Category Archives: Dead House Bills 2022

HB2100

HB2100 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Bronoske -D, Eslick – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Transportation February 1st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5828 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
This bill is identical to the prime sponsor’s HB2070, except that the title no longer says it’s “Relating to implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group.”

Summary –
The bill would no longer require including moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs in their annual reports to the Department of Licensing. It also drops a clause implying the Department can require information about collisions in addition to what the law currently specifies. It requires submitting a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department including information on how to interact with the vehicle being tested in emergency and traffic enforcement situations, and requires submitting the expected period of time during which testing will occur to the Department rather than to various local and state law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways on which testing will occur.

HB2066

HB2066 – Requires local governments to exempt certain infill development from the State Environmental Policy Act’s requirements. (That’s an option for them now.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce and Eastern Thurston Counties) (Co-Sponsors Dufault -D; Klicker, Gilday, Sutherland, Eslick, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment and Energy February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would leave the categorical exemption as an option rather than requiring it, and would require a jurisdiction adopting it to provide a means for collaboration and coordination with any tribe whose lands, usual and accustomed areas, or protected areas would be affected by the infill development. It would limit the current provision which allows the exemption if the applicable comprehensive plan has ever undergone environment review under SEPA by requiring that to have been done within the previous seven years. Cities and counties engaged in a review and evaluation of their urban densities would be required to consider how to maximize the use of the infill development exemption as part of identifying reasonable measures to align their actual development with their targets.

Original bill –
Currently, a local government can choose to categorically exempt certain infill development from SEMA requirements, if it’s for an area where current density and intensity of use is equal to or lower than what’s called for in the comprehensive plan and the development is residential mixed-use, or commercial up to 65,000 sq. ft., excluding retail. (It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and can’t clearly exceed the density or intensity of use that calls for.) The government also has to consider the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determine that they’re adequately addressed by the development regulations or other applicable requirements, rules or laws; and the comprehensive plan has to have completed an environmental impact statement under SEPA’s requirements before it was adopted or the local government has to have prepared an environmental impact statement considering the proposed use or density and intensity of use in the area.

The bill would require these exemptions unless the local government’s legislative body considers the probable adverse impacts and adopts a finding that they’re not adequately addressed by the regulations or other requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan, planned action ordinance, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws. In that case, it can require the development to comply with SEPA.

HB2070

HB2070 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Bronoske -D, Sutherland – R)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Did not receive a hearing, ans still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5828 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
Since the bill’s officially titled “Relating to implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group”, the changes it would make were apparently recommended by that group. (Since the prime sponsor has now introduced HB2100, which is identical to this bill except for a new title with no mention of the autonomous work group, perhaps they weren’t…)

HB2020

HB2020 – Includes requiring design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building Challenge certifications, and provides accelerated permitting for them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wallen (D; 48th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Leavitt, Ramel, Ryu, Macri, Bateman, Lekanoff, and Pollet -Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Local Government January 18th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Did not progress by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill is mostly about increasing affordable housing, but it would also require the standards set by local design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building certifications. It would require cites to create a preferred permit path program that would be available to developments that were Passive House or Living Building Challenge certified as well as for projects with 20% affordable housing. The program would provide expedited processing in less than 120 days. (The substitute drops most of the original bill, including the requirements about providing for certified high efficiency buildings; it retains creating a Sustainable Equitable Affordable Measured Board to “provide oversight and guide local jurisdictions in achieving goals for expeditious sustainable affordable housing”, create a plan, and measure and report on progress.

HB2002

HB2002 – Changing administrative procedures to make it easier to permit clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Duerr, Peterson, Ryu, Tharinger, Bateman, and Lekanoff – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment and Energy January 27th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5744 and its companion bill HB1988 would create a sales and use tax exemption for many of the same projects.

Summary –

The bill would cover proposals for electric transmission projects and projects to generate or store electricity from renewable resources. It would cover facilities to produce clean fuels or renewable or electrolytic hydrogen. Projects for the manufacturing of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions other than water, including motorcycles, and parts of both, would be qualified; so would projects manufacturing charging and fueling infrastructure for any of them, as well as equipment and facilities for generating renewable and electrolytic hydrogen (including preparing those for distribution); for producing clean fuel with associated greenhouse gas emissions not exceeding 80% of 2017 levels, and for generating electricity from alternative energy resources or equipment for energy storage.

The bill would require the official responsible for deciding whether a project proposal had to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement to notify an applicant for a project that was a clean energy project if that were likely to require an EIS, and to give those applicants a chance to revise their applications and mitigate the anticipated impacts before an actual final decision was made.

The bill would only allow the Shorelines Hearings Board to consider new issues or new evidence when reviewing agency decisions on the permitting of clean energy projects (or appeals about ones that had been structured as master programs) to the same extent that courts can when reviewing agency decisions. It would apply the same limits to the Pollution Hearings Board’s consideration of appeals of the decisions about solid waste permits for any projects listed in RCW 43.21B.110 (c) & (d) that were defined by the bill as clean infrastructure.

