Category Archives: Finally passed – to the Governor

HB2819

HB2819 – Expedites a pumped storage project by designating them as projects of statewide significance.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; Klickitat County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 3rd. Passed out of committee February 4th; referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 18th.

In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks; had a hearing and passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6578 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
In 2012 SB6044 slightly expanded the powers of PUDs along the Columbia by authorizing them to sell water to privately owned utilities for use in pumped storage projects, and to sell power from such projects. FERC recently approved a permit authorizing a three year study for a 1,200 MW pumped storage project that National Grid wants to build in Goldendale, using water supplied by the Klickitat County PUD. According to that linked article, “The project would be on land owned by NSC Smelter at the former Columbia Gorge Aluminum smelter site, which is designated a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act contaminated site and subject to a cleanup effort being overseen by the Washington Department of Ecology. However, the department has said the pumped storage project will not hinder the cleanup process. … The commission also said the pumped-storage developer has shown its project boundary does not include any land subject to further cleanup activities. Still, FERC said the developer will have to show any future licensing for the project will not impede the cleanup.”

The floor amendment changed current law to require counties and cities with development projects of statewide significance to create a plan for consultation with affected tribes as part of the approval process.

Summary –
The bill would make pumped storage projects using water rights approved by the legislature for that purpose developments of statewide significance, which require:
(1) Expedited permit processing for the design and construction of the project;
(2) Expedited environmental review processing;
(3) Expedited processing of requests for street, right-of-way, or easement vacations necessary for the construction of the project;
(4) Participation of local officials on the team assembled under the requirements of RCW 43.157.030(2)(b); and
(5) Such other actions or items as are deemed necessary by the office of regulatory assistance for the design and construction of the project.

HB2811

HB2811 – Develops K-12 field work experiences in environmental and sustainability education.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Jesse Johnson (D; 30th District; Federal Way)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations January 30th. Passed out of committee February 3rd; referred to Rules. Passed the House February 12th. House concurred in the Senate amendments March 10th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education. Had a hearing February 21st; amended and passed out of committee February 24th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 6th; returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – Referral to the Governor for signature.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(There’s a House Bill Analysis.)
SB6124 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The list of requirements for the “qualified non-profit” eligible for funding under the bill essentially specifies some particular organization, apparently the Pacific Education Institute. The committee amendment in the Senate made minor changes to the language which might make the process slightly more competitive.

Summary –
Subject to funding, the bill would have OSPI contract with a “qualified non-profit” to work with K-12 teachers and communities to develop local stewardship projects and work based learning opportunities in environmental science and engineering, natural resources, sustainability, renewable energy, agriculture, and outdoor recreation. The program’s supposed to integrate the state learning standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science with the FieldSTEM model of outdoor field studies and project-based and work-based learning opportunities. It’s supposed to provide models for integrating the history, culture, and government of the nearest tribe or tribes in the curriculum. It’s to prioritize schools that have been identified for improvement through the Washington framework and communities historically underserved by science education including tribal compact schools, ones with high free and reduced-price lunch populations, rural and remote schools, and schools serving migrant students, students in alternative learning environments, students of color, English language learner students, and students receiving special education services.

Details –
The bill specifies that any “qualified non-profit” contracted to develop these programs must be physically located in Washington; have at least fifteen years of experience collaborating with school districts across the state to provide professional development to K-12 educators about teaching students real-world environmental science and engineering outside the classroom; must deliver project-based learning materials and resources that incorporate career connections to local businesses and community-based organizations, contain professional development support for classroom teachers, have measurable assessment objectives, and have demonstrated community support; and that its materials must align with the State’s learning standards and emphasize the next generation science standards…

HB2676

HB2676 – Minimum requirements for testing autonomous vehicles in the Department of Transportation’s pilot program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsors Boehnke, and Hudgins)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing February 10th; passed out of committee with a minor clarifying amendment February 11th. Referred to Rules. Replaced with a striker by the prime sponsor on the floor and passed by the House February 19th. House concurred with Senate amendment March 10th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 25th. Amended and passed out of committee March 2nd. Referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 6th, with a floor amendment making minor adjustments to reporting requirements. Referred to the House for concurrence.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6659 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The striker in the House moves the effective date back a year to 2021, requires written advance notice to law enforcement for the area where testing will occur, and makes some small adjustments reducing the reporting requirements which are summarized by staff at the end.

