Category Archives: Dead Bills

HB2009

HB2009 – Revises Senate environmental justice bill.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D, 30th District, Federal Way)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Relations on February 15th. Passed out of committee February 20th, and referred to Appropriations. Pulled directly from Appropriations to the floor, replaced by a striker, and passed just before cutoff April 17th 2019. Returned by the Senate to House Rules Committee for third reading. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Now in the House Rules “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the House Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This bill rewrites and revises SB5489.

Comments –
SB5489’s Republican opponents in the Senate proposed 30 amendments to the bill when it came to the floor on the last day on which a bill from the opposite house could be passed before cutoff, effectively preventing a final vote there. In response, the House pulled this version directly from committee and passed it. It now will need concurrence by the Senate.

The striker’s provisions are summarized on its last two pages. (There’s one weird thing about its drafting; it now says that the foundation of the bill, the cumulative impact analysis that agencies are supposed to rely on, means an “analysis tool…” rather than the analysis done with that tool.)

Compared to the version that passed the Senate, it expands the task force by adding four legislators, the owner of a minority owned small business in an impacted area and a member from a mid-sized economic development organization representing business interests appointed by the Governor, and someone representing statewide agricultural interests appointed by the Commissioner of Public Lands. It specifies that the task force may consider tribal exposure scenarios, Federal SuperFund sites, and State Toxics Control sites in determining impacted communities. It adds two items to the task force’s work load – a report on best practices for evaluating potential displacements of residents and increases in environmental burdens during local governments’ comprehensive planning, and recommendations for addressing the equity implications of the effects of the historical application of Federal and State environmental and land use regulations on rural communities. It drops the recommendations for including analysis of the distribution of environmental burdens across population groups in SEPA evaluations and the methods for incorporating the precautionary principle in decision making from the work to be done if time allowed. It adds a preliminary report on uncompleted tasks and additional resources needed, and requires agencies to report on the adoption of any “rules, policies, or guidelines related to the cumulative impact analysis” to appropriate legislative committees rather than just to the Interagency Council on Health Disparities.

It drops the phrase that said agencies shall adopt the cumulative impact analysis “with any needed modifications,” and flatly says that their rules, policies, and guidelines must be consistent with the task force’s guideline unless they provide a compelling reason to deviate from them, which they must report to the Council and appropriate committees. It says the bill’s null and void if specific funding for it isn’t appropriated this session.

Summary –

The bill keeps SB5489’s intent section, and revises a lot of its prose, while keeping many of its actual provisions.

However, it makes significant changes in the composition of the powerful task force that both versions set up to create rules for state agencies about defining and implementing environmental justice. It now has the Governor appoint the representative of a statewide environmental justice organization to co-chair the task force, rather than having that person be “a representative of statewide environmental justice interests.” (That organization is presumably Front & Centered, the bill’s creator.) It replaces four representatives living in communities with high levels of pollution with three members from some currently unspecified “organization” appointed by the co-chairs with diversity in mind. It reduces the task force’s size, dropping a tribal leader; the representatives of labor, of business, and of statewide environmental interests; and the potential representatives from each of any other agencies the Governor might add. (Since there are still representatives from eight agencies on the task force, the Governor’s appointees would have a clear majority in this revised group.)

It also changes the central definition of “environmental justice” from “fair treatment and [a] right … to have access to a safe, healthy environment” to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people … with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (That is, it’s now about due process, not outcomes.)

Details –
It allows the task force to consider factors in addition to the UW’s specified analyses in its guidance to agencies on designating “highly impacted communities,” and adds recommendations for how to integrate the distribution of environmental burdens across population groups into evaluations under the State’s Environmental Policy Act to the task force’s work.

This bill narrows the agencies required to use “all practicable means and measures to promote environmental justice and fair treatment” from all agencies to those on the task force. It continues to require agencies to conduct cumulative impact analyses, but now says they “may” rather than “shall” “issue policies… and adopt rules …to identify highly impacted communities, create target environmental health standards, and prioritize highly impacted communities … in the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and funding decisions.” It eliminates requiring agencies to review their programs, plans and policies every five years to ensure they’re promoting the reduction of disproportionate environmental burdens and the attainment of the health targets.

The bill also makes specific provisions for staffing and funding, which aren’t in the Senate bill.

HB1862

HB1862 – Raises the cap on net metering
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mead (D; 44th District; Snohomish)
Current status – Referred to House Committee on Environment and Energy. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SSB5223 was originally an identical companion bill in the Senate, but it’s been amended in minor ways.

Comments –

Net metering credits customers generating some of their own power with fuel cells, combined heat and power systems, or renewable energy systems at the retail rate for the power that goes onto the grid from their systems when they aren’t using it. Thus, they pay for the power they used from the grid net, or minus, the surplus power they provided to it.

The changes made to the original SB5223 by amendments in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology Committee are summarized on p. 3 of the Senate Bill Report.

Summary –

The bill requires utilities to offer net metering to more customers, increasing the current cap from 0.5% of a utility’s peak demand during 1996 to 4%. (At least, I think that’s what it does; the change it makes seems pretty ungainly. It amends “On January 1, 2014, the cumulative generating capacity available to net metering systems will equal 0.5% percent …” to read 4% instead.) Representative Morris’s HB1129 also does this, more smoothly, but it would change the current system in several other ways.