It would prohibit a local government from requiring an electric utility to demonstrate the necessity or utility of a proposed project during review of it beyond demonstrating it had performed assessments or obtained approvals required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Utilities and Transportation Commission, or any other Federal or State agency with authority over the assessment of its infrastructure needs.

The bill would exempt information designated as critical electric infrastructure information by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Secretary of the Department of Energy under the Federal Power Act from public disclosure.

HB2003

HB2003 – Creating a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products are responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Donaghy (D; 44th District; Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Duerr, Fitzgibbon, Jesse Johnson, Leavitt, Peterson, Ramel, Ryu, Simmons, Macri, Bateman, Ormsby, Davis, Riccelli, Lekanoff -Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment and Energy. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5697 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would create a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products were responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted. They would be required to join a producer responsibility organization, which would submit a nine year plan for approval to the Department of Ecology, implement it, and report to Ecology on its plan performance in specified ways. Ecology would be authorized to collect a fee from producer responsibility organizations to cover the costs of the statewide needs assessment, would administer the program, and would appoint and support an advisory council for it.

The bill is 74 pages long. There’s already a proposed substitute from the prime sponsor of the Senate version, which will be heard in committee there January 18th. (It’s in the folder for the bill onb the page with the committee materials for the hearing). There’s a staff report on that.

HB1896

HB1896 – Requires battery producers to participate in and fund a stewardship program providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Harris-Talley (D; 37th District; Rainier Valley) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Ryu, Simmons, Slatter, Peterson, Gregerson, Ormsby, Goodman, Ramel, Kloba, Frame, Bateman, Macri, Valdez, Duerr, and Pollett – Ds)
Current status – Had a continued hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 27th. Replaced by a substitute making minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing February 5th. Amended (by Rep Boehnke from the Tri-Cities) to require Commerce to contract with PNNL for a study of the end-of-life management of large format batteries rather than doing it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill is a slightly revised version of HB2496, which was introduced in the 2020 session, and had a hearing in the House, but did not advance beyond that. This bill eliminates the exemption for producers selling less then 5,000 batteries a year in the state, and adds some environmental justice standards. There are roughly 25 pages of details in the bill, and I haven’t tried to get all of them into the summary.

Summary –
The bill would make producers responsible for creating and funding a product stewardship system for dealing with all used batteries under twenty-five pounds (with a few exceptions, including vehicle batteries.). The bill would have users drop off used batteries at “free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible” sites, and prohibit putting them in containers for mixed recycling, landfills, incinerators, or waste-to-energy plants. (The system would include education and outreach to encourage participation.) Batteries from producers who weren’t participating couldn’t be legally sold in the state.

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans have to include performance goals for target collection rates and targets for the percentages of materials recovered through recycling. (They must collect and provide for the end-of-life management of batteries in an amount roughly equivalent to the Washington market share of the batteries of producers participating in the plan, and recover and recycle at least 70% of the weight of rechargeable batteries and 80% of others.) Plans have to include a system to collect charges from participating producers to cover the costs of the system, and structure the charges to encourage designs that reduce the environmental impacts of products. They have to adjust the financial obligations of producers in proportion to their use of recycled content in batteries.

There have to be collection sites for batteries under 12 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. Collection sites have to operate on a free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible basis for any person, business, government agency, or nonprofit organization. Programs have to use the collection sites of any retailer, wholesaler, municipality, solid waste management facility, or other entity that meet the requirements for sites and request it. They have to reimburse organizations implementing a State approved electronic recycling plan for their costs, and reimburse local governments for the costs of any facilities of theirs used as battery collection sites for the program.

Plans have to include a procedural manual for collection sites about reducing risks of spills or fires, and protocols for responding to those, and for managing damaged batteries. There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for hefty batteries between twelve and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people. (They have to be certified to handle and ship hazardous materials. )

Plans have to manage batteries by prioritizing prevention and waste reduction first, then reuse when that’s appropriate, and then recycling. They can only deal with batteries in other ways, like landfilling them, after a year, and after demonstrating to Ecology that these other higher priority options aren’t technologically feasible or economically practical.

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2026, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

After issuing a warning, Ecology can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for violations of the law and of up to $10,000 a day for intentional, knowing, or negligent violations. In addition, management organizations can seek reimbursement from another battery stewardship organization that fails to deal with its batteries in an amount roughly equivalent to the national battery market share of its producers. In fact, organizations are authorized to sue producers who are not participating in an approved plan for their expenses in dealing with that producer’s batteries, and if there’s more than one management organization they can sue others that are not dealing with their producers’ share of the used batteries for their expenses in collecting and dealing with those.

Details –
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; it doesn’t cover batteries sealed in products.

Plans have to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology, which is to collect a fee from producers to cover the cost of administering the program. It’s to maintain a public list of producers and brands that can be legally sold because they’re in the program.

The bill allows manufacturers to request that submitted information be exempted from public records requests, and has the Director of the Department do that if it isn’t detrimental to the public interest and is consistent with the public records law. It authorizes the Pollution Control Hearings Board to deal with appeals.