The amendments in the Senate Transportation Committee make minor changes to the requirements about advance notification of testing, shift the date by which umbrella insurance coverage is required to 90 days after the end of the session, and narrow the requirements for reporting of problems to collisions and moving violations when the vehicle is in autonomous mode.

Summary –
The bill requires an insurance policy covering at least five million dollars per occurrence for bodily injury, death, or property damage for vehicles being tested under the Department of Transportation’s autonomous vehicle self-certification testing pilot program.

Organizations testing autonomous vehicles have to provide the Department with contact information, the local jurisdictions where testing is planned, the vehicle identification numbers, and proof of an insurance policy that meets the requirements. They must notify the department about any traffic incidents and any traffic infractions involving an autonomous motor vehicle within ten days, and about any disengagements of the autonomous driving system system that are made to avoid a possible traffic incident. The information has to include whether the autonomous driving system was operating the vehicle at the time of or immediately before the traffic incident or infraction, and details about any traffic incidents including any loss of life, injury, or property damage that resulted from them.

The bill authorizes the Department to charge a fee to cover the program’s administrative costs, and the Department’s to provide an annual update to the Legislature’s transportation committees summarizing the reported information.

HB2528

HB2528 – Recognizing contributions of forest products to the state’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramos (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources January 28th. A substitute passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Appropriations February 6th; had a hearing there February 8th. A 2nd substitute passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules; passed the House February 16th. House concurred in the Senate’s amendments March 9th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Had a hearing on a proposed striker February 20th; amended and passed out of committee that day. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 28th. Significantly amended and passed out of committee March 2nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 5th; returned to the House for possible concurrence.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6355 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The substitute adds aquatic lands to the current list of potential sequestration resources in carbon markets, and it adds promoting and investing “in industry sectors that act as sequesterers of carbon” to the short list of what must be done with any revenue the state gets from carbon markets. It adds supporting “other business sectors capable of sequestering and storing carbon” to the declaration of the State’s policy, and switches from language about supporting an “indivisible industrial sector” to supporting a “synergistic” one.

It no longer specifies that the policy of the State is to utilize net flux stock-change carbon accounting principles; now its policy would simply be to use principles consistent with established guidelines, “such as” the IPPC’s and the US national greenhouse gas inventory’s. It expands the possible recipients of grants for carbon sequestration to include nonprofit organizations, local governments, Indian tribes, and state agencies as well as private landowners, and it widens the list of projects that might be funded to include urban forests and “forestlands” rather than “working forests.” It removes the requirement that reforestation and afforestation projects receiving grants would have to remain forested for at least fifty years. Rather than requiring the Department of Commerce to simply promote the forest products industry, it would now require it “when doing so maintains or enhances the forest sector’s contribution to climate change mitigation,” but that doesn’t seem like a significant change, since the bill continues to maintain that the whole industry, as it currently exists, has to be supported in order to contribute.

The 2nd substitute, in Appropriations, removed the modified provision requiring Commerce to support the forest products industry.

The striker in the Senate committee excluded state trust lands from the provisions dedicating any future revenue from state forests’ participation in carbon markets to specified goals. It made the Department of Natural Resources responsible for managing the revenue account, in cooperation with the Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture, and the amendment dropped the entire section about the Department of Commerce. The amendment in Ways and Means eliminated the grants program and the potential study to determine how many acres in the state could be returned to forest.

Summary –
The bill adds language to the findings for the State’s current greenhouse gas legislation (RCW70.235) about sequestering carbon through sustainable forestry and forest products, and about supporting industry sectors that sequester carbon.

