Category Archives: Dead Senate Bills 2023

SB5728

SB5728 – Reimbursing users of some fuels exempt under the cap and invest program for any additional amounts they pay because of their suppliers’ compliance obligations. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Dozier (R; 16th District; Walla Walla & Benton County) (Co-Sponsor Schoesler – R)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB1780 addresses the same issue in a somewhat broader and less tightly drafted way.

Summary –
The bill would require the state to develop a process to ensure that users of the fuels for watercraft and agriculture that are exempted from complying with the cap and invest act are compensated for any additional amounts they end up paying for those because of their suppliers’ compliance obligations. (Ecology would consult with the Department of Revenue to develop a method to determine those amounts, and would be required to reimburse users for them within two weeks after completed applications for refunds were received.)

SB5611

SB5611 – Improving community preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience to wildfire impacts in areas of increasing density. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; Skagit & Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Shewmake, Hunt, Lovelett, Valdez, & Van De Wege – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1578 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to assess areas at significant risk for wildfire over the next ten years, to do a mid-term interim report and to repeat the process for at least two succeeding ten year periods. The assessment would include an analysis of predicted climate influence on wildfire risk and provide enough detail for stakeholders to develop strategies to address it. The Department would cooperate with local law enforcement, tribes, county emergency managers, and local fire protection districts to develop evacuation strategies for areas facing significant wildfire risks and provide support to incorporate those in existing emergency response plans. It would lead a project to provide public disaster and evacuation plan messaging and information at the recreation and outdoor access sites it manages, including signage at trailheads.

In addition, the Department would be required to expand its programming for community and property wildfire readiness, and the associated programs such as resilience grants and service forestry within areas of western Washington where it determined there were wildfire and smoke exposure risks. It would participate in cross-agency emergency management planning and response efforts related to wildfire smoke. It would share wildfire information online, and incorporate smoke readiness into community resilience programming, coordinating with other government agencies to share information and guidance (including providing online fire information) for communities affected by wildfire smoke. It would establish a smoke monitoring and predictive services team using a variety of tools to assess wildland smoke risks and impacts; work cross-agency to address public health concerns, smoke risk to transportation safety, and firefighter exposure to smoke; and conduct community engagement and outreach related to smoke risks and impacts, with particular emphasis on environmental justice issues.

It would also coordinate with state agencies, local fire protection districts, local governments, and Indian tribes to identify smoke respite areas in high-risk communities and promote the utilization of community buildings as clean air and cooling centers, with specific information strategies targeted to people who might not receive electronic communication. It would leverage community resilience programming to ensure residents and organizations are provided information about services and programs to improve home indoor air quality, such as low-income weatherization services.

It would implement a postwildfire debris flow program, identifying areas prone to hazards from flows, assessing burned areas to determine potential for increases in flow hazards, improving modeling to determine triggers to use in postwildfire debris flow early warning, and communicating information about preparedness and response to officials, stakeholders, and the public. It would have to establish the structure for a state sponsored burned area emergency stabilization and response program in consultation with stakeholders by December 30th, 2024, making recommendations about the funding to provide capacity-building for communities to establish local teams, the number of teams needed, and the funding to support their deployments and implement hazard mitigation. The teams would be responsible for determining needs for emergency postfire treatments to help provide public safety and resource protection.

SB5636

SB5636 – Allows all cities in counties using GMA planning to regulate forest practices on land within their boundaries if they adopt standards equivalent to DNR’s. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hunt (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 10:30 AM Thursday February 9th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1689 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
Currently, counties with over 100,000 people planning under the GMA and local jurisdictions within them where at least 25 Class IV applications for timber harvesting or road construction on forestlands were filed from January 2003 through 2004 have to adopt DNR’s forest practices regulations for various classes of forestland. (Class IV applications cover logging and road building on forestlands that are being converted to another use; on lands that aren’t going to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development; and on lands within the urban growth area with some exceptions.)

The bill would authorize any city in a county planning under the GMA to regulate all forest practices within its limits if it used standards equivalent to DNR’s.

SB5362

SB5362 – Advancing the due date for the Department of Ecology’s report on the effects of the Clean Fuels program. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-sponsors Dozier, Short, Torres, and Lynda Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on February 3rd. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Given the emphasis in the bill’s findings on the increases in gas prices that might result from the program over its lifetime, it’s hard to resist the thought that its primary motivation might be the hope that an earlier report will be useful during the campaigns for the Fall 2024 elections.