Details –

The bill requires utilities to use the surplus credits that they get each year from any net-metering systems that have generated more power than customers used to help low-income residential customers pay their bills. (HB1129 only allows them to do this.)

Requires the State Building Code Council to do a study and make changes in the code to encourage more use of renewable energy systems.

Requires the Department of Commerce to create a stakeholder work group and report by December 1, 2020 to the appropriate legislative committees on its recommendations about specific circumstances in which changes in compensation for net metering systems would be warranted, and what the policy should be for customer-generators in the same rate class. The work group has to consider reductions in utility income from different levels of net metering and whether there are any cost shifts to ratepayers associated with it, and must provide an inventory of other states’ net metering laws.

Like HB1129, the bill would make large utilities include the total number of kilowatt hours consumed during the most recent twelve months on all customers’ bills.

SB5747

SB5747 – Requires a report on ways to expand the use of solid waste-to-energy plants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (D; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Ecology and the Utilities and Transportation Commission to submit a jointly prepared report to the Legislature by the end of 2019 examining opportunities, and making recommendations, for expanding the use of waste-to-energy plants in Washington.

SB5730

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5629

SB5308 – Promoting small modular nuclear reactors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on February 6th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Though the bill removes the provision in RCW 82.85.020(1)(b) that limits the sales and use tax deferral to two projects a year, RCW 82.85.040 still says the department may not approve applications for more than two projects a year. (Maybe this is intended to mean that the Department can now approve an unlimited number of deferrals, but only two from a given applicant…)

Summary –

Small modular reactors (SMRs) under the bill have an output no greater than 300 MW, and are designed to be manufactured in a factory and transported to sites. The bill specifies that the clean energy technology innovation to be supported in the State’s clean energy strategy includes SMRs. It exempts their manufacture and sale, and the manufacture and sale of any components, from the tax on manufacturing (0.484 percent), the tax on wholesale sales (0.484 percent), the State tax on retail sales (0.471 percent), and any other business and occupation taxes. (They must develop an apprenticeship, training, or workforce development program in cooperation with a public institution of higher education to be eligible for the tax breaks.) The bill exempts these tax breaks from expiring after ten years.

It expands the current provisions for deferring the payment of state and local sales and use taxes on the first $10 million of the costs of constructing, expanding, or renovating the facilities of manufacturing businesses, removing the limitation of the deferral to two projects a year and the requirement that they be located on different sides of the state. (It also specifies that projects that utilize or produce small modular reactors or other green technologies are encouraged.) The bill converts the current pilot program for directing these deferred taxes into supporting workforce training for manufacturing businesses when they are repaid into a permanent one.

These deferred taxes are to be paid in equal parts over ten years, without any adjustment for inflation, beginning five years after the completion of a project. The bill would add four years to the lifespan of this tax break, which would now expire in 2030.

Details –
It declares that the Legislature intends to extend these tax exemptions if a review finds that the number of jobs in the SMR industry in the state has increased by at least 10%. (This should be an easy standard to meet, since there are almost none now.)

SB5489

SB5489 – Requires state agencies to use all practical means and measures to promote environmental justice.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff; placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2009 was an extensive revision and rewrite of the original version of this bill; the second substitute Senate bill is now pretty close to the House version.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Had a hearing on a proposed substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 13th. Passed out of committee and referred to Ways and Means February 19th. Had a hearing there February 27th; a second substitute bill was further amended and passed out of Ways & Means February 28th. Placed on 2nd reading by Rules Committee March 5th. Passed the Senate March 8th.
In the House
Referred to the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Relations. Had a hearing March 19th; replaced by a striker which passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing April 6th. Amended and passed out of committee April 8th. Referred to Rules; placed on 2nd reading April 10th. Still in Rules by the end of 2019 session; Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House.

Comments –
In the House
The changes in the House striker are summarized on its last page. It shifts power back toward the task force, saying that agencies “must adopt” the use of the cumulative impact analysis, and “must adopt” it consistent with the task force’s guidance on how to use it if there is any. It specifies the use of the Department of Health’s (DOH) Washington Tracking Network for the cumulative impact analysis, rather than the UW study, and adds some reporting about needs for funding and uncompleted tasks.

Amendments in House Appropriations require the use of tribal exposure scenarios as a factor in the analysis of cumulative impact areas, have the report include best practices for local governments to include environmental justice principles in comprehensive planning under the GMA, and make the bill null and void if it isn’t funded in this year’s budget.

In the Senate
Second Substitute Senate version
This aligned the bill with the significant changes in HB2009, though it’s different in some minor ways.

Like HB2009, it now changes the central definition of “environmental justice” from “fair treatment and [a] right … to have access to a safe, healthy environment” to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people … with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (That is, it’s now about due process, not outcomes.)

Like HB2009, it changes the composition and power of the task force that they set up. That group no longer creates rules about defining and implementing environmental justice that state agencies must adopt. It develops models, methods, best practices, and recommendations in the House version. In the House version there are “model rules for agency adoption”; in the Senate version the task force creates “guidance for state agencies.” It also says that “if time and resources permit” the task force should do the work on equity analyses, gaps in research, utilizing the precautionary approach, and cataloging and cross-referencing all the state agencies’ research and data about people’s health and environment that are required in HB2009.

