Category Archives: House Bills 2021

HB1577

HB1577– Issuing up to $4.943 billion in bonds, backed by a tax on fossil fuels, to be used for clean transportation investments and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; South Seattle, Renton, and Tukwila) (Co-sponsor Wicks – D)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill retains the carbon tax and bond provisions of SB5373, but it would direct 60% of the revenue to transportation investments that reduce emissions, and the remaining 40% to a variety of projects focused on clean energy, efficiency, and emissions reductions. It makes some adjustments to 5373’s environmental justice provisions and its reporting requirements, specifies that Ecology has the authority to regulate indirect emissions, and requires the department to exercise specified powers under the Clean Air Act to ensure that the emissions it regulates will be reduced to the levels required by the State’s targets if it determines by October 30th 2025 that the bill’s provisions are not likely to be enough to do that.

Details about the changes from 5373 (In process…) –

Investments –
Revenue from the bill must be used by the Department of Commerce for projects and incentive programs in Washington that yield verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in excess of baseline practices, for community engagement to support decision making on priority investments, and with high priority placed on funding projects that directly benefit economically distressed areas.

At least 35% of total investments must provide “direct and meaningful benefits” to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of highly impacted communities designated by the Department of Health’s cumulative impact analysis. At least 25% of total investments must benefit projects in rural areas, “or” at least 10% of total investments must be used for programs, activities, or projects formally supported by a resolution of an Indian tribe, with priority given to otherwise qualifying projects directly administered or proposed by a tribe. (There’s a provision I don’t follow saying that projects meeting both of these last two requirements “may count toward the requisite minimum percentage for this subsection”.)

Sixty percent of the funds remaining after servicing bonds must go to miles ahead transportation investments in programs, activities, or projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, including:
1. Reducing vehicle miles traveled, including transportation demand management, non-motorized transportation, affordable transit-oriented housing, and high-speed rural broadband;
2. Increasing public transportation services, including public transit;
3. Deploying vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure with a strong emphasis on underserved communities and low to moderate-income members of the workforce not readily served by transit, or located in corridors with emissions that exceed federal or state standards. Supporting alternative fuel car sharing programs to provide opportunities to them;
4. Providing financing assistance to facilitate purchasing battery and fuel cell electric vehicles by lower income residents;
5. Providing grants to transit authorities for cost-effective capital projects reducing the carbon intensity of the system including electrification of fleets, modification or replacement of capital facilities to facilitate fleet electrification or renewable hydrogen refueling, upgrades to transmission and distribution systems, and construction of charging and fueling stations;
6. Supporting small trucking firms converting vehicles to cleaner alternative fuels, access to necessary fueling infrastructure, and assistance in mitigating the costs of the transition to cleaner fuel vehicles;
7. Electrifying and decarbonizing the state’s vehicle and passenger ferry fleet, and converting state, county, city, and public transit agency fleets to clean alternative fuels;
8. Reducing or mitigating the impacts of copollutant emissions in overburdened communities or vulnerable populations, including the expansion of monitoring networks for them;
9. Reducing emissions from vessels, onshore equipment and vehicles, including provision of shore power, reducing vehicle congestion and excessive idling, and installing clean fuel infrastructure;
10. Investing in rail and high-speed rail with the incremental installation of rail electrification integrated with local power generation; and
11. Supporting converting farm vehicles to cleaner alternative fuels, acquisition of and access to fueling infrastructure, and mitigating the costs of the transition to cleaner fuel vehicles.

The other forty percent of the money must be spent on projects and
programs including:
1. Activities to restore and improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to drought, insect infestation, disease, and other threats to healthy forests including silvicultural treatments, seedling development, thinning and prescribed fire and postfire recovery activities to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources and minimize threats to life and property resulting from wildfire. (Priority must be given to programs, activities, or projects aligned with various current forest plans.)
2. Supplementing the growth management planning and environmental review fund for making grants or loans to local governments for the planning costs;
3. Deploying renewable energy resources, distributed generation, energy storage, demand side technologies and strategies, and other grid modernization projects;
4. Supporting programs, activities, or projects within the Department of Commerce’s clean energy fund;
5. Increase the energy efficiency or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of industrial facilities including proposals to implement upgrading the energy efficiency of equipment, reducing process emissions, or switching to less emissions intensive fuels;
6. Achieving energy efficiency or emissions reductions in the agricultural sector including fertilizer management, soil management, bioenergy, and biofuels (including funding the sustainable farms and fields grant program); preserving or increasing carbon sequestration and storage benefits in soils, marine and freshwater areas; and through forest management, planting, and forest products.
7. Increasing energy in new and existing buildings, including weatherization and other retrofits, or promoting low-carbon architecture, including the use of low carbon building materials;
8. Funding programs, activities, or projects within the Department of Commerce’s weatherization plus health initiative;
9. Promoting the electrification and decarbonization of new and existing buildings;
10. Improving energy efficiency, including district energy, and investments in market transformation of energy efficiency products; and
11. Providing incentives and technical assistance to stationary sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants.

Increasing Ecology’s authority –
The bill specifies that the definitions of “emissions” that Ecology can regulate under the Clean Air Act include indirect emissions of greenhouse gases resulting the consumption, use, combustion, or oxidation of the petroleum products and natural gas. It specifies that the Department can require persons that produce or distribute products that emit greenhouse gases in the state to comply with air quality standards, emission standards, or emission limitations on greenhouse gases. It requires Ecology to decide by October 30th 2025 whether it’s likely that the tax will reduce the emissions it covers enough to obtain their share of the reductions needed to reach the State’s targets, and it requires Ecology to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to impose enough additional limitations on those emissions to reach the targets if it determines that the tax is not likely to do that.

Other changes –

The environmental justice and equity panel is now to provide “guidance” as well as recommendations about the development and implementation of the programs, projects, and activities funded by the bill. It has an additional member representing the agricultural community. The bill now says the Department of Commerce must “apply recommendations through iterative consultation with the environmental justice and economic equity panel” in the development of policies and procedures for the allocation of funding under this section, as well as the implementation plan, rather than saying it must “seek recommendations” on those from the panel.

The bill no longer allows fossil fuels that are subject to another jurisdiction’s carbon price to count that charge as a credit against their obligations under the bill. It adds several additional kinds of reporting. It rewrites Section 13, about managing taxable and non-taxable bond proceeds to comply with the IRS rules. It adds some details to the language about fair labor standards.

HB1572

HB1572 – Exempts rental car company purchases of EVs and hybrids from sales and use taxes; applies the current tax on car rentals to peer-to-peer car sharing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; West Seattle)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would exempt a rental car company’s purchases of electric and hybrid vehicles to be used exclusively as rentals from the sales and use taxes. It would apply the current 5.9% tax on car rentals to peer-to-peer car sharing transactions, unless rental car companies were authorized to use reseller permits to buy vehicles for use as rental cars, or were exempted from paying “sales or use tax or or any other tax generally applicable to a transaction involving the acquisition of any motor vehicle.” [That seems to mean that this new tax would not apply if the bill passed, since the bill does seem to exempt them from sales and use taxes, so I don’t see what this provision is intended to do.]

HB1548

HB1548 – Frees regular hybrids without plugs from the extra $75 transportation electrification fee for EVs and alternative fuel vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Klippert (R; 8th District; Benton County) (Co-Sponsor Shewmake – D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportation
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently fully electric vehicles, other alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in hybrids and regular hybrids pay an additional $75 a year as a transportation electrification fee, which goes to supporting the adoption of electric vehicles until July 1, 2025. (After that, the money will go to the regular motor vehicle account.) The bill would eliminate the fee for regular hybrids.

HB1457

HB1457 – Facilitating the installation of broadband facilities on limited access highways.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wiley (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Riccelli, Kloba, Santos, Slatter, Shewmake, Ramel, and Hackney – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there February 16th. Amended and passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor and passed by the House March 8th. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 15th.
In the Senate –
Referred to the Transportation Committee. Had a hearing March 16th; replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 30th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate unanimously April 10th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Transportation Striker –
This authorizes the Department of Transportation to install conduit for broadband when doing highway projects if no broadband operator chooses to do it, and makes a few other minor changes which are summarized at the end of it.

House Striker –
The striker expands the Department of Transportation’s current authority to grant franchises for using state highways to construct and maintain various facilities to include fiber optics, and adds a number of items to the potential Joint Transportation Committee report.
Amendments –
The amendments broadened the study to include all highway corridors and made a couple of other very small changes.

Original bill –
Requires the Department of Transportation to proactively provide broadband facility owners with information about planned limited access highway projects to collaboratively identify opportunities for installing of broadband infrastructure during the appropriate phase of these projects when such opportunities exist.

If specific funding’s appropriated the bill would have the Joint Transportation Committee oversee a consultant’s study to recommend:
1.An effective Department of Transportation strategy, and specific limited access highway corridors, that could be used to address missing fiber connections and inadequate broadband service in underserved parts of the state;
2. The most promising planning and financing tools for installing conduit in anticipation of future fiber installation by others;
3. Opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships between
the Department and service providers to provide broadband for transportation purposes such as intelligent transportation systems, cooperative automated transportation/autonomous vehicles, transportation demand management, and highway maintenance; and,
4. Strategies for mitigating potential safety, operations, and preservation impacts related to the recommendations.

The study would also have to include an examination of any State and Federal laws and regulations that could prevent or limit the
implementation of the recommendations, as well as recommendations for modifications to the applicable State laws and regulations.

HB1502

HB1502 – Specifies competitive bidding procedures counties may use in designing and procuring electric ferries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wiley (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Griffey – R, Ramel, Paul, Lekanoff, Berry, Ortiz-Self, Hackney, Harris-Talley, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there February 17th. Amended and passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the House February 26th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 15th, and passed out of committee March 30th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate, unanimously, April 11th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill simply lists procedures in detail; they seem to be optional, except for a couple. I’m not sure whether a county already has the legal authority to buy an electric ferry or not, but it sounds as if it does.

The amendment would require the Department of Transportation’s Office of Equal Opportunity to specify a percentage of the contract award amount for county electric ferry procurement that the prime contractor would have to meet by subcontracting with small businesses.

HB1537

HB1573 – Terminates some tax exemptions for particular uses of fossil fuels.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-sponsors Harris-Talley, Berry, and Macri – D’s)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance. Had a hearing March 23rd.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
As of January 1st, 2022, the bill would eliminate the current blanket state and local use tax exemptions for natural gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied natural gas used as a transportation fuel. It would continue to exempt their use by a transit agency, if it had been doing that before 2025. It would continue to exempt renewable natural gas used as a transportation fuel, and compressed or liquefied versions of that. It would exempt users from the tax if they offset that consumption with renewable gas credits purchased from a distribution business in the state.

It removes the current exemption from the tax to fund the pollution liability insurance program for natural gas, petroleum coke, and liquid fuel or fuel gas used in petroleum processing .

It removes the current exemption for propane or natural gas used to heat chicken houses.

HB1534

HB1534 – Expands HB1513’s carbon tax to cover energy intensive trade exposed manufacturing industries, giving them a gradually reduced number of tradable credits against the tax over time, and ways to earn bonus credits.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsor Lekanoff – D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
HB1513 would have the Department of Ecology make recommendations to the Legislature about how to apply its carbon tax to energy intensive trade exposed industries. This bill would tax the carbon content of the full life cycle emissions of fossil fuels sold or used by energy intensive trade exposed manufacturing industries at the same rates and with the same potential increases as HB1513 – starting at $25/tonne in 2022, a year earlier than HB1513’s tax, and increasing at 2% a year plus inflation, with the same provisions for additional increases if the sector is not achieving its share of the reductions needed to meet the state’s targets. (If a particular facility had achieved its own share of those reductions it would be exempt from the additional increases on its sector.) Revenues from the tax could only be used to fund the working families tax exemption and for workforce transition investments.

