SB5732 – Requiring new buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. to include green, agrivoltaic, or bio-solar roofs, or to make a cash-in-lieu payment for local climate resiliency programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Sheldon, Randall, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings declare that green roofs provide greater weatherization and insulation for  a building, can prolong the service life of HVAC systems through decreased use, can triple the life of the roof,  can reduce stormwater runoff, can help clean the air and reduce urban heat island effects, can generate employment, can provide recreational spaces, and can be effectively combined with solar panels. (The Living Roofs website has some photos of these.)

It doesn’t take the differences in their potential performance in the different climates in the Eastern and Western half of the state into consideration in any way.

Summary –

After January 1, 2025, the bill would require the design of any new building where the sum of multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial area was over 50,000 square feet, excluding the parking garage area, to have at least 70% of the roof be a green roof. Half of that area could be solar and half could be an intensive green roof with at least six inches of soil; all of it could be an extensive green roof with between three and six inches of soil if half the area also had solar panels; a quarter of the dedicated area could have solar and three-quarters of it could have an extensive green roof; or a quarter of it could have solar panels, half of it could be an extensive green roof, and a quarter of it could be an intensive green roof producing food.

They would have to be designed and constructed by qualified teams of contractors including engineers, landscape architects, architects, and at least one green roof professional. They’d have to have a five-year maintenance plan with a minimum of two visits a year, and be designed to facilitate inspection by local authorities to ensure ongoing energy and environmental performance.They’d have to  “be part of performance rating systems” including the LEED program, Sustainable Sites, and the Living Architecture Performance Tool. The Building Code Council would have to adopt rules for the requirements by December 31, 2024.

Building owners could apply for full or partial exemptions from the requirements during permitting and make a cash-in-lieu payment of $50/sq. ft. instead. (The bill estimates that as the average cost of constructing a green roof.) [As I read the bill, these exemptions have to be granted if they’re requested; jurisdictions have to spend any payments they receive on local climate resiliency programs.]

The bill would have the Washington State Institute for Public Policy do a report to the Legislature on the cost of constructing a green roof by January 1, 2025; and recommend any  changes to the cost estimates in the Act to ensure that the costs of the various alternative assemblies for complying are roughly equivalent and the cash-in-lieu payments are based on the actual average cost of constructing a green roof.

If funds were appropriated for it, the Institute would also do a cost-benefit analysis of the use of these systems on buildings between 10,000 to 50,000 square feet, in consultation with Ecology, Commerce, and an organization that has experience conducting them. The analysis would include agrivoltaic installation and maintenance costs; and the effects of these various systems on stormwater runoff and water treatment facilities in communities over 50,000; on public health and air quality; on energy efficiency and reductions in fossil fuel use for buildings with agrivoltaic systems; and on Job creation.

SB5697 – 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 – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Rolfes, Kuderer, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Pedersen, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing on a substitute by the prime sponsor in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 18th. Replaced by a second substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means and scheduled for a hearing there on February 5th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2003 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

Substitute –
The second substitute makes further changes which are summarized by staff in a page of small print at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
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, which is what will be heard in committee. (It’s in the folder for the bill on this page with materials for the hearing.). There’s a staff report on the substitute.

SB5658 – Creates criteria for recyclable products and packaging; prohibits “deceptive or misleading claims” about recyclability; requires increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content in plastic tubs, thermoform containers, and single-use cups.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Rivers – R; Das, Hunt, Saldaña, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology  January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1932 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t say so, but I assume its categorizing misleading labels about reyclability as “deceptive or misleading claims” is intended to make them subject to the consumer protection laws.

Summary –
The bill would establish standards for what products and packaging the State considers to be recyclable, and would make symbols or statements on them suggesting they were recyclable a “deceptive or misleading claim” unless they met those standards and were “of a material type and form that routinely became feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.”

By January 1, 2025, Ecology would complete a study of the material types and forms that are collected, sorted, sold, or transferred by facilities that process recyclable materials from curbside recycling programs and other solid waste facilities. It would identify which of these are actively recovered and not considered contaminants by included operations or facilities; and how material was collected or processed. It would publish its preliminary findings on its website, take public comments before the final version, and update the study every five years.

A product or packaging would be considered recyclable if at least 75% of what’s sorted and aggregated in the state is reprocessed into new products or packaging; or if the material type and form are collected for recycling in jurisdictions that encompass at least 60% of the population, and are sorted into defined streams for recycling by large transfer or processing facilities that collectively serve at least 60% of programs statewide, and then sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the State’s solid waste management requirements. (Ecology could modify the rules to include smaller facilities to meet the goals of the program.) Until 2031, product or packaging not collected under a curbside collection program would count as recyclable if the program recovered at least 60 percent of its material and that had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material type and form; after 2031 recovering at least 75% of the material would be required. Products or packaging in compliance with State or Federal laws passed after 2023 and governing recyclability or disposal would count if the Director of Ecology determined they wouldn’t increase increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive consumers about their recyclability. Plastic packaging could not count as recyclable if it included any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent that.