The House bill has the Governor appoint the representative of a statewide environmental justice organization to co-chair the task force. (That unspecified organization is presumably Front & Centered, the bill’s creator.) The Senate has him appoint ” a member who is well-informed on the principles of environmental justice and with expertise in statewide environmental justice issues.” They both replace four representatives living in communities with high levels of pollution with three members from some currently unspecified “organization” appointed by the co-chairs with diversity in mind. They reduce the task force’s size by dropping a tribal leader; the representatives of labor, of business, and of statewide environmental interests; and the potential representatives from each of any other agencies the Governor might add. (Since there are still representatives from eight agencies on the task force, the Governor’s appointees would have a clear majority in this revised group.)

This substitute bill does not include HB2009’s provision about including environmental justice considerations in SEPA analyses. Section 5 (1) uses somewhat different language than HB2009’s about the degree to which agencies are required to use the task force’s recommendations, but it isn’t clear to me if one of them gives the agencies more latitude than the other.

One amendment to the 2nd Substitute in Senate Ways & Means added back a tribal representative, one from business and one from labor, now appointed by the Governor.

Front and Centered has a flyer about the bill.

Summary of the original version –
Creates a task force to study and and report recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor on how to incorporate environmental justice principles into the ways state agencies operate. “Environmental justice” means that all people have the right to a safe and healthy environment; that no group of people should bear disproportionately high exposure to pollution or adverse human health or environmental impacts; and that all groups should have appropriate access to meaningful public participation in decisions that affect their environment.

Within sixty days of the task force’s report, Ecology is to provide uniform rules and guidelines for implementing the recommendations to all state agencies on the task force. The agencies must use cumulative impact analyses to identify highly impacted communities, create target environmental health standards for counties and census tracts all over the state, and prioritize highly impacted communities and their vulnerable populations in the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and funding decisions.

The “vulnerable populations” it covers are defined as communities that experience disproportionate cumulative risk from “environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs relative to income, access to food and health care, and linguistic isolation; and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.” “Environmental burdens” include cumulative risks caused by historic and current exposure to conventional and toxic hazards; adverse environmental effects, including environmental conditions caused or made worse by contamination or pollution or that create vulnerabilities to climate impacts; and exposure to hazards made worse by changes in the climate.

Comments –
Though the bill currently says the task force must “discuss… draft rules for agencies”, the rest of it says it is to draft rules agencies must adopt, not just discuss some possible rules.

Details –
The bill specifies the membership of the task force, including representatives of at least eight state agencies; four representatives from different areas of the state who live in communities that are most significantly burdened by, and vulnerable to, high levels of pollution; and a number of other stakeholders. It would be co-chaired by a representative of statewide environmental justice interests and the executive director of the Governor’s interagency council on health disparities. It’s to hold at least four regional meetings in different parts of the state, and complete a report by July 31, 2020.

State agencies must review and revise their rules, programs, plans, and policies every five years to ensure they are promoting reductions in disproportionate environmental burdens and attainment of the environmental health targets the bill establishes, and the task force is to reconvene “five years after the adoption of the last rules to evaluate the findings of each department and update their findings and recommendations.”

The report must discuss:

Methods to increase public participation and engagement by providing meaningful opportunities for involvement to all people;
Draft rules for agency adoption regarding cumulative impact analyses that will identify highly impacted communities, based on analyses of vulnerable populations and environmental burdens conducted by the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences. (These also include any census tracts that are fully or partly on tribal land.);
Methods for meaningfully consulting vulnerable populations in periodically evaluating and updating the designation of highly impacted communities and the cumulative impact analysis;
Methods for creating and implementing analyses to evaluate environmental justice, including but not limited to cumulative impact analyses, into all significant planning, decision making, and investments, including describing potential risks, benefits, and opportunities for these communities and populations;
Methods for prioritizing these communities and populations by identifying and, where legally and fiscally feasible, maximizing inspection, enforcement actions, investment of resources, planning, permitting, and public participation to reduce environmental health disparities and advance a healthy environment for all residents;
Methods for cataloging and cross-referencing current research and data for programs within all state agencies relating to the health and environment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels;
Methods for establishing a qualitative target environmental health level for each county or larger area, and a quantitative target at the census tract level or larger;
Recommended criteria for identifying and addressing gaps in current research and data collection to inform agency actions, refine cumulative impact methodology, and identify factors that may impede achieving environmental justice; and,
Methods for incorporating the precautionary approach to decision making, including permitting, to the extent allowed by law.

HB1642

HB1642 – Expands on-bill repayment programs for renewable energy and conservation projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Referred to Rules 2 Consideration in 2019. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to pass out of the House by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a House Bill Report on the substitute and a Fiscal Note.

2019 Legislative History
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 18th. Passed out of committee February 21st, weakened by an amendment. Referred to Rules; placed on 2nd Reading March 9th. Referred to Rules 2 Consideration March 21st. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.

Comments –
The National Resources Defense Council did a detailed brief five years ago about the issues in designing these programs. (Often, they require that the expected savings are sufficient to cover the loan payments, so the project is “bill-neutral”, though HB1642 doesn’t.) It can also be complicated to figure out how to handle one of these loans when the borrower leaves a utility’s service area, or sells the property, but that’s an issue that the lender, not the utility, needs to take into account.

The amended bill makes offering of on-bill repayment program an option for all utilities, rather than requiring large utilities to offer one, and makes a number of other changes through an amendment by the prime sponsor which are summarized at the end of this page.