By June 30, 2022, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Ecology, would have to create objective numeric criteria for identifying the covered EITE facilities, including those in the cement, steel, aluminum, food processing, pulp and paper, and aircraft, missile, and space craft production industries, and for identifying their greenhouse gas emissions. The rules would also establish an emissions baseline for each facility, taking into account its output and the number of employees. The Department of Ecology is to create rules for calculating the carbon content of emissions, as in HB1513.

The bill would exempt fuels that the State’s prohibited from taxing by Federal law or by laws about Indians’ property, fuel exported from the state, aircraft fuels, and any fuels that aren’t fossil fuels. (Since it only applies to emissions from facilities, it drops a number of HB1534’s exemptions for things like agricultural fuels.)  Fuels that have already paid a carbon tax or charge on their lifecycle emissions to another jurisdiction would be eligible for a credit of up to that amount against the tax owed in Washington.

EITE’s would pay the tax on natural gas sold to or used at their facilities. Motor vehicle fuel and special fuel used at facilities would be taxed through HB1513. The bill specifies other reporting requirements including new ones for refineries, and details about which parties would be responsible for paying the tax and when.

Until July 1, 2030, a facility would be able to take a credit against the tax equal to what it would have paid on 70% of its emissions in 2019,  plus any bonus credits it earned. A new facility beginning activities in 2020 through 2029 would be able to take an initial credit for the tax on 70% of their emissions in the first year (plus bonus credits). If an estimate by Ecology of the emissions a facility was expected to produce given its output and current standards of technology were available before 2030, and was lower than its 2019 emissions, a facility could take a credit for 70% of that estimate, plus bonus credits. (Exactly which facilities can use which of these last two options isn’t clear to me.) Credits would be tradeable and bankable.

Beginning in July 2030, facilities would be able to claim bonus credits plus a credit for 70% of the tax that would be owed on the same industrial output at a best in class benchmark designated by Ecology, or bonus credits plus a credit for 70% of the emissions Ecology determines the facility would produce if all life-cycle cost-effective efficiency measures identified by a third-party energy service company using OFM’s Washington state life-cycle cost tool were implemented. (If a benchmark hasn’t been set, a facility can claim credits for 70% of the emissions Ecology estimates it’s expected to produce or 70% of its emissions for the most recent year with data, plus bonuses.)

The Department of Labor and Industries would develop a point system for various business practices, employee benefits, or policies concerning treatment of workers, and establish a minimum threshold of points to be used as a baseline for awarding bonus credits. It could consider a variety of practices, benefits, or policies, with a special emphasis on:
1. Having collective bargaining agreement, or a policy where the employer agrees to remain neutral, work with, or provide information to a labor organization for unionizing employees;
2. Offering at least 85% of employees health insurance, with the majority of premiums funded by the employer; coverage equal to or better than a silver plan on the Washington exchange, and including an option for dependents.
3. Providing at least 85% of employees a living wage, at a level the Department establishes as appropriate, but which must be at least the median hourly wage of the county in which a project is sited;
4. Offering at least 85% of employees retirement benefits;
5. Prioritizing hiring workers displaced from or having an elevated likelihood of being displaced from sectors vulnerable to a transition to a low-carbon economy; living close to the workplace, and facing barriers to employment; and,
6. Using state-registered apprenticeship programs.
The Department  may establish different standards for different sectors to reflect variations in workplace conditions and may include other flexibility mechanisms to facilitate protection of workers and to ensure that project sponsors are highly likely to be able to comply with the criteria.

Facilities that have met the minimum threshold of points for employment performance standards that the Department establishes can earn bonus credits to apply against their carbon tax obligations. They can get credits covering an additional 2% of their emissions for exceeding the minimum threshold of points. If they exceed the threshold and have not reduced the number of full-time jobs associated with the facility over the most recent two years they can get credits covering an additional 3.5% of their emissions. If they exceed the threshold and increase employment they can get credits covering 3.5% of their emissions plus credits covering the percentage of their emissions corresponding to the percentage of increased full time employment at the facility over the previous year, up to a cap on bonus credits at covering 5% of their emissions.

The bill has the same provisions for reporting refineries’ emissions as HB1513 does, if they’re designated as EITEs. Like HB1513, it would stop the Department of Ecology from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but would authorize it to use the full extent of its authority to regulate them under the Act to help achieve the state’s targets for reductions if the tax were invalidated. It also requires Ecology to create rules for measuring the carbon content of covered emissions.

 

HB1514

HB1514 – Extends tax exemptions for commuter ride sharing vehicles to any carpool or vanpool transporting at least three people, including the driver.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Taylor (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-sponsors Ramos, Harris-Talley – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 17th. Replaced by a substitute, voted out of committee, and referred to Rules February 22nd. Passed by the House March 5th. House concurred in the Senate’s amendments April 13th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 15th, and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Ways and Means;  had a hearing March 31st;  amended, passed out of committee and referred to Rules April 2nd. Passed by the Senate April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5457 is a companion bill to this.

Summary –
Amendment in Ways and Means –
This would limit the tax exemption for vehicles that aren’t operated by a pubic transit agency to those with at least five passengers.

Substitute –
There’s a summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. (It now specifically excludes ride hailing companies’ vehicles along with a variety of others, removes the changes to the definition of a “commute trip”, and makes other small changes.)

Original bill –
Currently, the Commute Trip Reduction Incentives Act provides tax exemptions for vehicles that will be used for at least three years in commuter car pools or van pools making one round trip a day. They’re exempted from the State sales and use taxes, and from the motor vehicle excise tax. (It also exempts them from the regulations applying to drivers or owners of motor vehicles operated for hire, common carriers and public transit carriers, and protects those promoting ride sharing from any civil suits arising from the maintenance or operation of the vehicles.)

The bill expands the scope of these provisions by dropping the references to commuting, and redefining ridesharing as any “carpool or vanpool arrangement whereby one or more groups” of at least three people and not more than fifteen, including the driver, are transported. (I don’t know if this definition would include operations like Uber Pool or not.)

HB1513

HB1513 – Modifying SB5373 on issuing up to $4.943 billion in bonds, backed by a tax on fossil fuels, to be used for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and natural climate solutions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; parts of Whatcom, Skagit, & San Juan County) (Co-sponsor Shewmake – D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
SB5373 is a similar bill in the Senate.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill maintains the general structure of SB5373, but modifies it in a number of ways. The Senate bill has Ecology make recommendations to the Legislature if it decides the tax isn’t high enough to produce specified reductions; this bill would raise the rate until it was predicted to achieve them. Its definition of “greenhouse gases” would include any Ecology designated. It would not exempt fossil fuel burned in the state to generate electricity, and would require refineries to report their fossil fuel use.  It adds some details about collaborating with the Department of Licensing to administer the tax on motor fuels, and reporting by companies on how the costs of the tax are being passed on to consumers. It no longer includes a four year trial period in which emissions from any energy-intensive trade exposed industries that weren’t exempted by new Ecology rules would be taxed, though it keeps the Senate bill’s requirement for a 2026 report to the Governor and the Legislature with recommendations on taxing those emissions. It specifies that the tax doesn’t apply to electricity or to any fuels that aren’t fossil fuels, such as green hydrogen, not just biofuels. It drops specified funding for the sustainable farms and fields grants program, and for riparian easements. It would provide environmental justice oversight through the Environmental Justice Council that would be created by this session’s SB5141, rather than through SB5373’s Environmental and Economic Justice Panel, and define its responsibilities differently.  It would create a new Climate Oversight Board. It no longer requires high priority to be given to funding projects that directly benefit the economically distressed areas defined in RCW 43.168.020, would not require 25% of the investments to benefit rural areas, and would drop the Senate bill’s section on required consultation with tribes. It makes a number of small changes about agency roles and other things.

It’s not clear to me whether it would increase Ecology’s current authorization to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if the tax were invalidated.

Summary –
The bill places a carbon tax of $25/metric ton on the life cycle CO2 equivalent emissions associated with the sale or use of fossil fuels burned in the state. It’s to begin in 2023, increase by 5% a year and be adjusted for inflation. Every two years the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Ecology, would have to reevaluate the tax rate needed to ensure the state achieved a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. In January 2030, if Ecology determined that the emissions covered by the bill weren’t falling at a sufficient rate to produce their share of the reductions needed to meet the state’s targets, the rate would increase by $10/tonne, with an added annual increase of $2/tonne each year until Ecology estimated it would be sufficient to achieve the needed reductions. At that point, the added $2 annual increase would no longer apply. All the revenue is to be used to fund projects and activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate the environmental impacts of those emissions and of climate change. The bill would stop the Department of Ecology from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but would authorize it to use the full extent of its authority to regulate them under the Act  to help achieve the state’s targets for reductions if the tax were invalidated.

The tax is to be paid by the state and political subdivisions like counties and cities as well as by businesses. Distribution companies are to pay the tax on natural gas sold to retail customers and to utilities for generating power; direct access customers are to pay the tax on their gas use. The tax on motor vehicle fuel and special fuel is to be paid by the same parties who are currently responsible for paying the fuel tax. The bill specifies reporting and payment requirements for refineries.

The bill exempts fuel brought into the state in a primary fuel supply tank and burned, fuels that the State’s prohibited from taxing by Federal law or by laws about Indians’ property, fuel exported from the state, coal burned at the Transalta plant, agricultural and aircraft fuels, any fuels that aren’t fossil fuels, and fuel bought in the state but burned outside it by ships and interstate motor carriers. During a five year transition period, it exempts fuels used for transporting logs and agricultural products,  and for extracting timber. Fuels that have already paid a carbon tax or charge on their lifecycle emissions to another jurisdiction are eligible for a credit of up to that amount against the tax owed in Washington. By July 30th 2026, the Department of Ecology is to make recommendations to the Legislature on applying the tax to emissions from energy intensive trade exposed industries.

The bill gives the Departments of Revenue, Ecology, Licensing, Transportation, and Commerce the authority to adopt any rules they deem necessary to implement it; Ecology, Commerce, and the WSU Energy Extension Program are to provide technical assistance in administering the bill to the Department of Revenue if it requests it. The Department of Revenue is to issue a report every two years including:
1. The total carbon pollution taxes collected during the reporting period and a list of the taxpayers and the tax they paid;
2. Estimated costs incurred by the department, Commerce, and Ecology in administering the bill, as a dollar amount and as a percentage of the tax collected;
3. The impact on the state’s economy including verifiable data on emissions leakage and any job losses since the implementation of the tax, and
4. A summary of the investments made through Commerce’s allocations of the revenue, including amounts invested in each program area, project descriptions, names of grant recipients, an estimate of the emissions reductions achieved or anticipated via the investments, and other information requested by the Legislature.
The report’s to include recommendations for modifying or improving the act to ensure its goals are being met, and the first report is to include recommendations for auditing the expenditures. The Department of Commerce is to provide information on its website about the impacts of the tax on the price of natural gas and vehicle fuels by sector, and must provide an environmental justice analysis reporting on the environmental, health, and economic impacts of climate and of state measures taken to meet our emissions limits on highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations.

The Finance Committee is authorized to issue up to $4.943 billion in bonds during a ten year period, with terms that mean they’ll be fully repaid no later than December 31, 2050. They may be tax exempt or taxable, may be certified as green bonds or climate bonds, and may include new bonds to pay off outstanding bonds. They’re to be secured solely by pledged revenues from the carbon tax, and their repayment is to be the first priority for spending those. (Up to 5% of the remaining revenue may be used for administering the provisions of the bill.)