It adds a section to that legislation saying that the industrial forest sector is a significant net sequesterer of carbon, and that this value, which is only provided through the maintenance of “an intact and indivisible industrial sector,” is an integral component of the state’s efforts to mitigate carbon emissions. It says that satisfying the goals of that legislation “requires supporting, throughout all of state government, the economic vitality of the forest products sector.” It says it’s the policy of the state to support “the complete forest products sector,” including mills, pulp and paper, and the harvesting and transportation infrastructure that’s necessary to continue the rotational harvest cycle. It says it’s the policy of the state to utilize net flux stock-change carbon accounting principles consistent with the IPCC’s and the national greenhouse gas inventory. It concludes by saying that any state carbon programs must support these policies.

It creates a forest carbon reforestation and afforestation account to be used by the State Conservation Commission, less reasonable administrative costs, in funding competitive grants for private landowners and organizations that work with them to advance the state’s carbon sequestration goals. (Grants are to leverage the sequestration and storage benefits of the State’s investment, and can provide funding for reforestation after a wildfire for which the landowner was not responsible; funding for projects to return fallow land capable of supporting trees to working forest; and funding to plant sustainable forested buffers along nonforested fish bearing streams.) Recipients have to agree to maintain all the land in “forested uses” for a minimum of fifty years. The account can also be used for a study to estimate how many acres of deforested land in the state could be returned to working forests without having an effect on food production.

It adds actively promoting markets for the state’s forest products, including “any products of an indivisible industry sector necessary for the maintenance and expansion of the sector” to the list of the Department of Commerce’s responsibilities.

HB2518

HB2518 – Minimizing leaks in natural gas pipelines.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsors Ybarra, Boehnke, Tarleton, Mead, Fitzgibbon, Lekanoff, Ramel, Callan, Peterson, Slatter, Davis, Doglio, Pollet, and Cody)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Amended and passed the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 30th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 10th. A 2nd substitute passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor by the prime sponsor and passed by the House February 16th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing February 20th; passed out of committee February 25th, and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 5th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(A House bill analysis is available.)

Comments –
The substitute requires the UTC to provide conditions for the recovery of interim costs between rate cases. It removes the list of values required in cost-benefit analyses, and reduces some reporting requirements. It exempts proprietary data, trade secrets, and information that would adversely affect public safety from public disclosure.

The 2nd substitute no longer counts emissions from intentional releases or operational practices as leaks that have to be included in the annual reports to the UTC, but it still requires the Commission to estimate emissions associated with operational practices along with those from leaks, apparently by using information that’s already being reported, or by ordering additional information from the companies. The floor amendment in the House made some minor adjustments in details.

Summary –
Requires the Utilities and Transportation Commission to begin a proceeding to increase
the certainty that utilities will recover the costs associated with measures approved by the commission that they undertake to reduce hazardous leaks and fugitive emissions from their gas pipelines.

Gas companies can submit proposed projects and changes to operational procedures to reduce hazardous leaks and nonhazardous fugitive releases, ranked according to risk, severity, and complexity to the UTC. These proposals must include a cost-effectiveness analysis and propose one of several ways of calculating a cap for the annual expenditures that would be recoverable through a mechanism to be approved by the commission. The cost-effectiveness analysis has to include: The value of the leaked gas; the cost of greenhouse gas emissions associated with that, calculated in accordance with a Federal standard which currently works out to $65/metric ton; the value of the reduction in risk from gas leaks; and the cost of the measures. The proposal must also address the expected impact to ratepayers and other factors the commission may require.

Beginning July 1, 2020, each gas pipeline company has to submit a report to the UTC on
the environmental and economic performance of its system, including all known leaks from transmission and distribution pipelines, and from all components, including pumps, valves, pipes, and pneumatic devices. Reports must include a sizable list of items, including a plan for fixing leaks, plus any others the UTC requires. The Commission is to produce an estimate of pipeline leakage in 1990, and an annual report for Ecology based on this current data, including the total volume of leaked gas and its market value; the volume and value of leaks that have not been fixed and of those the company does not intend to fix; and a projected timeline of the expected reductions from the plans submitted by gas companies. ( The report is also to review of opportunities and obstacles to reducing gas leakage statewide, including workforce availability, infrastructure investments, permitting, technical and legal obstacles, and any other information the Commission decides is relevant.)

The bill specifies that the emissions from pipelines reported to the UTC by gas companies are to be included in the Department of Commerce’s biannual estimate of the State’s current greenhouse gas emissions.