Summary –
In these programs, a utility facilitates a customer’s repayment of a loan from a third party for a renewable energy or energy conservation project by adding the payments to the utility bills. HB 1642 requires utilities with over 25,000 customers to offer these loans to their customers, unless their energy conservation plan includes an on-bill or off-bill repayment program for energy conservation loans that they administer and they or a third party capital provider make. The bill lets these utilities count the energy savings from projects financed through the programs toward their requirements for conservation under the Energy Independence Act (I-937), as long as the projects meet the Act’s standard for cost-effectiveness.

The bill defines the capital providers for these loans as “non-profit lenders, community banks, or credit unions.” It also allows smaller utilities and retail electric co-ops to choose to offer on-bill repayment programs.

Details:

Up to 25% of one of these loans may fund measures that aren’t included in a utility’s conservation portfolio.

Utilities have to provide borrowers in these programs with any conservation incentives they’re eligible for, and must have a marketing and outreach program to publicize them.

They can recover their reasonable and prudent costs for publicizing the programs and for upgrading their billing systems to handle the payments. They’re not responsible for recovering the loan; any payments go toward meeting the utility’s part of the bill first.

SB5561

SB5561 – Specifies requirements for lead agencies’ evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Takko (D; 19th District; Longview)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, February 19th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1549 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Ecology, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, to develop a rule limiting agencies’ evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions.

Comments –
As I read the bill, a new source using new technology wouldn’t actually have to demonstrate it would have lower emissions than what it was replacing, or even that it probably would, in order for an agency to have to “accommodate and encourage” the technology in evaluating its emissions. It only has to “intend” to have lower emissions.

I’m not sure what the section that says you can’t require a project to mitigate emissions by more than a proportional share of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets is supposed to mean. (If the targets require a 50% reduction by 2050, and you’re building a project in 2037, do you need to reduce your initial proposal’s emissions by 50%?) Whatever the numbers, it seems as if it makes it easy to submit a proposal that doesn’t do much about controlling emissions, and then to cheerfully agree to reduce them by whatever proportion this is, requiring Ecology to approve your project.

Details:

The rule must establish a threshold below which an action’s direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases will not be judged to produce probable, significant adverse impacts;
It must establish a methodology for determining when the direct and indirect impacts of actions with emissions above that threshold will produce probable adverse impacts;
It must provide guidance for lead agencies about when it’s appropriate to issue a determination of nonsignificance or a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for an action;
It must require agencies to evaluate the significance of global life-cycle emissions in the context of global carbon emissions, and the significance of emissions within Washington state in the context of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the state;
It must acknowledge that significant cumulative impacts caused by other greenhouse gas emissions don’t constitute substantial evidence that a proposed action’s contributions to global emissions are cumulatively significant;
It must indicate how an agency should evaluate market substitution or displacement effects when assessing the life cycle impacts of an action;
It must provide guidance for addressing emissions from new sources which specifically accommodates and encourages new technology intended to substitute for or replace
existing technologies and achieve the same production goals with fewer greenhouse gas emissions;
It must establish a framework for calculating the direct and indirect emissions it’s reasonable to attribute to an action. That must specify the scope and context for estimating the emissions, including whether to count the global emissions attributable to the action, or only those that will occur within the state. It must authorize agencies to “to incorporate prior environmental review and other inventories that quantify emissions for categories of activities and industries that have been prepared by the Department of Ecology, including those required by section 2 of this act, industry groups, or other lead agencies.” [I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Maybe it means they can only use assessments prepared by Ecology, but I think it’s probably supposed to mean they can use assessments by industry groups and other agencies if they choose to.] It must authorize them to rely on adopted policies and regulations of other agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over any direct or indirect emissions of an action to predict emissions and emission trends. [I don’t know if this includes agencies in other states and Federal agencies or not.]
It must establish a threshold of direct emissions attributable to an action below which agencies may not consider global life-cycle emissions associated with that action;
It must establish a methodology for agencies to use in identifying reasonable mitigation measures for identified environmental impacts. [Proposals can only be denied if the reasonable measures won’t be sufficient to mitigate the impacts.] This must recognize measures taken by the applicant or others to mitigate the impacts; it must let the agency rely on a range of mitigation measures including market offsets, new technology with lower emissions, alternate fuels, best available control technologies (BACT), potential efficiency measures, and, any other actions or measures required by other agencies with jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a reduction of the emissions associated with the action. It has to identify acceptable sources for the purchase of offsets. The methodology may not require mitigation in excess of a proportional share of the state’s reduction targets or require mitigation to completely eliminate the impact of an action’s emissions in order to be considered sufficient for approving a proposal.
It must establish a methodology through which an agency can address impacts of climate change on a proposed action through resiliency and adaptation planning, including site design and other measures to address sea level rise and increased risks from storms and wildfire.

The Department must report to the appropriate legislative committees on the emissions for categories of industries and activities and anticipated trends, as well as how those inventories and trends may be used in environmental reviews.

SB5555

SB5555 – Excludes most solar systems from renewable energy tax incentives.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 6th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

For a solar system to be eligible for renewable energy tax incentives, all of its components, including the solar cells, would have to be produced or manufactured in the United States, or in a facility that the Department of Ecology certified as meeting all the relevant Washington State environmental, health, and safety standards.

HB1496

HB1496 – Improving sustainability and climate science education.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dolan (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill updates the label in the current list of topics that must be taught in public schools from “science with particular reference to the environment” to “science with special reference to the environmental and sustainability standards.” ((OSPI sets and revises these State standards for schools to describe what all students at different grade levels “should know and be able to do in the area of Environmental and Sustainability Education”.