Summary –
The bill would advance the date for the first report from Ecology on the activities of the Clean Fuels program, from May 1st 2025 to February 1st 2024. (An annual report would still be due in each subsequent year, but now in February rather than May.)

SB5570

SB5570 – Authorizing electric utilities to establish revolving energy efficiency loan programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Trudeau, Hasegawa, Keiser, Nguyen, Nobles, Pedersen, Randall, Rolfes, Saldaña, Valdez, and C. Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a 2023 hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 8th. Died in committee at cutoff. Apparently reintroduced in 2024, and had a hearing in that committee January 9th. Amended and passed out of committee that day; referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2024 –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the amendment.

Summary –
The bill would create an Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Capitalization Grant program in the Department of Commerce, if funds were specifically appropriated for it. Electric utilities would be able to apply to the Department for funding to establish a revolving loan program making loans to low and middle income households for energy efficiency and weatherization projects, including repairs needed to achieve energy savings. A list of participating contractors would be provided as part of the loan application process, and a separate billing system or an on-bill repayment program would be provided. The loans would be interest free and secured with a lien on the property, and priority in awarding them would be given to properties in overburdened areas. The funds would be exempt from the public utility tax, and all loan repayments would have to be deposited into the revolving loan account.

Deferred loans for income-qualified customers owning and occupying their home could cover the full cost of a project. They’d have to allow repayment to be deferred until the home is sold, when the loan balance would be paid as part of the sales transaction; and would have to allow customers to qualify based on their payment history with the utility.

Forgivable loans could be made to property owners with income-qualified tenants. These would require an energy audit of the property. It would have to be continuously occupied by income-qualified tenants for five years after the upgrades; and the owner would have to keep the rent during that period within the fair market rent determined by HUD. If the owner failed to meet those requirements, the loan balance would be transferred to a new loan and become due on the sale of the home.

A utility could contract with a third party to implement the program, and could apply energy savings from cost-effective measures financed through a loan program toward achieving its conservation acquisition targets under the Energy Independence Act.

SB5466

SB5466 – Promoting transit oriented development. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Lynwood) (Twenty-one co-sponsors) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Housing March 16th. Replaced by a striker, amended twice, and passed out of committee March 28th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on the Capitol Budget March 30th, and passed out of committee on the 31st. Referred to Rules. Still in Rules at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1517 is a companion bill in the House.

Changes in the House –
The extensive changes made in the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it. One of the amendments specifies that the Growth Management Hearings Board has to give substantial deference to a finding by Commerce of substantial compliance with the density requirements; requires Commerce to grant an extension from the requirements for any areas at risk of displacement; and removes the use of the multifamily tax exemption from the criteria for prioritizing environmental grants. Others limit the grant eligibility of projects with at least 100 units of housing to those with rental, shelter, or permanent supportive housing and make units with at least 30 units of owner-occupied housing eligible for the grants. The covenant for the homeownership projects could allow incomes up to 80% of the area medium income instead of 60%. Additional changes in another amendment are summarized by staff at the end of it.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs January 31st. Passed out of committee February 7th, and referred to Transportation. Had a hearing there February 13th; replaced by a substitute; and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to make a few minor changes and passed by the Senate March 1st.

Comments –
Though Section 6(5)(b) of the bill says that certain of its restrictions on local development standards don’t apply to those contained in a shoreline master program, Section 9(3) seems to categorically exempt any multifamily, mixed-use or commercial development in areas near major transit from the State Environmental Policy Act.

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

Summary –
The bill would prohibit cities planning under the Growth Management Act from having any development regulations that would prohibit multifamily housing on any parcels where other residential uses were permitted within three-quarters of a mile from a major transit stop in an urban growth area. (The bill defines a major stop as one that is or has been funded for development as a ferry terminal, a stop for rail, for bus rapid transit or bus service that runs in HOV lanes, or for transit providing fixed route service every day at intervals defined by the local transit agency.) Any maximum floor ratio in these areas would have to include a 50% density bonus for housing for households at or below 60 % of area median income or for long-term inpatient care. Cities couldn’t enact new maximum residential densities in these areas. (They would be allowed to have higher or lower floor area ratios in parts of an area if the average maximum ratio of all the buildable land in it provided at least the required transit-oriented density, nothing had a floor area ratio less than 1.0, and nothing within a quarter mile of a rail station had a ratio less than 0.5.) These requirements wouldn’t apply to areas subject to a shoreline master program or critical area ordinance, to non-conforming parcels, or to those on a state or national heritage register, but even cities with existing regulations that didn’t meet them would have to enforce and apply those in a way that was “consistent with” the bill’s requirements. If these cities had not already adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of their mandatory housing element under the GMA, they’d have to take the steps that element specifies for identifying local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing with respect to these areas near major transit. They’d also be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition for permits in these areas, unless it was for the exclusive use of individuals with disabilities.

