Category Archives: Dead Bills 2021

HB1537

HB1573 – Terminates some tax exemptions for particular uses of fossil fuels.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-sponsors Harris-Talley, Berry, and Macri – D’s)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance. Had a hearing March 23rd.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
As of January 1st, 2022, the bill would eliminate the current blanket state and local use tax exemptions for natural gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied natural gas used as a transportation fuel. It would continue to exempt their use by a transit agency, if it had been doing that before 2025. It would continue to exempt renewable natural gas used as a transportation fuel, and compressed or liquefied versions of that. It would exempt users from the tax if they offset that consumption with renewable gas credits purchased from a distribution business in the state.

It removes the current exemption from the tax to fund the pollution liability insurance program for natural gas, petroleum coke, and liquid fuel or fuel gas used in petroleum processing .

It removes the current exemption for propane or natural gas used to heat chicken houses.

SB5457

SB5457 – Extends tax exemptions for commuter ride sharing vehicles to any carpool or vanpool transporting at least three people, including the driver.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing on February 18th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This is a companion bill to HB1514.

Summary –Summary –
Currently, the Commute Trip Reduction Incentives Act provides tax exemptions for vehicles that will be used for at least three years in commuter car pools or van pools making one round trip a day. They’re exempted from the State sales and use taxes, and from the motor vehicle excise tax. (It also exempts them from the regulations applying to drivers or owners of motor vehicles operated for hire, common carriers and public transit carriers, and protects those promoting ride sharing from any civil suits arising from the maintenance or operation of the vehicles.)

The bill expands the scope of these provisions by dropping the references to commuting, and redefining ridesharing as any “carpool or vanpool arrangement whereby one or more groups” of at least three people and not more than fifteen, including the driver, are transported. (I don’t know if this definition would include operations like Uber Pool or not.)

SB5444

SB5444 – Creates a per mile charge on electric and hybrid vehicles, replacing the current special fees; extends the $75 transportation electrification fee to cover all plug-ins.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-sponsors Hobbs, Nguyen and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing on February 18th. Amended and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules. Dead.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Fortunato’s SJR8207 would amend the Constitution to require any revenue from road usage charges of vehicle miles traveled fees to be spent for highway purposes.

Summary –
Senate Transportation amendment –
This shifts the implementation dates back a year and makes some other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Licensing and the Transportation Commission to develop a plan for imposing a per mile charge on electric and hybrid vehicles in place of the current special fees on them. (Owners of plug-in vehicles that can go at least 30 miles on the battery are currently charged an extra $150 a year in place of the gas tax, and they, hybrid, and other alternative fuel vehicle owners are charged another $75 a year to support developing charging infrastructure, green transit, and other clean alternative fuel infrastructure.) The new system would begin July 1 2026, and collect an annual fee for vehicles that can go over 30 miles on the battery of $0.02/mile for three years, increasing to $0.025/mile after that. It would continue the annual $75 fee and expand that to apply to plug-ins with less battery range as well. (Thus, if you drove 10,000 miles a year in an all electric vehicle, you’d pay $275/year, and then $325.) By July 1, 2025 at the latest, owners of vehicles that can go over 30 miles on the battery would be able to choose to switch to the new system early, and would be exempted from the $75 fee (an ongoing exemption according to Plug-In America, though I don’t think that’s clear; it depends on whether you read “actively participate in the program” as referring to the pilot program or the road use charge program). At least 500 varied State light vehicles would be required to participate in it (starting as early as July 2024 if that were feasible), but without paying the fees.

The plan has to take account of previous State research on replacing the gas tax with a road usage charge, and must include:
1. Different mileage reporting methods;
2. Recommended payment collection means and rates for achieving cost efficiency, fairness, minimal administrative cost, payment compliance, consumer choice, and for preserving individual privacy;
3. Options for collaborating with other states or countries in developing and administering the per mile funding system;
4. Evaluation and comparison of the benefits and costs of allowing payment plan options and annual payment;
5. Any recommended statutory changes, including suggested offsets or rebates to the per mile fees that might be approved by the Legislature;
6. Specific recommendations to better align the system with other vehicle-related charges and potentially establish the framework for broader implementation of a per mile funding system, including analysis of the preferred method for addressing potential 18th Amendment restrictions;
(g) A recommended implementation and governance structure, and a transition plan with the Department as the agency operating and administering the funding system;
(h) A recommendation on the best agency to be lead public outreach and education;
(i) Recommendations for augmenting vehicle owner privacy in light of new and emerging mileage reporting methods or technologies, and proposed rules to be adopted by the Commission to protect privacy in the system; and
(j) Detailed information on a recommended periodic review and evaluation process to ensure the system is achieving the policy and revenue goals established by the Legislature.

The bill exempts any personally identifying information of persons reporting mileage or vehicle location information as part of a complying with a mileage tax from disclosure, except to law enforcement agencies in accordance with a court order. The bill prohibits collecting any  personally identifying information beyond what’s necessary to calculate, report, and collect the per mile fee, unless the vehicle owner provides written consent for collecting more. Reporting is allowed to collect general location data if an owner chooses that specific reporting method; proper disclosure of the method was made according to rules adopted by the Transportation Commission; and the owner specifically consents to its reporting. The bill prohibits reporting specific location data to the Department or any subdivision of the state, including travel patterns, origins, destinations, waypoint locations, or times of travel, unless a vehicle owner specifically consents to the recording or reporting. The bill establishes an affirmative public duty to ensure that per mile information is protected with reasonable operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure its confidentiality and integrity; to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure; and to implement and maintain a usage and privacy policy to ensure that the collection of information respects  individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. Any system data retained longer than needed to ensure proper mileage account payment has to have all personally identifying information removed and may only be used for public purposes.

SB5439

SB5439 – Facilitating the coordinated installation of broadband along state highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-sponsors Kuderer, Lovelett, and Nguyen – Ds)
Current status – Dead
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 15th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of Committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Completely replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor on the floor and passed by the Senate unanimously February 26th. (The changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it.)

In the House –
Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules April 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Transportation to provide at least sixty days notice of road construction projects to personal wireless and broadband service providers within the same county or counties, by website or electronic subscriptions, to allow collaboration on the installation of their facilities during construction. (If a provider replies within 30 days, the Department may schedule a consultation meeting to review installation opportunities and may determine the feasibility and viability of a collaboration project, but isn’t under any obligation to provide for installation.)