The backers of SB5373 estimate $16 billion will be raised by the tax over the first ten years, after the payment of 3.5% in debt service. Thus, funds will be available from the bonds when they are issued, and then from the portion of the ongoing revenue stream that isn’t needed for repayment of the principal, debt service and administrative expenses. 75% of that money available for investments is to be spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (75% of this money is to be spent on programs, projects, and activities to reduce or mitigate the impact of transportation emissions, including:
1. Deploying clean alternative fuel vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure;
2. Supporting clean alternative fuel car sharing programs for underserved communities and low to moderate-income workers not readily served by transit, or in corridors with emissions that exceed federal or state standards;
3. Providing financing to facilitate the purchase of battery and fuel cell electric vehicles by lower-income residents;
4. Providing grants to transit authorities for cost-effective capital projects that reduce the carbon intensity of the transportation system including electrifying fleets, modifying
or replacing capital facilities to facilitate fleet electrification or hydrogen refueling, upgrading transmission and distribution systems, and constructing charging and fueling stations;
5. Providing support to small trucking firms in converting vehicles to cleaner alternative fuels, acquiring and accessing fueling infrastructure, and mitigating the costs of transitioning to cleaner vehicles;
6. Electrifying and decarbonizing the passenger ferry fleet; and
7. Converting state, county, city, and public transit agency fleets to battery or fuel cell electric vehicles.

The remaining 25% of this money for reducing emissions may be spent on programs, activities, or projects in the state including:
1. Supplementing the growth management planning and environmental review fund for making grants or loans to local governments for land use planning;
2. Deploying renewable energy resources or distributed generation, energy storage, demand side technologies and strategies, and modernizing the grid;
3. Increasing the energy efficiency or reducing the greenhouse emissions of industrial facilities including implementing combined heat and power, district energy, or on-site renewables, upgrading the energy efficiency of existing equipment, reducing process emissions, and switching to less emissions intensive fuel;
4. Achieving energy efficiency or emissions reductions in the agricultural sector through steps such as fertilizer management, soil management, bioenergy, and biofuels;
5. Increasing energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, or promoting low-carbon
architecture, including the use of building materials that result in a lower carbon footprint over the life cycle of the building and component materials;
6. Promoting the electrification and decarbonization of new and existing buildings, and
7. Improving energy efficiency, including supporting district energy, and investments in market transformation by energy efficiency products.

The other 25% of the initial revenue from the bonds, and what’s remaining from the ongoing tax revenue after servicing the bonds and paying administrative expenses, is to be spent on natural climate solutions – to increase the resilience of waters, forests, and other vital ecosystems to the impacts of climate change, and to increase their carbon pollution reduction capacity through sequestration, storage, and ecosystem integrity. It can be spent to:
1. Restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats, and prepare for sea level rise including making fish passage correction investments;
2. Increase the ability to remediate and adapt to ocean acidification;
3. Reduce flood risk and restore natural floodplain ecological function;
4. Increase the sustainable supply of water and improve aquatic habitat, including groundwater mapping and modeling;
5. Improve infrastructure treating stormwater from previously developed areas within an urban growth boundary, with a preference for projects that use green stormwater infrastructure; or to
6. Preserve or increase carbon sequestration and storage benefits in agricultural soils and timber stock.

It can also be spent on forest investments to:
1. Increase resilience to wildfire in the face of increased seasonal temperatures and drought; or
2. Improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change.

At least 35% of the investments under the bill must provide direct benefits to vulnerable populations in highly impacted communities; at least 25% of them must benefit rural areas, and at least 10% of them must benefit tribes. The bill would have the Environmental Justice Council that would be created by this session’s SB5141 “prepare recommendations for and provide oversight of the impacts of the … tax … and associated programs …affecting low- income populations, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities.” It would define environmental justice progress indicators for the act including:
1. The elimination of materials emitting carbon dioxide, black carbon, methane, nitrogen oxides, and fluorinated gases imported into or extracted in the state;
2. The elimination of the emissions outside the state attributable to consumption in the state;
3. Air quality, water quality, and land and buildings free from toxins associated with fossil fuels;
4. The elimination of environmental health disparities that disproportionately impact households that are Black, indigenous, people of color’s, or are in areas that are highly impacted communities; and
5. The reduction of economic inequality and elimination of poverty and the prevalence of livelihoods and high-road employment opportunities accessible to all.
It would also “define and provide instruction on meaningful consultation with vulnerable populations and low-income populations” and provide opportunities for vulnerable populations to consult on the implementation of the act.

The bill would create a Climate Oversight Board appointed by the Governor and responsible for ongoing review of the implementation of the tax and funding to ensure the fairest, most equitable, most efficient, and timely achievement of bill’s objectives. Members would come from a specified list of stakeholders, would serve four yer terms, and would select a chair from the Board. It’s responsibilities would include reviewing  plans for implementing the funding programs including the criteria for allocations and project awards, as well as information about projects and funding decisions. It would review progress reports by agencies and compliance with consultation requirements; and would provide recommendations for standards for measuring emissions reductions from investments. It’s authorized to act jointly with the Environmental Justice Council in carrying out these responsibilities, and to contract with the Washington Academy of Sciences to provide evaluations. It’s to report to the Legislature every two years.

HB1488

HB1488 – Requires increasing the amounts of recycled post consumer content in plastic packaging in several stages.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; scheduled for a hearing February 11th at 1:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill requires increasing the amounts of recycled post consumer content in plastic packaging in several stages. Covered packaging includes detachable plastic attached to items, like tags; and plastic that’s combined with other materials such as plastic bottles with metal lids and blister packs combining plastic and paperboard; but not plastic-coated paper packaging or aseptic containers. It makes the “producers” of plastic packaging, defined as manufacturers and any wholesalers, suppliers, or retailers that have “contractually undertaken responsibility to the manufacturer for the covered product”, responsible for meeting the requirements. Government agencies, municipalities, and other political subdivisions of the state; charitable and social welfare organizations; and health care facilities and providers are exempted. It doesn’t apply to individual containers, but to the percentage by weight of recycled content across the entire product line of the packaging they sell, offer for sale, or distribute in the state.

Packaging made mostly of #1 PETE (polyethylene terephthalate) or #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene) would have to contain at least 15% postconsumer recycled plastic
from July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026; at least 25% during the next four years; and at least 50% after 2030. (#1 PETE is used in a variety of clear containers like soft drink bottles and peanut butter jars. #2 HDPE is used things like milk jugs, laundry detergent bottles, and motor oil containers.)

Rigid packaging made mostly of any other plastics would have to contain at least 15% postconsumer recycled plastic from July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2030; at least 25% during the next six years; and at least 50% after 2035.

Flexible packaging made mostly of any other plastics would have to contain at least 10% postconsumer recycled plastic from July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2028; at least 20% during the next seven years; and at least 30% after 2035.

Every other year after 2024, or in response to a petition by the industry or a manufacturer, but not more than once a year, the Department of Ecology would have to consider reducing these requirements, taking into account changes in market conditions, including supply and demand for postconsumer recycled plastics, collection rates, and bale availability; recycling rates; the availability of suitable recycled plastic; recycling or processing capacity; the progress made by packaging manufacturers in meeting the requirements; and the carbon footprint of the transportation and manufacturing of the recycled resin. However, it couldn’t reduce the requirements below the initial minimums.

The bill exempts:
1. Plastic packaging and food serviceware for serving prepared serving food at a drive through; in packaged form for takeout; or from food trucks, stands, delis, or kiosks;
2. Plastic carryout bags currently subject to State recycled content requirements;
3. Compostable packaging that meets the current State requirements for compostable bags and food service products;
4. Packaging for drugs, medical devices, or dietary supplements regulated by the FDA; and drugs used for veterinary medicine, including parasiticide products for animals.
5. Packaging containing milk, medical food, or infant formula; wine or non-alcoholic wine; distilled spirits; 100% fruit juice in containers of at least 46 ounces and 100% vegetable juice in containers of at least 16 ounces;
6. Plastic containers for toxic or hazardous products regulated by the Federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act;
7. Plastic containers manufactured for shipping hazardous materials, or prohibited from being manufactured with used material by Federal standards;
8. Architectural paint currently covered by the State’s stewardship program;
9. Plastic in containers for hazardous Federally regulated aerosols;
10. Three and five gallon water cooler containers that are part of a water cooler system; and,
11. Packaging intended for the long-term or permanent storage or protection of a durable product, such as an included carrying case for it.

The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are to jointly appoint a stakeholder committee with at least one member representing seventeen specified groups. It’s to make recommendations to Ecology about adopting rules on methods for aggregating materials to determine compliance, as well as exemptions, exceptions, or alternative
compliance requirements; it’s to periodically review the rules Ecology creates, and the departments to provide a written explanation to the committee about recommended exemptions it implements or denies. The rules the committee’s to consider include ones about:
1. Plastic packaging, including food contact packaging, that is subject to federal laws, regulations, or requirements;
2. Packaging that’s determined by the department through life-cycle analysis to exhibit environmentally superior performance when it doesn’t contain postconsumer recycled content or contains smaller amounts than the bill requires;
3. Packaging from producers with an annual sale or distribution in the state of less than one ton;
4. Packaging associated with a single point of retail sale in Washington;
5. Packaging from women or minority-owned producers, if the department determines such an exemption is in the public interest;
6. Packaging that’s necessary to provide tamper-resistant seals for public health purposes or used for food protection and delivery or child-resistant packaging; or that’s intended for reuse by a business as part of its regular operations.

Starting in July 2023, the bill imposes an annual fee on producers of up to $200/ton for failing to meet the required minimum percentages. The fee is supposed to be set at a level which will raise between $30 million and $40 million each biennium. Ecology’s allowed to adjust it for individual producers after considering anomalous market conditions; disruptions in supplies of recycled plastics or shortages; the extent to which a producer has reduced overall packaging waste generated with recyclable, compostable, or reusable alternatives; and other factors including State or Federal laws and regulations. Producers must have a corrective action plan explaining their shortfall and the steps they will take to correct it within a year approved by Ecology to be eligible for a reduction, and Ecology has to provide a written explanation for its decision about a request for one, including the standards it uses in reviewing a plan and how it applied them in this case, an explanation of actions a producer can take in a future plan to reduce fees or other requirements; an an explanation of the methodology used in determining the fee.

Up to 10% of the revenue from fees may be used by Ecology to pay the costs of administering and enforcing the program. A year’s worth of funding for developing the program is allocated from the waste reduction, recycling, and litter control account; and $1 million a year from the fees is to go to that account in subsequent years until June 30th, 2034. The rest of the money’s to go to cities and counties that are eligible for support under the waste management act. They can use the money for solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education; and to improve recycling infrastructure and the recyclability of plastic packaging through curbside recycling programs, or through depots or collection points for plastics that aren’t effectively collected or processed through those. Ecology’s to develop rules for distributing the funds in conjunction with an advisory committee convened by the department, and including five members appointed by the Washington Association of County Solid Waste Managers and five members appointed by the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials. The rules must distribute funds to counties based on the population of the county, after distributing a set minimum to each county, and must require annual reporting from them.

The bill preempts any local requirements that are more restrictive than its or inconsistent with them. The current process for appealing Ecology’s decisions is expanded to include ones setting the bill’s minimum requirements and assessing fees; there are reporting requirements for producers, and an annual report on the program by the Department.

HB1503

HB1503 – Low income tax exemption for natural gas, propane, hydrogen, and electric vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wiley (D; 49th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance, and had a hearing there on February 17th; passed out of committee February 18th, and referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill creates a ten year low-income sales and use tax exemption for the purchase or lease of new or used passenger cars, light trucks and medium passenger vehicles that are powered by natural gas, propane, hydrogen, and electricity, including plug-in hybrids.  (Medium passenger vehicles weigh from 8,500 to 10,000 pounds, and are typically vans carrying up to 12 people.)

