Category Archives: Governor 2023

HB1777

HB1777 – Modifying contracting for energy services and equipment by agencies and school districts.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status –  Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 14th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 28th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 30th. Amended and passed out of committee April 4th; referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor and passed by the Senate April 11th. House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker would protect certain state jobs and make various other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment in Ways and Means would require performance based contracts to be more cost-effective than alternative available financing and service mechanisms; would no longer transfer equipment back to agencies and schools at no residual value; would require financing terms to end within the manufacturer’s life expectancy for the equipment; and makes a minor adjustment in the scope of required maintenance training. The changes made by the floor striker are summarized by staff at the end of it.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget February 22th; passed out of committee February 21st, and was referred to Rules. Passed by the House March 1st.

Summary –
The bill would make some minor adjustments to the current laws about state agencies and school districts contracting for energy efficiency services and equipment. It would allow including service payments in these contracts. It would allow the value of energy equipment or services when entering into a contract to exceed the fair market value of property leased or owned by an agency or district, and require that to be considered cost-effective. It would authorize agencies and districts to enter into these contracts independently, not just through the Department of Enterprise Services.

The bill specifies that contracts would have to make the other party responsible for cost-savings and performance guarantees through the terms of the contract, as well as including terms transferring ownership of the equipment to the other party and requiring ownership to be transferred back to the agency or district at no residual value when the contract ended.

The bill would no longer allow school districts to sell energy savings to local utilities or Bonneville directly, though they could still do that through third parties. It would allow them to use financing contracts as well as performance based contracts to do conservation projects, as agencies currently can.

HB1250

HB1250 – Replacing the low-income home rehabilitation revolving loan program with a grant program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Steele (R; 12th District; North Central Washington) (Co-Sponsor Eslick – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing March 10th; amended to update the low-income home rehabilitation account’s name in the section on the Treasurer’s trust fund, and passed out of committee March 22nd. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 28th and passed out of committee April 4th. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate April 12th. House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 1:30 PM on Thursday February 9th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House February 28th.

Substitute –
This would raise the maximum grant to $50,000; raise the ceiling on eligible income to 200% of the Area Median Income, and allow the cost of  home rehabilitation to be based on 80% of the appraised value after rehabilitation or 80% of the assessed value.

Summary –
The bill would terminate the current low-income home rehabilitation revolving loan program, forgive any outstanding loan balances, and replace it with a grant program. Grants would now be available to people or households below 80% of area median income for the county or 60% of the state median income, whichever was greater. (The existing program caps eligibility at or below 200% of the Federal poverty level.) The Department of Commerce would be required to contract with rehabilitation agencies to provide home rehabilitation services, and to give preference to local agencies delivering programs and services with similar eligibility criteria.

HB1578

HB1578 – Improving community preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience to wildfire impacts in areas of increasing density.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; East King County) (Co-Sponsors Kretz – R; Reeves, Leavitt, Ramel, Lekanoff, Reed, Pollet, and Kloba – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks March 20th. Replaced by a striker delaying various steps, making some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it, and passed out of committee March 27th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 30th. Amended to specify that until July 2025 the risk assessments are to be used in improving community fire preparedness and response and not for developing regulations, and amended to remove language about completing tasks within existing resources. Passed out of committee April 3rd; referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to specify that “tribes” means Federally recognized tribes, and passed by the Senate April 11th. House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5611 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources  February 8th. Replaced by a substitute making some minor changes and passed out of committee February 15th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 21st; amended to add a null and void clause and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously March 6th.

Substitute –
The minor changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

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.

HB1756

HB1756 – Allowing large solar or wind projects to pay a production tax dedicated to providing local benefits instead of state property taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Klicker, Rude, Schmidt – Rs; Duerr, Reed, Kloba, Doglio, Senn, Ryu, and Macri – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance at 8:00 on Tuesday February 7th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 16th.

House Substitute –
The changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would allow the owners of wind or solar projects over one megawatt AC to apply for an exemption from property taxes on projects and connected storage that began construction after July 1, 2023. They would pay a production excise tax on them instead. Solar projects could choose to be taxed at $80/month for each MW of capacity for ten years, or at $75/MW for fifteen years. Wind projects could choose to be taxed at $150/month for each MW for ten years or at $130/month for fifteen. Storage capacity would be taxed at $100/MW hour. (It’s not clear how long the storage tax is intended to apply.)

Revenue from the tax would go to a new Renewable Energy Local Benefit Account. Each county would receive 42.5% of the tax paid by a renewable energy system located in it. Each tribe would receive 15% of the tax paid by a system impacting its resources or rights, in proportion to the number of enrolled members of each affected tribe. Each school district would receive an appropriation from the remaining 42.5% of the tax paid by a system located in the same county, in proportion to the number of students it served.

HB1728

HB1728 – Creating a statewide resiliency program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Donaghy (D; 44th District; Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Rule, Reeves, Morgan, Ramel, Reed, and Leavitt – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections March 14th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans at 8:00 AM on Wednesday February 8th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 15th. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing there on February 22nd. Replaced by a second substitute focusing the program on disaster resilience, and eliminating the repeating reporting. Referred to Rules and passed by the House March 4th.

Substitute –
This removed the provision about having the Department provide support to agencies, departments, tribes, and other stakeholders, and made some other minor changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would have the State Military Department’s Emergency Management Division develop and administer a statewide resiliency program. The program would be supposed to include methods for ensuring ongoing coordination of state and local resiliency and response activities, including developing, administering, tracking, and communicating progress of resiliency efforts. It would coordinate funding to maximize investments from various public and private sources; serving as a public and private resiliency resource center; and enhance interagency collaboration, education, and outreach programs.

The Division would also create a coordinated long-term resiliency strategy for addressing the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards, including developing, coordinating, and communicating resiliency initiatives and projects across state agencies and local governments; conduct policy research and make recommendations on enhancing resiliency; coordinate research, data collection, and analysis; research economic tools to address resiliency; and recommend investments to mitigate risks from all hazards.

It would support agencies, departments, tribes, and other stakeholders in developing solutions that improve the resiliency of the state’s waters, forests, and other vital ecosystems to the impacts of climate change, and increase their carbon pollution reduction capacity through sequestration, storage, and overall ecosystem integrity.

SB5542

SB5542 – Regulating the sale of metal components from EV charging equipment to help keep thieves from stealing or destroying it.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington) (Co-sponsors Rolfes, Shewmake, Hunt, Claire Wilson, Cleveland, Lovick, Valdez, Lovelett, Nguyen, and Salomon – Ds; Fortunato, Padden, Gildon, Braun, and Lynda Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Business March 15th and passed out of committee March 22nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law and Justice at 10:30 AM Tuesday February 7th. Replaced by a substitute making a minor change in the term used for charging equipment and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 27th.

Summary –
The bill would add electric vehicle charging equipment to the definition of “commercial metal property,” which includes things like catalytic converters and scrap wire, making it subject to a variety of existing regulations about sales procedures.

SB5447

SB5447 – Supporting production and use of lower emission jet fuels, renewable fuels, and green electrolytic hydrogen.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Billig (D; 3rd District; Spokane) (Twenty-one co-sponsors)
Current status –  Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 13th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in House Finance March 28th. Amended there and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules and passed by the House April 14th.  Senate concurred in House amendments April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the House –
The changes made in the striker in Environment & Energy are summarized by staff at the end of it.