If there isn’t a service provider ready or able to install personal wireless service facilities or broadband conduit as part of a project, the bill would authorize the Department to do that in order to reduce future traffic impacts to the public; support vehicle miles traveled reduction and congestion management by allowing for more telework; and prepare the transportation system for autonomous vehicles. It also authorizes the Department to allow nonprofit service providers to use a right-of-way for broadband infrastructure in rural and unserved areas at no cost, provided that there’s quantifiable commensurate benefit to the transportation system and users of these specified kinds from the use of the conduit.

The bill requires the Governor’s statewide broadband office, in consultation with local governments and the UTC, to create a registration system for service providers applying to install broadband infrastructure that provides automatic notice to the Department of Transportation and other broadband providers applying for installation permits in the same area so opportunities for coordination can be identified.

It requires the Department of Commerce’s regular reports on broadband infrastructure to include the locations where broadband infrastructure has been deployed in the state during the prior five years and is planned to be employed, including along state highways.

It expands the exemption from the laws governing franchises on State highways that personal wireless services currently have to include broadband infrastructure.

HB1513

HB1513 – Modifying SB5373 on issuing up to $4.943 billion in bonds, backed by a tax on fossil fuels, to be used for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and natural climate solutions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; parts of Whatcom, Skagit, & San Juan County) (Co-sponsor Shewmake – D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
SB5373 is a similar bill in the Senate.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill maintains the general structure of SB5373, but modifies it in a number of ways. The Senate bill has Ecology make recommendations to the Legislature if it decides the tax isn’t high enough to produce specified reductions; this bill would raise the rate until it was predicted to achieve them. Its definition of “greenhouse gases” would include any Ecology designated. It would not exempt fossil fuel burned in the state to generate electricity, and would require refineries to report their fossil fuel use.  It adds some details about collaborating with the Department of Licensing to administer the tax on motor fuels, and reporting by companies on how the costs of the tax are being passed on to consumers. It no longer includes a four year trial period in which emissions from any energy-intensive trade exposed industries that weren’t exempted by new Ecology rules would be taxed, though it keeps the Senate bill’s requirement for a 2026 report to the Governor and the Legislature with recommendations on taxing those emissions. It specifies that the tax doesn’t apply to electricity or to any fuels that aren’t fossil fuels, such as green hydrogen, not just biofuels. It drops specified funding for the sustainable farms and fields grants program, and for riparian easements. It would provide environmental justice oversight through the Environmental Justice Council that would be created by this session’s SB5141, rather than through SB5373’s Environmental and Economic Justice Panel, and define its responsibilities differently.  It would create a new Climate Oversight Board. It no longer requires high priority to be given to funding projects that directly benefit the economically distressed areas defined in RCW 43.168.020, would not require 25% of the investments to benefit rural areas, and would drop the Senate bill’s section on required consultation with tribes. It makes a number of small changes about agency roles and other things.

It’s not clear to me whether it would increase Ecology’s current authorization to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if the tax were invalidated.

Summary –
The bill places a carbon tax of $25/metric ton on the life cycle CO2 equivalent emissions associated with the sale or use of fossil fuels burned in the state. It’s to begin in 2023, increase by 5% a year and be adjusted for inflation. Every two years the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Ecology, would have to reevaluate the tax rate needed to ensure the state achieved a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. In January 2030, if Ecology determined that the emissions covered by the bill weren’t falling at a sufficient rate to produce their share of the reductions needed to meet the state’s targets, the rate would increase by $10/tonne, with an added annual increase of $2/tonne each year until Ecology estimated it would be sufficient to achieve the needed reductions. At that point, the added $2 annual increase would no longer apply. All the revenue is to be used to fund projects and activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate the environmental impacts of those emissions and of climate change. The bill would stop the Department of Ecology from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but would authorize it to use the full extent of its authority to regulate them under the Act  to help achieve the state’s targets for reductions if the tax were invalidated.

The tax is to be paid by the state and political subdivisions like counties and cities as well as by businesses. Distribution companies are to pay the tax on natural gas sold to retail customers and to utilities for generating power; direct access customers are to pay the tax on their gas use. The tax on motor vehicle fuel and special fuel is to be paid by the same parties who are currently responsible for paying the fuel tax. The bill specifies reporting and payment requirements for refineries.

The bill exempts fuel brought into the state in a primary fuel supply tank and burned, fuels that the State’s prohibited from taxing by Federal law or by laws about Indians’ property, fuel exported from the state, coal burned at the Transalta plant, agricultural and aircraft fuels, any fuels that aren’t fossil fuels, and fuel bought in the state but burned outside it by ships and interstate motor carriers. During a five year transition period, it exempts fuels used for transporting logs and agricultural products,  and for extracting timber. Fuels that have already paid a carbon tax or charge on their lifecycle emissions to another jurisdiction are eligible for a credit of up to that amount against the tax owed in Washington. By July 30th 2026, the Department of Ecology is to make recommendations to the Legislature on applying the tax to emissions from energy intensive trade exposed industries.

The bill gives the Departments of Revenue, Ecology, Licensing, Transportation, and Commerce the authority to adopt any rules they deem necessary to implement it; Ecology, Commerce, and the WSU Energy Extension Program are to provide technical assistance in administering the bill to the Department of Revenue if it requests it. The Department of Revenue is to issue a report every two years including:
1. The total carbon pollution taxes collected during the reporting period and a list of the taxpayers and the tax they paid;
2. Estimated costs incurred by the department, Commerce, and Ecology in administering the bill, as a dollar amount and as a percentage of the tax collected;
3. The impact on the state’s economy including verifiable data on emissions leakage and any job losses since the implementation of the tax, and
4. A summary of the investments made through Commerce’s allocations of the revenue, including amounts invested in each program area, project descriptions, names of grant recipients, an estimate of the emissions reductions achieved or anticipated via the investments, and other information requested by the Legislature.
The report’s to include recommendations for modifying or improving the act to ensure its goals are being met, and the first report is to include recommendations for auditing the expenditures. The Department of Commerce is to provide information on its website about the impacts of the tax on the price of natural gas and vehicle fuels by sector, and must provide an environmental justice analysis reporting on the environmental, health, and economic impacts of climate and of state measures taken to meet our emissions limits on highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations.