SB6306

SB6306 – Creates the Washington Soil Health Initiative.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lilas (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate –
Passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 3rd. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 28th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there on February 29th, and was passed out of committee and referred to Rules on March 2nd. Passed the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The amendments in Ways and Means simply specify that the program has to operate within the limits of its appropriated budget.

Summary –
The Initiative is to develop collaborative soil health research, education, demonstration projects; and to develop technical assistance activities to identify, promote, and implement soil health stewardship practices that are grounded in sound science. It would be jointly administered by the Department of Agriculture, the Conservation Commission, and Washington State. Its goals would include helping agricultural producers implement good soil health practices and improve farm profitability; supporting the increased nutritional benefits from healthy soils, and enhancing the environmental functions of the state’s soils, such as sequestering carbon and increasing water retention.

The University would have primary responsibility for establishing a regionally dispersed network of long-term agro-ecological research and extension demonstration sites, compiling and developing information on the nutritional effects of soil health, and developing a statewide soil health map to guide future public and private investment in the initiative.

The Department would be primarily responsible for developing a statewide “state of the soils” baseline assessment of soil health practices and indicators; developing accurate and cost-effective standard methods and tools for assessing soil health; and developing and promoting a marketing program focused on the benefits of products from healthy soils.

The Commission would have primary responsibility for providing outreach and education materials to help conservation districts, cooperative extension, and local governments raise awareness of the importance of soil health; providing technical support in coordination with WSU’s extension service to encourage and support farmers, ranchers, and land managers interested in implementing soil health practices; and training volunteers willing to take ongoing soil health measurements and submit them to the state soil health monitoring database.

These organizations are to collaborate in jointly appointing new members to the current Washington soil health advisory committee, and in convening, staffing, and developing agendas for its meetings. They’re to assess the needs of the program, to build their capacities and fill gaps to improve their reach and effectiveness; to prioritize in-state sourcing of needed resources; employ adaptive management in running the program; to develop equitable criteria for the awarding of soil health grants; and to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature every two years including an assessment of progress in meeting the initiative’s goals and objectives, a work plan detailing any proposed legislation, budget requests or administrative rules, and a prioritized list of proposed actions needed to fulfill each collaborating agency’s responsibilities in the upcoming biennium.

HB2405

HB2405 – Authorizes counties to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed)
Amended by the sponsor in a minor way and passed out of the House Committee on Local Government January 24th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on Saturday February 8th. A 2nd substitute with major changes passed out of Appropriations February 11th; referred to Rules. Replaced on the floor with a striker by the prime sponsor and passed by the House February 18th. House concurred with the Senate amendments March 6th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; had a hearing February 25th. Replaced by a striker and voted out of committee February 27th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of committee March 2nd, and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 5th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6222 is an identical companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
This bill reintroduces the most recent version of Representative Doglio’s HB1796, which she brought forward as a striker on the floor in the 2019 session, but which was never considered. (The striker shifted from authorizing municipalities to authorizing counties, and made a couple of further legal adjustments which are summarized by staff at the end of that version.

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

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

The amendments in the House Local Government Committee added reducing or eliminating lead in water for drinking or cooking to the list of qualified projects, and would allow counties to narrow that list to focus on their climate action goals.

The 2nd substitute adopted in Appropriations removes allowing Commerce to establish a loan loss reserve/credit enhancement program, and removes a county’s responsibility to enforce delinquent assessments and C-PACER financing installment payments. (Presumably these steps help avoid the Constitutional issues. I think that means lenders would have to recover through a lien on the property if the borrower defaulted.) It also specifies that neither the state nor any county is required to use public funds to fund or repay the assessments authorized through a C-PACER program.

The House striker requires counties to establish a program, whether or not money’s appropriated for that, and limits them to doing that and recording the liens. It adds a list of items specifying the details of Commerce’s responsibilities in administering the program, which are summarized by staff on the last page of the striker.