A vehicle would have to meet the California motor vehicle emission standards and Ecology’s rules to qualify. A purchase would have to have “a selling price plus trade-in property of like kind” less than $25,000 for the sales tax exemption (or a fair market value less than $25,000 for the use tax exemption), and a leased vehicle would have to have a fair market value less than $25,000. You’d have to have qualified for the Federal earned income tax credit on your last tax return to be eligible for the exemption. This currently requires an income below $37,870 to $51,567 for families with children (depending on how many they have), an income under $14,340 if you’re single, and under $19,680 for a married couple without children.

There are various requirements about paperwork and reporting; the tax exemption’s to be funded by the additional $75 a year registration fee currently paid by owners of hybrid, plug in and alternative fuel vehicles.

HB1479

HB1479 – Tax exemption for emissions reductions or energy efficiency in fire department vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Sullivan (D; 47th District; Auburn-Covington)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The number of covered vehicles is going to increase because of technological developments, and because of population growth, so the declaration of the Legislature’s intent to extend the exemption if that happens might as well just say that it does intend to extend it… Technically, the bill’s language seems to say that any efficient equipment “in” a vehicle, like, say, a more energy efficient pump, would qualify the whole vehicle for the exemption, even if it only made a very small improvement.

Summary –
The bill would create a new ten year sales and use tax exemption for fire department vehicles that contain or incorporate emissions or fuel reduction technology, if they’re designed, maintained, and used exclusively for fire suppression and rescue, or for fire prevention activities.

The bill declares that the legislature intends to extend the expiration date of the exemption if a review finds that the number of covered fire department vehicles in the state has increased.

HB1436

HB1436 – Suspends many environmental and land use permit requirements until a year after withdrawal of all Covid-19 restrictive orders.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walsh (R; 19th District; Aberdeen)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Resources.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would suspend a range of environmental and land use permit requirements until a year after withdrawal of all of the Governor’s current Covid-19 restrictive orders and his pandemic emergency declaration. It would cover permits for controlling water and air pollution, for construction projects in State waters, and any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action. This includes “building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, [and] site-specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan”, but not the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included by RCW 36.70B.

HB1446

HB1446 – Excuses utilities from the penalties for failing to meet required conservation targets if events beyond their reasonable control prevent that.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 9th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee, February 15th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 3rd.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 17th, and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed unanimously by the House April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the end of it. (It now specifies the situations in which a utility would be allowed to do this.)

Original bill-
Under the bill, a utility would be considered to be in compliance with its requirements for acquiring cost effective conservation (and excused from paying a penalty for failing to meet them) if events beyond its reasonable control that couldn’t have been reasonably anticipated or ameliorated prevent it from meeting them. (These events include natural disasters, public health disasters, severe economic recession, unanticipated loss of significant retail electric load, strikes, lockouts, and actions of a governmental authority that adversely affect the acquisition of cost-effective conservation…)

HB1393

HB1393 – Delays implementing manufacturers’ photovoltaic module takeback and recycling requirements for two years.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsors Ramel, Lekanoff, & Duerr – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 5th; passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules. Passed the House February 26th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules March 17th, and paased by the Senate March 29th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
To keep selling or distributing  photovoltaic modules in the state, manufacturers must currently have a takeback and recycling program for them approved by July 1, 2023, and begin annual reporting on that program by April 1, 2024. The bill would change those dates to July 1, 2025 and April 1, 2026.

HB1388

HB1388 – Allows manufacturers that only make zero-emissions vehicles, like Tesla, to own and control their own dealerships, finance, leasing and service operations. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland, Bothell)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business; had a hearing February 10th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
Plug-In America has a fact sheet on the bill.

Summary –
The bill allows manufacturers that only make zero-emissions vehicles, like Tesla, to operate their own dealerships, finance, leasing and service operations. (It also raises the cap on the documentary service fee dealers can charge to cover the costs of dealing with registration fees and other legal requirements when selling or leasing a vehicle from $150 to $300.)

HB1387

HB1387 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel, shifting expiration from 2024 to 2034.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-sponsor Orcutt-R)
Current status – Referred to the House Finance Committee
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat or biofuel, shifting its expiration date from 2024 to 2034.

HB1336

HB1336 – Grants unrestricted authority to public entities to provide retail telecommunications services (aka the Public Broadband Act).
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hansen (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-sponsor Ybarra-R)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Community & Economic Development January 26th. Substitute passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor and passed by the House February 23rd. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 23rd.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, amended and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th. Returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
SB5383 is now proposing a more limited approach to the problem.

Summary –

Senate Committee Amendment –
This would allow jurisdictions to receive financial assistance for expanding broadband even if they had not adopted a comprehensive plan and taken various other planning steps.

Substitute –
There’s a summary of the changes by committee counsel at the beginning of the substitute; the main change is removing the authority of first class cities and code cities to provide internet service.

Original bill –
PUDs are currently authorized to provide wholesale telecommunications facilities within their districts, and within other PUD districts by contract. The bill, to be known as the Public Broadband Act, expands that to include the authority to provide retail service, and to provide service by contract to tribes and to any political subdivision of the state authorized to provide retail telecommunications services in the state.

It then authorizes cities, towns, code cities, and counties to provide those. It expands the current authority of ports to provide wholesale telecommunications services in or outside their districts to include retail services.

HB1330

HB1330 – Creates a sales and use tax exemption for electric bicycles and up to $200 of related equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Dead
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Finance. Had a hearing there February 17th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 19th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and had a hearing March 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute merely specified the date at which reaching the cap would terminate the exemption more clearly.

Original bill –
The bill exempts electric bicycles and up to $200 of related equipment from the sales tax starting August 1st, 2021 and ending May 1st 2027, or when $500,000 of exemptions have been granted. (It says the Legislature intends to extend the expiration if a review by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee finds that the number of electric bicycles purchased has increased by 25 percent compared to the number of electric bicycles in 2020.) [This may be intended to mean compared to the number purchased in 2020.]

HB1327

HB1327 – Requires retail bills to compare actual electricity costs to the costs if power came exclusively from least-cost resources, and to imply the difference is due to wind and solar subsidies.  (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 4th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB 5363 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would require retail electricity bills to provide a prominent graphic comparing the actual bill total with an estimated total for that customer’s rate class if the utility had only used power from least-cost resources. An accompanying footnote would be required to read, “Direct subsidies to generators of renewable power from wind and solar projects are paid for by Washington taxpayers. Purchase of this subsidized renewable power from wind and solar projects by electric utilities is mandated by the state Energy Independence Act … and by the state Clean Energy Transformation Act …..”

HB1287

HB1287 – Creates a tool for forecasting and mapping EV charging infrastructure needs; requires addressing those in utilities’ integrated resource planning, and in building code updates.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-sponsor Hackney – D)
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there on February 16th. Replaced by a second substitute and voted out of Transportation February 18th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House March 3rd. House concurred in the Senate amendments April 14th.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; had a hearing March 18th; amended and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Transportation; had a hearing March 29th, amended by the chair (reportedly without a role call vote), passed out of committee April 1st and referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor (who vetoed Hobbs’s amendment and signed the resulting bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate floor amendment –
The amendment would add areas zoned R-3 to those that would have increased code requirements for EV charging capability. (R-3 zoning allows single family, duplexes, triplexes, and row houses.)

Senate Transportation  amendment –
Chairman Hobbs’ amendment would delay making the 2030 phaseout a goal until the point when 75% of the cars and light trucks on the road were paying a road usage charge.

Senate committee amendment –
This added the goal for a 2030 phaseout of internal combustion cars and light trucks from the sponsor’s SB5256 (which died in committee) to the bill.

House Floor Amendments –
Representative Barkis’s amendments specified that money from the electric vehicle account could fund this bill’s activities; required Commerce to identify gas stations, convenience stores, and small retailers colocated with charging infrastructure; and to consider recommending such sites for future installations. Representative Ramel’s amendment removed green hydrogen from the bill and made a number of other changes which are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
The substitute makes a number of small changes, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the new version. The second substitute made some administrative changes and technical adjustments, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Commerce to create a publicly available mapping and forecasting tool to provide locations and essential information for the charging and refueling infrastructure to support forecasted levels of electric vehicle use across the state. It’s to be developed in consultation with several other agencies and stakeholders, and to enable the coordinated, effective, efficient, and timely deployment of the charging and refueling infrastructure needed for transportation electrification consistent with the State’s emissions reductions targets. Utilities’ integrated resource plans would be required to account for how they expect to meet the State’s forecasted needs for this infrastructure and the associated energy impacts. The bill would require the Building Code Council to increase the current code requirements for providing charging infrastructure as needed to support the anticipated levels of use resulting from the ZEV standards, and needed to meet the State’s targets.

The tool’s to prioritize on-road transportation initially, and include the most recent data charging and refueling infrastructure feasible. It must incorporate DOT’s traffic and traveler information for passenger and freight vehicles, such as volumes and travel patterns. If it’s feasible, it must provide the data needed to support agency programs that directly or indirectly support transportation electrification efforts; and evolve over time to support future programs.

To the extent feasible, the tool must include:
1. The amount, type, location, and installation year for charging infrastructure and refueling infrastructure that’s expected to be necessary to support usage in the state;
2. EV adoption, usage, technological profiles, and any other characteristics needed to model future usage affecting needs for that infrastructure;
3. The estimated energy and capacity demand for it;
4. Boundaries of political subdivisions (including those for retail electricity suppliers; public transportation agencies, and tribal governments);
5. Existing publicly or privately owned Level 2 and DC fast chargers, and refueling infrastructure, identifying refueling that supplies renewable hydrogen, if possible.
6. A public interface allowing any user to determine the forecasted charging and refueling infrastructure needs within a provided geographic boundary;
7. The ability to download all data tracked by the tool, or use it within a separate mapping and forecasting tool.
8. Integrate scenarios including varying levels of public transportation and active transportation usage; of vehicle miles traveled; and of adoption of autonomous and shared mobility services.
9. Incorporate infrastructure located at or near the border in neighboring state and provincial jurisdictions when appropriate.

The  tool must integrate population, health, environmental, and socioeconomic data on a census tract basis to support highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations disproportionately burdened by transportation-related emissions and to ensure economic and mobility benefits flow to communities that have historically received less investment in infrastructure. (The department must consult with other agencies to ensure the tool properly integrates best practices for cumulative impact analyses and is developed in coordination with their efforts to identify disproportionately impacted communities.)

To the extent it’s appropriate, the tool must integrate related analyses, such as the department’s state energy strategy, the Joint Transportation Committee’s public fleet electrification study, the West Coast Collaborative’s alternative fuel infrastructure corridor coalition report, and other related assessments.

HB1168

HB1168 – Expands wildfire response, forest restoration, forest sector workforce development, and community resilience programs with $25 million in required funding this biennium.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; East King County) (Co-sponsors Kretz-R, Fitzgibbon-D, Griffey-R, Riccelli-D, Lekanoff-D, Ramos-D, Callan-D, Harris-Talley-D, Dent-R, and Klicker-R)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there February 16th; amended and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Rules, and passed unanimously by the House March 9th. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 22nd.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks. Had a hearing March 23rd; replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing March 30th; amended and passed out of committee April 2nd; referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 9th. Returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate floor amendment –
This requires the Department of Natural Resources to hire an independent contractor to increase the intensity of its sampling for the forest inventory over the next four years, and to hire a contractor to review, analyze, and advise on its forest growth and yield modeling for the calculation of the sustainable harvest level. DNR’s sustainable harvest calculation technical advisory committee would be required to be involved in the inventory update and the growth and yield modeling, and to create recommendations for regular maintenance and ten year updates to the inventory. The amendment restored the JLARC review of the sustainable harvest calculation dropped in Ways and Means; JLARC and one of the contractors for its review would be added to the advisory committee; and JLARC would submit a report with findings and recommendations to the Legislature and to the Board of Natural Resources. It would be required to determine whether modifications to the sustainable harvest calculation are necessary before approving the harvest level for 2025-2034.

