Category Archives: Buildings 2022

SB5648

SB5648 – Modifying the State’s limits on local jurisdictions’ ADU requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to Housing and Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.”>Senator Liias (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.

SB5818

SB5818 – Limits review and appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act and Growth Management Act to promote housing construction in cities.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Short – R; Liias, Kuderer, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 24th and passed out of committee. Referred to Rules; replaced by a striker making various changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it; and passed by the House March 4th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Housing & Local Government  January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate February 15th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute simplifies (and perhaps broadens) the exemption from GMA review and SEPA appeal of some local development regulations by saying it applies to any that “increase housing capacity, increase housing affordability, and mitigate displacement” and aren’t in a critical area. It adds projects creating “light and glare” to those that are exempt from SEPA appeals about aesthetics as long as they’ve passed local design review. The staff summary says it “removes the requirement for Ecology to modify the existing rule-based categorical exemption for single-family residential project types in UGAs to apply only to single-family residential types with total square footage of 1500 square feet or more”. (As I read the bill, there’s no difference in the effect of these two versions.) It drops the provision about awarding attorney’s fees, making it more difficult for citizens to go to court.

Original bill –
The bill would remove the ending date for the current exemption from administrative or judicial appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act of any ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions a city takes to implement the twenty-five steps the Growth Management Act encourages to increase residential building capacity. (The exemption, which was adopted in 2020, will expire in April 2023 now.) It would add an exemption from environmental or judicial review under SEPA for them. It would exempt adoption of ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions to implement any strategies adopted in a city’s housing action plan from these SEPA appeals and reviews. (I think that Section 3 of the bill merely adjusts another section of the law to make the same changes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.)

It would exempt any action taken by a city to implement strategies adopted in a housing action plan from review or legal challenge under the Growth Management Act. It would exempt the adoption of any ordinances and amendments to development regulations taken by a city to implement actions specified in the housing element of its comprehensive plan from SEPA environmental or judicial review and administrative or judicial appeal.

It would direct the Department of Ecology to conduct expedited rule making to modify the thresholds for the categorical exemptions from threshold determinations and environmental impact statements in the current SEPA rules to exempt four attached single-family residential units as well as four detached ones; exempt multifamily residential projects of up to 200 units in incorporated urban growth areas rather than projects up to 60 units; exempt single-family residential project types of less than 1,500 square feet in incorporated urban growth areas with up to 100 units, while continuing to cap the current exemption at 30 units for single-family residential projects larger than that.

It would exempt project actions pertaining to residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development from SEPA appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on aesthetics, or those impacts, unless the project had not been subject to local design review requirements. (I think it merely restates their current exemption from appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on transportation, or those impacts, unless DOT had found a project would present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned transportation system.)

The bill adds a provision to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party at trial or on appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a project-specific affordable housing development.

SB5722

SB5722 – Creates a benchmarking and energy management program (and eventual performance standards) for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and other buildings between 20,000 and 50,000 sq.ft.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Liias – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1774 is a companion bill in the House. (Dead bill)

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th. Replaced with a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 4th and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 17th, and passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Appropriations; amended to make it null and void if funding for it isn’t appropriated; and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor delaying the start date of the expanded early adoption incentive program for smaller buildings by a year, to July 2025, and making a couple other minor changes. (I now think the bill caps these expanded incentives at $150 million.) Passed by the House March 3rd.

Summary –
Substitutes –
The substitute would expand the current early adoption incentive program to include buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. They’d get 30¢/sq.ft for implementing their benchmarking, energy management, and operations and maintenance planning requirements without having to meet the performance standards for bigger buildings, and these incentives would be available for buildings using gas, without regard to their greenhouse gas emissions. Multifamily buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. would be eligible for these incentives as well, rather than being able to choose to apply for the 85¢/sq.ft. incentives for early compliance with the performance standards for non-residential over 50,000 sq.ft as they could in the first version of the incentives. Owners could apply from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2030. (I think the bill would allow another $75 million for these incentives, and that the additional funding would not be available for the previous phase of incentives, which reached their $75 million cap very quickly, but the language of that provision isn’t very clear.)

The bill also requires a small business impact statement, and an appeals process for administrative decisions including penalties. It would authorize enhanced incentive payments for building owners committing to anti-displacement provisions rather than limiting incentives for multifamily buildings to those limiting increase in rent to inflation for four years.