If funding were made available, the bill would require OSPI to develop grants for community non-profits and educational service districts to develop plans for teacher education in next generation science standards, including climate science standards. Comprehensive and targeted comprehensive schools, and communities historically underserved by climate science education would get priority for these. In selecting applications and prioritizing grants, SPI could consider applicants’ previous success in developing teachers’ ability to help students understand climate science standards.

In this context, “climate science” means the ideas from various sciences, the integrating concepts, and the science and engineering practices in the standards that lead a student toward climate science literacy. “Climate science literacy” means understanding your influence on climate and its influence on individuals, society, and the environment. (A “climate-literate person” understands the essential principles of the climate system; knows how to assess scientifically credible information about climate; can communicate meaningfully about climate and climate change; and can make informed and responsible decisions about actions that might affect the climate.)

SB5476

SB5476 – Protects established composting sites from being sued for creating a public nuisance.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 48th District; Bellevue)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1167 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Summary –
Currently, agriculture and forestry activities that are consistent with good practices in those fields, and were established before other surrounding activities (like neighboring housing developments), are protected from lawsuits claiming that they are creating a public nuisance because of things like smells or noise, unless they’re having a substantial negative effect on public health or safety.

The bill extends this protection to composting activities. (Composting must also be meeting city and county regulations to qualify for this protection.)

HB1397

HB1397 – Creates work group on electric and hybrid airplanes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland)
Current status – Returned to House Rules 3rd Reading by Senate at end of 2019 Session. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Now in the House Rules “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2019 History
In the House (Passed)
Had a hearing before the House Committee on Transportation on February 7th. Passed out of committee February 25th; referred to Rules. Placed on 2nd reading by the Rules Committee March 1st. Passed by the House March 5th.

In the Senate
Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. Had a hearing March 18th. Passed out of committee with amendments to cover using fuel cells March 26th; referred to Rules. Returned to House Rules 3rd Reading by Senate at end of 2019 Session.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Transportation to convene a work group on hybrid and electric regional aircraft, including representatives from the electric aircraft industry, the aircraft manufacturing industry, electric utility districts, the battery industry, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation Aviation Division, the Airline Pilots’ Association, a primary airport representing an airport association, and the airline industry.

They’re to study, at least:

Infrastructure requirements necessary to facilitate electric aircraft operations at airports;
Potential economic and public benefits including the direct and indirect impact on the state’s manufacturing and service jobs and wages;
Potential incentives for industry in the manufacturing and operation of electric aircraft for regional air travel;
Educational and workforce requirements for manufacturing and maintaining these planes;
Demand and forecast for their use, including an expected timeline for their entering the market given Federal certification requirements;
Identification of up to six airports in the state that might benefit from a pilot program once such an aircraft for commercial use is available; and,
Recommendations to further their adoption, including specific, measurable goals for the years 2030, 2040, and 2050 that reflect progressive and substantial increases in their use.

The work group must submit a report with recommendations to both transportation committees of the Legislature by November 15, 2020, as well as a progress report on any efforts to implement the recommendations by February 15, 2021, and every two years after that.

SB5308

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

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

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

Summary –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5347

SB5347 – Requires utility publicity for climate programs to display “discernible and quantifiable effects” of an individual’s participation on global emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R, 42nd District, Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment & Technology February 6th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Requires any utility publicity indicating that a benefit, program or service will help deal in any way with the problem of climate change to include a “detailed description of the discernable [sic] and quantifiable effects” it will have on global climate change, displayed in a way that “discloses the discernable [sic] and quantifiable effects on global climate change attributable to the average individual customer” using it.

Comments –
Don’t feed the troll…

HB1332

HB1332 – Updates Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council operations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wylie (D, 49th District, Vancouver) (By request of the Site Evaluation Council.)
Current status – Did not pass out of opposite house by fiscal cutoff; sent to the “X” file March 9th.
In the House (Passed)
Returned by Senate Rules to the House Rules Committee for third reading. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session; on third reading. Returned to 2nd reading, replaced with a striker which (unless I missed something) was simply the text of the 2nd Engrossed version returned by the Senate, advanced to 3rd reading, and passed by the House.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology in the Senate. Had a hearing February 20th; passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5329 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.

2019 History
In the House (Passed)
Had a hearing before the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 28th. Substitute bill with minor changes passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Rules for 2nd reading. Passed by the House with a floor amendment March 8th.

In the Senate
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy, & Technology. Had a hearing March 14th; a striker with some minor adjustments passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to the Rules Committee.

2019 Comments – The 2019 substitute bill removed the representative from the Association of Washington Cities, restored the temporary representative from an area in which a project is being considered, added a second tribal representative, and made some other minor changes. (The changes are summarized on pp. 5-6 of the Senate Bill Report.)
The floor amendment requires completing consultation with tribes before determining whether there are still unsettled questions about material facts.

The changes in the Senate striker are summarized on its last page.

Summary –
The bill adds some language about the State’s need to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and increase its reliance on clean energy to the section of the code about its intentions, and says that the bill intends “to streamline application review for energy facilities that use alternative energy resources to meet the state’s energy goals.”