Ways and Means amendment –
This removed requiring the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee to oversee an independent review of the sustainable harvest calculation.

Senate striker –
The striker adds legislative intent to provide a total of $500 million over eight years for forest health and reduction of wildlife dangers, and makes some other minor changes which are summarized at the end of it. The amendments direct DNR and Commerce to work to expand markets for biomass, biochar, and other material produced as a result of forest health treatments; have DNR report on its progress; and require inmate forest fire suppression and support crews to receive at least the minimum wage.


Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the many small changes it makes at the beginning of the substitute. It replaces the $25 million in required funding with provisions specifying that at least 25% of any appropriated funding is to go to forest health activities, and at least 15% is to go to community resilience. (The amendment makes the bill null and void if specific funding isn’t appropriated for it.)

Original bill –
Creates the wildfire response, forest restoration, and community resilience account, and requires funding it with at least $25 million this biennium, which may not be shifted to emergency fire or suppression costs. The Department of Natural Resources is to request funding for the program each biennium, accompanied by a report on completed and planned work to Legislative committees and the Office of Fiscal Management. The money may only be used, if appropriated, for:
1. Fire preparedness activities consistent with the goals of the State’s wildland fire protection 10-year strategic plan, including firefighting capacity, investments in resources, equipment, and technology; and the development and implementation of a wildland fire aviation support plan;
2. Fire prevention activities to restore and improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to drought, insect infestation, disease, and other threats to healthy forests, including silvicultural treatments, seedling development, thinning forests and prescribed fire, and postfire recovery activities to prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources and minimize threats to life and property resulting from a wildfire. Priority for these activities must be given to programs, activities, or projects aligned with three specified State forest plans, and any forest health treatments on Federal lands have to be in addition to what’s outlined in Federal agencies’ work plans.)
3. Fire protection activities for homes, properties, communities, and values at risk including potential control lines or strategic fuel breaks in forests, rangelands and communities; improved warning and communications systems; increased engagement with non-English speaking communities in their home language for community preparedness; and the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise USA and Fire-adapted Communities Network programs.

Every other year, the Department of Natural Resources must report to the Governor and the Legislature on the type and amounts of expenditures for the program; the unexpended and unobligated funds in the account; recommendations for disbursements to local districts; progress on implementation of the wildland fire protection 10-year strategic plan and the 20-year forest health strategic plan, including assessment of lands and communities that need forest health treatments; treatments prioritized and conducted by landowner type, geography, and risk level; the estimated value of any merchantable materials from treatments; and the number of acres treated by type, including the use of prescribed fire. It’s to recommend necessary or advisable adjustments to the bill’s funding arrangements.

The bill expands the requirements for development of the Department’s forest health assessment and treatment framework, adding that it must:
1. Partner with federally recognized tribes where possible to expand use of the Tribal Forest Protection Act on Forest Service and BLM lands;
2. Prioritize forest health treatments adjacent to or near state lands when entering into good neighbor agreements with those agencies to increase the treatments’ speed, efficiency, and impact on the landscape; and
3. Work with stakeholders to develop an integrated small forestland owner assistance program for forest health activities that integrates existing programs to more efficiently and effectively reach and motivate these diverse audiences; identifies and removes barriers to technical assistance, funding, and planning; increases education and outreach to these owners; and distributes funding effectively in order to lower risk in high risk areas. (It’s to develop a mapping tool to identify small forestland owners within wildfire risk areas and use that to evaluate and optimize forest health work at a landscape scale, and to manage the programs for small forestland owner and landowner assistance to have the greatest impact on wildfire prevention, preparedness, and response.)

The Department and the Department of Commerce are to develop a plan for tracking, maintaining, and publicly reporting on a working definition of the forest sector workforce, including the job skills, certifications, and experience required; recommendations for training, recruiting, and retaining the forest sector workforce needed to implement the bill’s goals; gaps and barriers to a full workforce pool, including estimates of jobs created and retained as well as any reductions in the workforce; an estimate of the number of private contractors needed; an inventory of local and regional contractors trained to carry out wildfire response and forest health work, and of local contractors used for those each year; an inventory of existing training facilities and programs; and recommendations for addressing identified barriers or other needs to continue the development of the needed workforce.

The agencies are to develop and implement a workforce development program in consultation with higher education, centers of excellence, and workforce development centers. It’s to include making new or existing competitive grant programs available to a variety of organizations with qualifications and experience in developing training programs relevant to the needs of the sector. Priority funding’s to go to programs meeting urgent forest health and wildfire suppression skills gaps and demonstrating a lack of available workforce in underserved communities. Grants awarded may be used for a variety of activities providing on the job training; hard and soft skills development; test preparation for trade apprenticeships; and advanced training relating to an expansive list of jobs in the sector from hand crews to ecologists, and including mill workers and technicians. They may be used in developing education programs for students that inform them about forestry, fire, vegetation management, and ecological restoration;  increase awareness of opportunities for careers in the sector and expose students to them through work-based learning opportunities; connect students in pathways to careers in the sector; and incorporate opportunities for secondary students to earn industry recognized credentials and dual credit in career and technical education courses. They can also be used in developing regional education, industry, and workforce collaborations, including recruiting and building industry awareness and coordinating candidate development, creating a statewide recruiting and outreach program to encourage people to volunteer with local fire departments, or training local building and construction trade members to be deployed during periods requiring surge capacity for wildland fire suppression, including as firefighters or heavy equipment operators who meet the department’s requirements. The Department’s to use existing programs such as the Washington Conservation Corps and customized on-the-job training to expand opportunities and promote family wage careers in the sector, and look for opportunities to expand them including a postrelease program to help formerly incarcerated individuals who served on fire response crews get jobs in wildfire suppression and forest management.

The bill adds meeting regularly and coordinating with the regional leadership of the Forest Service to the responsibilities of the Commissioner of Public Lands. The Commissioner’s to identify strategies to improve delivery and increase the pace and scale of forest health, resiliency, and fuels mitigation treatments on federal lands; document the resources needed to increase the capacity available to the Forest Service on Washington’s national forests; identify ways to add to planning and implementation support to the Service through the use of cooperative and good neighbor agreements; and maximize the utilization of available efficiencies for complying with the national environmental policy act, as it applies to the Service’s activities in the state, such as using tools to increase the pace and scale of forest health treatments including categorical exclusions, shared stewardship, and use of the Tribal Forest Protection Act for forest health, fuels mitigation, and restoration activities. The goals of these meetings also include accelerating completion of the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements for forest health and resiliency projects, including through increased staffing and the use of partners, contractors, and department expertise to complete analyses; and pursuing agreements with federal agencies in the service of the forest biomass energy partnerships and cooperatives State law currently authorizes. Every two years, the Commissioner’s to report to the chairs of the appropriate legislative standing committees on progress, including identifying any needed state or federal statutory changes, policy issues, or funding needs; and estimating the acres of at-risk forests on each national forest and the number of acres treated.

HB1216 – 2021

HB1216 – Combines Commerce’s Urban Forest Management Program with DNR’s Community and Urban Forestry Program; adds tribal lands and prioritizes environmental justice investments.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramos (D; 5th District; Issaquah) (Co-sponsor Callan – D) (Requested by the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 26th. Amended and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 16th; amended again and passed out of that committee February 17th. Amended on the floor and passed by the House March 1st. The House concurred in the Senate’s amendments April 12th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks. Had a hearing March 16th, clarified by amendment in a very minor way and passed out of committee March 18th. Referred to Ways and Means, had a hearing March 30th, passed out of committee April 2nd, and was referred to Rules. Passed the Senate April 9th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
As amended –
The amendment in Natural Resources specified that the bill doesn’t apply to lands designated as natural area preserves or natural resources conservation areas; or to land subject to the Forest Practices Act; timber and forestland taxes; or open space, agricultural, and timberlands taxes. The amendment in Appropriations would make the bill null and void if funding were not specifically appropriated for it. The floor amendment in the House allows private property owners to opt out of urban and community forestry programs.

Original bill –
At this point, the Department of Commerce runs an Urban Forest Management program under RCW 35.105 in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources, and DNR runs a similar Community and Urban Forestry Program under RCW 76.15. The bill rolls Commerce’s program into DNR’s, deleting all of RCW 35.105.030, expands the combined program to include tribal lands, and adds language about planning for and prioritizing environmental justice issues. (It removes port districts, public school districts, community college districts, irrigation districts, weed control districts, and park districts from the program; cities, towns, and counties are still included.)

Details –
The bill requires DNR to analyze needs and opportunities related to urban forestry in the state. It’s to use existing canopy and inventory data, and may acquire more if needed. It may consult with external experts, and must consult with appropriate tribes in watersheds where urban forestry work is taking place. This process is to identify and prioritize areas where urban forestry will generate the greatest benefits in relation to canopy needs, health disparities, and salmon habitat, using analyses and tools including the canopy analysis and inventory; DNR’s 20-year forest health strategic plan; health disparity mapping tools to identify highly impacted communities at the census tract level; and data to target program delivery in areas where there are significant opportunities related to salmon and orca habitat and health. It’s also required to do a statewide inventory of urban and community forests to produce statistically relevant estimates of the quantity, health, composition, and benefits of urban trees and forests. [The relation of this requirement to the ones at the beginning of this paragraph isn’t clear to me.]

The department would be required to ensure that at least 50% of the resources used in delivering the policies, programs, and activities of the program were benefiting vulnerable populations and were delivered within a quarter mile of highly impacted communities, scaling resources so the most resources were directed to the most highly impacted communities in those areas. This includes resources for establishing and maintaining new trees as well as maintaining existing canopy. (“Highly impacted communities” are defined as those designated by cumulative impact analyses done by the Department of Health, or in census districts at least partly on tribal lands. They can also be defined by analyses of “vulnerable populations”, identifying health conditions of communities as a factor of environmental health hazards and their disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs relative to income, access to food and health care, linguistic isolation, and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.)

The department is also to provide technical assistance and capacity building resources and opportunities to cities, counties, federally recognized tribes, and other public and private entities in collecting tree data, and in activities developing and coordinating policies, programs, and activities promoting urban and community forestry. It may consult with Commerce about technical assistance, including on intersections between urban forestry programs and Growth Management Act planning. It’s to try to enable cities’ urban forest managers to access carbon markets by working to ensure tools it develops are compatible with urban forest carbon market reporting. It may use existing tools to help cities develop urban forestry management plans and ordinances, and there’s a list of twenty-one items the management plans and fourteen items the ordinances may include… [These are the same items Commerce was to consider including in the model plans and ordinances it was required to develop as part of its program; they don’t specifically include maximizing carbon sequestration and storage.] It must encourage communities to include participation and input by regional vulnerable populations on plans. It may create innovative tools to support urban forestry programs, including comprehensive tool kit packages that can be shared and locally adapted.

The bill adds improving human health, stormwater management, stream temperature and salmon habitat to the program’s goals; and adds some language about long-term care and maintenance to its descriptions of programs. The shift eliminates the Commerce program’s particular grants and competitive awards program, and its development of model plans and ordinances by the agency, it allows DNR to create an advisory body to fill the functions of the disappearing technical advisory committee from the other program.

HB1204

HB1204 – Requires ending State registration of fossil fuel cars and light vehicles, starting with 2030 models. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Macri (D; 43rd District; Seattle) (Co-sponsors Chopp, Ramos, Kloba, Simmons, Senn, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Ramel, Duerr, Ortiz-Self, Goodman, Slatter, Bateman, Pollet, and Harris-Talley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5256 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
Coltura has a fact sheet about the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute converts the requirement to a goal.

Original Bill –
The bill requires the State Transportation Commission to develop a plan and implement regulations to require that all new vehicles beginning with model year 2030 must be electric to be registered in Washington.  (Model-year 2029 and earlier vehicles, emergency vehicles, vehicles over 10,000 pounds, and those bought by residents of another state before becoming Washington residents are not affected.)