HB1895

HB1895 – Developing a plan for the conservation, reforestation, and restoration of forests in Washington State.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Harris-Talley (D; 37th District; Rainier Valley) (Co-Sponsors Maycumber, Steele, Graham, – Rs; Leavitt, Ramos, Lekanoff, Valdez, Shewmake, Simmons, Stonier, Peterson, Berg, Kloba, Callan, Riccelli, Macri, and Duerr – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 18th. (Still in committee at cutoff.)
Next step would be – Dead bill
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5633 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to create a voluntary, incentive-based working and nonworking forest conservation and reforestation plan intended to conserve at least a million acres of working forestland and reforest at least a million acres by 2040. The plan would have to respect the full diversity of landowner management and investment objectives, and utilize or develop incentive-based strategies that address preventing the loss of working and nonworking forestland across the state; opportunities to implement incentive-based carbon compensation programs for avoiding conversion and reforestation; reforestation on forestland impacted by wildfire, pests, disease, landslides, land-use change, and other stressors; and tree planting and increased canopy coverage in urban areas. prioritizing highly impacted or overburdened communities. It would have to use the plan to assess and prioritize conservation and reforestation actions each biennium.

The Department would be required to develop a framework to address the goal, mapping and prioritizing areas across the state based on criteria including risk of permanent forest loss, or the loss of critical environmental, economic, cultural, equity, or health benefits including value to local economies, carbon sequestration, landscape-level habitat connectivity, or salmon recovery and important wildlife habitat. It would evaluate and promote existing carbon compensation programs and other incentives for emissions reductions to assist forestland owners in voluntarily engaging in carbon markets. It would map and prioritize historically forested areas, including postwildfire areas and areas where reforestation or afforestation efforts might support environmental restoration, local economic development, or tribal restoration objectives, and it would conduct an analysis of the regional reforestation pipeline, including seed collection, nursery capacity, and workforce needs, to ensure an adequate basis to meet goals and growing needs. (Reforestation analyses would be required to include an ecological assessment of advantages and disadvantages of intervention, and of best strategies for maintaining and restoring ecological integrity and resilience to climate change.) It would map and prioritize urban and community areas where tree planting might provide environmental, economic, or health benefits, particularly to highly impacted or overburdened
communities. It would conduct the analysis needed to develop a strategic plan, including specific criteria to prioritize the conservation of forests at risk of conversion, and analysis of the reforestation pipeline, the state’s private sector logging and milling capacity, and equity and environmental justice impacts.

In developing the framework, the department would have to consult with impacted communities using the State’s community engagement plan and identify opportunities to increase equity in forestland ownership; utilize the Washington health disparities map to help identify highly impacted or overburdened communities lacking equitable access to forest benefits; consult with the Washington State Office of Equity on how to make values-driven, data informed decisions to identify and address disparities impacting communities of color; invite input from tribes on forested areas with important cultural, ecological, and economic values threatened by conversion or other disturbance; and engage a range of stakeholders (including a long specified list) in the development and implementation of the conservation and reforestation plan.

The Department would be required to identify, prioritize, utilize, and develop voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities consistent with the plan, using appropriations provided for that specific purpose. It would have to utilize and build on various previous reports to the Legislature. It would assess and inventory existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities relevant to the goals of the plan, and consider new ones. These might include tools such as payment for ecological services, technical or financial support to small forestland owners, tax or market incentives, conservation and working forest easements, fee simple land acquisition, or transfer of development rights. The Department would identify their limitations and make recommendations to improve, accelerate, or expand them to maximize their effectiveness. It would identify new or existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentives addressing economic stressors that contribute to forest conversion (including the retention of milling infrastructure, market access,
and workforce development); that give financial value to the underlying environmental, health, equity, and cultural values of working forestlands; and that provide support to small working forestland owners achieving their objectives and goals.

The Department would develop a pilot rapid response fund to test opportunities and barriers to acquiring private working forestlands at imminent risk of conversion from willing sellers, and maintaining them as working forests.

By December 1st 2022, the Department would report to the Office of Financial Management and the appropriate committees of the Legislature including a map and justification of identified priority areas, an approach to monitoring to assure that the forested acres were meeting the criteria of success established in the plan, and a description of activities to be undertaken consistent with it. The plan would have to be finalized and submitted to them by December 1st 2023. Each biennium after that, the Department would have to submit a report reviewing previous and future activities. This would include a list and brief summary of tools, financing opportunities, and incentives used in the preceding biennium, including total funding, costs for those, and their outcomes and effectiveness. It would highlight any of them that contributed to more equitable outcomes, including equity in forestland ownership, access to green spaces, and urban tree cover canopy. It would include any barriers to implementation, legislative or administrative recommendations to address those, and a comparison of the requested and actual funding for the plan the previous biennium, with an analysis of the additional progress that would have been expected with full funding, if that’s possible. The report would include a list and brief summary of tools and incentives to be used in the next biennium with requested appropriations, including information from the prioritization process. It would identify potential partnerships between the State and the forest products industry to promote the use of those as a way toward maintaining the state’s forestland base and reaching its emissions goals, and would identify a range of other potential partnership opportunities. The report would include criteria by which working and non-working forested areas would be considered protected from conversion, including a minimum time frame for that conclusion. It would provide an update on the acres of working and nonworking forestland by region, and on private sector logging and milling capacity, including gains or losses, and potential reasons for significant changes. It would provide an update on the quantity and quality of jobs created or sustained through conservation and reforestation activities; on the locations and acres reforested; and on consultation with highly impacted communities.