The Legislative tracking page for the bill says that then it was passed  “with amendment(s) but without amendment(s) by Environment & Energy in Finance. (I don’t understand this, since as far as I can see, the only amendment in Environment & Energy was the striker, and that seems to be what was adopted and then amended in Finance.) If I understand it correctly, one of those amendments would change the definition of the alternative jet fuels which are eligible for the tax credits from ones which met the current carbon intensity standard for the Clean Fuels Program as of the bill’s effective date to ones which had a lower carbon intensity than the conventional fuel for which they could substitute, according to a full life-cycle analysis done at the time of the application for the credits. The other would make alternative jet fuels produced at “a location that is either a historic cemetery or tribal burial ground” ineligible for the tax credits.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 20th. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor and passed by the Senate March 1st.

Substitutes
This would limit the carry over of credits to the next year, and make a number of other minor adjustments that staff summarizes at the beginning of it. There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the striker at the end of it.

Summary –
The bill defines “alternative jet fuels” as ones made from petroleum or nonpetroleum sources that can be blended with conventional jet fuels without the need to modify engines or the existing distribution infrastructure, and that have a lower carbon intensity than the applicable clean fuels standard for diesel and diesel substitutes. (That’s based on gradually increasing reductions from their carbon intensity in 2017.) The bill would also require Ecology to “amend the energy economy ratio for alternative jet fuel relative to conventional jet fuel from the value of 1.0 to 1.3” within ten years after a facility capable of producing at least twenty million gallons of alternative jet fuel began operating in the state. That ratio would then have to be reduced by 0.1% every three years until it was back to 1.0. (I’m not sure about the point of this, but I think it’s about creating a higher carbon intensity baseline for it under WAC 173-424-620, so it would be easier to get credits under the Clean Fuels Act for a given reduction in its carbon intensity.) Ecology would also be required to allow biomethane to be claimed as a feedstock for alternative jet fuel in the same way it was treated with respect to natural gas and hydrogen production.

Once the bill’s in-state production requirement was met, it would lower the B&O tax on its manufacturing and sales for ten years, from the standard B&O 0.484% tax rate on manufacturing to 0.275%. It would also provide businesses producing it in counties with fewer than 650,000 people or a business’s designated alternative jet fuel blender anywhere in the state with a credit of $1.00/gallon against the remaining B&O tax if the fuel had at least 50% lower CO2e emissions than conventional fuel. The credit would increase by 2¢/gallon for each additional one percent reduction in emissions, up to a limit of $2/gallon. Sales contracts with final consumers would have to “reflect” any bonus credits, and the bill would provide the same bonus credits for consumers using those fuels with additional emissions reductions for flights originating in the state. Credits could be carried over and used to offset taxes in later years.

The bill would require the Office of Clean Technology at WSU to convene an alternative jet fuels work group with various stakeholders to further the development of alternative jet fuel as a productive industry in the state.  It would provide a report including recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature by December of every even-numbered year until 2028.

The bill would create a statewide Office of Renewable Fuels in the Department of Commerce to accelerate market development with assistance along the entire life cycle of renewable fuel projects; and support their research, development, and deployment, as well as the production, distribution, and use of renewable and green electrolytic hydrogen, and product engineering and manufacturing related to its production and use. It would drive job creation, improve economic vitality, and support the transition to clean energy; further the development and use of alternative jet fuels; enhance resiliency by using renewable fuels, alternative jet fuels, and green electrolytic hydrogen to support climate change mitigation and adaptation; and partner with overburdened communities to ensure communities equitably benefit from these efforts.

The office would coordinate with a range of parties to facilitate and promote collaborations to drive research, development, and deployment of alternative jet fuels and renewable fuels including green electrolytic hydrogen; review initiatives, policies, and public and private investments for these fuels; consider opportunities for coordinating public and private funding; assess opportunities for and barriers to deploying these fuels in hard to decarbonize sectors of the state economy; request recommendations from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals about national safety standards for them; develop a plan and recommendations regarding them for consideration by the Legislature and Governor, including project permitting, state procurement, and pilot projects; and encourage new and existing public-private partnerships to increase coordinated planning for them and their deployment. The Office could apply for Federal funds and other grants, as well as accepting donations. It would be required to collaborate with the work group and a long list of other agencies and interested parties. It might cooperate with other agencies to compile data on the use of renewable fuels and green electrolytic hydrogen in state operations.

HB1416

HB1416 – Applying emissions reduction requirements of the Clean Energy Act to nonresidential customers in public utility areas that produce their own power or buy it on the market.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsor Ramel – D) (By request of the Department of Commerce)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Passed the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 30th; passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules, and passed the House February 9th.

Summary –
The bill would expand the definition of “market customers” in the Clean Energy Transformation Act (aka the cap and invest bill) to include those customers of the public utilities. These are nonresidential customers that buy electricity from other sources than the utility with which they’re directly interconnected or generate it to meet all of their own needs. I think this change would require them to be “greenhouse gas neutral” by 2030 (getting no more than 20% of their power from natural gas and offsetting those emissions through several options), and to get 100% of it from non-emitting sources by 2045. They would also be required to pursue all cost-effective, reliable, and feasible conservation and efficiency resources, and demand response in the process; to achieve the targets at the lowest reasonable cost, considering risk; to consider acquisition of existing renewable resources; and to rely on renewable resources and energy storage when that was consistent with the other requirements. They’d be required to meet the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

SB5452

SB5452 – Authorizing using impact fees for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Passed by both houses.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1135 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government March 14th, and passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules; passed by the House April 7th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs January 24th, and passed out of committee on the 2nd. Referred to Transportation, and had a hearing there February 13th. Passed out of Transportation February 16th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate February 28th.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current definition of the public facilities on which impact fees may be spent to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

HB1390

HB1390 – Decarbonization planning for state-owned district energy systems.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Anacortes and San Juans) (Co-Sponsors Berry, Duerr, Doglio, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd and 24th. Amended to direct the owner of a covered district heating system to consult with the gas utility as well as the electric utility while developing a decarbonization plan, and passed out of committee March 28th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 30th. Passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 12th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 24th. Replaced with a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to the Committee on the Capital Budget and had a hearing there February 20th. Amended to have more State systems and purely private systems comply with CETA by developing these plans. Passed out of committee February 22nd, referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 2nd.

Substitute –
The changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would require collections of five or more buildings with more than 100,000 square feet of conditioned space that are owned by the state and served by district heating or cooling systems to develop a decarbonization plan. These would have to include ways to replace fossil fuels in heating plants; evaluating options for partnering with nearby sources and uses of waste heat and cooling; examining opportunities to add buildings or other facilities to the system once it is decarbonized, a strategy to incentivize growth of a decarbonized system, and requirements for facilities joining the system; and evaluating the potential for reducing energy use through conservation. The bill would encourage including consideration of distribution network upgrades; on-site energy storage; space cooling for residential facilities; labor and workforce issues, including utilization of state registered apprentices; options for public-private partnerships; and the incorporation of industrial symbiosis projects or networks. The local utility would have to be consulted in the development of the plan; they’d be due to Commerce by June 30th, 2025.