Original bill –
By December 31, 2023, the bill would have the Department of Commerce create a benchmarking and energy management requirement for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The requirements are to be consistent with the current Clean Buildings energy performance standards for non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq ft, but are limited to energy use analysis through benchmarking and reporting, energy management planning, and operations and maintenance planning. The Department would be required to create an actual performance standard for these buildings by 2030, and the bill would authorize it to establish targets for buildings’ greenhouse gas-adjusted energy use intensity in this and the current performance standards.)

Commerce would provide a support program for building owners including outreach and informational materials connecting them to utility resources, periodic training, phone and email support, and other technical assistance. It would have to include enhanced technical support such as assistance with benchmarking and planning for buildings whose owners typically don’t employ dedicated managers, such as multifamily housing, child care facilities, and houses of worship. The bill also says the department “shall consider” underresourced buildings with a high energy use per square foot, buildings in rural communities, buildings whose tenants are primarily small businesses, and those located in high-risk communities according to the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities map. [I think that probably means it’s supposed to consider what additional support owners of those buildings might need, and provide that, but it’s not clear.] (The requirements would also have to include provisions for financial hardship.)

Commerce would also be required to establish an incentive program to supplement the cost to building owners or tenants, less utility incentives and annual savings resulting from the requirements. It would have to require that tenants’ rent could not be raised at a rate above inflation for four years after receiving the incentives.

The Department would have to notify the owners of covered buildings of the requirements by July 1, 2025, and owners would have to file reports demonstrating they’d developed and implemented the bill’s required procedures by July 1st, 2027 and every five years after that. It would adopt rules imposing a penalty of not more than 30 cents a square foot for failing to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements, or for increasing rent above the rate of inflation for multifamily leased space receiving the incentives. (Penalties would be deposited in the low-income weatherization and structural rehabilitation assistance account and reinvested into the program to support compliance with the standard.) [I think this means the actual performance standard to be established by 2030.]

The department would have to evaluate the benchmarking data to determine energy use and greenhouse gas emissions averages by building type, and report to the Legislature and the Governor by October 1, 2029, with recommendations for cost-effective building performance standards for the covered buildings, their estimated costs for building owners, and anticipated implementation challenges.

By December 31st, 2030, the Department would be required to adopt rules to add these buildings to the State’s energy performance standard program. It would have to consider the age of buildings in setting performance targets, and might establish a longer timeline for compliance by multifamily buildings than for the other buildings covered by the bill. The rules could not take effect until the end of the 2031 regular session.

HB1774

HB1774– Creates a benchmarking and energy management program (and eventual performance standards) for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and other buildings between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; South Seattle, Renton & Kent.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ramel, Berry, Dolan, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Environment & Energy. Did not have a hearing by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5722 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
By December 31, 2023, the bill would have the Department of Commerce create a benchmarking and energy management requirement for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The requirements are to be consistent with the current Clean Buildings energy performance standards for non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq ft, but are limited to energy use analysis through benchmarking and reporting, energy management planning, and operations and maintenance planning. The Department would be required to create an actual performance standard for these buildings by 2030, and the bill would authorize it to establish targets for buildings’ greenhouse gas-adjusted energy use intensity in this and the current performance standards.)

Commerce would provide a support program for building owners including outreach and informational materials connecting them to utility resources, periodic training, phone and email support, and other technical assistance. It would have to include enhanced technical support such as assistance with benchmarking and planning for buildings whose owners typically don’t employ dedicated managers, such as multifamily housing, child care facilities, and houses of worship. The bill also says the department “shall consider” underresourced buildings with a high energy use per square foot, buildings in rural communities, buildings whose tenants are primarily small businesses, and those located in high-risk communities according to the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities map. [I think that probably means it’s supposed to consider what additional support owners of those buildings might need, and provide that, but it’s not clear.] (The requirements would also have to include provisions for financial hardship.)

Commerce would also be required to establish an incentive program to supplement the cost to building owners or tenants, less utility incentives and annual savings resulting from the requirements. It would have to require that tenants’ rent could not be raised at a rate above inflation for four years after receiving the incentives.

The Department would have to notify the owners of covered buildings of the requirements by July 1, 2025, and owners would have to file reports demonstrating they’d developed and implemented the bill’s required procedures by July 1st, 2027 and every five years after that. It would adopt rules imposing a penalty of not more than 30 cents a square foot for failing to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements, or for increasing rent above the rate of inflation for multifamily leased space receiving the incentives. (Penalties would be deposited in the low-income weatherization and structural rehabilitation assistance account and reinvested into the program to support compliance with the standard.) [I think this means the actual performance standard to be established by 2030.]