The bill would allow local jurisdictions to categorically exempt multifamily residential development, mixed-use development, and commercial development projects in these areas from the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, if a project wasn’t inconsistent with the applicable comprehensive plan, and didn’t clearly exceed the density or intensity of use called for in the plan. It would prohibit home owners’ associations and other similar organizations from adopting rules that weren’t consistent with the bill’s requirements.

The bill would have the Department of Transportation create a new division, or expand an existing one, to provide technical assistance and award planning grants to cities to implement its requirements, provide compliance review of any regulations adopted in accordance with those, and mediate or help resolve disputes between DOT, local governments, and project proponents about land use decisions and processing permit applications.

In consultation with Commerce, the department would create a competitive grant program to help finance housing projects in rapid transit corridors. Grants would be available for projects within a quarter mile of a rapid transit corridor that met specifications for floor area ratios or net density minimums, produced at least 100 units of housing; and included a covenant on the property requiring at least 20% of the units to remain affordable for households with incomes at or below 80 percent of area median income for at least 99 years. The grants could be provided for project capital costs, infrastructure costs, and for addressing gaps in financing that would prevent ongoing or complete project construction; they’d be available to agencies, local governments, and developers. The department would be required to prioritize projects by occupancy date, and would also have to consider a list of other criteria.

The bill would allow money that was appropriated to the Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Fund to facilitate transit oriented development to be used by Commerce for grants to support a variety of planning processes. It specifies a long list of criteria for prioritizing these awards; it also uses a somewhat different definition of “transit access” from that in other sections of the bill, including being within walking distance of a park and ride.

SB5471

SB5471 – Allowing the use of E-bikes on certain trails and roads by persons with disabilities. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Cleveland (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Jeff Wilson – R; Shewmake, Randall, Lovelett, Valdez, C. Wilson, Dhingra, Kuderer, Liias, and Van De Wege – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute amending a different section of the code to extend the current rules allowing this for two years or until local planning adopts rules addressing the issue. Passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Ways and Means, had a hearing there February 18th, and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules – sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Cleveland sponsored SB5452, a more expansive bill on this issue, in 2021; it was converted to a study and passed. This year, she and Senator Wilson are also sponsoring a new version of that bill, SB5314.

Summary –
The bill would require DNR and Fish and Wildlife to allow people with a current parking
placard for disabilities to use Class 1 and Class 2 electric-assisted bicycles on the nonmotorized natural surface trails and closed roads that are under their jurisdiction and allow bicycles.

SB5464

SB5464 – Broadening access to the information and tools needed to repair digital electronic equipment. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Nguyen, Keiser, and Conway – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 31st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1392 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill says it would require manufacturers of digital electronic equipment that is sold or used in the state, (and parts for it) to make any parts, tools, and documentation required for the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of those available to any independent repair provider or owner, on fair and reasonable terms. (They could be available directly from the manufacturer or through an authorized repair provider.) (However, a later section seems to limit this requirement to what’s available to authorized repair providers.) If equipment contained an electronic security lock or other security-related function, then any special parts, tools, and documentation needed to access and reset those when they were disabled during diagnosis, maintenance, or repair would need to be available.

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’d be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included documentation or functionality that wasn’t available in a standardized format.

Manufacturers wouldn’t be required to sell service parts that were no longer available to authorized repair providers; or to divulge any trade secrets. They wouldn’t have any liability for services performed by independent repair providers, or provide any warranty for those. Stuff for modifying equipment and for working on public safety communications equipment would be excluded. Violations of the requirements would be considered unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act; they would only be enforceable by the Attorney General under that act.

SB5391

SB5391 – Requiring environmental reporting on materials for public construction. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim) (Co-Sponsors Schoesler – R, Mullet- D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 27th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1342 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Compare HB1282 and its companion bill…

Summary –
The bill would create requirements for the modeling, measurement, and reporting of embodied carbon emission reductions from structural concrete, reinforcing and structural steel, and engineered wood in state-funded projects, including municipal projects and Department of Transportation contracts. (Buildings under 50,000 sq. ft. wouldn’t be included. )

Designers would have to do life-cycle assessments over 60 years of the embodied carbon in materials they decided were eligible for a project, after considering its requirements, including “project program, financial budget, construction schedule, product availability, and overall constructability.”