The bill would exempt the buildings served by one of these systems from making any capital investments that might be required to meet the State’s Clean Buildings Act’s energy performance requirements if the owner was implementing or had fully implemented a decarbonization plan, and met the Act’s benchmarking, energy management, and operations and maintenance planning requirements. (The bill also says owners may not be required to make capital investments if they submit a request to Commerce once during every five-year compliance cycle as part of documentation required by the Act, and Commerce approves the request; it doesn’t seem to specify any criteria for granting or denying these requests.) Commerce would also guarantee that these systems would be considered to qualify with any requirements for implementing energy efficiency measures identified by an energy audit if an audit had demonstrated that the energy savings from measures to increase the efficiency of the district heating system would be greater than the savings from measures to increase the buildings’ efficiency, and the owner implemented the measures for the system.

SJM8001

SJM8001 – Resolution supporting a national infrastructure bank.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Kuderer, Wellman, Nguyen, Keiser, and Conway – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business March 17th, and passed out of committee March 22nd. Referred to Rules and passed by the House April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 24th; passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 8th.

Summary –
The bill would send a resolution urging the passage of a bill creating a national infrastructure bank to the President, the leaders of the House and the Senate, and each member of Congress.

HB1216

HB1216 – Consolidating and streamlining the siting of clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; NW Seattle & Vashon Island)(Co-Sponsors Doglio, Berry, Reed, Simmons, Macri, Fosse, & Pollet – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology March 15th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st; amended twice and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to add not degrading local air quality to the requirements for qualifying an EITE project as a clean energy project, to change the emissions reductions requirement to “aligning with” the cap and invest program’s cap trajectory, and to remove the change in Ways and Means that allowed some projects to get expedited review by the Site Evaluation Council. Passed by the Senate April 8th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5380 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker makes some projects and facilities upgrades by energy-intensive trader exposed industries eligible and ineligible for treatment as clean energy projects under the bill, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of it. The changes made by the first amendment in Ways and Means are summarized by staff at the end of it. The second amendment limits EITE’s clean energy projects to those that reduce emissions faster than the rate of decline of the free allowances EITEs are receiving under CETA, and specifies that various land use and permitting decisions for clean energy projects will be handled through the expedited judicial review process for energy facility site evaluation council certifications rather than going to the Pollution Control Hearings Board.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy  January 19th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing there on February 21st. Replaced by a second substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the House March 3rd.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker makes certain projects and upgrades by energy-intensive trade exposed facilities eligible and ineligible for treatment as clean energy projects under the bill’s provisions, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of it.

Changes in the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute on the first couple of pages of it; the amendment would require consultation with rural stakeholders and two reports on a variety of potential impacts and benefits of anticipated changes in the state’s energy system, including the siting of facilities through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and recommendations on ways to “more equitably distribute costs and benefits to rural communities.” The striker merely directs counties to not prohibit the installation of evaluation equipment needed in planning wind and solar projects rather than specifying various limits on county’s requirements for permitting those, and makes other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. The floor amendment allows the projects and upgrades by energy intensive trade exposed industries included as clean energy manufacturing projects in the striker to count if they “assist” in meeting cap and invest obligations, rather then meeting them.

2nd Substitute –
The changes made by this are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and the changes made by the amendment are summarized at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would create an Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Ecology, with participation by a long list of agencies. The chairs would assign staff in each agency to lead the Council’s work and provide ongoing updates to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature. The Council would identify actions to improve siting and permitting of projects for wind and solar energy, transmission, green electrolytic and renewable hydrogen, alternative jet fuels, battery and pumped storage of clean energy, and the manufacturing of clean energy products. Its work would include a through review of the recommendations of the 2022 Low Carbon Energy Facility Siting Improvement Study, creating implementation plans and timelines, and making recommendations for needed funding or policy changes. The Council would also track Federal efforts to improve clean energy project siting and permitting, including potential Federal funding; identify agency actions to improve coordination across state, local, and federal processes or to pursue supportive funding; conduct outreach to parties with interests in clean energy siting and permitting for ongoing input on how to improve agency processes and actions; and establish work groups as needed to focus on specific energy types or specific geographies for project siting. It might create advisory committees to inform this work; it would support the creation and annual updating by the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs of a list of contacts at tribes and tribal preferences regarding outreach about clean energy project siting and permitting. It would provide an annual report to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature summarizing progress on efficient, effective, and responsible siting and permitting of clean energy projects; areas of additional work; resource needs; and any needed policy changes.

The Council would also advise Commerce on contracting with an independent third party to evaluate state agency siting and permitting processes and related Federal and state requirements; identify successful models for siting and permitting projects in other states; develop recommendations for improving these processes, including potential policy changes and funding; and report on the evaluation and recommendations by July 1, 2024. The Council would develop a consolidated clean energy application similar to the joint aquatic resources permit application for at least the state permits for clean energy projects, and would explore developing a consolidated permit for them. Ecology would lead these efforts, with updates on them to the Governor and Legislature due by July 1, 2024. It would engage with Federal agencies and local governments to explore including various applications or permits in consolidated versions. It would be authorized to design a single application for multiple clean energy project types, separate applications for individual clean energy technologies, or an application for related resources. A consolidated permit process would have to identify criteria or conditions that had to be met for projects to use it, and Ecology would be authorized to analyze those conditions as part of a nonproject review.

The bill would create a way for applicants to apply to Commerce for designation as a clean energy project of statewide significance, and would have Ecology implement and assist with a fully coordinated permitting process for those as an alternative to applying for expedited permitting through the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Applications for the designation would have to include an explanation of how the project is expected to contribute to the state’s achievement of its greenhouse gas emission limits, and is consistent with the State Energy Strategy. They’d also need an explanation of any contribution it’s expected to make to other state requirements for clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions; an explanation of how it’s expected to contribute to the state’s economic development goals; a plan for meaningful engagement with tribes having interests on or near the site; a description of potential community benefits and impacts from the project, a plan for meaningful community engagement in its development, and an explanation of how the applicant might use a legal document specifying the benefits the developer agrees to fund or furnish in exchange for community support of a project. Commerce would approve or deny a one-time application for a project, assessing whether it provided the explanations above, had sufficient need for coordinated state assistance, had been reviewed through a nonproject environmental review process, or a least-conflict siting process for pumped solar that the bill establishes, and was consistent with the recommendations of those; and considering its anticipated positive or adverse impacts on environmental and public health. The department would have to consider information in an application demonstrating meaningful tribal outreach and engagement “favorably” in deciding whether to approve it.

Designated clean energy project of statewide significance would be assigned a Commerce staff navigator to assist with the initial project assessment and with the coordinated permitting process, if the project proponent chose to use that. The navigator would also convene appropriate partners from state and local government, private entities, nongovernmental organizations, and others to support successful completion of the project; and work with each of those to expedite their actions in moving the project forward.

Ecology would manage the coordinated permitting process. (The proponent of a designated project who chose to use this would have to reimburse the department for the costs of supporting its permitting.) It would conduct an initial assessment of the amount of coordination each project needed, considering its complexity, size, and the experience of those involved. It would address the expected type of environmental review; the anticipated state and local permits, approvals, forms and requirements; information needs and issues of concern of each participating agency; time required for the SEPA review and permit decisions by each participating agency given the greatest possible efficiencies achievable through any concurrent studies and with any consolidated applications, hearings, and comment periods. This would have to be provided to the proponent and the public within sixty days. Ecology would also ensure the proponent had been informed of all information needed to apply for permits; facilitate communication between proponents and staff to promote timely permit decisions and adherence to agreed schedules; verify completion of administrative review and permit procedures among agencies; assist in resolving any conflict or inconsistency among permit requirements and conditions; consult with potentially affected tribes and potentially affected overburdened communities according to the bill’s requirements; and coordinate with jurisdictions to assist with fulfilling their local permitting requirements. The Department would convene a work plan meeting for the project with the other parties relevant to its permitting, reviewing permitting processes and estimating timelines, with full attention to achieving the maximum efficiencies possible. It would create and maintain a shared coordinated permitting process schedule; parties would have to notify Ecology of the reasons for any delays and offer potential solutions or an amended timeline.