The Council would have its own staff, rather than relying on the UTC’s. The bill reduces its size, and would no longer add a member from an area where a project has been proposed during the time it’s reaching a decision about its recommendation to the Governor on that project. (Instead, there’s a member representing the Association of Washington Cities and one from the Washington State Association of Counties.) It adds a tribal representative.

After the environmental review of the project, the Council can hold a public hearing about whether or not genuine issues of fact on matters the council deems material to its recommendation exist. If it then decides there aren’t, and that the project is consistent and compliant with local land use requirements then it can skip the requirement for holding a formal adjudicative hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, and proceed to make a recommendation.

Details –
The bill eliminates a member from DNR, and a number of optional memberships for various agencies, and it makes a number of small procedural changes expanding the Council’s discretion and powers.

HB1232

HB1232 – Lets utilities count old hydro as meeting I-937’s requirements for adding new renewables
Prime Sponsor – Representative Griffey (R, 35th District, Mason County)
Current status – Referred to Environment & Energy. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The Energy Independence Act, approved by State voters in 2006 I-937, requires utilities with 25,000 or more customers to increase the percentage of renewable energy in their power supplies in three stages, reaching 20% by 2020. Power from existing hydroelectric facilities was excluded from the requirement, except for new additions to the supply of renewable power created by some improvements to the generating efficiency of existing dams.

The bill would allow utilities to count any hydroelectric power they sell, no matter how long it has been around, as meeting this requirement for adding new renewable energy.

SB5280

HB5280 – Authorizes community solar gardens.
Prime Sponsor – Senator McCoy (D, 38th District, Snohomish County)
Current status – Had a hearing on a substitute bill in the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 12th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The substitute specifies that any project has to meet the current requirements for community solar projects in RCW 80.28.375. These cover registration with the WSU Energy program and bonding (if required). It now requires at least ten subscribers or one per ten kilowatts, rather than at least five subscribers none of whom could own more than 40% of the project.

Olympia Community Solar has a flyer about the original bill.

Summary –
Community solar gardens are utility scale projects, in which subscribers buy a share of the project and get credits for their share of the output on their utility bills. The bill says they’re intended to exist “outside of tax-related subsidy programs”, and that they “include community solar projects” as those are defined in the current law about tax incentives for renewable energy. (That program has reached its cap, and is not allowing new projects.) For twenty-five years, subscribers would get credits on their bills at the retail rate for their share of the project’s output.

The bill requires each private utility to submit a plan for operating them to the UTC by January 1, 2020, and requires public utilities to submit plans to the Department of Commerce.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t say much of anything about the requirements for creating one of the profit or non-profit corporation that can own these projects in addition to utilities. It doesn’t say anything about provisions for transferring a subscriber’s contract if they leave the service area, or about what happens to a contract if one of these subscriber organizations goes out of business.

Details –
Utility Plans
The UTC can approve, disapprove or modify a private utility’s plan, and the bill talks about “a plan approved by Commerce” (though it doesn’t seem to specify Commerce’s powers over public utilities’ plans in the same way.)

Plans must:

Reasonably allow for the creation, financing, and accessibility of community solar gardens;
Provide guidelines for including low-income customers as subscribers, and may allow a preference for community solar gardens that have low-income subscribers;
Establish uniform standards, fees, and processes for the interconnection of projects that allow the utility to recover reasonable interconnection costs for each one;
Be consistent with the public interest;
Identify the information that must be provided to customers to ensure fair disclosure of future costs and benefits of subscriptions;
Include a program implementation schedule;
Identify all proposed rules, fees, and charges;
Describe how the program will be promoted;
Describe the system for crediting each subscriber’s monthly bill; and,
Identify the preferred locations for solar gardens within a utility’s distribution system, if the utility has analyzed it and designated some that don’t unreasonably restrict solar gardens’ development.

Each utility has to maintain a public website with this information and information about each project in its service area.

Limits on projects
A project must have subscribers for all the electricity it generates, and they have to be in the utility’s service area. It has to have more than five subscribers, and none of them can subscribe for more than 40% of the project. At least 40% of the capacity has to be allocated to residential and small business customers with loads under 40kWs, and at least 10% of it has to be for customers who are eligible for the State’s low-income energy assistance plan.

Subscriptions have to be for at least one kilowatt, and (including any other distributed energy generation at the location) one can’t be for more than 120% of your annual yearly consumption “at the premises to which the subscription is attached.” (Apparently, you could have more than one subscription if you were a customer with more than one location.)

The project must be located on the utility’s distribution system, and within a preferred location on the system, if the utility’s plan identifies any.

Subscriber organizations
These are for-profit or non-profit organizations that own or operate one or more solar gardens. They own the renewable energy credits generated by their projects, and can sell them. They contract with subscribers who want to own a share of a project, but that doesn’t make them regulated as utilities. They’re responsible for making a monthly electronic report of each subscriber’s share of the output to the subscriber’s utility, so the utility can credit their bills.

They have to have a system for resolving any disputes with subscribers.

Regulations
The UTC and Commerce can coordinate in developing rules for these projects, and should have those for private and pubic utilities be the same, to the extent that that’s practical.

HB1167

HB1167 – Protects established composting sites from being sued for creating a public nuisance.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D, 48th District, Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 23rd. Reported out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Placed on 2nd reading February 28th. Referred to Rules 2 consideration March 21st. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Now in the House Rules “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
The House Bill Analysis is available here.

The bill extends this protection to composting activities. (Composting must also be meeting city and county regulations to qualify for this protection.)