The Finance Committee is authorized to issue up to $4.943 billion in bonds during a ten year period, with terms that mean they’ll be fully repaid no later than December 31, 2050. They may be tax exempt or taxable, may be certified as green bonds or climate bonds, and may include new bonds to pay off outstanding bonds. They’re to be secured solely by pledged revenues from the carbon tax, and their repayment is to be the first priority for spending those. (Up to 5% of the remaining revenue may be used for administering the provisions of the bill.)

The backers of SB5373 estimate $16 billion will be raised by the tax over the first ten years, after the payment of 3.5% in debt service. Thus, funds will be available from the bonds when they are issued, and then from the portion of the ongoing revenue stream that isn’t needed for repayment of the principal, debt service and administrative expenses. 75% of that money available for investments is to be spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (75% of this money is to be spent on programs, projects, and activities to reduce or mitigate the impact of transportation emissions, including:
1. Deploying clean alternative fuel vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure;
2. Supporting clean alternative fuel car sharing programs for underserved communities and low to moderate-income workers not readily served by transit, or in corridors with emissions that exceed federal or state standards;
3. Providing financing to facilitate the purchase of battery and fuel cell electric vehicles by lower-income residents;
4. Providing grants to transit authorities for cost-effective capital projects that reduce the carbon intensity of the transportation system including electrifying fleets, modifying
or replacing capital facilities to facilitate fleet electrification or hydrogen refueling, upgrading transmission and distribution systems, and constructing charging and fueling stations;
5. Providing support to small trucking firms in converting vehicles to cleaner alternative fuels, acquiring and accessing fueling infrastructure, and mitigating the costs of transitioning to cleaner vehicles;
6. Electrifying and decarbonizing the passenger ferry fleet; and
7. Converting state, county, city, and public transit agency fleets to battery or fuel cell electric vehicles.

The remaining 25% of this money for reducing emissions may be spent on programs, activities, or projects in the state including:
1. Supplementing the growth management planning and environmental review fund for making grants or loans to local governments for land use planning;
2. Deploying renewable energy resources or distributed generation, energy storage, demand side technologies and strategies, and modernizing the grid;
3. Increasing the energy efficiency or reducing the greenhouse emissions of industrial facilities including implementing combined heat and power, district energy, or on-site renewables, upgrading the energy efficiency of existing equipment, reducing process emissions, and switching to less emissions intensive fuel;
4. Achieving energy efficiency or emissions reductions in the agricultural sector through steps such as fertilizer management, soil management, bioenergy, and biofuels;
5. Increasing energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, or promoting low-carbon
architecture, including the use of building materials that result in a lower carbon footprint over the life cycle of the building and component materials;
6. Promoting the electrification and decarbonization of new and existing buildings, and
7. Improving energy efficiency, including supporting district energy, and investments in market transformation by energy efficiency products.

The other 25% of the initial revenue from the bonds, and what’s remaining from the ongoing tax revenue after servicing the bonds and paying administrative expenses, is to be spent on natural climate solutions – to increase the resilience of waters, forests, and other vital ecosystems to the impacts of climate change, and to increase their carbon pollution reduction capacity through sequestration, storage, and ecosystem integrity. It can be spent to:
1. Restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats, and prepare for sea level rise including making fish passage correction investments;
2. Increase the ability to remediate and adapt to ocean acidification;
3. Reduce flood risk and restore natural floodplain ecological function;
4. Increase the sustainable supply of water and improve aquatic habitat, including groundwater mapping and modeling;
5. Improve infrastructure treating stormwater from previously developed areas within an urban growth boundary, with a preference for projects that use green stormwater infrastructure; or to
6. Preserve or increase carbon sequestration and storage benefits in agricultural soils and timber stock.

It can also be spent on forest investments to:
1. Increase resilience to wildfire in the face of increased seasonal temperatures and drought; or
2. Improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change.

At least 35% of the investments under the bill must provide direct benefits to vulnerable populations in highly impacted communities; at least 25% of them must benefit rural areas, and at least 10% of them must benefit tribes. The bill would have the Environmental Justice Council that would be created by this session’s SB5141 “prepare recommendations for and provide oversight of the impacts of the … tax … and associated programs …affecting low- income populations, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities.” It would define environmental justice progress indicators for the act including:
1. The elimination of materials emitting carbon dioxide, black carbon, methane, nitrogen oxides, and fluorinated gases imported into or extracted in the state;
2. The elimination of the emissions outside the state attributable to consumption in the state;
3. Air quality, water quality, and land and buildings free from toxins associated with fossil fuels;
4. The elimination of environmental health disparities that disproportionately impact households that are Black, indigenous, people of color’s, or are in areas that are highly impacted communities; and
5. The reduction of economic inequality and elimination of poverty and the prevalence of livelihoods and high-road employment opportunities accessible to all.
It would also “define and provide instruction on meaningful consultation with vulnerable populations and low-income populations” and provide opportunities for vulnerable populations to consult on the implementation of the act.

The bill would create a Climate Oversight Board appointed by the Governor and responsible for ongoing review of the implementation of the tax and funding to ensure the fairest, most equitable, most efficient, and timely achievement of bill’s objectives. Members would come from a specified list of stakeholders, would serve four yer terms, and would select a chair from the Board. It’s responsibilities would include reviewing  plans for implementing the funding programs including the criteria for allocations and project awards, as well as information about projects and funding decisions. It would review progress reports by agencies and compliance with consultation requirements; and would provide recommendations for standards for measuring emissions reductions from investments. It’s authorized to act jointly with the Environmental Justice Council in carrying out these responsibilities, and to contract with the Washington Academy of Sciences to provide evaluations. It’s to report to the Legislature every two years.

HB1503

HB1503 – Low income tax exemption for natural gas, propane, hydrogen, and electric vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wiley (D; 49th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance, and had a hearing there on February 17th; passed out of committee February 18th, and referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill creates a ten year low-income sales and use tax exemption for the purchase or lease of new or used passenger cars, light trucks and medium passenger vehicles that are powered by natural gas, propane, hydrogen, and electricity, including plug-in hybrids.  (Medium passenger vehicles weigh from 8,500 to 10,000 pounds, and are typically vans carrying up to 12 people.)