The plan’s to be completed by September 1st, 2023, in consultation with other agencies, and must include:
1. The predicted number of new and used electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles registered in Washington each year during a transition period from 2022 through 2040;
2. The charging infrastructure needed to provide convenient fueling of electric vehicles during that period, and predicted yearly investments required to build it;
3. An analysis of the generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades and build-out required to provide fueling for those electric vehicles, and the predicted yearly and aggregate investment required to implement those upgrades;
4. An analysis of how the grid can be optimized through smart charging and discharging of electric vehicles during that period;
5. An analysis of yearly job gains and losses during the period as a result of the requirement, as well as its effect on state transportation revenues
6. Recommendations on alternative sources of revenues to replace gas tax revenues;
7. An analysis of the requirement’s impacts on equity, especially on disadvantaged and low-income communities, communities of color, and rural communities, and strategies for maximizing equity in implementing the requirement; and
8. A just transition strategy for those negatively impacted by it.

The commission’s to conduct a series of public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan, especially including those from disadvantaged and low-income communities. The plan’s to be updated in 2025 and 2028, and the Commission’s to submit copies each time to the Legislature’s transportation committees.

Before January 1, 2025, the commission, in coordination with appropriate agencies, is to adopt regulations consistent with the scoping plan, requiring that all passenger and light duty vehicles of model year 2030 or later sold or registered in Washington state are electric. The regulations are to be designed to maximize equity and total benefits to the state while minimizing costs and risks, minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying with them, and rely on the best available economic and scientific information and its assessment of existing and projected technological capabilities.

The commission’s to consult with the UTC, investor-owned utilities, public utility districts, and municipal utilities in the development of the regulations insofar as they affect electricity providers, in order to to minimize duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.

HB1130

HB1130 – Mandates 50% reductions in utility bills and 50% improvements in reliability. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County) (Co-sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 22nd.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
This bill would mandate reducing gas and electric bills, including taxes and fees, by 2031 – to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50 percent below 2020 levels. It would mandate reducing cumulative power outages and energy supply disruptions to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50% below 2020 levels. It specifies that “to the the extent practicable” the rules developed under the recent 100% Clean Electricity Act” have to incorporate the objective of reaching those targets.

The public counsel unit of the office of the Attorney General would be required to report to the Legislature by December 1, 2022 on the actions necessary to achieve these improvements using existing statutory authority; and to recommend any additional statutory authority necessary to achieve them. The report would have to be be based on an analysis of the cumulative cost impact of power outages in the state since 1990 and of the impact of a range of percentage reductions in the number and duration of outages since then and extending to 2050; as well as of the cumulative cost savings and economic and employment impact of the additional cash flow in the economy resulting from the proposed reductions in utility bills. (To the extent that it was practical, the report would state the bill costs and reliability experience of residents in Indian country and of other historically disadvantaged communities separately, as well as any particular benefits that those communities may experience from improved reliability and lower bill costs.)

The bill declares that it’s the intent of the Legislature to supply the public counsel unit with financial resources to develop the plan by providing at least as much as has been appropriated by the state since 2013 to fund agency review and third-party consulting on the removal of dams on the lower Snake river and the evaluation of Washington’s potential for high-speed rail. It specifies that the research Commerce does on energy assistance for low-income households must include collecting data on delinquent utility accounts, vehicle charging costs, and trends in those, and provide its aggregated data on the issue differentiated by city, county, and legislative district in order to increase political accountability.

HB1125

HB1125 – Incentivizing energy conservation and efficiency by landlords; expanding rate discounts. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 21st and 26th. Executive action scheduled but not taken January 29th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Carlyle’s SB5295 includes nearly identical provisions for efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties, with the addition of required reporting on the results to the UTC and WSU’s energy program every two years,

Summary –
Authorizes the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow private electric and gas utilities to invest in energy efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties that wouldn’t currently be cost-effective unless the owner paid part of the initial cost. They’re to be allowed a return on these investments over a period of time that reduces the customer’s energy burden and minimizes the impact on the customer’s bill, while incentivizing the company to make them. These investments are to be secured by the meter, and repaid over time through an “energy services charge” on the regular bills paid by tenants or the building owner. (If the owner pays the bill, there has to be a site-specific services agreement; if tenants pay it, the owner has to provide them with at least thirty days notice before work on the project begins, including a description of the work being done and the expected benefits of the conservation measures.)

Utilities must prioritize these investments to reduce the energy burden of low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and customers in highly impacted communities while meeting their comfort and productivity needs. The bill also expands the authority of private electric utilities to provide discounts for low income customers, allowing them to create discounts to reduce the energy burden of communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization; and to ensure that the benefits of the transition to clean energy are equitably distributed.

HB1118

HB1118 – Makes producers responsible for the recycling, reuse, and composting of packaging and paper products for residential use, and for post-consumer recycled content in them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5022 is an identical companion bill.
The sponsors have a flyer summarizing the bill. (The summary, based on my reading of the current text of the bill, differs from this in some ways.)

Comments –
The bill says a lot about collections, but almost nothing about how producers are expected to deal with the responsibility of sorting or processing the products they’ve collected, though I think its definitions of what counts as a measured “recycled” material imply that responsibility.

It says producers are required to invest in recycling and reuse infrastructure and marketing development, including paying for equipment upgrades, new technology, and new facilities, but without any discussion of how those investments are to be determined or what limits there may be to them.

The bill’s language is all about jurisdictions and companies collecting “source separated” materials. I think most collection processes currently let residents put everything in one bin, and try to separate everything later.

It says jurisdictions “may” contract with producer organizations to provide collection services, and that if producers contract for services with them they have to pay their reasonable costs. (I assume that is also supposed to mean that jurisdictions can’t ask for more than that, though the bill doesn’t seem to say that.)

I have no idea how many different producer responsibility organizations would emerge from the bill’s requirements. It allows the creation of one producer organization for all materials, one for each category of material, and even separate organizations for some big brands, like a company running its own bottle deposit program.

Summary –
The bill creates producer responsibility requirements for brand owners of products, covering all packaging and paper goods sold or supplied to customers for residential use. (It expands the recommendations of the studies on plastics ordered by the Legislature a few years ago.) Producers are responsible for paying for collecting recyclables by contracting with cities and with private contractors currently collecting source separated material, or by setting up parallel operations. They are responsible for processing materials up to the point at which they could be reused. (For example, plastics would have to be ready to be flaked or pelletized; metals would have to be ready to be smelted.) The bill exempts producers selling, distributing or importing less than a ton of material, or with aggregate revenue of less than $1 million from covered products.

Their responsibilities can be met by joining producers’ organizations, or individually. Producers’ plans for meeting the requirements must be informed by public comment, as well as consultation with stakeholders and an advisory committee with specified membership; submitted by July 1, 2024; reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology; and implemented within the next year. The Department is authorized to add requirements to these plans. (They’re to be updated on a five year cycle.)

Plans must cover how producers will:
1. use and interact with existing recycling programs and infrastructure, including a description of procurement practices;
2. increase the reuse, refill, and recyclability of covered products;
3. work with and achieve the goals of underserved and underrepresented communities that bear a disproportionate share of adverse environmental, social justice, and economic impacts through socially just management practices including community outreach and engagement in the appropriate language of the impacted communities and meaningful consultation;
4. increase the efficiency of the system for collecting and managing covered products through reuse and recycling;
5. retain producers’ right of first refusal on recycled materials produced from products they collect;
6. identify market engagement strategies to improve effectiveness and efficiency and ensure open competition among waste management service providers when obtaining collection and recycling services, including strategies that involve the use of competitive tenders or open-market financial incentives;
7. describe how they intend to meet the bill’s requirements for providing convenient collection of materials, including the jurisdictions where curbside collection is available, the location of permanent collection facilities, the types and locations of alternate collection methods, and the locations of services collecting materials in public places;
8. list the products they are required to collect and the types of facilities or locations where those are to be collected;
9. include a plan to minimize the amount, cost, and toxicity of residuals from the collection and processing of covered materials, including residuals from materials recovery facilities or similar facilities producing specification-grade commodities for sale (but not residuals from further processing of end market-ready material);
10. include a plan for collecting, transporting, and processing covered products to ensure responsible management and recycling, including meeting the bill’s reuse and recycling performance requirements, providing material that will assist producers in meeting its recycled content requirements, and ensuring covered products intended for collection don’t contain toxic substances;
11. provide for equitable provision of recycling collection services in the state; and environmentally sound and socially just management practices for worker health and safety;
12. describe how producer fees and adjustments to them will encourage design for recycling and litter prevention;
13. include a plan for reducing contamination from covered products at compost or other organics processing facilities, including improving decontamination equipment and conducting packaging contamination composition studies;
14. plan for the education and outreach the bill requires, including how cities and counties will be involved in and reimbursed for education and outreach activities supporting the achievement of the bill’s requirements; and,
15. describe the dispute resolution process to be used, as needed, with residents, collectors, processors, producers, and end-market users of materials.

Producers are required to manage the products they collect in an “environmentally sound” and “socially just” manner, with human health and environmental protection standards equivalent to or better than those required in the US and other countries in the OECD. (“Environmentally sound” means they comply with laws and rules protecting workers, public health, and the environment; provide for adequate recordkeeping, tracking, and documenting of the fate of materials within the state and beyond; and include environmental liability coverage for the producers. “Socially just” means that their practices allow every individual the same economic, political, and social rights, privileges, and opportunities, and that they don’t disproportionately impact any community, and in particular communities in the state or elsewhere, with disproportionately higher levels of adverse environmental, social justice, and economic impacts.) [Among other things, these definitions apparently mean that any recycling in other countries must comply with US labor and environmental standards.] They have to track and verify that products collected by their programs are managed responsibly, and report on that publically. (They also have to document how they’ve used domestic and local collection and processing infrastructure, and the extent to which using those to meet the requirements of the bill is technologically feasible and economically practical.)

The bill requires “all covered products” to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2030. (Converting covered materials to energy, fuels, or landfill cover does not count as recycling them.) By 2026, at least 5% of all covered products must actually be reused, and at least 55% must actually be reused or recycled. By 2030, at least 10% of all covered products must actually be reused, and at least 75% must actually be reused or recycled. (There are also requirements specifying percentages of reuse and recycling by 2026 and 2030 for different categories of materials, increasing from those for flexible plastics to those for glass.) It prohibits the sale or distribution of various styrofoam containers, packing peanuts, and restaurant items. It creates fines of $250 for violations of the styrofoam rules (and of up to $1,000 for repeat violations). Violations of the rest of the new chapter are subject to fines of up to $1,000 a day (and of up to $10,000 a day for willful or negligent violations).

The bill includes requirements for the use of post-consumer recycled content in covered products, with varying dates and percentages for different products and materials, ranging from 10% of the content of flexible plastics by 2026 and 50% by 2030 up to 50% of the content of paper packaging by 2026 and 75% by 2030. Beverage containers are to include at least 25% recycled plastic starting in 2025, and at least 50% by 2030. The bill allows producers or their organizations to trade credits to meet these obligations.

Ecology is authorized to waive or reduce the bill’s requirements for post-consumer recycled content in a variety of ways in response to a number of specified factors, and must consider doing that every two years and in response to producer petitions, but no more than once a year. Starting in 2028, Ecology would also be authorized to modify or lower the reuse and recycling performance requirements in response to the markets for them and other specified factors, to expand them to include other materials, and to set requirements for dates beyond 2030.

The bill requires producer organizations to invest in reuse and recycling infrastructure and market development in the state, including installing or upgrading equipment to improve sorting and mitigate impacts of commodities at existing sorting and processing facilities, and capital expenditures for new technology, equipment, and facilities.