The department would have to evaluate the benchmarking data to determine energy use and greenhouse gas emissions averages by building type, and report to the Legislature and the Governor by October 1, 2029, with recommendations for cost-effective building performance standards for the covered buildings, their estimated costs for building owners, and anticipated implementation challenges.

By December 31st, 2030, the Department would be required to adopt rules to add these buildings to the State’s energy performance standard program. It would have to consider the age of buildings in setting performance targets, and might establish a longer timeline for compliance by multifamily buildings than for the other buildings covered by the bill. The rules could not take effect until the end of the 2031 regular session.

SB5669

SB5669– Strengthens State energy codes by adding reductions in net energy use, net-zero readiness, and wiring for solar in new buildings for the 2031 code cycle, and by creating a residential stretch code.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Senator Stanford – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Never heard. (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1770 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require the State Energy Code to provide an 80% reduction in residential and non-residential energy use compared to the 2006 baseline by 2034. (This would be 10% more than the reduction currently required by 2031. Since buildings are constructed under the code in place when they’re permitted, it takes a couple of additional years for a code update to actually become effective.)

It would also require those buildings to be “net zero ready”, and to include wiring for photovoltaic panel installation in the future. (The Department of Energy defines “net zero ready” buildings as being so energy efficient that an added renewable energy system could offset all or most of the building’s annual energy. The bill would have the Building Code Council develop the actual rules for meeting the State’s definition of that standard.)

The bill would have the the Department of Commerce propose rules for the technical provisions of an optional statewide residential reach code, and would require the Code Council to adopt one. Any city, town, or county could choose to adopt and enforce it in place of the State Energy Code’s standard requirements. It would have to become effective by 2023, and have to achieve the reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that would become effective in the regular State residential code by 2034, but could not exceed the “net zero” energy standard.

The bill would also eliminate a provision specifying that space heating equipment efficiency should be allowed to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance in the code.

HB1770

HB1770 – Strengthens State energy codes by adding reductions in net energy use, net-zero readiness, and wiring for solar in new buildings for the 2031 code cycle, and by creating a residential stretch code.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ramel, Berry, Dolan, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker which drops the requirements for net-zero readiness by 2034 and for an eventual 80% reduction in net energy consumption from the 2006 Washington State Energy Code. It eliminates the home affordability cost analysis. The bill now simply authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt a residential energy stretch code created by the Code Council to reach the 70% reduction in energy use currently required for the regular 2030 code three years earlier. (It would also require a 70% reduction in emissions, though.) Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5669 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Local Government January 19th; replaced by a substitute January 21st. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to require an affordability cost analysis for any change in the residential code; to exclude new EV charging loads from the 80% reduction requirement; and to clarify a couple of sentences. Passed by the House February 12th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute replaces a requirement for “wiring for photovoltaic panel installation” with a requirement for “electrical raceways and designated space for solar equipment for photovoltaic panel installation”. It adds an exemption for buildings with inadequate solar exposure, and changes a few other dates and details which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill would require the State Energy Code to provide an 80% reduction in residential and non-residential energy use compared to the 2006 baseline by 2034 (through changes in the code adopted in the 2031 cycle; this would be 10% more than the reduction currently required by 2031, through changes in the 2028 cycle.) Since buildings are constructed under the code in place when they’re permitted, it takes a couple of additional years for a code update to actually become effective.)

It would also require those buildings to be “net zero ready”, and to include wiring for photovoltaic panel installation in the future. (The Department of Energy defines “net zero ready” buildings as being so energy efficient that an added renewable energy system could offset all or most of the building’s annual energy. The bill would have the Building Code Council develop the actual rules for meeting the State’s definition of that standard.)

The bill would have the the Department of Commerce propose rules for the technical provisions of an optional statewide residential reach code, and would require the Code Council to adopt one. Any city, town, or county could choose to adopt and enforce it in place of the State Energy Code’s standard requirements. It would have to become effective by 2023, and have to achieve the reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that would become effective in the regular State residential code by 2034, but could not exceed the “net zero” energy standard.

The bill would also eliminate a provision specifying that space heating equipment efficiency should be allowed to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance in the code.

SB5366

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5312 (2022 Session)

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

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

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

Summary –

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

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

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

HB1280

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

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

In the Senate 2022 –

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

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

 

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

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

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

HB1103

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

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

In the House 2022 –
Reintroduced in Appropriations.

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

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

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

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

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

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