A vehicle would have to meet the California motor vehicle emission standards and Ecology’s rules to qualify. A purchase would have to have “a selling price plus trade-in property of like kind” less than $25,000 for the sales tax exemption (or a fair market value less than $25,000 for the use tax exemption), and a leased vehicle would have to have a fair market value less than $25,000. You’d have to have qualified for the Federal earned income tax credit on your last tax return to be eligible for the exemption. This currently requires an income below $37,870 to $51,567 for families with children (depending on how many they have), an income under $14,340 if you’re single, and under $19,680 for a married couple without children.

There are various requirements about paperwork and reporting; the tax exemption’s to be funded by the additional $75 a year registration fee currently paid by owners of hybrid, plug in and alternative fuel vehicles.

SB5175

SB5175 – Authorizes the Community Economic Revitalization Board to make loans and grants to local governments and tribes for constructing broadband internet infrastructure. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade; had a hearing January 21st. Passed out of committee January 28th and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 11th; passed out of Ways and Means February 16th. Referred to Rules, and placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Community Economic Revitalization Board to make loans and grants to local governments and tribes for constructing open access broadband internet infrastructure, if specifically appropriated funds for that were available. (No more than half the financing it approved in a biennium could go to tribes.)

The board could provide grants or loans for projects to drive job creation, promote innovation, and expand markets for local businesses; or serve the needs of local education systems, health care systems, public safety systems, industries, businesses, governmental operations, and citizens. (The Board could not provide assistance for a project if its primary purpose was facilitating or promoting gambling.)

Applications would have to be approved by the local government and supported by the local associate development organization or local workforce development council, or by the governing body of the tribe. They’d have to demonstrate that no other timely source of funding was available at costs reasonably similar to financing available from the Board, and have a responsible official present during deliberations on the proposal to provide information the Board requested.

When evaluating and prioritizing projects, the board would have to consider at least the project’s value to the community, including evidence of support from affected local businesses and government; its feasibility, using standard economic principles; the commitment of local matching resources and local participation; its inclusion in a capital facilities plan, comprehensive plan, or local economic development plan; and its readiness to proceed.

SB5357

SB5357 – Appropriations for matching grants from the Federal broadband infrastructure program to increase broadband access in rural and distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Honeyford (R; 15th District; Eastern Yakima County)
Current status – Dead
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means; had a hearing, February 11th; replaced by a substitute removing the specified appropriation and voted out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules February 18th, amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 5th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on the Capital Budget. Had a hearing March 16th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Floor Amendment –
The amendment requires the Statewide Broadband Office to develop a process for evaluating projects that supports coordination with the Public Works Board and the Community Economic Revitalization Board to maximize opportunities to leverage federal funding and ensure efficient state investments in broadband infrastructure; however, those other agencies would no longer be part of spending the funds for administering the program.

Substitute –
The substitute removed the specified $200 million appropriation.

Original Bill –
The bill would establish a competitive grant program to increase broadband access in rural and distressed areas of the state, funding it from the state building construction account this biennium with as much of $200 million as was needed to provide the matching required for grants from the Federal broadband infrastructure program. (3% of the money could also be used for administrative expenses.) Grants would be open to a range of public and private entities.

HB1388

HB1388 – Allows manufacturers that only make zero-emissions vehicles, like Tesla, to own and control their own dealerships, finance, leasing and service operations. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland, Bothell)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business; had a hearing February 10th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
Plug-In America has a fact sheet on the bill.

Summary –
The bill allows manufacturers that only make zero-emissions vehicles, like Tesla, to operate their own dealerships, finance, leasing and service operations. (It also raises the cap on the documentary service fee dealers can charge to cover the costs of dealing with registration fees and other legal requirements when selling or leasing a vehicle from $150 to $300.)

SB5363

SB5363 – Requires retail bills to compare actual electricity costs to the costs if power came exclusively from least-cost resources, and to imply the difference is due to wind and solar subsidies. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Schoesler (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Dead bill; never heard.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1327 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require retail electricity bills to provide a prominent graphic comparing the actual bill total with an estimated total for that customer’s rate class if the utility had only used power from least-cost resources. An accompanying footnote would be required to read, “Direct subsidies to generators of renewable power from wind and solar projects are paid for by Washington taxpayers. Purchase of this subsidized renewable power from wind and solar projects by electric utilities is mandated by the state Energy Independence Act … and by the state Clean Energy Transformation Act …..”

HB1330

HB1330 – Creates a sales and use tax exemption for electric bicycles and up to $200 of related equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Dead
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Finance. Had a hearing there February 17th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 19th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and had a hearing March 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute merely specified the date at which reaching the cap would terminate the exemption more clearly.

Original bill –
The bill exempts electric bicycles and up to $200 of related equipment from the sales tax starting August 1st, 2021 and ending May 1st 2027, or when $500,000 of exemptions have been granted. (It says the Legislature intends to extend the expiration if a review by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee finds that the number of electric bicycles purchased has increased by 25 percent compared to the number of electric bicycles in 2020.) [This may be intended to mean compared to the number purchased in 2020.]

HB1327

HB1327 – Requires retail bills to compare actual electricity costs to the costs if power came exclusively from least-cost resources, and to imply the difference is due to wind and solar subsidies.  (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 4th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB 5363 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would require retail electricity bills to provide a prominent graphic comparing the actual bill total with an estimated total for that customer’s rate class if the utility had only used power from least-cost resources. An accompanying footnote would be required to read, “Direct subsidies to generators of renewable power from wind and solar projects are paid for by Washington taxpayers. Purchase of this subsidized renewable power from wind and solar projects by electric utilities is mandated by the state Energy Independence Act … and by the state Clean Energy Transformation Act …..”

SB5154 – 2021

SB5154 – Prohibits ports from enforcing emission standards for trucks operating on their property, and from prohibiting old trucks until July 2036. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsor Jeff Wilson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 21st.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill prohibits port districts from penalizing or discriminating against the operation on port district property of trucks that don’t meet emissions or related engine standards.  Until July 1st, 2036, it wouldn’t allow them to prohibit any trucks older than the 2007 models from operating on district property (For example, trucks that are now 14 years old would be able to keep running until they were 30 years old; trucks from 1995 that are now 25 years old could run until they were 41 years old, even if ports wanted to prohibit them.)

SB5256

SB5256 – Requires ending State registration of fossil fuel cars and light vehicles, starting with 2030 models. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Snohomish County) (Co-sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing (Dead)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1204 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Coltura has a fact sheet about the bill.