HB1831

HB1831 – Creates an EV infrastructure training program and requires electricians certified through that to be present when public chargers are being installed or maintained.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bronoske (D; 28th District; Southwest Pierce County) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Berry, Macri, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards January 18th; replaced by a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute removes an error, to say that the current exemptions would apply instead of that they wouldn’t; and specifies that the requirements apply to installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, but only on sites that are “public works”, rather than on any for public use.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Labor and Industries to create the rules for an electric vehicle infrastructure training program certification. Beginning July 1, 2023, all electric vehicle equipment intended for public use would have to be installed by appropriately licensed electrical contractors and appropriately certified electricians. At least one certified electrician would have to be present at any given time on a jobsite where that equipment was being installed or maintained. On a jobsite where the installation of equipment included one or more charging ports intended to supply 25 kilowatts or more to a vehicle, at least 25% of the certified electricians present on the site at any given time would have to have the electric vehicle infrastructure training program certification. (By way of comparison, a typical 40 amp 240 volt charger supplies 9.6 kilowatts.) The current provisions for exemptions from electrical contractor licensing and electrician certification laws would not apply to this work.

HB1810

HB1810 – Requires manufacturers of digital electronic products to provide independent repair providers and owners access to the documentation, parts and tools for repairs that they make available to authorized service providers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; South King County) (Co-Sponsors Representative Chase – R; Ryu, Berry, Taylor & Fitzgibbon – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Appropriations January 27th. Replaced by a second substitute which would make it null and void if specific funding for it weren’t appropriated, and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules: still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments – SB5795 addresses many of the same issues.

History in the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 19th. The substitute would remove the option for manufacturers to provide a training program leading to certification as a “manufacturer certified repair facility” as alternative to the other fair repair requirements, and would allow independent repair providers to maintain any one of several different repair certifications.

Summary –
Starting January 1, 2023, the bill would require original manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state to make the same documentation, parts and tools, including corrections to embedded software and safety and security patches, that they make available to authorized repair providers available to independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. Manufacturers would be required to make them all available for purchase on fair and reasonable terms.

Starting January 1, 2024, it would require manufacturers to make documentation, parts, and tools, as well as any updates to the embedded software, available to owners of products for purchase on fair and reasonable terms (unless the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of them presented a reasonably foreseeable risk of property damage or personal injury).

If manufacturers sold any documentation, parts, or tools to any independent repair provider in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they would be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included documentation or functionality that was not available in a standardized format.

Manufacturer would not be required to sell service parts that were no longer available to authorized repair providers. Equipment or parts sold or used in the state to provide security-related functions would not be allowed to exclude diagnostic, service, and repair information need to reset a security-related electronic function from the information provided to owners and independent repair facilities. The bill also says that if information necessary to reset an immobilizer system or security-related electronic module is excluded in the sub-section it “may be” obtained by owners and independent repair facilities through the appropriate secure data release systems, but there doesn’t seem to be an exclusion in the current version.

As an alternative to these obligations, manufacturers could provide a training program and allow any licensed Washington business to get certified as a “manufacturer certified repair facility” in an open and fair process.

The requirements would not apply to motor vehicles, non-road engines and equipment, or medical equipment. It would make a violation of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, but would only allow the Attorney General to enforce those provisions.

HB1801

HB1801 – Requiring ratings of the repairability of digital electronic equipment on its packaging, and creating a commission on its repairability.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; SeaTac) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ryu, Fitzgibbon, and Berry – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Consumer Protection and Business January 19th; replaced by a substitute weakening the bill dramatically and voted out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments-
The bill’s not very clear about exactly where and how each sort of information has to be available; this is my best guess about its intent. I’m also not clear whether the requirement for displaying the scores and the information in the second list below for a product for sale on a website applies to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 digital equipment products of all kinds in the state, or only to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 of that particular item.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would drop everything in the bill about the creation and enforcement of repairability score labeling requirements, and replace the Commission with a three year task force making annual reports and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature.

Original bill –
The bill would require original equipment manufacturers of digital electronic equipment sold or used in the State to provide average repairability scores, for purposes of diagnosis and consumer information, on a label on the front and rear of its packaging. Each piece of equipment’s scores would range from one to ten, and they would cover:
(a) The duration and availability of technical documents and related advice on its use and maintenance;
(b) The ease of dismantling it, tools required, and other characteristics of the fasteners used or other parts;
(c) The manufacturer’s estimate of the duration of its parts;
(d) How long the manufacturer plans to continue manufacturing replacement parts;
(e) The ratio of the price of replacement parts to the price of new equipment;
(f) The potential to recycle or dispose of it;
(g) The expertise required to safely repair it; and,
(h) Any other information deemed necessary by Commerce.
(The manufacturer would average these to create the average repairability score for the packaging.) The Department of Commerce would create specific standards for equipment, and manufacturers would have to meet them for each criterion before they could assign a repairability score higher than five for it. Commerce might also create additional standards for any or all score values for each criterion.