Beginning in 2025, the successful bidder for a project would have to submit environmental project declarations for at least 90% of the covered structural materials by weight or volume to the contractor at least a month before the substantial completion of the project. The contractor would be required to forward those to the authority that had awarded the contract and the Department of Commerce. After January 1st, 2027 the process would include submitting these to the contractor when the bid was submitted, and updating the information about the declarations and the actual quantities used before substantial completion.

The project designer or its life-cycle assessment consultant would be required to calculate a baseline estimate of the industry average for embodied carbon emissions in the project’s eligible products, using the emissions intensity factors in the most recently published environmental product declarations, and to include those in the construction specifications used for bidding those eligible products. (If there weren’t published regional or national industry-average environmental declarations for a product, they’d need to use verifiable data from a life-cycle analysis practitioner to estimate the baseline.) When the project was completed, they’d do an estimate of the embodied carbon in the actual products and quantities used in it, and then calculate and report an embodied carbon reduction percentage comparing the actual embodied carbon to what it would have been if industry average materials had been used. They’d also estimate and report the carbon intensity of the project, as a ratio of the kilograms of CO2 equivalents in the covered structural materials to the area of the project in square meters.

Commerce would have to create a new public database to inform project stakeholders of the achievable reductions in embodied carbon for specific markets, products and structural systems, and to inform future reduction targets and stretch goals. The database would include names and types of project, the awarding authority; project dates and zip codes, the type of eligible products in the project; the primary eligible products and primary types of structural systems actually used; a summary of the life-cycle assessment of the structural systems with the range of possible outcomes disclosed; the gross project area, excluding the site outside a building’s footprint; the project’s embodied carbon emissions as calculated with estimated quantities prior to bidding, and the estimate of those with with actual quantities at substantial completion; its estimated embodied carbon intensity prior to bidding; its as-built embodied carbon emissions, embodied carbon reduction percentage; and embodied carbon intensity; and a few other details.

The bill would also require the Department of Commerce to reimburse Washington manufacturers for half the costs of producing environmental product declarations, with limits of $15,000 per manufacturing location or batch plant and $45,000 for each manufacturer and associated companies. (They’d have to be product-specific, third-party reviewed, and completed by the end of 2025 to qualify.)

SB5325

SB5325 – Improving access to renewable hydrogen for public transportation. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Boehnke – R: Keiser, Lovelett, Randall, & Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 18th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1236 is a companion bill in the House..

Summary –
The bill would authorize public transportation benefit areas to produce, distribute and sell green electrolytic hydrogen and renewable hydrogen wholesale or directly to a user in addition to using it for their own operations. If it were for use as a transportation fuel, they’d be allowed to sell it through facilities that distributed, compressed, stored, liquified, or dispensed it. They’d be authorized to own and operate pipelines to deliver it for use as a transportation fuel if those were in an area in which they were authorized to provide public transportation, a county in which they were authorized to do that and in which they were service connected or providing it through partners. (I’m not sure if the bill’s language intends to limit all their authority to hydrogen for transportation, but I don’t think it’s supposed to authorize them to produce and sell it for other uses through some other organization that distributes it.) They wouldn’t be allowed to deliver it by pipeline to customers of a gas company.

SB5314

SB5314– Allowing E-bikes on certain trails and closed roads where other bicycles are allowed. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor Cleveland – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee January 23rd. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Cleveland sponsored SB5452, a similar bill on this issue, in 2021; it was converted to a study and passed.

Summary –
The bill would require state agencies and local jurisdictions to allow all classes of electric-assisted bikes on trails that are designated as nonmotorized, have a surface made by clearing and grading the soil with no added materials, and are open to bicycles. It would now authorize closing the trail to all bicycles thorough a public process to protect wildlife or natural resources or to preserve public safety. An agency with jurisdiction over a road that’s closed to motorized vehicles but allows bicycles would have to allow E-bikes as well. E-bikes on these trails and roads. People riding an E-bike on these trails or closed roads would have to obey all speed limits, yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and carry an electric-assisted bicycle pass.

These would cost $5 and be valid for a year. They’d be available from the Department of Licensing, or from vendors under contract with Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, or the Parks and Recreation Commission. There would be a $99 penalty for failing to have a valid license, though it would be reduced to $59 if someone provided proof of purchase of a pass to the court within 15 days after the imposition of the fine. 75% of the money from fines and from the sale of passes would go into a new electric-assisted bicycle account, and be divided equally among those agencies. It could only be spent on maintaining those roads and trails, on signs about speed limits and other rules for E-bikes on them, and
on educational materials about using E-bikes on them.