Summary –
The bill requires the State Transportation Commission to develop a plan and implement regulations to require that all new vehicles beginning with model year 2030 must be electric to be registered in Washington. (Model-year 2029 and earlier vehicles, emergency vehicles, vehicles over 10,000 pounds, and those bought by residents of another state before becoming Washington residents are not affected.)

The plan’s to be completed by September 1st, 2023, in consultation with other agencies, and must include:
1. The predicted number of new and used electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles registered in Washington each year during a transition period from 2022 through 2040;
2. The charging infrastructure needed to provide convenient fueling of electric vehicles during that period, and predicted yearly investments required to build it;
3. An analysis of the generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades and build-out required to provide fueling for those electric vehicles, and the predicted yearly and aggregate investment required to implement those upgrades;
4. An analysis of how the grid can be optimized through smart charging and discharging of electric vehicles during that period;
5. An analysis of yearly job gains and losses during the period as a result of the requirement, as well as its effect on state transportation revenues
6. Recommendations on alternative sources of revenues to replace gas tax revenues;
7. An analysis of the requirement’s impacts on equity, especially on disadvantaged and low-income communities, communities of color, and rural communities, and strategies for maximizing equity in implementing the requirement; and
8. A just transition strategy for those negatively impacted by it.

The commission’s to conduct a series of public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan, especially including those from disadvantaged and low-income communities. The plan’s to be updated in 2025 and 2028, and the Commission’s to submit copies each time to the Legislature’s transportation committees.

Before January 1, 2025, the commission, in coordination with appropriate agencies, is to adopt regulations consistent with the scoping plan, requiring that all passenger and light duty vehicles of model year 2030 or later sold or registered in Washington state are electric. The regulations are to be designed to maximize equity and total benefits to the state while minimizing costs and risks, minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying with them, and rely on the best available economic and scientific information and its assessment of existing and projected technological capabilities.

The commission’s to consult with the UTC, investor-owned utilities, public utility districts, and municipal utilities in the development of the regulations insofar as they affect electricity providers, in order to to minimize duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.

SB5219

SB5219 – Requires more post-consumer recycled plastic in packaging. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsors Liias, Conway, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer, Nguyen, and Claire Wilson – all D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 28th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
I think that the fees per ton that are supposed to raise specified amounts of revenue only apply to packaging that doesn’t meet the recycled content requirements; that implies there there’s expected to be enough of that to generate $20 to $30 million/yr.
The bill defines the “producers” responsible for implementing its requirements as the brand owners of products with plastic packaging sold or distributed for use in the state, or the importers of such products. I think that means there will be a great many of them…

Summary –
The bill requires plastic packaging on products sold or distributed in Washington to increase its postconsumer recycled plastic content. The bill includes things like plastic tags, and packaging intended to be sold to consumers.; it exempts plastic packaging and food serviceware provided for serving prepared food at a drive-through, in a packaged form for takeout or takeaway, and from food trucks, stands, delis, or kiosks; as well as the plastic carryout bags for which State law already has recycled content requirements. Its requirements apply to the brand owners of products with plastic packaging, or to the importers of such products.

From July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2026, it would require at least 15% recycled content; through the next four years it would require at least 25%, and after January 1, 2031, it would have to contain at least 50%. Every other year, and at the request of producers, but not more than once a year, the Department of Ecology would have to consider reducing the requirements, but it would not be authorized to set them below 15% after 2026. (In making the decision, it would have to consider at least changes in market conditions, including supply and demand for postconsumer recycled plastics, collection rates, and bale availability; recycling rates; the availability of suitable recycled plastic; the capacity of recycling or processing infrastructure; the progress made by manufacturers in meeting the requirements; and the carbon footprint of transporting recycled resin.)

The department must implement a fee of up to $200/ton on brand owners and importers whose packaging, “in pounds and in aggregate”, fails to meet the requirements. It’s to be set to  to raise $40 million to $60 million per biennium in 2023 through 2026, no less than $30 million and no more than $50 million per biennium in 2027 through 2030, and no less than $20 million and no more than $40 million per biennium after that. Ecology’s to publish an annual report including estimated revenue from the fee, the amounts and quantities of packaging subject to it, and the number of producers currently in and expected to be in compliance with the requirements. If the department estimates revenues will fall below the ranges the bill specifies, it’s to set a fee of $200/ton and include the revenues expected from that in its report.

Revenue from the fee is to go into a recycling improvement account. Twenty-five percent of the money must be spent on grants to material recovery facilities processing municipal solid wastes to improve their ability to sort and manage plastic packaging, with a goal of improving recycling infrastructure and its recyclability. The rest must be used to cover the department’s administration of the requirements, and distributed to cities and counties that have qualified for State financial aid in planning solid waste management. They may spend the funds  on improving recycling infrastructure and the recyclability of plastic packaging through curbside recycling (or through depots or collection points for plastics that can’t be dealt with effectively through curbside collection), and on solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education. The department’s to distribute this funding in consultation with an advisory committee it sets up, including five members appointed by the Washington Association of County Solid Waste Managers and five appointed by the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials. It must distribute a set minimum amount to each county, and must distribute funds to counties based on their populations, but may incorporate the criteria and prioritization process it’s already developed for distributing solid waste planning funds.

The department’s required to establish a stakeholder advisory committee to periodically review and recommend exemptions, exceptions, or alternative compliance requirements concerning at least:
1. Plastic packaging that is subject to Federal requirements, including those of the FDA;
2. Plastic packaging that the department finds, through life-cycle analysis, provides environmentally superior performance when it doesn’t contain postconsumer recycled content or contains smaller amounts of it than the bill requires;
3. Plastic packaging from brand owners or importers who sell or distribute less than a ton of plastic packaging a year in Washington;
4. Plastic packaging associated with a single point of retail sale in the state; or from women or minority-owned brand owners or importers, if the department determines the exemption’s in the public interest. The committee must include at least one person representing the department; the Department of Commerce; the UTC; small and large,  urban and rural, cities and counties; public and sector recycling and solid waste industries, a regulated solid waste collection company providing curbside recycling; a material recovery facility operator processing municipal solid waste from curbside programs; a company providing curbside recycling service through a municipal contract;  a trade association representing the private solid waste industry; recycled plastic feedstock users; and environmental organizations.