Manufacturers would also have to “include the following information with the repairability scores.” [It isn’t clear to me whether this and the ratings for each criterion (or quick response codes, other codes, or a web address to guide a consumer to full information on a website) would also have to be on the packaging, or whether that’s optional.]
(a) The model number and manufacturer’s suggested retail price;
(b) Information on the software updates provided by the manufacturer;
(c) Potential for a factory reset of the equipment;
(d) Whether or not remote assistance is available from the manufacturer and the price charged for providing that; and
(e) Other information deemed necessary by the department.

Ninety days before selling digital equipment in the state, a manufacturer would have to submit the numeric score for each criterion and the average repairability score for the packaging label; reasons for how the equipment meets the scores chosen; and any other required information to Commerce. The Department would post that on a public website, and might publish its own comments alongside the manufacturer’s information if it determined that or the scores were materially incomplete, inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading. (It would have to try to notify manufacturers of any problems in their submissions and give them up to 30
days to make changes.) The bill would make violations of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, and would allow an individual who brought a successful action under the Act for a violation to recover all the remedies it establishes and an additional $1,000 in statutory damages for each violation.

Parties selling 1,000 or more pieces of digital equipment annually and listing equipment for sale on a website would be required to display all this information there.

The bill would also create a commission on digital electronic equipment repairability to study, analyze, and prepare reports on local, national, and global repairability standards for digital electronic equipment; and provide recommendations to the Legislature on repairability standards for digital electronic equipment in Washington. Members would be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and consist of a Democrat and a Republican from each chamber (one of whom would be elected as the chair by the members), and a member from Commerce, Ecology, the Attorney General’s office, an advocacy group focused on sustainability of digital electronic equipment; an organization representing the interests of local technology companies; a distributor or marketplace platform for digital electronic equipment; and an original equipment manufacturer. The commission might invite any number of others to participate in an advisory, non-voting capacity. It would report to the Legislature every two years, beginning in October 2024, on the development of local, national, and global repairability standards, and provide recommendations on the creation, implementation, management, and enforcement of State standards, with a focus on achieving compatibility with emerging national and global standards. It would be authorized to issue and enforce subpoenas to obtain documents or testimony from any entity or individual to gather information that would assist in the execution of its duties.

HB1782

HB1782 – Requiring local governments to allow additional duplexes through sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments near major transit stops and some of these in areas now zoned single family.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bateman (D; 22nd District; Thurston County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Macri, Berry, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Local Government January 18th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing February 5th, and passed out of committee (after the failure of a series of amendments.) Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5670 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute provides for additional technical assistance from Commerce; adds a variety of new requirements; and makes other changes. There’s a staff summary at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill defines “middle housing” to mean duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments with up to six units. The bill would require cities with over 20,000 people planning under the Growth Management Act [GMA] to allow them on all lots zoned for single family within half a mile of a major transit stop, and to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on all other lots zoned for single-family. As an alternative, a city with a population of 500,000 or more could alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of at least 40 units/acre across all of its urban growth area; a city with between 100,000 people and 500,000 could rezone to an average minimum density of at least 30 units/acre across its UGA; and a city with between 20,000 and 100,000 people could rezone to an average minimum of at least 25 dwelling units/acre across its UGA. Within nine months of the effective date of the bill any of these cities that had not adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of its comprehensive plan’s mandatory elements would be required to perform the actions for addressing racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion specified in the GMA for areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop. (The bill would define a major transit stop for the purposes of the entire GMA as a ferry terminal; a stop on a light rail, commuter rail, or fixed rail system; a stop on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on HOV lanes; or a stop for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of 15 minutes or less for at least five hours during weekday peaks.

Any city with a population of at least 10,000 planning under the GMA would have to allow duplexes on any lots currently zoned for single-family. (Any city with a population between 10,000 and 20,000 would be able to alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of 15 dwelling units or more per acre instead.) Cities choosing any of the alternatives based on average minimums in the bill would also have to adopt findings of fact demonstrating that will not result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, or further exclusion in housing, and then transmit those findings to the Department of Commerce.

Cities would be allowed to adopt development and design standards for middle housing, provided that those didn’t discourage it through unreasonable costs, fees, delays, or other requirements or actions which individually, or cumulatively, made developing it impracticable. They would be prohibited from requiring zoning, development, siting, or design review standards for it that were more restrictive than those for single-family residences, and would be required to apply the same development permit and environmental review processes to both. They would be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition of developing it within a half mile of a major transit stop; from requiring more than than one off-street parking space per lot for it on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet; and from requiring more than two off-street parking spaces per lot for it on lots larger than that.