The bill requires early, meaningful, and individual consultation by Ecology with any affected tribe on a variety of potential project impacts on rights or resources, independent of and in addition to, any public participation process required by state law or a state agency. The department would also be required to identify overburdened communities that might be affected by a designated project participating in the process, and to verify that they’d been meaningfully engaged in a timely manner by participating agencies, and that their comments had been considered in determining potential impacts.

Counties and cities with designated clean energy projects of statewide significance in their jurisdictions would be required to enter into an agreement with Ecology and the project proponents for expediting the completion of projects. They’d have to expedite processing of permits for the project’s design and construction; environmental review; and requests for needed street, right-of-way, or easement vacations. They’d have to make local officials or planning staff available to serve on the navigator’s team to move the project forward; develop and follow a plan for consultation with potentially affected tribes; and carry out any other actions Ecology identified as needed for the coordinated permitting process. Local governments would not be allowed to require these applicants for these electrical energy projects to demonstrate their necessity or utility, other than as part of the public information required by Federal agencies as part of some applications.

The bill would have the WSU Energy Program conduct a least-conflict pumped storage siting process for the state, including ample opportunities for self-identified stakeholders to participate, to identify areas where there’s the least amount of conflict about sites. (It might include considering the colocation of pumped storage with wind or solar energy generation.) The project would develop a public map and associated GIS data layers by June 30th, 2025, highlighting those areas; it would not include any information tribes identified as sensitive, though that would be used to inform the project.

Ecology would be required to develop nonproject environmental impact statements, in consultation with various stakeholders, on the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen projects, and of solar projects in the Columbia Basin. These would include related mitigation measures. Proponents of such projects would have to incorporate these impact analyses in a coordinated project-level review process, and the lead agency conducting a project-level environmental review of one of those would have to adopt that nonproject impact statement to identify and mitigate project-level probable significant impacts, “where appropriate.” However, the agency would also have to review and update that analysis, if that were needed, and would have to address any probable significant impacts that were not analyzed in the nonproject statement and identify any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures specific to the project for those impacts.

SB5390

SB5390 – Authorizing safe harbor agreements about northern spotted owl habitat with forest owners.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Warnick – R; Rolfes and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources March 21st and passed out of committee March 22nd. Had a hearing in Appropriations March 31st, and passed out of committee March 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks  January 26th. Passed out of committee February 2nd, referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 14th. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules; passed by the Senate unanimously March 6th.

Summary –
The Endangered Species Act allows property owners to voluntarily enter into a safe harbor agreement, in which they undertake activities to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting listed species and regulators agree not to impose any additional restrictions based on the Act on their land without their consent. (I’m not sure whether landowners are safe from any further ESA restrictions on the use of the land, or only from those that might otherwise result from changes in it because of the steps they’ve chosen to take..)

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to utilize the delegated Federal authority that’s available to enter into and administer these agreements about northern spotted owls. Ecology would get technical assistance from Fish and Wildlife in habitat assessments of candidate parcels and implementation of a programmatic safe harbor agreement. It would be able to provide landowners with technical assistance about the program. (Its decisions administering  the program would be subject to review through the process in the Forest Practices Act.)

HB1236

HB1236  – Improving access to renewable hydrogen for public transportation.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Abbarno – R;  Senn, Reed, Doglio, Ramel, and Lekanoff – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5325 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 30th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 16th.

Substitute –
The substitute extends the bill’s provisions to include other types of public transit agencies.

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.

SB5287

SB5287 – Requiring a study of the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor – Nguyen – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Environment March 14th. Amended to specify that the report should include options for reuse, repurposing, and recycling; passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th. Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 20th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 27th.

Summary –
Subject to appropriations for this particular project, the bill would require the WSE Energy Program to conduct a study on the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state. It would include information and recommendations on:
(1) The cost, feasibility, and environmental impact of various disposal methods;
(2) The availability of recycling and processing facilities for them in Washington and other states;
(3) Potential incentives for the creation of blade recycling facilities in the state;
(4) Mechanisms for establishing recycling requirements, or recycled content standards, for blades;
(5) Considerations and options for designing a product stewardship program for them, and
(6) The feasibility of including all the blades installed, now and in the future, in a recycling program.

A report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature would be due by December 1st, 2023.

SB5269

SB5269 – Assessing opportunities for Washington to capture new and emerging industries and strengthen its manufacturing base while responding to climate change.
Prime Sponsor –  Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Passed by both houses. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community, Economic Development, and Veterans March 17th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Appropriations April 1st. Amended to make some changes strengthening the role of the State Manufacturing Council in the development of the State’s industrial strategy which are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 7th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 19th. Replaced by a substitute clarifying the implementation timeline and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 20th; amended to add a couple of additional topics to the study and passed out of committee February 23. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 8th.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce commission an independent assessment of opportunities for Washington to capture new and emerging industries and strengthen its manufacturing base. It would be due by October 2024.

The study would assess how the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050 will impact the potential futures of manufacturing in Washington, including identifying specific opportunities for seeking investment in new and emerging industries, as well as transforming and strengthening the state’s manufacturing to meet the needs of a net-zero economy. It would assess the needs of existing manufacturers, including supply chain challenges and resources required to meet the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets. It would identify opportunities to build and maximize the environmental and economic benefits of a circular economy. It would identify what’s needed to attract new investment and strengthen manufacturing, considering transportation and port infrastructure; supply chains; workforce; and energy. It would identify opportunities to support minority and women-owned firms and small and medium-sized firms in capturing new and emerging industries.

The workforce assessment would examine how to maximize the use of the existing workforce’s transferable skills; address any remaining skills gaps and identify opportunities to build a workforce pipeline that ensures current and future Washingtonians have fair access to a manufacturing career by sector; and to ensure equitable and accessible pathways and advancement opportunities in manufacturing by sector. The energy assessment would include the quantity, price, and location of electricity needed to decarbonize and grow Washington’s existing manufacturing and capture new and emerging industries.

The bill would require Commerce to appoint an industrial policy advisor who would alert manufacturers to relevant funding opportunities and assist them in applying and in completing required reporting; work to ensure that the state’s pursuit of its goals for developing a strong manufacturing and research and development base in every area of the state and its greenhouse gs emissions goals are aligned and mutually reinforcing; foster interagency and intraagency coordination and collaboration on manufacturing-related policymaking and activities, including both climate and economic development policymaking; coordinate with the workforce innovation sector lead, particularly with respect to building the workforce pipeline; and provide quarterly reports to the Manufacturing Council.

The advisor might also form expert committees with industry representatives to develop sector-specific strategies for attracting new investment and transforming and strengthening existing manufacturing consistent with the bill’s industrial strategy; assist local governments with economic plans for moving toward those goals; support communities negatively impacted by the closure or relocation of manufacturing facilities through efforts to attract new investment consistent with that strategy; and facilitate the movement of existing skilled manufacturing workers into new industrial sectors.

SB5165

SB5165 – Improving electric power system transmission planning.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsor Mullet – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 13th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 5th. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1192 is a companion bill in the House.