Details –
The bill diverts 4% of the waste reduction, recycling, and litter control account to the Department of Ecology for one year to fund implementing its requirements. There are provisions for required reporting by brand owners and importers, for enforcement, and for appeals.

 

SB5206

SB5206 – Excludes solar projects on agricultural land from the expedited process for siting energy projects. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology  January 27th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently, the developer of an energy facility or an alternative energy resource facility may apply for expedited processing of the application by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, and the Council may provide that, if it finds that the environmental impact of the proposed facility isn’t significant or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level; and that the project’s consistent and in compliance with city, county,or regional land use plans or zoning.

The bill would make solar projects on agricultural lands with long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products ineligible for expedited processing, in order to allow for a comprehensive review of local concerns if there are any.

HB1204

HB1204 – Requires ending State registration of fossil fuel cars and light vehicles, starting with 2030 models. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Macri (D; 43rd District; Seattle) (Co-sponsors Chopp, Ramos, Kloba, Simmons, Senn, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Ramel, Duerr, Ortiz-Self, Goodman, Slatter, Bateman, Pollet, and Harris-Talley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5256 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
Coltura has a fact sheet about the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute converts the requirement to a goal.

Original Bill –
The bill requires the State Transportation Commission to develop a plan and implement regulations to require that all new vehicles beginning with model year 2030 must be electric to be registered in Washington.  (Model-year 2029 and earlier vehicles, emergency vehicles, vehicles over 10,000 pounds, and those bought by residents of another state before becoming Washington residents are not affected.)

The plan’s to be completed by September 1st, 2023, in consultation with other agencies, and must include:
1. The predicted number of new and used electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles registered in Washington each year during a transition period from 2022 through 2040;
2. The charging infrastructure needed to provide convenient fueling of electric vehicles during that period, and predicted yearly investments required to build it;
3. An analysis of the generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades and build-out required to provide fueling for those electric vehicles, and the predicted yearly and aggregate investment required to implement those upgrades;
4. An analysis of how the grid can be optimized through smart charging and discharging of electric vehicles during that period;
5. An analysis of yearly job gains and losses during the period as a result of the requirement, as well as its effect on state transportation revenues
6. Recommendations on alternative sources of revenues to replace gas tax revenues;
7. An analysis of the requirement’s impacts on equity, especially on disadvantaged and low-income communities, communities of color, and rural communities, and strategies for maximizing equity in implementing the requirement; and
8. A just transition strategy for those negatively impacted by it.

The commission’s to conduct a series of public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan, especially including those from disadvantaged and low-income communities. The plan’s to be updated in 2025 and 2028, and the Commission’s to submit copies each time to the Legislature’s transportation committees.

Before January 1, 2025, the commission, in coordination with appropriate agencies, is to adopt regulations consistent with the scoping plan, requiring that all passenger and light duty vehicles of model year 2030 or later sold or registered in Washington state are electric. The regulations are to be designed to maximize equity and total benefits to the state while minimizing costs and risks, minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying with them, and rely on the best available economic and scientific information and its assessment of existing and projected technological capabilities.

The commission’s to consult with the UTC, investor-owned utilities, public utility districts, and municipal utilities in the development of the regulations insofar as they affect electricity providers, in order to to minimize duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.

SB5174

SB5174 – Making manufacturers responsible for recycling or reusing wind turbine blades. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Northwest WA) (Co-sponsors Rolfes-D, Wagoner-R, Das-D, Claire Wilson-D, and Hunt-D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 27th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on  February 16th; passed out of Ways and Means February 18th. Referred to Rules, and placed in the “X” file March 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
According to a recent Bloomberg Green article 85% of the steel, copper, electronics, and gearing in the turbines themselves can be recycled or reused, but the fiberglass blades “can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed.” (One company presses them into pellets and uses them in fiber board.) They’re a tiny part of the state’s waste stream; the Electric Power Research Institute estimates that all blade waste through 2050 will equal roughly .015% of all the waste going to landfills in 2015 alone. It isn’t at all clear that the life-cycle carbon footprint of recycling them won’t be larger than just landfilling them. Perhaps the bill is intended to create business for some company or organization, or make wind projects more expensive, but the time, energy, and money it will take to do this might will be better spent on many other kinds of waste that we could actually recycle or reuse effectively, or on other kinds of climate action projects altogether…

The bill’s deadline for submitting a plan and the deadline for having an approved plan in order to sell blades are the same, and there’s no timeline for Ecology’s review of plans, so in practice, plans would probably have to be submitted well before the deadline for doing that. The bill says manufacturers must have an approved plan by July 2023, and it says “manufacturers shall implement the plan”, but it doesn’t seem to actually specify a date by which they must implement it. (Maybe a window for that is implied in the requirement for a report on implementation by July 1, 2024.)

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute requires manufacturers to designate a stewardship organization to carry out their obligations rather than making that an option. It makes recovering a fee to cover administrative expenses a requirement rather than an option, and calculates a manufacturer’s share of the fee on the basis of its average sales in the state over the last three years, rather than the most recent year.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Ecology to develop guidance for manufacturers in developing and implementing a self-directed program and plans for the convenient, safe, and environmentally sound takeback and recycling of blades, their components and materials by January 1st, 2023. The responsibility for this falls on the owners of the brand names that the blades are sold under, on companies that import blades, or on retailers selling imported blades who choose to register as a manufacturer for those. Manufacturers may designate a stewardship organization to fulfill their obligations under the act.

Manufacturers or their organizations must submit a stewardship plan by July 1, 2023 (or thirty days after they sell their first blade in the state) describing how they will:
1. Adequately fund the costs of collection, management, and recycling of blades sold in or into Washington, including a mechanism that ensures they can be delivered to takeback locations without cost to the last owner or holder;
2. Accept all of these wind blades after the effective date of this section;
3. Provide for takeback of the blades at locations as convenient as reasonably practicable within the region in which they were used, and to include an explanation for the lack of such a location if one doesn’t exist);
4. Identify how relevant stakeholders will receive the information required to properly dismantle, transport, and treat end of life blades in a manner consistent with the bill’s objectives; and,
5. Establish performance goals, including one for reusing and recycling of at least 85% percent by weight of the collected wind blades.