The bill requires producers to develop education and outreach programs to provide clear, equitable, socially just, and consistent information to residents, supporting the achievement of the reuse and recycling requirements. Programs must:
1. use consistent and easy to understand messaging to reduce residents’ confusion about the recycling and end-of-life management options available for different products;
2. establish a process for answering customer questions and resolving their concerns;
3. provide resources that are appropriate for the communities served and reach diverse ethnic populations, including through meaningful consultation with communities with higher levels of adverse environmental and social justice impacts;
4. develop and provide materials about the program for retailers, collectors, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations;
5. inform producers and retailers about their obligation to sell only covered products from producers participating in an approved plan; and
6. evaluate the effectiveness of education and outreach efforts.

Producer organizations must ensure convenient collection services for their covered products are available in jurisdictions where they supply them. Curbside collection of covered products (except for products designated for “alternative collection” because they aren’t suitable for curbside pickup) must be provided wherever there’s curbside garbage collection; in other areas, free and accessible access to permanent collection facilities must be provided at all solid waste transfer, disposal, and processing sites. At least 90% of residents must have access to a permanent site within 15 miles, and to an additional permanent site for every 30,000 residents in urban areas; underserved areas have to be provided with reasonably located and frequent collection events.

Jurisdictions may or may not choose to collaborate or contract with producers to provide collection services, or education and outreach activities required by the bill. In areas where solid waste collection is provided by companies regulated by the UTC, source separated curbside collection of recyclables for residents is to be provided where there’s curbside garbage collection (though companies can be exempted by the UTC if they haven’t already been providing that service or relinquish their right to provide it.) If they do provide it, producers must pay for the service according to the rates established by the commission, and pay any taxes and fees that would otherwise be paid by residents.

When producers contract with jurisdictions or companies to provide services required by the bill they have to use open, competitive, and fair procurement practices; compensate cities and counties that provide collection or outreach services for all their reasonable costs; ensure that all contracted service providers meet minimum operating standards, operate in an environmentally sound and socially just manner, meet high labor standards, demonstrate procurement from and contracts with women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses, provide fair opportunities without discrimination; and maintain the records and chain of custody documentation needed to decide if they’ve met the bill’s requirements.

Details –

The Department of Ecology is to collect annual payments from producers that cover the costs of administering the program, and is authorized to establish equitable ways to divide those costs among producers. (Producers are prohibited from charging consumers “non-reimbursable point of sale fees” to cover these costs.) Producer organizations charging their members for the costs of implementing the plan must structure those in “an environmentally sound and socially just manner that encourages the use of design attributes that reduce the environmental impacts of covered products”, through steps such as adjusting charges to favor designs that facilitate reuse and recycling and the use of recycled content; discourage the use of materials that increase the costs of managing covered products; and encourage other design attributes that reduce the environmental impacts of covered products, including the potential to create litter.

There are various reporting, auditing, and verification requirements; Ecology’s authorized to expand these. Appeals of penalties for violations are to be handled through Ecology’s existing appeal processes.

Producers and producer organizations must establish and fund advisory committees with a specified range of representatives. They can sue for their costs for dealing with materials created by other producers who haven’t participated or haven’t met the bill’s requirements.

Programs using any advanced technology to convert used plastic polymers into recycled material have to provide Ecology with a third-party assessment of its potential impacts on air and water pollution, the release or creation of any hazardous pollutants, and the full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the facility, including the final use of products.

 

 

HB1114

HB1114 – Includes mitigation of urban heat island effects using tree planting and cool roof programs in utility energy conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Amended twice and voted out of committee February 12. Referred to Rules February 15th. Passed the House unanimously February 25th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules March 17th, and passed the Senate unanimously on March 24th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Estimating the energy savings associated with planting trees in urban areas is pretty complicated – trees of different ages, species and sizes in different locations would have different effects. Street trees often die in eight or ten years, and trees planted in subdivisions get removed by homeowners who are tired of raking leaves or want more sun. I think the bill’s language implies that the private utilities are supposed to estimate the energy savings in their planting programs (which would qualify for an extra 2% return on their investments), but all the bill says about that is that program performance is to be measured in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted.”

Summary –
As amended –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the first amendment at the end of it, and of the second amendment at the end of that. (The significant changes added provisions about environmental justice.)

Original bill –
The bill specifies that installed materials and equipment for cool roofs are included in the State’s utility energy efficiency programs, and now says that the use of tree planting for conservation by utilities is “highly” encouraged. (It specifies that utility tree planting programs should reduce the peak-load demand for electricity in residential and commercial business areas during the summer months; reduce winter demand for energy in residential areas by blocking cold winds from reaching homes, protect public health by removing harmful air pollutants; use the natural processes of trees to lower temperatures and absorb carbon dioxide; lower electric bills for ratepayers by limiting electricity consumption without reducing benefits; relieve financial and peak-load demand pressure on the utility; protect water quality and public health by reducing and cooling stormwater runoff and keeping pollutants out of waterways, with special attention given to those vital for salmon; ensure the trees are planted in locations that limit the amount of public funding needed to maintain infrastructure; and measure program performance in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted”.)

It “encourages” PUDs to assist their customers in the acquisition and installation of materials and equipment, for compensation or otherwise, for the conservation or more efficient use of energy, including through a cool roof program. The use of appropriate tree plantings for energy conservation is “highly” encouraged as part of these programs.

It now specifies that municipal utilities are authorized to fund tree planting as part of their energy conservation programs.

It adds tree planting programs and cool roof programs to the energy efficiency programs on which private utilities are authorized to earn a 2% incentive rate of return.

The bill also allows PUDs, private gas and electric companies, and municipal utilities to fund tree planting programs with the voluntary donations for urban forestry they’re already authorized to encourage their customers to make.

HB1091

HB1091 – Implements a low-carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island) (Co-Sponsor Slatter – D) (Requested by the Governor)
Current status –
Conference committee version passed by both houses.
In the House – Passed
Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 21st. Had a hearing in Appropriations on February 4th; replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 9th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 16th, was amended, and passed out of committee as a 3rd Substitute on the 19th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 27th. Returned to the House by the Senate for possible concurrence with amendments there; the House refused to concur in the changes April 20th, and asked the Senate to agree to its version. Conference committee report signed April 24. Passed by the House April 25th.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 10th; replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing March 27th; replaced by a much weakened striker, amended, and passed out of committee April 1st. Referred to Rules April 2nd; amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 8th. The Senate declined to accept the House version, and the bill went to conference committee. Conference committee report signed April 24. Passed by the Senate April 25th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
(The original bill was an updated version of HB1036, but the only substantive change was requiring fuels to have associated emissions at least 20% below 2017 levels to generate credits.)
The current price of CO2e reductions under California’s low carbon fuel standard is $200/metric ton; in Oregon it’s roughly $100/tonne.

Summary –
Conference Committee Striker –
This slows the rate at which reductions in fuel carbon intensity need to be made by dropping the provision for a step up to 2.5% reductions in 2032 and 2034. This delays the point at which a 10% reduction is reached by several years, and creates a pause at that level; it now requires a JLARC report on the program and a legislative review at that point before continuing the program, rather than requiring the reauthorization in the Senate’s version. It moves the date for reaching a 20% reduction out to 2038. Like the Senate bill, it drops the House provision that said Ecology had to require any additional reductions after 2031 that were needed to meet the State’s targets. It makes the implementation of the bill dependent on an increase of at least five cents a gallon in the gas tax rather than the additional $500 million in transportation funding added in the Senate’s version.

It makes the continuation of the program past the 10% reduction level dependent on at least a 15% increase in biofuel production and in state feedstocks, and on the approval beyond appeals of at least one new or expanded facility increasing biofuel capacity by more than sixty million gallons a year. (It says this expansion must include at least one new facility producing at least ten million gallons a year.) It also expands the severability clause to specify that the rest of the act is still to be enforced if these provisions are held to be invalid.

The striker drops the provision specifying that broadband investments generate credits, but adds a provision to the House definition of a credit saying that they can be generated by “other activities consistent with this chapter.” It allows up to 10% of total credits to be generated by state investments reducing transportation GHG emissions and decarbonizing the sector. It drops the Senate’s provisions about limiting SEPA review for new biofuel facilities and requiring the evaluation of their net cumulative emissions.

The final version caps the price of credits in the clearance market in 2023 at $200 (in 2018 dollars); it’s limited to inflation increases after that. It follows the Senate version in requiring Ecology to hold a clearance market if any covered facility is short of credits, allows carrying forward deficits, requires Ecology to undertake an exploration of the root causes for a shortfall after two deficit periods,  and allows it to implement remedies for the problem (subject to some prohibitions). It follows the Senate in requiring electric utilities to spend 50% of their revenue from credits they generate on transportation projects  that Ecology and DOT decide produce the largest reductions in GHG emissions, rather than on the vehicle purchase incentives the House specified. It adds that they “should consider” projects expanding low and moderate income access to zero-emission transportation.

The conference version kept the Senate provision requiring deferral of compliance obligations for at least a quarter and up to four years if the forecast projected there were not going to be enough available credits to meet covered parties’ obligations, requiring an emergency deferral if there was not an adequate supply of renewable fuels for reasons that couldn’t have been foreseen or prevented, and providing a full or partial deferral for an individual party unable to comply for reasons beyond its control. It drops the House and Senate provisions about a WSU study of least conflict sites and a stakeholder process about mitigation of impacts, and has Ecology and Commerce make recommendations about improvements to permitting processes for industrial projects and facilities, and mitigations of their environmental impacts instead.

It makes the expedited Energy Facility Site Evaluation permitting process an option for smaller biofuel facilities capable of producing between 1,500 and 25,000 barrels a day.

Senate floor amendments –
These prohibit Ecology from raising the standard after 2026 unless a new biofuels production facility producing more than sixty million gallons of biofuels a year has been successfully permitted, and there’s been at least a 25% increase in the volume of in-state biofuel production and the use of agricultural feedstocks grown within the state. They require the program to generate credits for investments funded in an omnibus transportation act that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize the sector, but allow Ecology to limit the number of those that can be earned each year. They require rule making for the program to conform to the standards for significant rules under the Administrative Procedure Act; if funds are appropriated, they require the WSU Energy Program to consult with stakeholders and identify least conflict priority sites for projects to produce significant volumes of low carbon transportation fuel, require Ecology to periodically consult with stakeholders to identify and discuss mitigation of significant likely environmental impacts associated with them, and require periodic reporting to the Legislature on a range of issues about them.

In Ways and Means –
The striker replaced the requirement for a 2028 standard 10% below 2017 levels with a set of stepped reductions producing a maximum reduction of 4% by then, followed by maximum reductions of 1%/yr through 2031, and 2.5% a year through 2034. It no longer requires Ecology to update the rules to produce emission reductions through 2050 consistent with the state’s targets. It requires the passage of “a separate additive transportation funding act” generating more than $500 million/biennium in revenue before Ecology can actually activate the program. [This is the same provision recently attached to the cap & trade bill.] It no longer has Ecology design mechanisms to provide a financial disincentive for relying on the mechanisms for cost compliance, and directs the department to hold a credit clearance market for any period where at least one regulated party is short of credits. It caps the maximum price for credits in the clearance market at $200, adjusted for inflation. [This is about their current price in the California market.] It requires Ecology to evaluate the net cumulative GHG emissions for new or expanded facilities that would require a SEPA review and would result in annual GHG over 25,000 MT per year, including any net displacement of global emissions.  [This involves estimates like the controversial ones for the Kalama methanol proposal, where the proponents claimed that the methanol would be used in China to produce plastics with fewer emissions than what would be used to make them there otherwise.] It requires 50% of an electric utility’s revenues from credits to be used for activities and projects that Ecology and the Department of Transportation jointly decide do the most to reduce GHG emissions and decarbonize transportation. If the forecast projects there will be less than 100% of the credits needed to comply with the requirements during a compliance period the bill requires Ecology to issue a deferral, adjusting the requirement temporarily, using the requirement for the previous period, suspending the calculation of deficits, or taking other measures needed to keep the costs of credits under the cap. The bill no longer allows broadband projects to generate credits, and makes some other minor changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment requires Ecology to use the standard for the previous period if it determines before the beginning of 2026 or 2028 that available in-state feedstocks for the program are less than 25% of what’s needed for compliance.