Changes in the House –
The changes made by the committee striker in the House are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment would make the avoidance of burdens to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities as well as their reduction part of the analysis of cumulative impacts in utilities’ IRPs.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 18th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Passed out of committee February 24th, referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 2nd.

Substitute –
The substitute specifies that projects with nominal ratings of at least 500,000 volts AC or 300,000 volts DC have to seek Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification, and that projects that aren’t subject to the Council’s jurisdiction still have the option to use local government permitting processes. It clarifies that transmission assessment in an IRP has to include opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through improved operating practices and non-wires solutions, and that a clean energy action plan has to document a utility’s efforts to use existing capacity more effectively.

Summary –
The bill would require the assessment in each utility’s integrated resource plans of its future needs for regional generation and transmission capacity, and of the availability of those, to be based on forecasts over twenty years rather than ten. The assessments would have to take into account the state’s emissions reduction limits and the requirements of the Clean Energy Act; opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through energy efficiency, demand response, grid modernization, and other programs; and the electrification of transportation and other end uses historically met using fossil fuels. The assessment would have to identify the utility’s expected need to develop new or expanded bulk transmission facilities.

The bill would expand the current requirement for developing 10 year Clean Energy Action Plans to include all utilities, not just investor owned ones. Those plans would now also have to document existing and planned efforts by the utility to secure the additional transmission capacity it anticipated needing in its IRP. They would have to give reasonable consideration to energy resources that would use conditional firm transmission services, where their reserved service might be curtailed under specific limited conditions. Utilities would be encouraged to do statewide, multiutility, and interstate transmission planning. They’d be required to seek the support of a variety of industry and public interest organizations in improving the planning and development of transmission capacity.

The bill would add the construction, reconstruction, or enlargement of new or existing electrical transmission facilities of at least 500,000 volts; located in more than one county; and located in the Washington service area of more than one retail electric utility to the facilities required to apply for siting through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The bill would have the Director of the Council coordinate state agency participation in environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of transmission projects proposed or sited by a Federal agency.

HB1032

HB1032 – Requires utility planning for wildfire risks and identification of best management practices.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dent (R; 13th District; Kittitas County) (Co-Sponsors Graham – R;  Chapman, Ryu, Reed, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 14th and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5039 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 15th. Replaced by a second substitute, and passed out of Appropriations February 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 4th.

Substitutes –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. The 2nd substitute would drop DNR’s role in reviewing private utilities’ plans, assigning that responsibility to the UTC, and authorizing private utilities to seek to recover the costs and investments of their plans in rate proceedings there.

Summary –
Requires each electric utility to create a wildfire management plan by October 31, 2024 and update it every three years. An independent consultant selected by the State Energy Office after consultation with stakeholders and the public would develop the format for the plans and a list of recommended actions to be included in them, including best practice guidance for those actions. Each utility’s plan would include a review of its specific circumstances and incorporate the appropriate identified actions from the list; abutting utilities could develop collaborative plans. Private utilities’ plans would be reviewed by the Utilities and Transportation Commission and public utilities’ would be reviewed by their governing boards, in consultation with various other agencies. Reviewers would provide feedback to the utilities, but as I read the bill, it doesn’t quite require their approval of the plans. (They’re to “confirm” whether it contains the appropriate recommended actions.)  The bill also disclaims any State responsibility for subsequent problems.)

The consultant’s list is to include actions related to:
(a) Vegetation management along transmission and distribution lines and near associated equipment;
(b) Infrastructure inspection and maintenance repair activities, schedules, and recordkeeping;
(c) Modifications or upgrades to facilities and construction of new facilities to incorporate cost-effective measures to minimize fire risk;
(d) Preventative programs, including adoption of new technologies to harden utility infrastructure;
(e) Operational procedures;
(f) Identification of appropriate widths for vegetation management and rights-of-way, including the consideration of fire-resistant vegetation alternatives;
(g) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electric system along with associated communication plans for impacted parties and the public, including highly impacted communities, vulnerable populations, and persons reliant on electricity to maintain necessary life functions; and
(h) Public and interested parties’ engagement and communication plans addressing wildfire safety and risk mitigation.

Each electric utility’s protocols have to include plans for mitigating the public safety impacts of deenergizing portions of the system, considering the impacts on critical first responders, local and tribal governments, health and communication infrastructure, and those populations at increased risk. Decisions about whether or not to shut down parts of the system are reserved to the utilities.

HB1181

HB1181 – Updating planning requirements to improve the State’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Berry, Peterson, Ryu, and Alvarado – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed by both houses. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5203 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs March 14th, and passed out of committee the 16th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 23rd, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules; replaced by a striker on the floor, amended and passed by the Senate April 7th. The floor striker expands the utilities element to include the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities; specifies that a good faith effort to identify all of a public entity’s capital facilities and include the required information about them is enough to shield the plan from claims of noncompliance or invalidity under the GMA; and allows using Commerce’s intermediate guidelines to meet the requirements of the climate change and resiliency elements for periodic updates up to June 2025. The floor amendment adds adopting some existing wildfire risk reduction codes to other options the bill included as ways the land use element might address reducing those risks.

In the House – Passed
Replaced by the sponsor’s substitute and passed out of the House Committee on Local Government January 25th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th. Replaced by a second substitute, changed by three minor amendments, and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules, replaced by another striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the House March 3rd.
There’s a summary by staff at the beginning of the substitute, listing the changes it made. The changes made by the second substitute in Appropriations are summarized at the beginning of that, and the amendments are included with summaries in the committee’s folder. The minor changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it.

Summary –
The bill would add a climate change and resiliency goal to the fourteen others that are to guide the development of comprehensive plans, and have that also apply to the countywide planning process and regional transportation planning. The new goal would have planning adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice. The bill would add consideration of climate impacts to shoreline master planning. However, jurisdictions would not be obliged to comply with these amendments until the state had provided funding for that.

It would specify that the land use element of comprehensive plans must give special consideration to achieving environmental justice in its goals and policies, including efforts to avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities; should consider using approaches that reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled; must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed by wildfires with measures like reducing residential development pressure in the wildland urban interface area, creating open space buffers between development and wildfire prone landscapes, and protecting existing development through community preparedness and fire adaptation.

It would expand the kinds of transit routes that should have level of service standards to help to achieve environmental justice goals, and expand transportation forecasts to include multimodal and rural demand. It expands language about bicycles and pedestrians to include other forms of active transportation. It would prohibit denying approval to a development that failed to meet traffic level of service standards if its transportation needs might be met through improvements for active transportation, enhanced public transportation, ride-sharing programs, demand management, or other strategies funded by the development.

It would require comprehensive plans to include a climate change and resiliency element designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, enhance resiliency, and avoid the adverse impacts of climate change. This would have to include efforts to reduce local emissions and avoid creating or worsening local climate impacts on vulnerable populations and overburdened communities. Countries with over 100,000 people or specified densities or growth rates and planning under the Growth Management Act would be required to include a greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement, and other jurisdictions would be encouraged to. The resiliency subelement would be required for all jurisdictions planning under the GMA and encouraged for others. These required updates would have to be part of the 2024 planning cycle.