Cities, counties, and the State would be authorized to impose civil liability in the amount of $500 for a first violation of the law, of $1,000 for a second one, and of $2,000 for a third and any subsequent one.
Ecology would be required to develop an enforcement program to investigate and identify violations by 2026.

The bill would include plastic tubs and thermoform plastic containers like clamshells and egg cartons (starting in 2026), as well as single-use plastic cups (starting in 2029) in the current law requiring gradually increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content and annual reporting about that.

SB5731 – Diverting organic materials from landfills, increasing composting, and reducing food waste. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Lovelett – D)
Current status – Did not have a hearing; still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1799 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would add to the State’s current food waste reduction goals by establishing goals to reduce the disposal of organic materials in landfills by 75% from 2015 levels by 2030, and to recover at least 20% of the amount of edible food that was disposed of in 2015 for human consumption by 2025. It defines “organic materials management” to include vermiculture, black soldier fly, or similar technologies as well as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Jurisdictions would be required to provide organic solid waste collection services to all their residents and businesses that generate more than .5 cubic yard of organic materials; and provide for their organic management. (Jurisdictions disposing of less than 5,000 tons of solid waste or with populations under 25,000, census tracts with fewer than 75 people per square mile in unincorporated portions of a county,and areas receiving waivers for up to five years from the Department of Ecology on the basis of factors including the distance to organic management facilities, the facilities’ ability to manage additional organic materials, and current restrictions on their transport would be exempt. However, Ecology could apply the requirements to sparse census tracts and areas with waivers after January 2030 if it determined that the new goals had not or would not be achieved. Counties’ and cities’ solid waste plans would be required to be consistent with the new goals, to identify the capacity for organic management needed to meet them, to consider other methods of managing organics in addition to composting and anaerobic digestion, and to identify priority areas for that in industrial zones in the jurisdiction (and not in overburdened areas). The bill would add composting and other organic materials management facilities to the list of local public works projects eligible for State loans, grants, financing guarantees, and technical assistance through the Public Works Board. By 2023, local governments would be required to adopt a compost procurement ordinance and a procurement plan to implement the State’s current requirements for using compost in projects, giving priority to purchasing compost products from companies that produce them locally, are certified by a nationally recognized organization, and produce compost from municipal solid waste, and meet quality standards comparable to those adopted by the Department of Transportation or Ecology.

Beginning January 1, 2024, the bill would require a business that generates at least eight cubic yards of organic waste per week that isn’t managed on site to arrange for organic materials management of that; beginning in 2025 the requirement would apply to businesses generating at least four cubic yards, and beginning in 2026, businesses that generate at least four cubic yards of any solid waste per week would have to arrange for organic management of their organic waste, unless the department determined that additional reductions in the landfilling of organic materials would be better achieved, at reasonable cost to businesses, by establishing a different threshold. Businesses could fulfill the requirements by:
(a) Source separating organic waste and subscribing to a service with organic waste collection and materials management;
(b) Managing its organic waste on-site or hauling its own organic waste for organic management; or
(c) Qualifying for exclusion from the requirements of this section consistent with subsection (1)(b) of this section.
Businesses’ contracts for gardening or landscaping service would have to require that the organic waste be managed organically. (The requirements wouldn’t apply in areas of a jurisdiction with no available businesses that collect and deliver organic materials to solid waste facilities that provide for the organic materials management of it and food waste, and would not apply at all in jurisdictions with no available capacity at the solid waste facilities to which businesses that collect and deliver organic materials could feasibly and economically deliver them.)

The bill would modify the current Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which reduces gleaners and food donors exposure to liability, by only requiring  the “apparently fit grocery products” it covers to meet all safety and safety-related labeling standards; those would not include certain current required pull dates or a “best by,” “best if used by,” “use by,” “sell by,” or similarly phrased date intended to communicate information about the freshness or quality of a product to consumers. The bill would allow donors to be paid for the costs of handling, administering, and distributing donated food and grocery products, and would allow charging needy individuals that much for them.