The changes in the Senate committee striker are summarized by staff on its last two pages. Among other things, it now bases the lien on the property owner entering into voluntary assessment agreement to repay the loan, lets Commerce contract out the administration of the program, lets it provide grants to counties to help them set up programs, and allows it to create a program guidebook including various standard legal forms which counties would be required to use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last session’s history
In 2019, a substitute bill passed out of the House Committee on Local Government. The various legal adjustments in the substitute are summarized on p. 6 of the House Bill Report. Representative Doglio introduced this striker on the floor, but it was never considered, and the bill was still in the house of origin by cutoff.

SB6231

SB6231 – Extends the remodeling property tax exemption to adding an ADU.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 48th District; Bellevue)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing Stability & Affordability January 15th. A substitute passed out of committee January 27th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means on February 20th; amended and voted out of committee March 2nd. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 11th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House and passed March 12th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor,
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a Senate Bill Report.

Comments –
Rather than adding ADUs to the improvements that can currently qualify for a tax exemption, the substitute narrows the exemption so it only applies to building ADUs. The amendment in Ways and Means returns to the original provision about improvements, and adds a report to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the measure.

Summary –
Currently, physical improvements to single family residences that add less than 30% to the value of the building are exempt from property taxes for three years. The bill extends this exemption to the construction of an ADU.

HB2343

HB2343 – Authorizes increasing neighborhood density and reducing parking requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & NW Seattle) (Co-sponsors Frame, Macri, Doglio, Tharinger, Pollet)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 16th. Substitute passed by the committee January 28th. Referred to Rules; passed by the House nearly unanimously February 16th. House concurred in the Senate amendments.

In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Housing Stability & Affordability; had a hearing February 24th. Replaced by a striker, significantly amended, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules; passed the Senate March 3rd.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a House Bill Analysis.

Comments-
The substitute clarifies that the maximum parking limits for multi-family housing depend on having at least one route providing 15 minute transit service. (Having four routes with service once an hour, for example, doesn’t qualify.) It exempts counties as well as cities from this requirement under certain circumstances.

It shifts from exempting projects from appeals on aesthetic grounds if they’ve “undergone” design review to exempting them if they are “subject to” it, and makes the definition of what counts as “design review” a good deal more general. It modifies the definition of permanent supportive housing, which the GMA says cities may not prohibit in any areas zoned multi-family. The current language simply says this housing is intended to support “a person living with a disablility”. The new language says it “prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing …”

The striker in the House committee adds a section that makes some changes to the ongoing reporting on housing supply and affordability by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at the University of Washington that’s required by current law. Senator Das’s amendment added quadplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, and townhouses to the recommendations for upzoning residential neighborhoods that are exempted from appeals. It also added the following items to the list of actions cities are encouraged to take:

(a) Adopting maximum allowable limits on SEPA exemptions for certain types of construction;
(b) Adopting standards for administrative approval of final plats;
(c) Authorizing administrative review of preliminary plats;
(d) Adopting other changes in permitting processes to make them more efficient for customers;
(e) Eliminating conditional use permits for all housing types except essential public facilities;
(f) Allowing off-street parking to compensate for lack of on-street parking when private roads are proposed or a parking demand study shows less parking is required;
(g) Developing local programs that offer financing, design, permitting, or construction for homeowners to build ADUs, with the option of imposing an affordability requirement for home ownership or renting the unit; and
(h) Developing programs that offer financing, design, permitting, or construction for homeowners to convert single-family homes into duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes, with the option of imposing an affordability requirement for ownership or renting the unit.

Summary –
The bill revises various ways to authorize increased neighborhood residential density created in last session’s HB1923, and removes that bill’s restrictions on cities’ rules for permitting ADUs. HB1923 exempted any steps implementing those recommendations before April 1, 2021 (except adopting a sub-area plan) from administrative or judicial appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act or the Growth Management Act; the new bill extends that window to 2023, and removes analysis of impacts on parking from the requirements for SEPA environmental impact statements and checklists. It adds an exemption from appeals on aesthetic grounds if a project has “undergone” design review to HB1923’s exemption limiting the grounds for appeals based on transportation impacts.

Details –

The bill removes the prohibitions on parking requirements for ADUs, owner occupancy requirements, restrictions on their rental or separate sale, restrictions on their size below 1,000 sq ft, and on the imposition of any impact fees above the projected impact of the ADU. (It authorizes cities to encourage building ADUs by eliminating several of these restrictions instead.)