The Department of Commerce would provide technical assistance to cities implementing the bill’s requirements, and prioritize cities demonstrating the greatest need for it. It would publish a model middle housing ordinances within 18 months of the bill’s effective date, and that would preempt local development regulations until a city took all the actions necessary to implement the bill’s requirements. Commerce would establish a process by which cities implementing the requirements could seek approval of necessary local actions. Any local actions approved by the department would be exempted from appeals under the GMA and the State Environmental Policy Act. It would exempt amendments to development regulations and other nonproject actions taken by a city to implement its requirements from administrative or judicial appeals under the GMA. [I think the language of the bill would only exempt them if they had been approved by Commerce, but I’m not sure.]

The bill’s zoning requirements would take effect twenty-four months after its effective date for cities over 10,000 people, or twelve months after the Office of Financial Management determined that a city had reached one of the population thresholds in the bill.

HB1774

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1767

HB1767– Allows public electric utilities to fund outreach and investment to convert customers’ equipment from fossil fuels to electricity if they have approved plans establishing that will provide net benefits to the utility.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Macri, Berry, Dolan, Fitzgibbon, and Ryu – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed out of committee January 20th. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5666 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 18th.

Summary –
The bill would allow public electric utilities to adopt a targeted electrification plan after public comment, establishing that the sum of the benefits of an option for electrifying its residential and commercial customers’ gas or wood equipment would equal or exceed the sum of its costs. (These utilities would still be authorized to offer incentives and programs to accelerate the electrification of homes and buildings if that were in their direct economic interest.)

The benefits they consider may include system impacts, as well as:
(i) Utility revenue from increased retail load;
(ii) Distribution and transmission system efficiencies resulting from demand response or other load management opportunities associated with the increased load, including direct control and dynamic pricing;
(iii) System reliability improvements;
(iv) Indoor and outdoor air quality benefits to existing and future customers;
(v) Reductions in customers’ greenhouse gas emissions, taking into consideration the utility’s obligations under the cap and invest act and the State’s greenhouse gas emissions limits;
(vi) Public health benefits, such as resilience in dealing with extreme heat and wildfire smoke for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations.
The analysis may differentiate the benefits and costs for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations in their service area.

The costs they consider must include:
(i) The electricity, which must be demonstrated to have a lower greenhouse gas emissions profile than direct use of natural gas or any other resources that might be used to serve or offset the load from electrification during the life of the equipment;
(ii) Any upgrades to the utility’s distribution or transmission system or load management practices and equipment made necessary by the increased load; and
(iii) The cost of any incentives, advertising, or other inducements used to encourage customers to electrify a use served by a different fuel.

After adopting a plan, a public utility would be authorized to offer incentives and establish other programs to accelerate the targeted electrification of homes and buildings, including the promotion of electrically powered equipment, advertising programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates. A utility offering these incentives and programs would be required to prioritize service to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities, and to ensure that all customers were benefiting from the transition to clean energy through the equitable distribution of energy and non energy benefits and the reduction of burdens to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities including long-term and short-term public health and environmental benefits; reduction of those costs and risks; and energy security and resiliency.

HB1766

HB1766 – Modifying the regulation of gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Whatcom County.) (Co-Sponsor Representative Slatter -D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment & Energy January 28th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
SB5668 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would require each non-municipal gas utility to develop a clean heat transition plan for meeting the state’s greenhouse gas limits with respect to the emissions from fossil natural gas combustion; limiting the expansion of the gas system for residential and commercial space and water heating; advancing the use of high-efficiency electric equipment and production and the distribution of clean gas fuels; and ensuring the safe and equitable transition of the system. Plans would have to ensure that the transition achieves benefits for low-income households, overburdened communities, and vulnerable populations; and ensure the equitable distribution of the energy and nonenergy benefits of the utility’s programs and infrastructure to those communities and populations, including the reduction of energy burdens and improvement of indoor and outdoor air quality.

Plans would have to identify specific actions to achieve the company’s share of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets; and include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative transition actions, including those for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and incorporating the social cost of emissions. They would have to consider recommendations from the latest state energy strategy; identify changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with specific actions in the plan; and prioritize the remaining use of fossil natural gas by residential and commercial customers in consultation with electric utilities. They would have to assess overall current conditions within the company’s service territory, including the state of the economy, public health, and environmental conditions; the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs, including those caused by utility actions outside its service area; and the relative impact of alternative emissions reduction strategies on indoor air pollution and the health of customers. Plans would have to support an equitable transition for overburdened communities and low-income customers through no-cost grant programs for low- income residents and low-cost or specially targeted incentive programs for moderate income or fixed income seniors. Companies would have to consult with any electric utility with customers in their service area in developing plans, and those would be subject to review, modification, and approval by the Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Plans would have to be based on a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of multiple emissions reduction strategies to identify the combination that complied with the requirements at lowest reasonable cost.They would be required to consider:
(a) Measures to increase the efficiency of energy use in residential, industrial, and commercial buildings through thermal load reduction strategies such as envelope efficiency improvements, hot water conservation, or process load reductions;
(b) Development of geothermal and industrial waste heat, and other heat sources that don’t involve substantial emissions of greenhouse gases;
(c) Development of district heating systems using waste heat; and
(d) Reduction of the carbon content of delivered gas by incorporating renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen.
They might also consider expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs, using dual heating systems to limit the use of fossil gas to periods of peak energy demand during a transition period, converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; targeted programs to permanently decommission areas of the company’s distribution systems; using offset credits to the extent the cap and invest program allows; and implementing projects to reduce nonhazardous leaks from pipelines.