The Department of Commerce, in collaboration with various other agencies, would publish guidelines specifying a set of measures counties and cities could take through updates to their comprehensive plans and development regulations that have a demonstrated ability to increase housing capacity within urban growth areas, reduce emissions, or reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled, allowing for consideration of the emissions reductions achieved through the adoption of statewide programs, and prioritizing reductions in overburdened communities. The bill would exempt from SEPA appeals the adoption of ordinances, amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations, and other nonproject actions taken to implement measures for reducing emissions or per capita miles traveled that were in the department’s guidelines.

The emissions reduction subelement and related development regulations would have to identify the actions the jurisdiction will take, in accordance with Commerce’s guidelines, to:
1) Reduce transportation and land use emissions within the jurisdiction without increasing them elsewhere in the state;
2) Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction without increasing emissions elsewhere in the state; and,
3) Prioritize reductions in overburdened communities to maximize the combined benefits of reduced air pollution and environmental justice.
Actions that weren’t specifically identified in the guidelines could only be considered to be consistent with them if they were projected to achieve reductions in emissions or per capita vehicle miles traveled equivalent to what would be required under the guidelines, and if they were supported by scientifically credible projections. Jurisdictions would not be allowed to restrict population growth or limit population allocation to achieve the requirements. The guidelines could not include road usage charges, or regulations and taxes on transportation service providers, delivery vehicles, or passenger vehicles.

The resiliency subelement would be required to equitably enhance resiliency to climate change in human communities and ecological systems, and avoid or substantially reduce its adverse impacts through goals, policies, and programs consistent with the best available science and scientifically credible climate projections. It would have to prioritize actions in overburdened communities that will disproportionately suffer from environmental impacts and be most impacted by natural hazards due to climate change. Its goals, policies, and programs would have to include those designed to:
1) Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas and areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration to foster resiliency to climate impacts;
2) Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to impacts, including social, economic, and built factors that support adaptation consistent with environmental justice; and,
3) Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation.
Jurisdictions might adopt an existing natural hazard mitigation plan by reference if it met the bill’s requirements, or modify one to do that, and might apply to the Department for an extension of the deadlines to do that. In collaboration with tribes and various agencies, the department would develop a model climate change and resiliency element that could be used by jurisdictions in developing the required plans and policies.

The bill includes provisions for public comment on these subelements, for review and approval of them by the department, and for appeals. The bill would add the presence of overburdened communities to the department’s priorities for providing planning assistance, and require it to establish funding levels for grants to community-based organizations to advance participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities in planning.

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to update its guidelines to require shoreline master programs to address the impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, shoreline natural resources, and the environment. It would require flood control management plans to include consideration of climate change impacts, including the impacts of sea level rise and increased storm severity.

HB1176

HB1176 – Creating a Washington Climate Corps and evaluating climate and energy transition workforce needs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed out of the Senate Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development March 15th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 21st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5247 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Amended and passed out of the House Committee on Post-Secondary Education and Workforce January 23rd.  Had a hearing in Appropriations February 13th. Replaced by a second substitute and passed out of committee February 21st; referred to Rules and passed by the House March 1st.

Amendments in the House Committee on Post-Secondary Education and Workforce –
There’s a staff summary of the minor changes in Post-Secondary Education at the end of the amendment. The amendment in Appropriations made the program subject to specific appropriations and stated the Legislature’s intent to have it begin in the 2023-25 biennium and expand in the future.

Summary –
The bill would establish a Washington Climate Corps to provide climate-related service opportunities for young adults and veterans, with the objective of building low-carbon and climate-resilient communities and ecosystems while providing education, workforce development, and career pathways to service members. It would be administered by Serve Washington, which also manages the Americorps program, with administrative support from OFM, and would prioritize service in  overburdened communities. It would develop new service opportunities, and establish common requirements for participating service programs. In coordination with a range of stakeholders, it would develop and run a program for Climate Corps members during their service to provide leadership training, foster environmental stewardship and civic engagement, and expose them to climate related professional and educational opportunities. It would administer grants to support equitable access to participation in the Corps, reduce the cost of hosting members for service programs in the network, and support the development of new programs in geographic and topical areas that lack them.

The bill would have the Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board establish a clean energy technology advisory committee to evaluate clean energy technology workforce needs and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature. It would review workforce and business issues in the energy sector and its supply chain, and the impacts of the transition to clean energy on dependent sectors. It would recommend strategies to prevent workforce displacement, support job creation in clean energy technology, and provide support in dealing with workforce changes to businesses and adversely impacted workers. (The bill isn’t explicit, but apparently the Board would select the committee members from all interested parties, but including business and worker representatives from sectors affected by the transition.)

Each biennium, the Board would evaluate the workforce impact of Washington’s climate policies in consultation with the the advisory committee, the Department of Commerce, and Employment Security. It would do a literature review, in addition to its own research, on labor market trends and workforce demand in traditional and clean energy professions; demographics of the sectors; restructuring of jobs and skill sets associated with climate change mitigation policies; the wages and benefits of jobs in clean energy and the skills needed in them, an analysis of how the skills and training of the existing workforce can fill those needs; additional workforce development needs; and challenges that could emerge under multiple future decarbonization scenarios.

It would also make recommendations each biennium for necessary steps to support workforce training for clean energy technology occupations, consulting with postsecondary training partners, and considering the occupational training and skills already covered in existing programs; new skills that could be integrated into those; occupations and skill sets that require developing new programs; and resources needed to deliver training programs and support workers in the transition to clean energy technology.

The board would conduct a study of the feasibility of a program to preserve income and benefits for workers close to retirement who face job loss or transition because of energy technology sector changes. It would report at least every two years to the Governor and committees of the Legislature with recommendations on how the state can support worker and employer needs in response to changing workforce requirements for clean energy technology, including the recommendations of the advisory committee and the Board’s own work.

(The bill would also repeal the legislation establishing several earlier programs about workforce development in green industries.)

HB1175

HB1175 – Creates a state run financial insurance program for owners and operators of underground petroleum storage tanks.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsor Dye – R) (By request of the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology March 22nd. Passed out of committee March 28th and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there March 30th, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th.
Next step would be –  To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5233 is a companion bill in the Senate.
There’s a staff report on the bill.

In the House – Passed
Passed out of the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 23rd. Had a hearing in Appropriations on February 1st. Amended to delay the effective date of some provisions to October 2023 and passed out of committee February 8th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to authorize the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency to use any applicable law in trying to recover the expenses of any remedial action covered by the bill, and passed by the House March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would shift from the current State reinsurance program for underground storage tanks, which assumes part of the risk of private insurance companies’ policies, to a program the State runs itself. The Department of Ecology would manage the program, which would cover owners and operators who registered tanks with the department and complied with its eligibility requirements. The program would provide up to $2 million per release for remedial action and for compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage while the tank was registered, and up to $1 million for remedial action on releases before registration. Compensation would be limited to $3 million a year for releases from a single tank. Ecology would give preference to covering remedial costs, and could prioritize reimbursement based on the threats posed to human health and the environment; whether the people threatened might include a vulnerable population or an overburdened community; and other factors it chose. It would collect an annual fee for the costs of administering the program, which could not exceed $25,000 per participant.

The bill would return the tax on the wholesale value of petroleum products which funds claim payments through the Pollution Liability Insurance Program Trust Account to thirty one-hundredths of one percent from its reduction to half that in 2021. (The tax isn’t collected in a quarter if that account contains more than a set minimum or maximum; the bill doubles those amounts, to keep the account between $15 million and $30 million.) If there were not enough money in that account to pay claims, they’d be prioritized for future payment in the order they were filed, except that any creating an imminent threat to health or the environment would come first.