The bill increases HB1923’s limits on parking requirements for low-income housing within a quarter mile of a transit stop to include stops with service twice an hour as well as those with fifteen minute service, and now limits market-rate multi-family housing within a quarter mile of a transit stop with fifteen minute service to one parking space per bedroom or .75 space per unit.

It shifts from recommending authorizing a duplex, triplex, or courtyard apartment on “each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single family residences” to recommending authorizing them on “one or more parcels for which they are not currently authorized.” (This still allows a city to authorize them on each parcel if it chooses to, of course.)

It adds recommendations for creating one or more medium density zones with lots under 3,500 sq. ft, and single family residences under 1,200 sq. ft. It adds recommendations for authorizing ADUs in zones where they are currently prohibited, removing parking and owner occupancy requirements for them, and relaxing limits on their size.

It makes HB1923’s grants to cities planning to implement at least two of the recommendations available to cities under 20,000 people as well as larger ones.

HB2311

HB2311 – Increases the State’s emissions reductions targets beyond the Paris Accords’.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue, Redmond, & Kirkland)
Current status –
In the House – (Passed)
A substitute bill passed the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 23rd. Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations; had a hearing there February 3rd. Passed out of Appropriations with a very minor amendment February 8th. Referred to Rules February 11th. Passed out of the House with a floor amendment February 16th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing February 20th; passed out of committee February 25th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 28th. Passed out of committee March 2nd, and referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 5th.
Next step would be – To the Governor for his signature.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6272 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The bill would raise the State’s targets farther than last session’s HB2313, which has been reintroduced and which would set them to match the Paris Accords’.

The House substitute adds a section about the State’s intent, with items about environmental justice; supporting good jobs and creating economic benefits; and maintaining manufacturing and avoiding leakage. It specifies that the targets are about reducing anthropogenic emissions and includes the tonnes of reductions implied by the percentage targets. The amendment in Appropriations adjusted the language about carbon sequestration and added carbon storage to the goals for State agencies. The floor amendment specifies that agencies don’t have to maximize sequestration in their land-management activities, and only requires DNR to act in in cooperation with the landowners when it is promoting carbon sequestration on the private lands and trust lands that it supervises , not when it’s requiring it.

Summary –
The bill leaves the State’s current greenhouse gas emissions target of a reduction to 1990 levels by 2020 (which we will not meet) in place. It raises the next target from a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035 to a 45% reduction by 2030. It adds a target for 2040 of a 70% reduction, and it increases the target for 2050 from a 50% reduction from 1990 levels to a 95% reduction. It adds a requirement for achieving net-zero emissions state-wide by 2050.

The targets are about reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere; they don’t address removing CO2 by increasing sequestration. However, the bill also says that “separate and apart” from reducing emissions to meet the targets, it’s the policy of the State “to prioritize sequestration activities in amounts necessary to achieve the carbon neutrality goal established in RCW 70.235.020, and at a level consistent with pathways to limit global warming to one and one-half degrees.” It says the State should promote voluntary and incentive based sequestration on natural and working lands and recognize the potential for sequestration in products and product supply chains associated with working lands. It requires agencies to seek all practical opportunities to cost-effectively maximize carbon sequestration in their operations, contracting, and grant-making activities.

Details –
Commerce’s reports on emissions are now to include those from wildfires.

State agencies’ goals are increased to a 45% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, a 70% reduction by 2040, a 95% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050, and net zero emissions by state government as a whole by then as well. Agencies are now to report every two years to the efficiency and environmental performance office at the Department of Commerce on their plans for reaching these targets and Commerce is to report to the Legislature on those (and on the budget required to implement them).

SB6135

SB6135 – Adds more reporting on reliability to the 100% Clean Electricity Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sheldon (D-Caucusing with Republicans; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle & Short)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy, and Technology January 21st. Substitute by the prime sponsor passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 27th. Referred to Rules March 28th. Passed by the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The substitute adds findings, and completely replaces the original required reporting on the system with a requirement for an annual meeting of stakeholders to discuss the current, short-term, and long-term adequacy of energy resources, and to address specific steps the utilities can take to coordinate planning. The meetings are to be convened by the Department of Commerce and the UTC, and they’re to provide a summary of each of them, including any specific action items, to the Governor and the Legislature.