SB5312

SB5312 – Creates a residential property assessed clean energy and resiliency (R-PACER) program. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Jeff Wilson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs January 31st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a residential property assessed clean energy and resiliency program (an R-PACER program) that jurisdictions could choose to implement. These would allow loans for improvements to be repaid through a lien on the property assigned to a capital provider; the obligation to repay the debt would remain with the property if ownership was transferred. They’d be available to owners of single-family residences, and multifamily residential properties with four or fewer dwelling units, for improvements including energy efficiency, water conservation, clean and renewable energy, and resiliency projects. (The state has already established a C-PACER program for commercial property.)

Counties could choose to participate in a statewide program that the Department of Commerce would establish, or create their own programs. Programs might make any services the program may chose to offer to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers; make properties participating available for offers of impartial terms from qualifying third-party capital providers; allow financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers; and work in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop the program.

Programs would be required to set uniform criteria for determining whether projects qualified for the loans, including determining if investments would reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reduce energy demand or replace nonrenewable energy with renewable energy; be appropriate to meet seismic risks; reduce stormwater or pollution to provide significant public benefit; or reduce the risk of wildfire, flooding, or other disasters. There are detailed requirements for creating guidebooks about programs. Loans could cover fees and interest as well as the costs of material and labor. Commerce would be authorized to provide grants to counties to assist in developing and implementing programs.

Applicants would have to demonstrate that a project would provide a public benefit in the form of energy or water resource conservation, reduced public health risk, or reduced public emergency response risk. If energy or water usage improvements were proposed for existing buildings, a licensed professional engineer, registered architect, or other professional would have to certify that the proposed improvements would result in more efficient use or conservation of energy or water, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the addition of renewable sources of energy or water; or result in improved resilience. For new construction, a professional would have to certify that the proposed improvements would enable the project to exceed the energy efficiency, water efficiency, renewable energy or renewable water, or resilience requirements of the current building code. Programs could charge an application fee to cover the costs of establishing and conducting the application review process. Applicants would have to provide written verification, as defined in the guidebook, stating that projects were properly completed and operating as intended.

The bill includes procedures counties would follow in adopting a program and in recording liens, and detailed provisions about the legal status of the liens and provisions for enforcing them without the direct involvement of the counties, designed to avoid potential conflicts with the Washington Constitution’s provisions.

SB5154

SB5154– Improving solid waste management outcomes. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Bainbridge Island) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen)
Current status – Completed a continued hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 18th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Ways and Means. Did not have a hearing by the fiscal cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1131 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments – The bill is 143 pages long, so trying to summarize the details seems ill advised. I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Amended Substitute –
Staff summarized the changes made by the substitute in four pages at the beginning of it. The amendment struck and replaced all the sections about the optional beverage deposit return program. (I think all these changes replicated the ones made earlier in the House companion bill; the staff summary of the changes in the House beverage deposit provisions is at the beginning of that..)

Summary –
The bill would create a system funded and managed by the producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use. It would create requirements for postconsumer recycled content. It would create a deposit program as an optional alternative for managing beverage containers.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program, and meet performance targets improving over time for reducing the production of plastic components, the reuse of collected materials, and their recycling (but not for simply collecting materials, I think.). Producers would also fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues and the ongoing work of a new solid waste advisory council. Detailed plans for managing covered materials, meeting a long list of requirements, would be due by July 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology); reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2028. (Products couldn’t be labeled as recyclable unless they were covered by a program.)

A consultant would do the needs assessment, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The consultant would also recommend performance targets designed to be reachable statewide by 2032. (As far as I can see, organizations would establish their own targets in their plans.) The advisory council and stakeholders would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Plans would have to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and the advisory council. Plans would include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing them. and consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Plans would include ways to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging. They’d have to eco-modulate setting the fees for producers to encourage the use of packaging designs that reduce products’ environmental impacts. They’d have to be updated regularly.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover used materials, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. Organizations would have to report to Ecology on their activities each year.

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There are detailed requirements for collection and management of materials, and for reporting by producer organizations and processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to household cleaning product containers; personal care product packages, most beverage containers; tubs; thermoform containers; single-use cups; and cannabis containers or packaging materials that were made of plastic. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2024 and 2036. The producer responsibility organizations representing the producers of these products would report to Ecology annually on their performance. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet the requirements. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic.