The bill would exempt gas companies from the requirement that utilities provide new service on request, and prohibit companies from extending service to new customers unless they determined that was compatible with their plan; it would prohibit them from expanding their service area unless the UTC determined that was consistent with their plan and would not result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the gas plant to be installed in the expanded area. It would require them to charge the full cost of a line extension. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize an extension to a new customer.) After December 31, 2024, it would prohibit them from including any conservation measure that requires the installation of new gas-fired equipment in their conservation acquisition targets or offering financial incentives to acquire any, unless the commission found the measures were consistent with the company’s plan and didn’t result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the equipment.

It would expand the renewable natural gas program to allow a utility to propose delivering renewable hydrogen and hydrogen produced by hydrolysis using any energy source as well, provided that it demonstrated that would reduce its greenhouse gas intensity per therm, including life-cycle emissions, and would not reduce the safety or reliability of its service. The bill would require the UTC to establish safety standards for the use of hydrogen before approving a program that includes it, and would allow the retail customer charge for a program to exceed 5% of the charge for natural gas if the Commission determined that was necessary under an approved transition plan.

Once major projects in an approved plan began operating, the bill would allow the utilities to account for and defer all operating and maintenance costs, depreciation, taxes, and cost of capital incurred in connection with them, as well as costs for contracts to purchase renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen, until the UTC considered their application to recover them through rates.

HB1711

HB1711– Allows cities and counties to waive or defer ADU fees; defer taxes; and waive regulations for them, provided that they can’t be used as short-term rentals.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollet (D; 46th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Representative Shewmake -D)
Current status – Passed out of committee and referred to Rules January 21st; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th.

Summary –
The bill would allow cities and counties to waive or defer fees for ADUs, including impact fees; defer the payment of taxes on them; or waive specific regulations for them. However, it would only allow these or other local incentives for the development or construction of ADUs if they were subject to binding commitments or covenants preventing their regular use as short-term rentals, and the jurisdiction had a program to audit compliance with those.

(It also removes the current definition of an ADU’s owner as someone with at at least a 50% interest in the property it’s on, and fixes the phrasing about route frequency in the definition of a major transit stop.)

HB1672

HB1672 – Exempts local property tax increases for conservation futures from RCW 84.55.010’s limits on local levies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wylie (D; 49th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Had a hearing in Finance January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would exempt local property tax increases for conservation futures from RCW 84.55.010’s limits on local levies. (That limits a local levy to the amount of the largest property tax in a district during the most recent three years, adjusted for various factors like increased assessed values, times one of several limit factors which depend on the district but are often 1%.)

HB1661

HB1661 – Develop a plan to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 18th; replaced by a substitute January 25th. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 3rd. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5619 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The findings say:
These marine forests and meadows play an important role in climate mitigation and adaptation by sequestering carbon and relieving ocean acidification. Marine vegetation can sequester up to times more carbon than terrestrial forests, and therefore represent a critical tool in the fight against climate change.
There’s research on using kelp growing on open ocean platforms, where the biomass falls into regions where there’s so little biological activity that it doesn’t break down and the carbon captured in its growth stays sequestered. I don’t know how much carbon from our local kelp forests stays sequestered for long. How well local eel grass meadows sequester carbon is unclear.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would focus the Conservation Plan on native species; have it address current conservation efforts; and identify research needed on native seaweed aquaculture. It specifies consultation and adds reporting requirements.

Original bill –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to work with partners to establish a kelp forest and eelgrass meadow health and conservation plan that tries (subject to available funding) to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.

They would develop a framework to identify and prioritize kelp forest areas in greatest need of conservation or restoration, mapping areas throughout Puget Sound and along the coast where they were historically present, identifying priority locations for restoration that are at highest risk of permanent loss, or that contribute significant environmental, economic, and cultural benefits to tribal nations and local communities; locations where opportunities for partnership and collaboration exist, and locations where restoration would most benefit nearshore ecosystem function including salmon recovery, water quality, and other ecosystem benefits. They would identify potential stressors impacting the health and vitality of forests and meadows in prioritized areas in order to specifically address them in conservation and restoration efforts.

The department would collaborate with impacted tribal nations, and other local and regional partners, to address conservation and restoration needs in the priority areas and the appropriate tools and partnerships to address them. In developing coordinated actions and success measures, it would assess and inventory existing tools for conserving and restoring these ecosystems and reducing stressors related to their decline; identify new or amended tools that would support the goals of the plan; and identify success measures to track progress toward them.

The department would submit a report to the Office of Financial Management and the appropriate committees of the Legislature by December 1, 2022, including a map and justification of identified priority areas, an approach to monitoring the areas that are meeting the criteria for conservation or restoration established in the plan, and activities to be undertaken consistent with the plan. A final version of the plan would have to be submitted to OFM and these committees by December 1, 2023.