Summary –
The original bill required a report from the Department of Commerce to the Legislature on system reliability by January 1, 2022, two years ahead of the first full report on the system in the original legislation, and provides for updates every four years after that. (That is, there will now be a full report at least every four years, and an update every four years, in between each of the full reports.)

In addition, the bill would have required Commerce to provide specific recommendations for legislative action if it should determine that risks to the reliability of the system have developed.

SB6091

SB6091 – Continues the work of the Washington Food Policy Forum
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; parts of Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln, and Yakima County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
A substitute bill with very minor changes passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd; referred to Senate Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 3rd; passed out February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate February 12th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources. Had a hearing February 21st; passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of Appropriations March 2nd and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The Legislature set up the Food Policy Forum (Forum) in 2016 to make recommendations for improving the state’s food system. (Some of these are about supporting small farms and local food in various ways.) The Washington State Conservation Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and the Office of Farmland Preservation convened a group of food system stakeholders to do this work. They produced several reports, and in 2019 the Legislature provided further funding for them to develop a report on preferred implementation approaches for their recommendations.

Summary –
The bill thoroughly rewrites the language of HB1562, the previous extension of the Forum, with ongoing minor shifts in emphasis and focus, but almost no fundamental change in the setup or functioning of the Forum, as far as I can see. (There’s somewhat less language about urban diet issues and somewhat more about rural agricultural issues, unsurprisingly, since the prime sponsor of the previous bill was Representative Gregerson, from SeaTac.) The Director of the State Conservation Commission now has to have the agreement of the Director of the Department of Agriculture in appointing the participants for the next round of the Forum, and staff is now to come from both agencies, but it’s to continue to make recommendations on pretty much the same wide range of food issues, and it’s to produce another report to the Legislature by the end of October, 2021.

SB5947

SB5947 – Creates grant program for sustainable farms and fields.
Prime Sponsor – Senator McCoy (D; 38th District; Snohomish County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2095 is an identical companion bill in the House.

2020 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House at end of 2019 Session; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Passed by the Senate January 15th; referred to the House. Senate concurred in the House changes March 10th.

In the House (Amended version passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources February 7th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to the House Committee on the Capital Budget; had a hearing and passed an amended striker out of committee there on March 2nd. Passed by the House March 4th. Returned to the Senate for possible concurrence.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Referred to Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Had a hearing in that committee February 19th. A rewritten substitute bill with minor changes in the content passed out of committee February 21st. Had a hearing in Senate Ways and Means March 1st, and passed out of that committee with amendments. Placed on 2nd Reading by Rules March 4th. Passed the Senate March 6th.
In the House
Referred to the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, and Natural Resources. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, and Natural Resources on March 28th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House at end of 2019 Session.

Comments –
The 2019 substitute bill delays appropriation of any funding except for rule making and the report until January 2020, makes the grant program an option for the Department of Agriculture even if it’s funded, makes its different aspects dependent on appropriated specific funding, and allows grants for some commercial forestry projects including work in areas depleted by fire or pests.

(The original bill made the grants dependent on the provision of available funding for a dedicated account it established, but it seemed to require the Department to develop the program whether or not there was any funding provided for it.)

The 2020 striker in the House committee eliminates any references to reductions of emissions from fossil fuels, water, energy use, and fossil-fuel based herbicides or pesticides; it adds a number of references to encouraging more use of precision agriculture. It shifts the primary responsibility for the program to the Conservation Commission, and increases its ability to shape the program very significantly, by eliminating most of the previous version’s specifications for how the money is to be allocated, how grants are to be awarded, and what they can be awarded for. (There is still a list of allowable uses, but it now concludes with “other equipment purchases or financial assistance deemed appropriate by the Commission”; it does include new limits on how much funding can be spend on developing, advertising, and administering the program.) It uses the previous bill’s specification of the method for estimating carbon storage as a starting point, but lets the Commission change that. It limits the length of carbon storage contracts to twenty-five years, and it requires prioritizing proposals that benefit fish habitat and reducing the priority of any that are expected to significantly damage fish or wildlife habitat.