Beverage Container Deposit Program –

Producer responsibility organizations would be allowed to create a 10¢ deposit return system for glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans as an alternative to managing beverage containers through the recycling requirements. (Cartons, foil pouches, drink boxes, metal container that need a tool to open, and containers for dairy milk or formula wouldn’t be included.) This system would be created if distributors of the majority of beverages in qualifying containers formed a distributor responsibility organization; in that case, all the distributors of those containers would have to join that organization, or meet the requirements for an organization themselves. Ecology would implement, administer, and enforce the program, and collect a fee covering those costs; the distributors would pay for operating the system, and for half the costs of the advisory council and the needs study. Organizations would have to submit detailed plans for deposit return programs for Ecology’s approval, meeting a variety of requirements. Plans would have to include education and outreach; stakeholder consultations; methods for paying the refund to consumers, governments, and processing facilities returning containers; an additional premium for containers returned by non-profits serving very low income individuals who rely on refunds; and at least 270 free convenient bulk drop-off locations for bagged containers around the state, convenient to places selling beverages in containers. Dealers wouldn’t be required to accept bags or provide drop-off sites, though. If organizations contract with service providers to meet their obligations, there are labor and social justice standards for those. Unclaimed refunds would have to be invested in operations and infrastructure supporting the reuse and recycling of qualifying beverage containers. By 2031, an organization would have to demonstrate that all the containers in its program were designed to be reusable or recyclable, and there would be specified gradually increasing requirements for the percentages of containers that were actually recycled or reused between 2028 and 2035. There would be detailed reporting requirements. Ecology would also collect funds from distributor organizations for a five year program to reimburse curbside collection programs for revenue losses resulting from reductions in the number of containers in those bins.

In addition –
By December 2025, Ecology would have to complete a study of options for improving the convenience of state product stewardship, takeback, and producer responsibility programs, including establishing centralized takeback centers for consumers; and make policy recommendations to the Legislature about improving the environmental end of life management of products covered by these. Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

The bill also amends details of some existing laws, including ones about solid waste in general, ones about the regulation of some solid waste companies by the UTC, and ones about cannabis packaging, to take account of the additional activities of producer responsibility organizations and beverage distributors that the bill envisions.

SB5146

SB5146 – Allowing power from new and recent hydropower infrastructure to be used to comply with the Clean Energy Act from 2030 through 2045. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would remove certain restrictions on the hydropower that can be used from 2030 through 2044 to comply with the greenhouse gas neutral requirements of the Clean Energy Act. That would be changed to allow power from new diversions, impoundments, bypass reaches, and expansions of existing reservoirs constructed after May 17, 2019.

The current law allows the use of power from new diversions, impoundments, and bypass reaches if they’re needed for the operations of a pumped storage facility that doesn’t conflict with existing state or federal fish recovery plans; and that complies with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations. (I think that the bill’s removal of this provision might imply that you could use power from these regardless of the effect on fish recovery and compliance with other laws and regulations, but there may be other laws that would prevent that.

SB5167

SB5167 – Prohibits solar and wind projects on commercial agricultural lands from getting expedited review through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Kennewick)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit solar and wind facilities sited on agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance from being eligible for expedited review before the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. (Currently, a project can get expedited processing if the Council finds its environmental impact is not significant or will be mitigated to a non-significant level, and finds it’s consistent and in compliance with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances.) The bill’s findings maintain that process undermines opportunities for local review of solar and wind facilities

SB5168

SB5168 – Eliminating the Energy Independence Act’s requirements for renewable power. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Kennewick)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 14th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Energy Independence Act (passed by the voters in 2006 as I-937) requires utilities in the state with more than 25,000 customers to obtain fifteen percent of their electricity from new renewable resources such as solar and wind in each year after 2020 (or to purchase certain qualifying renewable energy credits covering that obligation.) The bill would eliminate these requirements.

Its findings maintain that “This will not create a gap in Washington’s energy laws because the requirements of the Clean Energy Transformation Act continue to set the policy direction for the state.” The Clean Energy Act’s actual requirements provide for the elimination of coal power by 2025; the limit on power from natural gas that’s offset through various options to 20% of portfolios by 2035, and the prohibition on power from other than renewable or non-emitting sources by 2045.