SB5128

SB5128 – Reduces the registration fee for electric motorcycles.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D, 23rd District, Kitsap County)
Current status – Had hearing before the Senate Transportation Committee January 28th. Passed out of committee February 5th. Referred to Rules. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Sent to the “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
Senate Bill Report is available here.

Comments –
The substitute bill merely changed the date at which the reduction would become effective by a few months.

Summary –
Currently, owners of electric motorcycles pay the same annual registration fee as the owners of electric cars that can travel over 30 miles on the battery. The bill reduces the fee for motorcycles to $30/yr.

Comments – Gasoline motorcycles and scooters actually produce more air pollution and smog than cars; in fact, the California Air Resources Board estimates an average motorbike is about 10 times more polluting per mile than a passenger car, light truck or SUV. They are about twice as fuel efficient as an average cars, though, and they take less energy to produce, so riding one does reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

An electric bike doesn’t produce any smog, and riding one instead of a gas powered bike produces roughly half the reduction in CO2 emissions that switching from a gas car to an electric one does. (If the gas car is going 10,000 miles a year at 25 mpg it’s using 400 gallons; the gas bike would be using 200 gallons.)

HB1128

HB1128 – Authorizes alternative forms of regulation for utilities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Morris (D, 40th District, Mount Vernon)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment & Energy. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.

Comments –
This bill’s provisions for a greenhouse gas planning adder and for alternative systems of utility regulation have been incorporated in the new substitute version of HB1211, though that sets the initial value of the adder higher and doesn’t make it depend on the imposition of carbon pricing.

Summary –
Authorizes the Utility and Transportation Commission to develop new systems for regulating electric and gas utilities to better achieve state policy goals, and allows a utility to submit a proposal for changing how it’s regulated to the Commission.

If the Legislature imposed “a tax, fee, or other monetary price on the carbon content of the sale or use of fossil fuels and electricity in the state,” the bill would require the use of an adder for the cost of carbon emissions by the UTC and utilities in conservation planning and in intermediate and long-term resource planning, under the current regulatory system or any alternative one. The adder would be the dollars per metric ton of greenhouse gases implied by the legislated price on carbon, or $40/tonne for 2018 (increasing by one and a quarter percent a year, apparently without an inflation adjustment) – whichever was larger.

Details –
The bill gives the UTC the authority to adopt any new forms of utility regulation that it determines are in the public interest, providing it considers, to the degree that it’s relevant, the extent to which each new system is expected to:

Align a utility’s regulatory incentives with the public interest;
Maintain and enhance its ability to provide safe, adequate, and efficient service;
Support prudent and efficient use of the electrical or natural gas system and utility operations;
Maintain and enhance overall electrical system reliability, security, and resilience;
Allow a company to support and participate in market transformation, enabling technologies without harming competition;
Allow a company to be financially indifferent about the ownership of the property providing service to its customers or the quantity of electricity or gas sold to them;
Reasonably protect customers, including low-income ones, from short and long-term risks;
Ensure an appropriate level of consumer protection;
Help achieve state emissions reduction goals;
Reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts;
Provide the company with the opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return on investment; and,
Provide for broad customer engagement to promote participation by a diversity of customers, particularly underserved communities or segments thereof, in programs to help achieve these goals.

The UTC may begin consideration of alternative forms of regulation on its own initiative. A utility may also petition the UTC to change the way it’s regulated, submitting a plan for an alternative form of regulation. That must be developed with customer and stakeholder input, and include a proposal for appropriate performance metrics (and enforcement or remedial steps in the event those are not met), a plan transitioning to the proposed system, and its proposed duration. It may include provisions for ensuring a reasonable rate of return on investment.

After notice and hearing, the UTC must accept, modify, or reject a utility proposal within eleven months, although it may extend the period for good cause. If the Commission authorizes some new form of regulation for a utility which has proposed a plan, the utility must accept or decline to adopt it within sixty days.

The Commission may waive other current regulatory requirements for a utility operating under a new form of regulation if it concludes that will facilitate its implementation, though it may not waive any legal rights established by the State’s laws about utilities (80.28 RCW) or regulations (80.04 RCW). It may waive different requirements for different companies or services, if it determines that’s in the public interest.

The Commission or any person can file a complaint claiming that a utility has not complied with the terms and conditions of its new form of regulation, but bears the burden of proving the allegations.

HB1129

HB1129 – Requires utilities to provide net metering for more small systems, and allows them to offer it to as many large systems as they choose to.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Morris (D, 40th District, Mount Vernon)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment & Energy. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Net metering credits customers with fuel cells, combined heat and power systems, or renewable energy systems at the retail rate for power that goes onto the grid from their systems when they aren’t using it, so they pay for the power they used from the grid net, or minus, the surplus power they provided to it.

Summary –

The bill requires utilities to offer net metering to customers with small systems, no larger than 199kW, until their cumulative generative capacity equals 4% of the utility’s peak demand during 1996, reserving at least half of this allotment for residential customers producing renewable energy. (The current cap is 0.5% of 1996 peak demand.) They may offer an alternative to customers with small systems who are not enrolled in the current program when the cumulative generating capacity in that program reaches 2% of 1996 peak demand or after January 1, 2022, whichever comes first. (An alternative is not available to customers who are interconnected with net metering when the law takes effect, but is available if the property is sold or a new customer takes over the meter.)