The bill includes allowing Ecology to assess tanks to determine program or cost eligibility, recover overpayments, and investigate or clean up a release with the owner or operator’s permission. It could deal with releases from tanks that weren’t in the program if they created risks to drinking water or were necessary to protect health and the environment in marginalized, overburdened, and underserved communities; and the owner consented and agreed to repaying the costs.

HB1173

HB1173 – Requires Ecology to create light mitigation standards for wind projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Connors (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 28th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by another striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the Senate April 7th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The extensive changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it. The changes made by the second striker on the floor are summarized by staff at the end of that. The floor amendment limits the requirements to projects with at least five turbines, no longer requires there to be more than one FAA approved technology for a county to adopt a wind energy ordinance, and removes practicability from the criteria for selecting light-mitigating technology.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 16th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor and passed by the House February 27th.

Substitute –
The substitute now simply requires utility scale wind projects or large turbines with obstruction lights to have aircraft detection lighting systems (or the best available light mitigation if the FAA doesn’t allow those systems). It has Ecology enforce that as a regulation rather than making it a condition of permitting. The striker delays the date for compliance by a year, requires the best “practicable” alternative technology rather than the best “available” technology when detection lighting systems aren’t allowed, and authorizes Ecology to delay enforcing the requirement in various situations.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology to develop rules to reduce the light pollution from projects, in consultation with DOT and the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, and with input from counties and cities. The rules would apply to new and existing projects, and to any aviation obstructions associated with the facility, including meteorological towers of any height. They’d include service and maintenance requirements and safety standards; and they would require sensors to detect approaching aircraft and automatically activate the appropriate lights until they were no longer needed.

HB1170

HB1170 – Updating the State’s climate resilience strategy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Couture – R) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to specify that nothing related to developing and updating the strategy creates any new or additional regulatory authority for any agency, and passed by the Senate April 8th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5093 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Concluded a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy on January 16th; amended and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th, amended to shift a deadline by one month and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 27th.

House Committee and Floor Amendments –
The committee amendments 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.

The House floor amendment added addressing and prioritizing specified risks and potential adaptive responses to the strategy, and would have the UW Climate Impacts group report on how to best evaluate resilience measures and their cost effectiveness.

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.

SB5144

SB5144 – Requires battery producers to participate in and fund a stewardship program providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Passed by both houses. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a staff report on the bill.
HB1553 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed

Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 14th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Appropriations March 30th. Replaced by another striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor, and passed by the House April 7th.
The changes made by the striker are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the end of it. The changes made by the second striker are summarized by staff at the end of that. The amendment removed Ecology’s authority to adopt rules by 2030 establishing a stewardship program for several other kinds of batteries, including large format ones. The floor amendment dropped various references to fees and civil actions about those batteries.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 24th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Replaced by a second substitute; passed out of committee and referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 7th.

Changes in the Senate –
The changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. An amendment exempted the improper disposal of covered batteries in a noncommercial or residential setting from the penalties. The second substitute made some minor changes in the definitions and the treatment of producers.  The changes made by the amendment on the Senate floor are summarized by staff at the beginning of that.

Comments –
A similar bill, HB2496, was introduced in the 2020 session and had a hearing in the House, but did not advance beyond that. A slightly revised version, HB1896, was introduced in 2022, eventually amended to create a study of the program rather than implementing it, and died in Rules. There are roughly 25 pages of details in the bill, and I haven’t tried to get all of them into the summary. (I’ve noted some of the changes from the 2022 bill in passing.)

Changes in the Senate –

Summary –
The bill would make producers responsible for creating and funding a product stewardship system for dealing with all used batteries under twenty-five pounds (with a few exceptions, including batteries in devices covered by the State’s electronics recycling program, ones that aren’t intended to be removed from products, and lead acid vehicle batteries). The bill would have people drop them off at “free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible” collection sites, and prohibit putting them in containers for landfills, incinerators, or waste-to-energy plants. (It would now allow them in mixed recycling.) The system would include education and outreach to encourage participation, but would now make retailers’ use of the materials producer organizations would have to make available voluntary. Batteries from producers who weren’t participating couldn’t be legally sold in the state.

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans would have to include collection goals for their first three years “based on” the past three years of battery sales in the state by  the producers participating in the plan, and a target to recycle at least 60% of the weight of collected rechargeable batteries and 70% of others. (These are ten percent reductions from the previous bill.) Plans have to include a system to collect charges from participating producers to cover the costs of the system, and structure the charges to encourage designs that reduce the environmental impacts of products. (They’d no longer be required to adjust the financial obligations of producers in proportion to their use of recycled content in batteries.) They’d have to indicate how facilities for dealing with the batteries would be managed with health and environmental justice standards broadly equivalent to those in the US.

There’d have to be collection sites for batteries under 11 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. Collection sites have to operate on a free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible basis for any person, business, government agency, or nonprofit organization. Programs have to use the collection sites of any retailer, wholesaler, municipality, solid waste management facility, or other entity that meet the requirements for sites and request it, but retailers don’t have to provide collection. Programs have to reimburse local governments for the costs of any facilities of theirs used as battery collection sites for the program.

Plans have to include safety training procedures for collection sites about reducing risks of spills or fires, and protocols for responding to those, for managing damaged batteries, and for collecting them at specified sites or events in each county . There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for rechargeable batteries between eleven and twenty-five pounds and other batteries between 4.4 and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people. (They have to be certified to handle and ship hazardous materials. )

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

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2027, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

After issuing a warning, Ecology can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for violations of the law and of up to $10,000 a day for intentional, knowing, or negligent violations. In addition, management organizations can sue producers that fail to join a stewardship organization or other battery stewardship organizations that fail to meet their obligations under the act to recover the costs of dealing with those additional batteries.

Details –
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; products containing batteries would have to certify they were labeled.

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

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

HB1138

HB1138 – Increasing preparations and funding for drought emergencies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Port Angeles) (Co-Sponsor Dent – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks March 16th. Replaced by a striker restoring the transfer to the emergency drought response account of enough money from the general fund to raise its balance to $3 million when a drought emergency is declared and passed out of committee March 23rd. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Passed out of committee April 3rd and referred to Rules. House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 13th; passed out of committee on the 17th. Had a hearing in Appropriations January 6th. Amended to remove both specified transfers of funds and require Ecology to report on expenditures from the drought response account after each emergency; passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Summary –
The bill would require transferring $2.5 million from the general fund to the drought preparedness account at the beginning of each biennium, and would allow using the money to plan for droughts as well as to prepare for them. It would allow the Department of Ecology’s grants to public entities to reduce current or future hardship caused by drought conditions to be used for projects even if they were not going to be completed while a drought emergency order was in effect. It would require transferring enough money from the general fund to raise the balance in a new emergency drought response account to $3 million when a drought emergency was declared; the account could only be used to provide relief for the immediate hardship caused by water unavailability. This process would be limited to one transfer in any fiscal year. (The funds could only be spent after appropriation, so I’m not sure when that appropriation for spending in an emergency would be expected to take place.)

The bill would have the chair convene the Joint Legislative Committee on Water Supply During Drought from time to time when a drought advisory was in effect, in addition to when a drought emergency order was, or when the chair determined, in consultation with Ecology, that it was likely such an emergency order would be issued within the next year.