SB5129

SB5129 – Planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Hunt & Mullet – Ds; Fortunato, Holy, McCune, and Short – R’s)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th. Reintroduced in 2024 and placed on 2nd reading January 17th.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill’s findings declare that planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology aligns with the Legislature’s goals for a comprehensive energy strategy and that the strategy should include consideration of measures to promote its development. They say it can help the state meet its long-term electricity emission reduction goals, and that the state should examine the various ways the rapidly evolving technology will support our future energy infrastructure and economy.

The bill would add advanced nuclear reactor technology to the strategy’s list of more efficient and cleaner energy sources to use in reducing dependence on fossil fuel energy sources. It would add the management of spent nuclear fuel to the list of technologies that the Department of Commerce is to actively seek to maximize federal and other nonstate funding and support for.

SB5117

SB5117 – Altering the State Building Code Council’s procedures and authority. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1404 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would create a variety of new procedural rules for the Council. It would be required to discard any proposal that doesn’t include all the requested information, doesn’t have sufficient detail to be acted upon as of a deadline the Council sets, or that “exceeds the specific delegation of authority provided by the Legislature”. (It would not be allowed to rely solely on the broad delegation of authority in the current law.) A member of the Council would have to sponsor a proposal for it to move forward. The proposed text would have to be put in the Code Reviser’s format for finalized rules, and any proposed changes to that would have to be in writing, specify the legal authority for the amendment, and be available to all councilmembers and the public before a vote on a change could be taken. (The current process, in which members discuss and agree to many adjustments in phrasing and details in a draft during one or more meetings, would be explicitly prohibited.) The Council would be required to adopt policies to ensure it adheres to all of the requirements for rule making in the Administrative Procedures Act.

The bill says that if there’s “a concern” that the information provided in a proposal isn’t sufficient, inaccurately represents the actual impacts or costs, or if the assertions in the proposal “are questioned” by experts with knowledge of the industry or circumstances the Council “should” supplement the cost estimate information provided in a petition with independent research. At least two weeks before final adoption of nonemergency changes to the Code, the Council would have to make available for public comment:
(1) the currently required small business economic impact statement;
(2) the currently required cost-benefit analysis and the supporting information, for members to determine if the proposed rule is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply with it and if the probable benefits of the rule are greater than its probable costs;
(3) any independent, third-party analysis the Council commissioned;
(4) any supplemental cost estimate information and industry specific information provided in the process; and,
(5) any findings, determinations or recommendations of the Council’s economic impact work group, consultants, or employees.
The bill says all this information should be available for review and vetted by Council members prior to a final vote adopting any rule modification. If someone working in an industry subject to regulation under a proposed rule raised an economic or cost-related protest or provided a cost or economic analysis that was different, the protestor could request that the Council provide a substantive response to raised concerns, including an explanation of provisions in the rule addressing, mitigating, or reducing the cost or economic impacts of the rule.

The bill would specify various criteria for appointments to technical advisory groups. If a member represented a specific interest or group, it would allow any person of that group to petition the Council to have that member removed from the TAG on the grounds that the person doesn’t have the qualifications or characteristics necessary to represent the interest or group. The Council would be required to remove any technical advisory group member it found lacked the characteristics and qualifications necessary to fill the position.

The Council would be required to identify the sources of information it reviewed and relied upon in the course of adopting changes to the Code, to include that information in the rule-making file, and to post the materials it considered or relied upon on its website for at least a year. It would be required to create a distribution list to notify specified agencies about proposed rules and the associated materials before public hearings on them. It would also be required to notify individuals involved in providing state subsidized housing that the proposed rule would increase the cost and complexity of building construction and identify when public comment will be taken. If a proposal would change the design of school buildings, OSPI would have to be notified. Every three years, the Council would have to submit a report to the Legislature identifying provisions in the adopted codes that generated conflict, summarizing the different perspectives brought before the Council related to the conflict, and how the Council addressed it.

The bill would make the appointment of the managing director of the Council subject to confirmation by the Senate, and prohibit anyone registered as a lobbyist from serving on it. It would add a representative from a utility to the Council. It would require training on ethics in public service and the Council’s rules of procedure for anyone serving on it.