Plans must be reviewed and approved by the department, and periodically updated. Starting July 1st 2023, manufacturers must have an approved plan to sell blades in the state; after a written warning, they can be fined up to $10,000 for each sale without one. The manufacturer or its designated stewardship organization must submit an annual report to the department documenting the implementation of the plan and assessing its achievement of the bill’s goals. The department is to collect fees from each manufacturer, in proportion to its percentage of the sales of blades in the state, to cover the costs of administering the program.

Instead of preparing and implementing a stewardship plan, a manufacturer may participate in a national program for the convenient, safe, and environmentally sound takeback and recycling of wind turbine blades and their components and materials, if that’s substantially equivalent to the intent of Washington’s program. (As far as I know, such a program does not exist.)

SB5168 – 2021

SB5168 – Requiring Ecology to provide advisory opinions on whether proposed projects will meet the Clean Energy Transformation Act’s requirements for greenhouse gas neutral electricity. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast WA)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 27th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
As I read the bill, getting an opinion from Commerce advising that a project will comply with the requirements guarantees that it will (assuming it’s built according to the proposal), regardless of what other authorities might have concluded. If a developer hasn’t asked for an opinion, then the other authorities retain their power to make that decision. (I think it implies that one of them might conclude a project did comply, even if Commerce had been asked for an opinion and hadn’t been willing to issue one saying it would.)

Summary –
Between 2030 and 2045, the Clean Energy Transformation Act requires all retail sales of electricity in the state to be “greenhouse gas” neutral. The Act allows utilities to meet this requirement in a number of ways, including supplying power from renewable and non-emitting resources, and investing in energy transformation projects that meet requirements the Act specifies and criteria established by the Department of Ecology. (Starting in 2045, they can only supply retail power from non-emitting and renewable sources.)

The bill requires the Department of Commerce to provide utilities and developers with a legal analysis of a proposed generation or energy transformation project on the basis of an application with information that “accurately describes the proposed project”, and an advisory opinion about whether it would count the Act’s requirements for greenhouse gas neutrality. Commerce is to solicit and consider comments from interested parties in the process; it’s to create rules for the process, and can charge a fee to cover its administrative expenses.

The bill says any project that an advisory opinion states will qualify, and that is built or acquired as proposed, must be considered as complying with those requirements for resources by any agency authorized to enforce them.

It also says that nothing in it preempts the authority of any governing board of a consumer-owned utility, the UTC, or any agency authorized to enforce these requirements from making a determination, independent of this process, on whether a proposed project qualifies to meet the requirements.

SB5081

SB5081 – Places the burden of proof in any enforcement action on the Department of Ecology (and applies to four other agencies). (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; Skagit County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 2nd. No action taken in scheduled executive session February 4th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill places the burden of proof in any enforcement actions by the Departments of Ecology, Agriculture, Health, Natural Resources, or Fish and Wildlife on the agencies.

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.

HB1130

HB1130 – Mandates 50% reductions in utility bills and 50% improvements in reliability. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County) (Co-sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 22nd.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
This bill would mandate reducing gas and electric bills, including taxes and fees, by 2031 – to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50 percent below 2020 levels. It would mandate reducing cumulative power outages and energy supply disruptions to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50% below 2020 levels. It specifies that “to the the extent practicable” the rules developed under the recent 100% Clean Electricity Act” have to incorporate the objective of reaching those targets.

The public counsel unit of the office of the Attorney General would be required to report to the Legislature by December 1, 2022 on the actions necessary to achieve these improvements using existing statutory authority; and to recommend any additional statutory authority necessary to achieve them. The report would have to be be based on an analysis of the cumulative cost impact of power outages in the state since 1990 and of the impact of a range of percentage reductions in the number and duration of outages since then and extending to 2050; as well as of the cumulative cost savings and economic and employment impact of the additional cash flow in the economy resulting from the proposed reductions in utility bills. (To the extent that it was practical, the report would state the bill costs and reliability experience of residents in Indian country and of other historically disadvantaged communities separately, as well as any particular benefits that those communities may experience from improved reliability and lower bill costs.)

The bill declares that it’s the intent of the Legislature to supply the public counsel unit with financial resources to develop the plan by providing at least as much as has been appropriated by the state since 2013 to fund agency review and third-party consulting on the removal of dams on the lower Snake river and the evaluation of Washington’s potential for high-speed rail. It specifies that the research Commerce does on energy assistance for low-income households must include collecting data on delinquent utility accounts, vehicle charging costs, and trends in those, and provide its aggregated data on the issue differentiated by city, county, and legislative district in order to increase political accountability.

HB1125

HB1125 – Incentivizing energy conservation and efficiency by landlords; expanding rate discounts. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 21st and 26th. Executive action scheduled but not taken January 29th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Carlyle’s SB5295 includes nearly identical provisions for efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties, with the addition of required reporting on the results to the UTC and WSU’s energy program every two years,

Summary –
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 while meeting their comfort and productivity needs. The bill also expands the authority of private electric utilities to provide discounts for low income customers, allowing them to create discounts to reduce the energy burden of communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization; and to ensure that the benefits of the transition to clean energy are equitably distributed.

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 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. (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.)

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’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 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.

HB1075

HB1075 – Requires ride-hailing services to reduce their vehicle emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 15th; substitute passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 19th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
Requires an analysis of the effects on drivers after a year and after five years.
Second Substitute –
Exempts ride-hailing companies using only zero-emissions vehicles from some reporting and regulatory requirements.

Original bill –
By July 1st, 2022 the bill requires the Department of Ecology to establish a baseline of the emissions per passenger-mile-traveled through ride-hailing services in 2018. (It’s to include an estimate of the additional miles using active modes of transportation like walking and biking by passengers whose use of those has been facilitated by the company’s software.) The bill requires the department to set mandatory annual goals and targets that are technically and economically feasible for each company’s emissions per passenger-mile and for increasing the percentage of passenger-miles traveled using zero emission vehicles; they’re to “take into consideration” the state greenhouse gas targets and its vehicle miles traveled goals. To the extent that it’s practical, the rules Ecology’s to create for the program are to have a minimal negative impact on low-income and moderate-income drivers; support providing clean mobility for low-income and moderate-income individuals; and complement and support the long list of goals for planning under the Growth Management Act.

By January 1st 2024, each ride-hailing company must create an emissions reduction plan for reaching the targets; these must be approved by the department; implemented starting January 1st, 2025; and updated every two years. (It’s authorized to delay the process if it finds there are unanticipated barriers to expanding the use of zero-emissions vehicles, and it can create a system to give companies credits toward reaching their targets for providing or supporting charging infrastructure for ride-hailing vehicles.)