The amendment makes the bill contingent on the appropriation of at least $400,000 each to the Conservation Commission’s water irrigation efficiencies program; its natural resources investments program; and its shellfish growing area improvement program. The changes in the House Capital Budget Committee replace this provision with one that makes the program dependent on specific appropriation for it, and drop a final section about encouraging cost sharing and prioritizing grants which I think was probably more or less redundant, given language earlier in the bill about that.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Agriculture to develop a sustainable farms and fields program to make grants supporting agroforestry; increasing the carbon content of soils; and reducing agricultural uses of water, energy, and of fertilizers and pesticides produced from fossil fuels. There’s no provision in the bill for funding the program, other than providing for an account in the treasury for the program.

Details –

Roughly sixty percent of the funding is to be divided evenly among grants for agroforestry; for carbon sequestration; and for reducing the use of water, energy, and fertilizers and pesticides. Grants can be used for down payments on equipment. The rest of the money is to go to what the Department judges will be the most effective of the remaining projects.

(However, there may not be money for further grants. The Department can also spend up to 20% of the funds on watershed protection projects, research programs or to support the development of new businesses in the state, even if those expenditures would not qualify for program funding otherwise. It can also spend up to 10% of the money on administrative assistance to applicants, up to 5% of it on educational campaigns to publicize the program, and up to 5% of it on administrative costs. During the first five years of the program, up to 5% of the funding can be used in developing methods for prioritizing projects.)

Activities on commercial working forest land, aquaculture and blue carbon projects, and activities other than agroforestry on land that’s in a land retirement program are not eligible for these grants.

The Department’s to consult with other agencies to develop methods for estimating, measuring, and verifying outcomes; and to prioritize awards to try to maximize the reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases per dollar awarded by leveraging other funding. It’s to estimate these reductions by counting the storage of a ton of carbon dioxide equivalents in soil or standing trees for 100 years as the equivalent of avoiding putting a ton of them into the atmosphere, and by treating storage for lesser periods of time proportionally.

The Department can require applicants to enter into contracts committing them to carry on activities for various periods of time, including in perpetuity, as a condition for receiving funding for a project. They can receive an annual payment for storage during the previous year, or a payment based on expected future storage, with a provision for recovering funding if that doesn’t materialize because they’re negligent.

The Department’s to report to the Legislature on the program every two years.

SB5811

SB5811 – Allows the Department of Ecology to adopt Zero Emission Vehicle standards.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed by the Senate)
Returned to Senate Rules by the House at end of 2019 Session; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Placed on 3rd reading by the Rules Committee. Passed by the Senate January 15th. Senate concurred in the House amendments March 9th.

In the House – (Passed by the House)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing February 13th; replaced by a striker and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of Appropriations March 2nd and referred to Rules. Passed by the House March 5th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1999 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Coltura has a flyer about the bill.

The striker in the House Committee on Environment and Energy adopts the zero emissions vehicle standards, rather than simply removing the prohibition on adopting them from the current law. It no longer limits them to the model years that Oregon’s version covers, and it no longer says that vehicles for the model year in which the requirement comes into effect aren’t subject to the requirement. It also repeals current provisions (in RCW 70.120A.020) requiring Ecology to provide two systems of early credits and banking for ZEVs produced and sold before the implementation of the program in Washington.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, February 12th at 10:00 AM. Passed out of committee February 14th; sent to Rules for 2nd Reading; placed on 2nd Reading February 19th. Passed by the Senate March 4th.
In the House – 2019
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Environment. Had a hearing Tuesday March 19th. Returned to Senate Rules by the House at end of 2019 Session;

Comments –
SB5336 would also do this, but it includes a lot of other measures to reduce transportation emissions.

Summary –
The bill removes the prohibition on adopting the California Zero Emission Vehicle standards from the current law authorizing Ecology to adopt the rest of California’s emissions standards.

(It may also extend the range of vehicles that Ecology’s authorized to regulate some by changing its authority over the emissions from “medium duty passenger vehicles” to authority over “medium duty vehicles”.)