HB1117

HB1117– Requiring the annual meeting of agencies, utilities and stakeholders to address the extent to which the state risks rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; Goldendale) (Co-Sponsors Dye – R & Leavitt – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker includes some of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s energy analytics experts in the annual stakeholders’ meetings and requires the conveners to invite them to provide relevant analytics to inform the discussion in 2023 if regional energy analytics capability has been established by the lab.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy  January 12th. Amended to make a couple of minor changes and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously March 4th.

Summary –
The law currently requires the UTC and the Department of Commerce to jointly convene a meeting of utilities, grid operators, and other stakeholders at least once a year to discuss power system planning and the adequacy of electric energy resources. The convenors provide a summary of each meeting to the Governor and the Legislature.

The bill would specify that the meeting in 2023 “must specifically address” the extent to which residents are at risk of rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacy events, and the extent to which proposed laws and regulations for building and transportation electrification may require new policy for resource adequacy. Stakeholders would be surveyed for recommendations on policy options to prevent severe blackouts, and the meeting would seek to identify regulatory and statutory incentives to enhance and ensure continuing resource adequacy and reliability.

HB1084

HB1084 – Having the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board make project recommendations to the Legislature rather than making grants itself.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Ramos, Ryu – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation March 27th; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously on March 7th.

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

Summary –
Under the bill, the State’s Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board would no longer be responsible for approving grants for public projects in designated strategic freight corridors. It would make recommendations about grants to the Legislature instead.

The Board would consult with various stakeholders and recommend a six-year investment program for the highest priority freight mobility projects in the state, including priority projects eligible for Federal grant funding for the Infrastructure Act; monitor the implementation of projects included in the program; identify critical emerging freight mobility issues not yet addressed by investments; and report to the Governor and the Legislature on its work by December 2024, and at least every two years after that. The Board would be authorized to provide technical assistance to project sponsors, not just to grant applicants, and to work with stakeholders on developing projects to address critical emerging issues.

The bill would discard the Board’s current rules for prioritizing project grants, and eliminate the current rules for allocating funds among projects, which have the first 55% of the funds go to the highest projects prioritized using criteria the law specifies, and then divide the rest equally among the Puget Sound region, Western Washington, and Eastern Washington. Instead, applicants would have to demonstrate a plan for “sufficient engagement” with overburdened communities impacted by the project, and for evaluation of project alternatives and mitigation measures addressing the impacts on these communities to the greatest extent possible. The Board would adopt other evaluation criteria for the six-year program of investments, including benefits to the state’s freight system, how much funding has already been secured for a project, readiness for construction, and regional distribution of projects. It would recommend appropriate levels of state funding for each project, ensuring funding is allocated to leverage the most partnership funding possible and that projects aren’t more appropriately funded by other sources. It would not recommend projects that appear to improve overall general mobility with limited enhancement for freight mobility.

The Board would be required to contract for a study of best practices for preventing or mitigating the impacts of freight systems in overburdened communities. The bill would add three members to twelve now on the Board – one for the package delivery industry; one for environmental protection interests; and one for overburdened communities. It would have the Department of Transportation coordinate with the Board in developing the periodic updates of the marine ports and navigation plan and the freight mobility plan that are parts of the multimodal transportation plan. It would add stronger environmental justice language and language about the climate benefits of enhanced freight mobility to the current law’s findings.

HB1085

HB1085 – Reducing plastic pollution.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on March 10th, and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules; passed by the Senate April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th, and passed out February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute made some minor changes in the bill’s details, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would have the building code require a bottle filling station or a combined filling station and drinking fountain in new construction where a drinking fountain is required. It would prohibit the sale or installation of overwater structures containing expanded or extruded plastic foam; and blocks or floats containing that foam and intended for use with such structures. (Floating homes would be exempted.) It would prohibit lodging establishments from providing personal health or beauty products in any single-use plastic packaging. (Enforcement of this requirement would primarily be based on complaints filed with the Department of Ecology, which would be required to create a forum for filing those, and would do education and outreach about the requirement.)

HB1033

HB1033 – Committee on standards to increase composting of food waste and reduce contaminants in compost.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th, amended to add a representative from a regulated company providing curbside pickup to the advisory committee, and passed out March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 12th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute adds a representative of hospitality businesses to the stakeholder committee, allows interested tribes to participate through invitations from Ecology, and adds home composting to the list of things for the committee to consider.

Summary –
The bill would create a stakeholder advisory committee to make recommendations to the Legislature on standards to divert increased amounts of food waste from landfills to composting facilities and to reduce the inclusion of non-compostable materials.

The committee would consider:
(a) The goals of managing organic materials to increase food waste diversion and to ensure that finished compost is clean;
(b) The types of compostable products, and amounts if known, sold or distributed into Washington;
(c) Consumer confusion caused by noncompostable products that can lead to contamination issues;
(d) Compostable standards related to the breakdown of products in facilities;
(e) The acceptance of compostable products by organic materials management facilities in Washington, including consideration of organic certifications;
(f) Estimates of the percentage of compostable products used in Washington that are disposed of at organic materials management facilities;
(g) Financial incentives for organic materials management facilities accepting compostable products;
(h) Current laws related to compostable products and the enforcement of these laws;
(i) Any work product from other stakeholder advisory committees currently discussing similar topics in other jurisdictions or nationwide; and
(j) Policy options addressing contamination of organic waste streams and ways to increase the use of reusable and refillable items.

The committee members would be selected by Ecology and include at least one member from:
(a) Cities, including both small and large cities and cities located in urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents cities in Washington;
(b) Counties, including both small and large counties and urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents county solid waste managers in Washington;
(c) Municipal collectors, or companies providing curbside organic materials collection services or curbside organic materials management services under a municipal contract;
(d) Three organic materials management facility operators, including at least one operator of a facility that doesn’t currently accept compostable food service products and one operator of a facility that does currently accept them;
(e) An environmental nonprofit organization specializing in waste and recycling issues;
(f) Two manufacturers of compostable products, including at least one manufacturer of compostable food service products and one manufacturer of compostable plastic food service products;
(g) A distributor of compostable food service products;
(h) A statewide general business trade association;
(i) A retail grocery association;
(j) Two organizations that act as third-party certifiers of compostable products;
(k) The Department of Agriculture; and
(l) Two associations focused on organic materials recycling or composting.

An independent facilitator hired by the Department of Ecology would convene the committee, hire any needed subcontractors, provide staff support to the committee, prepare reports for its review, and deliver a report to appropriate legislative committees with its consensus recommendations on developing standards for managing compostable products, especially food service products. (The report’s to include the dissenting opinions on issues on which there wasn’t consensus.)

HB1018

HB1018 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Tharinger (D; 24th District; NW Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Chapman & Fey – Ds; Orcutt & Abbarno – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Ways and Means March 23rd; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5030 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in 2021 as HB1387, but did not get a hearing. It passed the House last year as HB1924, under Representative Tharinger’s sponsorship.

In the House –
Passed out of the House Finance Committee  January 19th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current sales and use tax exemptions for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel for ten years, until June 2034. (The bill declares the policy objective of the exemption is to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least 75 percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan, but this is not a requirement. It’s only to be used by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in evaluating the effectiveness of the exemption.)

JLARC reviewed a previous exemption in 2019. It estimated that the exemption would save the sixteen participating facilities $5.6 million over the 2021-2023 biennium. Employment had only gone down by 281 jobs between 2013 and 2017, from 5,139 jobs to 4,858, so that exemption easily met the stated policy goal of retaining at least 75% of the jobs.