Plans have to include proposals for increasing the proportion of zero emission vehicles used, increasing the percentage of overall vehicle miles completed by zero emission vehicles, decreasing the average gram-per-mile greenhouse gas emission rates for vehicles, and increasing the percentage of overall vehicle miles in which passengers are being carried. They also have to consider incentives to increase the percentage of miles traveled by riders whose associated use of active modes of transportation is being facilitated by the company’s software; and to outline actions the company will take to ensure the plan won’t make drivers worse off financially.

Ecology is also to consult with businesses that deliver food and other consumer goods and report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by December 1st, 2022 on ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Details –
Ride-hailing companies are required to provide relevant data to Ecology. The department’s authorized to collect fees to cover the costs of administering the program, and is required to report on it to the appropriate legislative committees. (There doesn’t seem to be an appeals procedure,  and there don’t seem to be any penalties for failing to meet the targets.)

The bill doesn’t apply to taxicabs, charters and excursion services, commercial vehicles on regular routes that include travel outside city limits, non-profits providing passenger service for people with special needs, or limousines.

HB1057

HB1057 – Clarifies that the Clean Air Act’s prohibition of pollution unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of life and property includes publicly owned open spaces. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollet (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Valdez – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 12th; referred to Rules. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of the substitute. (It now just establishes a work group to study the best practices for reducing the odors from asphalt recycling plants rather than regulating the stench from the plant that motivated the bill.)

Original bill –
Clarifies that the Clean Air Act’s prohibition of pollution that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property applies to publicly owned open spaces such as bicycle or
pedestrian trails, parks, and town commons, not just to private property.

HB1053

HB1053 – Postpones the upcoming prohibition of some plastic and paper carryout bags for six months. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Johnson (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-sponsor Dye – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th; the committee adopted and passed a substitute January 19th. Referred to Rules, and placed on second reading January 22nd. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Action in the House-
The House Committee on Environment and Energy adopted a substitute that delayed the preemption of local bag ordinances, leaving those in place where they exist for the time being.

Original Bill-
The bill postpones the upcoming prohibition of some plastic and paper carryout bags for six months, from January 1st 2021 until July. It authorizes the governor to extend the postponement for up to six additional months if he decides COVID-19 issues are continuing to cause significant supply chain problems for the carryout bags the current law requires.

Details –
The law (RCW 70A.530.020) in question prohibits single-use plastic carryout bags, and paper or reusable film plastic carryout bags that don’t meet recycled content requirements. (It has a number of longer term provisions as well, but this bill doesn’t affect those.)

HB1046

HB1046 – Requires private utilities to buy power from community solar projects, credit participants’ bills, and make 40% of that power available for use by low-income consumers and service providers. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bateman (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-sponsor Duerr – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Executive session scheduled but no action taken February 4th and 5th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
Community Solar Washington has a flyer about the bill.

Comments –
All three of the private utilities testified in opposition to the bill, starting at one hour into the hearing. They argued that it doesn’t place any limits on the size or location of projects or require utility approval of them, that utilities would have to buy power from projects that didn’t have enough subscribers, that any extra costs that might involve as well as startup costs and undefined operating expenses would be shifted to ratepayers, that any net metering unfairly lets solar owners avoid paying the share of the system’s fixed costs that’s included in charges for the kWhs they would be paying for except for the net metering credits they’re receiving, and that it’s unfair that the bill’s requirements only apply to private utilities. They prefer the compromises embodied in the community solar bill that passed last session, but was vetoed because of pandemic fiscal concerns, HB2248.

Summary –

Requires private utilities to buy power on contracts for at least 20 years from community solar projects certified by the Utility and Transportation Commission, to make 40% of that power “available for use” by low-income consumers and service providers, and to credit participants’ bills with their share of the revenue from a project’s power production at the retail rate.

The UTC is to create rules for how projects can qualify for the program. These must at least minimize the shifting of costs from the program to ratepayers that don’t own or participate in a project; incentivize customers to participate; protect participants from undue financial hardship; and protect the public interest.

A project must have at least one system in a utility’s Washington service area, and ownership of a project or participation in one is limited to customers in that area. Their annual returns are limited to their average annual consumption of electricity. (Any revenue above that is to be used by the utility in support of low-income customers or service providers.)

The UTC may set the rates at which a utility buys power from a project and credits participants’ bills for their shares of that production, as well as the rates at which it buys any unsubscribed power. These must allow a utility to recover all its prudent costs for starting up a project or modifying it, as well as any costs it incurs as a result of a power purchase agreement with a project. The associated renewable energy certificates may belong to the utility, or be retired on behalf of the project participant.

Details –
The bill simply amends the section on the previous rules about engaging in business and registering with the UTC for community solar companies  (RCW 80.28.375) to apply to the new community solar project managers it creates. (The production credit program those rules applied to has reached the cap on its enrollment and costs well ahead of schedule.)

It no longer limits the size of projects, and allows customers to participate as direct owners of a project as well as through leases, loans, power purchase agreements, and other financial arrangements. (I think direct ownership would allow individuals to benefit from the 26% federal investment tax credit on the cost of their share of the project.)

HB1039

HB1039 – Reports on, updates, and expands school bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative McCaslin (R; 4th District; Spokane Valley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 4th. Executive session scheduled February 11th, but no action taken.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to review and update its bicycle and pedestrian safety curriculum in coordination with a specified list of agencies and stakeholders. The new version is to “include more hazard avoidance skills and address the additional distractions associated with the use of modern technology when individuals are walking, biking, or driving,” as well as a plan to increase bicycle and safety education throughout the state and improve opportunities in distressed areas while reducing disparities in communities of color and other marginalized communities.

It requires the Washington State Patrol to create a bike safety awareness program for third to fifth grade students as part of its current elementary school bicycle awareness program, coordinating with OSPI and consulting with bicycling groups and the traffic safety commission’s active transportation safety council. It’s to include the same specified skills and content and be deployed in at least two school districts with up to 15,000 students on either side of the Cascades. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to fund presentations of the Patrol’s new bike safety awareness program to students by state or local officers as part of the safe routes to schools program.

It also requires the Department of Health to report to the House and Senate Transportation Committees on its head injury prevention program by September 1st, 2021.