SB5093

SB5093 – Updating the State’s climate resilience strategy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 13th, and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1170 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes match the ones made earlier in the House companion bill. They would require a workgroup on improving the coordination of funding for climate resilience; require Ecology to estimate agency costs for implementing the updated strategy; report on those to the Governor and Legislature by September 30, 2024; report every two years on appropriated funding for implementing the strategy. One specifies that agencies can only consider climate change impacts in their policies and programs to that extent that’s allowed under their statutory authority.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Ecology update and modernize the 2012 Integrated Climate Response Plan with the assistance of other state agencies. It amends the legislation for creating that plan to include a number of additional agencies, tribal governments, and the UW climate impacts group in the process. (The plan would now be updated every four years, with biannual reporting.) The bill would no longer require Ecology to serve as a “central clearinghouse” for relevant scientific and technical information about the impacts of climate change on the state. It would add explicit requirements for collaboration and engagement with various parties on environmental justice issues. It adds consideration of various time scales to the planning scenarios, and strengthens the language requiring agencies to prioritize climate resilience and adaptation in their planning. The bill would have Ecology recommend a durable structure for coordinating and implementing the state’s climate resilience strategy, including a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding across agencies, and work with OFM and other agencies on coordinating state responses to Federal funding opportunities for climate resilience.

The bill would rewrite and expand the requirements for the plan, dropping several topics, and now including:
(1) A summary of each agency’s current climate resilience priorities, plans, and actions;
(ii) Strategies and actions to address the highest climate vulnerabilities and risks to Washington’s communities and ecosystems;
(iii) A lead agency or group of agencies assigned to implement actions; and
(iv) Key gaps to advancing climate resilience actions, including in state laws, policies, regulations, rules, procedures, and agency technical capacity.

The expanded strategy is supposed to:
(i) Prioritize actions that both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate preparedness;
(ii) Protect the state’s most overburdened communities and vulnerable populations and provide more equitable outcomes;
(iii) Prioritize actions that deploy natural solutions, restore habitat, or reduce stressors that exacerbate climate impacts;
(iv) Prioritize actions that promote and protect human health; and
(v) Consider flexible and adaptive approaches for preparing for uncertain climate impacts.

Ecology would work with other agencies on identifying best practices and processes for prioritizing resilience actions and assessing the effectiveness of potential actions; developing a process for measuring progress and success towards statewide resilience goals; analyzing opportunities and gaps in current agency resilience efforts; and identifying other issues involved in developing policies and actions for the climate resilience strategy.

SB5057

SB5057 – Delaying the building performance standards by two years, and creating a work group on their financial impacts and building efficiency policy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah) (Co-sponsor Schoesler – R)
Current status – Had a hearing January 27th in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 22nd. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This reduces the delays in compliance for large buildings to one year, removes the two year delays for smaller buildings, adds a couple of people to the work group, has Commerce convene it instead of the WSU Energy Program, and provides for a financial hardship exemption. The amendment requires reporting on the financial impacts to all covered Tier 1 buildings, not just the State buildings, and adds a representative of the owners of those buildings to the work group.

Summary –
The bill delays the compliance dates by which covered commercial buildings would have to meet the State’s energy performance standards for two years. Buildings over 220,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by June 2028; those between 90,000 and 220,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by June 2029, and the remaining buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. would have to comply by 2030. It would also delay the date for completing the rules, the reporting dates, and the other dates for implementing the standards by the same amount.

It would delay the schedule for creating SB5722’s energy management and operations requirements for commercial buildings between 20,000 sq. ft. and 50,000 sq. ft. and multi-family over 50,000 sq. ft. and the eventual performance standards for those by two years as well.

The bill would also have the WSU extension energy program create a work group with the help of the State Energy Office. It would report on the financial impacts of complying with the performance standard for state-owned buildings, and make recommendations to the Legislature about building energy efficiency, including identifying investments or other strategies and timelines for increasing energy efficiency in the sector. It would provide a cost-benefit analysis of options to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, including energy efficiency; and “recommend any changes” to Chapter 285, Laws of 2019. This was HB1257, and includes the current performance standards and benchmarking requirements for commercial buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. (It also includes the cost-effective conservation requirements for gas utilities, setting the social cost of carbon, various provisions about renewable gas, and EV infrastructure requirements for the Building Code Council.)

The work group would include a representative for OSPI; one for each of the public four-year higher education institutions; one for the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges; one for DSHS; one for the Department of Corrections; one for Enterprise Services; and two from a national association for industrial and office parks.

SB5037

SB5037 – Preventing the Energy Code from prohibiting the use of natural gas in buildings. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsor MacEwen – R)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prevent the State Energy Code from prohibiting “the use of natural gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance, in any building.” (It would also remove achieving “the broader goal of building zero fossil-fuel greenhouse gas emission homes and buildings” from the language specifying what the Building Code Council is to design the Code to do.)