The bill would create a Washington Center for Sustainable Food Management at the Department of Ecology to help coordinate statewide food waste reduction. It would be authorized to:
(a) Coordinate the implementation of the State’s food waste reduction plan;
(b) Draft plan updates and measure progress on actions and strategies, and toward the statewide goals established in the bill and that plan;
(c) Maintain a website with current food waste reduction information and guidance for food service establishments, consumers, food processors, hunger relief organizations, and other sources of food waste;
(d) Provide staff support to multistate food waste reduction initiatives in which the state is participating;
(e) Maintain the consistency of the plan and other food waste reduction activities with the work of the Conservation Commission’s food policy forum;
(f) Facilitate and coordinate public-private and nonprofit partnerships focused on food waste reduction;
(g) Collaborate with federal, state, and local government partners on food waste reduction initiatives;
(h) Develop and maintain maps or lists of locations of the food systems of Washington that identify food flows, where waste occurs, and opportunities to prevent food waste;
(i) Collect and maintain data on food waste and wasted food;
(j) Research and develop emerging organics and food waste reduction markets;
(k) Develop and maintain statewide food waste reduction and food waste contamination reduction campaigns, in consultation with other state agencies and other stakeholders, including the development of materials may inform food service operators about the protections from civil and criminal liability under federal law and under the Samaritan Donation Act when donating food; and develop guidance in support of distribution of promotional materials by local health officers as part of routine inspections, and State agencies; and,
(l) Distribute and monitor grants for food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery.
The Center would be required to research and adopt several model ordinances for optional use by counties and cities that provided mechanisms for commercial solid waste collection and disposal designed, in part, to establish disincentives for generating organic waste and for landfilling organic materials. Ecology would do a State Environmental Policy Act review of these, and actions by jurisdictions adopting them would not be subject to its requirements. The department would be authorized to establish a voluntary reporting protocol for reports by businesses that donate food and recipients, could encourage its use, and could also request information about  the volumes, types, and timing of food managed by a facility, and the food it generated

The bill would make the purchase of compost spreading equipment or financial assistance to farmers to purchase that eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program, if it were for annual use for at least three years with significant volumes of compost from a composting site that wasn’t owned or operated by the farmer. If funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored.

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, rather than the Attorney General. It would shift the definition of “Supplier” in the State’s Plastic Product Degradability law  to make manufacturers (or importers into the State, if the State lacked authority over the manufacturers) responsible for compliance with it. It would require plastics labeled as compostable to use green, beige, or brown labeling, striping, or other design patterns that help differentiate them from noncompostable materials, prohibit the use of similar schemes on plastics and food service products that weren’t compostable, and would add beige to the acceptable colors in the current State rules about making it easy to identify compostable plastic film products. It would prohibit plastic produce stickers that were not biodegradable.

It would shift the State’s share of  the responsibility for enforcing the Plastic Product Degradability law from the Attorney General to Ecology, specify that it’s enforcement must be  based primarily on complaints filed with the Department and cities and counties, require the Department to create ways to file complaints, and require it, cities and counties to provide education and outreach activities to inform retail establishments, consumers, and suppliers about the requirements of the law.

SB5626 – Adding a climate resilience element to water system plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 22nd. Did not progress by cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th. The substitute adds some specifications about the Department’s technical assistance, and would have the UW’s Climate Impacts Group assist in the development of tools for that if funding were appropriated. It would also eliminate the Public Water Board’s and Commerce’s participation in the administration of the Water System Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 3rd; passed out of committee on the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

Summary –
The bill would require public water systems serving 1,000 or more connections to include a climate resilience element as part of their water system plans. They would have to determine which extreme weather events pose significant challenges to their system and build scenarios to identify potential impacts; assess critical assets and the actions necessary to protect the system from the effects of extreme weather events on operations; and generate reports describing the costs and benefits of the system’s risk reduction strategies for decision makers and stakeholders.

The Department of Health would be required to update its water system planning guidebook to assist systems in implementing the climate resilience element, including guidance on any available technical and financial resources. The bill would authorize the Department’s water system acquisition and rehabilitation program to make loans to systems to partially cover project costs as well as the current grants, and would make climate resilience planning and actions to protect system from extreme weather events, including infrastructure and design projects, eligible for financing from the program.

SB5526 – Requires a report to the Legislature on the global availability of lithium and rare earth minerals used in battery manufacturing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Had a hearing in Business, Financial Services & Trade January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff. Sent to the “X” file February 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
I hope the study will take account of recent work by Amory Lovins, the founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, about how the substitution of other materials, technological innovations, and increasing recycling are rapidly reducing the need for rare minerals in these applications. (See “RMI Reality Check: Greener, Friendlier Alternatives Exist for Rare Minerals in Batteries“)

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would also have Commerce research successful approaches and methods used to develop infrastructure for recycling EV batteries, including incentives for manufacturers to extract critical materials from them for reuse and requirements for designing them to support recycling. It would have the Department collaborate with Ecology in drafting legislation to establish a statewide recycling program for EV batteries, and allow collaborating with PNNL and the Joint Center for the Deployment and Research in Earth Abundant Materials as well. It specifies that this work is subject to appropriation, and requires a report to the Legislature by June 30th 2023.

Original bill –
The bill would require the Department of Commerce to report to the Legislature on the global availability of lithium and rare earth minerals used in battery manufacturing, since “the State is increasingly encouraging new energy storage technologies such as electric vehicles and electric grid scale battery storage … dependent on rare earth minerals and difficult-to-source earth components.”