyear rate plans, to be reviewed and approved by the UTC if it finds they’re lawful, establish just and reasonable rates, are supported by appropriate evidence, and are consistent with the public interest. They could cover up to four years, and are to include a budget, a forecast, a clean energy implementation plan, a price index, and a fixed escalation rate. The Commission’s to approve rates for each year of the plan in advance, and they’d stay as set if actual rates of return remained within 0.5% of those in the plan. If a company’s quarterly reports demonstrated its actual rate of return was falling more than 0.5% below the approved rate in the plan, it could apply to modify the plan, defer some costs, adopt a new multi-year plan, or start a new general rate setting procedure altogether. (However, the bill also says the UTC can establish procedures to ensure that rates remain just and reasonable during the course of the plan. Presumably, those would deal with rates of return rising more than 0.5% above approved rates.) A company could defer new costs associated with complying with governmental policies or plans that didn’t exist when the plan was developed, without owing interest, and apply to recover those in its next rate case or multi-year plan.

Utilities may ask the UTC to approve proposals for recovering up to 5% of their approved revenue for the first year of a plan from ratepayers to pay for expanding the affordability of services to customers including bill assistance programs or special rates for low-income residential customers. The bill expands utilities’ authority to provide discounts to low income customers to include discounts for customers receiving public benefit assistance that provides cash, housing, food, or medical care including temporary assistance for needy families; supplemental security income; emergency assistance to elders, disabled, and children; supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits; public housing; federally subsidized or state-subsidized housing; the low-income home energy assistance program; veterans’ benefits. They’re to send out information about the available ways for customers to reduce their bills twice a year, and do substantial outreach to inform customers of these particular discounts, including enrolling them as the default if they’re on a list of the recipients of qualifying public benefits and providing them with information about the program.

The bill authorizes the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow private electric and gas utilities to invest in energy efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties that wouldn’t currently be cost-effective unless the owner paid part of the initial cost. They’re to be allowed a return on these investments over a period of time that reduces the customer’s energy burden and minimizes the impact on the customer’s bill, while incentivizing the company to make them. These investments are to be secured by the meter, and repaid over time through an “energy services charge” on the regular bills paid by tenants or the building owner. (If the owner pays the bill, there has to be a site-specific services agreement; if tenants pay it, the owner has to provide them with at least thirty days notice before work on the project begins, including a description of the work being done and the expected benefits of the conservation measures.) Utilities must prioritize these investments to reduce the energy burden of low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and customers in highly impacted communities. They must report on the performance of these conservation measures to the UTC and the WSU Energy Office every two two years, using smart meter data, and including an estimate of the annual energy savings using normalized weather conditions along with any available supporting data; an estimate of savings on energy costs; and an updated estimate of the payback period.

Utilities may agree to assist organizations representing the interests of customers belonging to a highly impacted community or in vulnerable populations with the costs of participating in the UTC’s regulatory proceedings, and may recover the costs in rates. (More than one utility and more than one organization might participate in one of these agreements.) They’d have to be approved by the UTC, which could determine how they were administered, including how much financial assistance might be provided; how it was distributed, and how it was to be recovered in rates.

SB5093 – 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1114

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1084 – 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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