The department would continue to monitor kelp forests and eelgrass meadows to inform adaptive management of the plan and coordinated partner actions, and submit a report every two years including an updated map of distributions and trends; a summary of success measures and findings, including relevant information from the prioritization process; an updated list summarizing potential stressors, prioritized areas, and corresponding coordinated actions and success measures; an update on the number of acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows conserved by region, including restoration or loss in priority areas; an update on consultation with impacted tribal nations and local communities; any barriers to plan implementation; and legislative or administrative recommendations to address those barriers.

HB1657

HB1657 – Reducing the emissions and the safety risks of insufficient overnight commercial truck parking through tax incentives.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Griffey (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Had a hearing in Finance Tuesday January 25th at 1:30. Amended to increase the minimum qualifying parking space dimensions to 12 feet wide and 70 feet long, and passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules February 7th; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The findings include a reference to a 2016 survey by the Department of Transportation in which over 60% of truckers reported spending an hour or more per day looking for parking.

The current language of the bill would seem to exempt any buildings on a piece of property that included a qualified truck parking lot from real and personal property taxes, not just the part of it with the actual lot. It doesn’t say anything about how affordable the charging or hydrogen fueling needs to be, about what capacity for charging or refueling some or all of the trucks is required, or that the spaces need to be in a location where they are used by truckers. The intent to continue the incentives isn’t tied to any evidence that 1,000 additional parking spaces would not have been developed in any case.

The exemptions are subject to the standard review by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. For that, a new tax preference performance statement is supposed to “specify clear, relevant, and ascertainable metrics and data requirements that allow the committee and the Legislature to measure [its] effectiveness in achieving the designated purpose of the exemption.” In relation to this review requirement the bill specifies the tax preference as “intended to provide incentives to increase safe overnight truck parking capacity.”

Summary –
The bill would exempt all real and personal property “upon which there are at least 10 safe, overnight commercial truck parking spaces constructed” from taxes on their value starting with the taxes due in 2023, and continuing until a year after the Secretary of the Department of Transportation certified to the Department of Revenue that the state has sufficient safe, overnight commercial truck parking for its freight delivery needs of the state or January 1, 2033, whichever is sooner. It would exempt the sales of materials and labor used to construct a parking lot with at least ten qualified commercial or port district truck parking spaces from sales and use taxes, if they were accessible and suitable for overnight use, and allowed for charging electric batteries or fuel cells. It adds all leasehold interests in real property owned by a port and used by a tenant to provide qualified port district truck parking spaces to the current list of interests exempt from the leasehold excise tax.

The bill declares the Legislature’s intent to extend the incentive if the number of truck parking spaces suitable for overnight use grows by at least 1,000 spaces while it’s in place, and at least half of the spaces developed have hydrogen fueling access or electric charging access.

Details –
The exemptions would apply to spaces on which substantial construction work began while they were in place; spaces would have to be at least 11′ by 54′; port district spaces would only have to be accessible and available to any commercial truck authorized to be on port property.

HB1631

HB1631 – Creates a sustainable farms and fields advisors network to assist interested food producers and processors.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Referred to Appropriations. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill contains a list of things the advisors are supposed to do, but it also says interlocal agreements between each group of conservation districts are supposed to set the workload and priorities for the advisor that group hires.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development January 11th; passed out of committee January 26th.

Summary –
The bill would create a sustainable farms and fields advisors network to help agricultural producers and food processors increase energy efficiency, use green energy, sequester carbon, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The State Conservation Commission would develop the network and groups of adjacent conservation districts would each hire, host, and share the services of an advisor. The advisors would consult with interested farmers and food processors to help them develop sustainable farms and fields plans to reduce their carbon footprint by increasing energy efficiency, increasing their utilization and production of green energy, sequestering carbon, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They would also inform conservation districts, farmers, and food processors about local, state, and federal funding opportunities, including the State’s sustainable farms and fields grants (assuming that program was funded this session), to help achieve these goals. Each group of districts would establish a committee to develop a prioritized list of farmers and food processors interested in working with the advisor, and each advisor’s workload and priorities would be set according to an interlocal agreement established between those districts.

The Commission would hire a coordinator for the advisors, who would also be responsible for disseminating current information about energy efficiency and climate-smart practices and funding opportunities, applying for grants, writing progress reports, and other needed activities. In consultation with Washington State and the University of Washington, the Commission would evaluate and update the most appropriate carbon equivalency metric to apply to the sustainable farms and fields grant program by July 1, 2024. (Unless it identified a better metric, it would consider the storage of 3.67 tons of biogenic carbon for one hundred years as the equivalent of avoiding one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, and calculate annual storage as a linear proportion of that.)

The Commission would report to the Legislature and the Governor every two years on the sustainable farms and fields grant program and the advisors, including grants awarded, projects funded, greenhouse gas emissions reduced, and carbon sequestered. It would also update, at least annually, a public list of projects and pertinent information including a summary of state and federal funds, private funds spent, landowner and other private cost-share matching expenditures, the total number of projects, and an estimate of carbon sequestered or emissions reduced.

HB1103

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

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

In the House 2022 –
Reintroduced in Appropriations.

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

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

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

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

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

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