The bill allows a utility to offer net metering to as many customers with larger systems as it chooses to, and to offer an alternative to those customers as soon as it has completed the distributed resources planning specified in the bill.

Details –
To offer an alternative, a utility must have gone through distributed energy resources planning of the sort specified by HB1126, or, if a process for that is not enacted by June 30th 2019, must accomplish the goals for such planning recommended in the report published on December 31, 2017, by the “commission on current practices in distributed
energy resources planning.” (This means the Utility and Transportation Commission’s recent Report on Current Practices in Distributed Energy Resource Planning.)

Beginning in 2020, each utility must send the Department of Commerce a semi-annual report on their current net metering, including their peak demand in 1996 and how much more net metering they will be able to add before they reach the cap for small systems. If a utility has “exceeded the requirement” of subsection 2 (1) (a) of the bill, which says they shall offer net metering to customers with small systems until they reach the cap, then it must also report on whether it’s continuing to offer the net metering which isn’t capped to other customers and whether it has established a new cumulative capacity allocation for them.

Large utilities would have to include the total number of kilowatt hours consumed during the most recent twelve months on all customers’ bills.

HB1127

HB1127 – Allows utilities to electrify transportation infrastructure.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Morris (D, 40th District, Mount Vernon)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment & Energy. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Allows utilities to adopt transportation electrification plans if they determine that outreach and investment in electrification infrastructure is cost-effective in the context of acquiring new resources, considering system benefits and costs to ratepayers. (The bill says that system benefits for a utility exist “where financial, reliability, and quality benefits of the electrification of transportation are conferred equally among all ratepayers on the distribution system or among the utility’s resource generation portfolio.”) If they aren’t acquiring resources, they may determine it’s cost-effective considering those factors and “long-term contracted wholesale electricity supply that will result in a greater ratepayer benefit than the individual benefit from the program cost.” [I’m not sure what either section in quotes is supposed to mean…]

These plans may consider multiple options for transportation electrification across all customer classes; its anticipated impact on loads and whether load management opportunities including demand response, direct load control and dynamic pricing, are appropriate; system reliability and distribution system efficiencies; interoperability concerns, including those between hardware and software systems; and their customers’ overall experience.

Utilities that determine outreach and investment in such infrastructure is cost-effective may offer programs to electrify transportation infrastructure to their customers, including advertising to promote services, rebates and incentives they or others provide.

If specific funding for it is appropriated by June 30th, 2019, the Department of Commerce shall arrange for a study of the capital expenditures projected to be required by growth in distributed resources, including photovoltaic systems, electric vehicles, and any other customer-owned technologies likely to affect capital expenditures, including a low and high adoption scenario for each resource.

SB5077

SB5077 – Prohibiting single-use plastic straws
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D, 48th District, Bellevue)
Current status – Returned to the Senate Rules Committee at the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Placed in the Senate “X” file February 24th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed) –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 24th. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Rules for 2nd Reading. Passed by the Senate with minor amendment by prime sponsor March 4th.
In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 14th. Replaced by a striker, further amended, and passed out of committee April 1st. Referred to the Rules Committee. Returned to the Senate Rules Committee at the end of the 2019 session.

Comments: – It isn’t obvious that banning plastic straws will reduce greenhouse emissions, though it might, and that’s not the main point of the proposal in any case. (To decide whether or not it would you’d need a full life-cycle analysis of their use compared to that of paper straws, glass straws, bamboo straws, the new plastic covers Starbucks is introducing with lids that make it easier to drink from them, and so on…) This is equally true of the bills about banning plastic carryout bags (HB1205) and reducing the use of plastic packaging (HB1204).

The substitute bill dropped the prohibition on the sales and distribution of plastic straws, would keep restaurants from using them unless a customer asked for one, and made some other changes which are summarized on pp. 2-3 of the Senate Bill Report.

The changes in the House striker are summarized on its last page. It and the amendments made a number of minor adjustments to the rules, and increased the potential fines to $250/day for the third and subsequent violations and a maximum of $3,000 a year.

Details – Bans sale and distribution of all plastic straws as of July 30, 2020, including ones that are compostable, biodegradeable, and/or made from plant-based plastics. Creates a process for recommendations to Legislature about addressing the needs of health care facilities and disabled individuals and about avoiding unintended consequences. Imposes a fine of $25/day for violations after two warnings, with a maximum fine of $300.

HB1029

HB1029 – Adds requirements for Ecology’s assessments of Federal water quality permit applications.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Walsh (R, 19th District, Aberdeen)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment & Energy. (Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.)
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Getting a permit for activities that may result in discharging a pollutant into waters of the United States, requires applying for a water quality certificate from Ecology stating that your releases meet the standards of the Federal Clean Water Act. The bill adds requirements about how Ecology manages these applications, and limits the discharges and environmental effects that Ecology can take into account.

Comments –
At first glance it doesn’t seem as if water quality has much to do with greenhouse gases. However, these permits also cover the management of manure at feed lots and the operation of wastewater treatment plants, which are sources of methane emissions. The bill prohibits Ecology from considering any environmental damages that might result from impacts based on the end use of a product outside the state’s borders, or from other “impacts of the activities that are not within the jurisdiction of the state to regulate.” (Presumably, this is related to recent decisions by Ecology and the Shorelines Management Board denying permits to new fossil fuel export terminals that did include the eventual greenhouse gas emissions from burning those exports into account.)