In the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology –
The striker in committee made a number of modest adjustments to the bill which are summarized by staff at the end of it; the amendment specified that utility credits for providing power from a zero emission resource for transportation are only available for electricity supplied to a metered customer for charging or refueling, and limits the required mechanisms for assigning credits to charging in a utility’s service area. (Ecology could apparently still decide to assign them for providing charging beyond that area.)

Amendments on the House Floor –
Amendments required Ecology’s reports on health benefits to distinguish between those from the Clean Fuel Standard and those from vehicle efficiency improvements; authorized credits for broadband investments facilitating remote work and required Ecology to create a metric for them; removed expedited site review for clean fuel projects; created a program to identify least conflict priority sites for them; required periodic consultation with stakeholders on mitigation for probable environmental impacts from them and reporting to the Legislature on mitigation, funding needs, permitting, and environmental review; and allowed nonprofit and public entities to earn credits from fueling battery or fuel cell vehicles. Representative Fitzgibbon’s amendment and Representative Paul’s amendment each made a number of changes which are summarized at the bottom of those. (All the amendments are available at the bottom of the bill page.)

Second substitute adopted by House Environment and Energy –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the second substitute at the beginning of that. An additional amendment in the House Transportation Committee would require Ecology to expedite processing of environmental reviews under the State Environmental Policy Act and permit applications for projects related to producing low-carbon transportation fuels.

Substitute adopted by House Environment and Energy –
There’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of the substitute. (They include requiring 50% of the revenue to go to reducing the cost of new electric vehicle leases and purchases, and giving utilities credits for electricity used in residential charging.)

Original Bill –
The Department of Ecology is to establish rules to reduce the intensity of transportation fuels, including electricity, used in the state. They’re to take effect January 1st, 2023, and to reduce the full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions attributable to fuels other than electricity to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (By 2031, Ecology is to update them so emissions from transportation sources will meet the state’s target of a 95% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.)

The rules are to create a system of trackable, verifiable, tradeable, and bankable credits, generating a credit (or a deficit) when the production, importing, or dispensing of fuel with a lower (or a higher) carbon intensity than the department’s standard results in the emission of a metric ton of CO2e. The estimates of greenhouse gas emissions may not privilege fuels from any particular places, and must reflect the carbon intensity of each electric utility’s mix of generation sources. The rules must include cost containment mechanisms, such as provisions allowing the department to establish a credit clearance market and sell credits at a price it sets after the end of each compliance period, a similar means for complying if participants haven’t been able to acquire enough credits to meet the requirements by the end of a period, and a similar means of ensuring that the prices of credits don’t significantly exceed those of credits in similar programs in other jurisdictions. (Such mechanisms must be designed to financially disincentivize participants from relying on them rather than reducing emissions.) Persons associated with the supply chains of transportation fuels covered by the program and those generating credits from fuels that are not covered by the program may elect to participate in the market. (The department may also designate an entity to aggregate and use credits generated by any persons covered by the program that generate credits but choose not to participate.)

Electricity and fuels used by aircraft, vessels, railroad locomotives, and military vehicles are not covered by the program. Fuel for off-road logging vehicles, construction and mining, and agriculture isn’t covered until 2028, but can be used to generate credits and trade them before then. Ecology is also authorized to allow the generation of credits associated with electric or alternative transportation infrastructure that already exists when the bill becomes effective.

The rules must allow generating credits from providing zero emission vehicle refueling infrastructure and other low carbon fuel infrastructure including, fast charging battery electric vehicle infrastructure and hydrogen electric vehicle refueling infrastructure. They may allow generating credits from any activities that reduce emissions in the state, including carbon capture and sequestration projects, such as innovative crude oil production projects including carbon capture and sequestration; refinery investments in it; or direct air capture projects; and fueling of vehicles with electricity the department certifies as net-zero. (This must include electricity for which a renewable energy credit or other environmental attribute has been retired or used only for purposes of the program; electricity produced using a zero emission resource that’s directly supplied as a transportation fuel by its generator, and the smart charging of an electric vehicle when the carbon intensity of grid electricity is comparatively low.) The department’s to periodically consult with an advisory panel, including representatives of forestland and agricultural landowners, on how to best incentivize and allot credits for sequestration through activities on agricultural and forestlands. It may set yearly limits on the credits that can be generated by emissions reducing activities that it chooses to include, providing those “take into consideration” the return on investment needed for it to be financially viable.

Before each compliance period, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Agriculture and Ecology, is to estimate whether the expected supply of low-carbon fuels will generate enough credits to meet the program’s compliance requirements.

Utilities must spend half of their low carbon fuel standard revenues from supplying retail customers on projects supporting the use of electrification or renewable hydrogen in transportation. Sixty percent of that must go to projects in or directly benefiting areas with high levels of air pollution or disproportionately impacted communities identified by the department of health. Ecology may adopt requirements, developed in consultation with utilities, for spending the other half of these revenues.

Details –
Calculations of life-cycle emissions may include “changes in land use associated with transportation fuels and any permanent greenhouse gas sequestration activities”, and may consider the efficiency of a fuel as used in a powertrain.

The department may obtain additional information it needs to estimate fuel emissions from suppliers and utilities; companies covered by the program should be allowed to demonstrate appropriate carbon intensity values to the department if that doesn’t counter the reduction goals of the program or prove administratively burdensome.

It’s to try to harmonize the rules with those of other states that have adopted low carbon fuel standards or similar requirements for low-carbon transportation fuels and that supply (or might supply) significant quantities of those to the state, or get them from us.

There are variety of reporting requirements. The bill allows Ecology to collect fees from participants to to cover the costs of administering the program. It extends the current penalties for violations of air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee is to report to the Legislature on a variety of issues about the program after five years, including its costs and benefits, associated emissions reductions, and its effects on employment and fuel prices. The bill removes a poison pill provision about the transfer of transportation funds which has been intended to block adoption of the standard.

HB1084 – 2021

HB1084 – Reducing emissions from natural gas space and water heating in residential and commercial buildings. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; San Juans & Anacortes) (Co-sponsor Slatter – D) (By request of the Governor)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 22nd; substitute passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations; had a hearing February 17th. No action taken in the executive session on cutoff day.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5093 is a companion bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the original and the changes made in the substitute at the beginning of the new version. (The big change is that it drops eliminating residential fossil fuel space and water heating.)

Original bill –
The bill moves the date by which updates to the state energy code must achieve a 70% reduction in energy use from the 2006 levels forward by four years, to 2027, makes 70% a minimum, and requires eliminating on-site fossil fuel combustion for space and water heating and minimizing their indirect emissions. It removes the Building Code Council’s authority to defer implementation of the reductions.

It makes the State Energy Code for residential construction the minimum for local codes, rather than the maximum and the minimum, authorizing local jurisdictions to require greater reductions than the state code does. It shifts the standards the Council’s to follow from constructing increasingly “energy efficient” homes to increasingly “low-emission energy efficient homes”, and from “helping to achieve” construction of zero-fossil fuel buildings by 2031, to actually achieving that by 2030.

It requires the Department of Commerce to create energy management and benchmarking requirements for non-residential buildings, hotels, motels and dormitories between 50,000 and 10,000 sq ft. along with provisions for reporting and penalties. (Since this is modeled on some of the current requirements for buildings over 50,000 sq ft in HB1257, I think this is supposed to mean that they have to have an energy management plan in addition to benchmarking.) By October 1, 2027, Commerce is to recommend energy performance standards for these buildings to the Legislature, and it’s to adopt rules starting in 2029 that cover them under the state’s energy performance standard .

The bill amends the language of the Legislature’s current policy declarations about gas and electric services, replacing “natural gas and electricity services” with “energy services”, and adding language about maintaining affordability, reducing the use of fossil fuels in space and water heating, and advancing the use of high efficiency electric equipment.

It removes gas companies from the requirements about supplying service to all reasonably entitled applicants, requires them to charge new customers the full costs of any pipeline extensions to provide them with service, and prohibits companies from expanding their service areas. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize a line extension to serve a new customer..)  It requires each company to develop comprehensive transition plans approved by the UTC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of natural gas, evaluating cost and life-cycle emissions associated with alternative pipeline fuels and electric alternatives, and identifying specific actions to achieve their share of the reductions needed to reach the state’s targets at the lowest reasonable cost for customers. They must evaluate and compare multiple strategies to identify the lowest reasonable cost combination of strategies to achieve the reductions, including evaluating measures to reduce buildings’ thermal loads; converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; permanently decommissioning portions of their distribution systems; incorporating renewable natural gas, hydrogen, or other low-carbon fuels in their systems; and expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs. (Their cost analysis must include at least resource costs, market-volatility risks, demand-side resource uncertainties, the risks imposed on ratepayers, resource effect on system operations, public policies regarding resource preference adopted by the state or the federal government, and the need for security of energy supply. It’s to include the cost of risks associated with environmental effects, including the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions calculated according to the estimates of the Federal Interagency Working Group using a 2.5% discount rate, which is currently about $78/tonne.)

They have to including an estimate of the costs and benefits that will accrue to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities;  ensure that the transition does not disproportionately impact low-income households or overburdened communities; ensure those get an equitable share of the  energy and nonenergy benefits of utility programs and infrastructure, including the reduction of burdens and improvement of indoor air quality; and provide for layoff avoidance strategies and a specified list of high labor standards.

A plan must also consider recommendations from the latest version of the state energy strategy and input from any electric utilities operating in the company’s service area, as well as identifying any changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with actions in the plan. Plans may include authorized projects to reduce the emissions from non-hazardous leaks.

The UTC is to establish a climate protection surcharge per therm of natural gas use, which isn’t to exceed the social cost of carbon. (PSE’s emissions are currently 14.6 lbs/therm; at that rate, the current cap on the surcharge would be about $0.50/therm, and the maximum surcharge would work out to something like $270 a year on the bill for a medium sized gas home built to the 2018 code.) The money would be spent by the utilities, subject to the UTC’s approval, on implementing the transition plans, assistance to low-income customers, programs to avoid worker dislocation, and ensuring the transition doesn’t unduly burden vulnerable populations or overburdened communities. (These projects and activities would also have to meet high labor standards and maximize local workers’ and diverse businesses’ access to associated economic benefits.)

Each gas utility would be required to develop an integrated resource plan for meeting system demand with the least cost mix of energy supply, including electrification and conservation. These would be informally reviewed by the UTC and it would be required to “consider the information reported in them” when it evaluates the performance of the utility in setting rate and other proceedings. They must include:
1. A range of forecasts of future demand in firm and interruptible markets for each customer class , examining the effect of economic forces on consumption and forecasting changes in end uses;
2. Assessments of commercially available conservation, including load management, and of policies and programs needed to obtain it; of conventional and commercially available nonconventional gas supplies; of the impact of the electrification of the building sector; of opportunities for using company-owned or contracted storage; and of pipeline transmission capability and reliability.
3. A comparative evaluation of the cost effectiveness of gas purchasing strategies, electrification, storage options, delivery resources, and improvements in conservation
4. The integration of demand forecasts and resource evaluations into a plan for at least the next ten years, describing the mix of resources to meet current and future needs at the lowest reasonable cost to the utility and its ratepayers;
5. A short-term plan outlining the specific actions to be taken by the utility in implementing the long-range plan during the following three years; and a report on the utility’s progress towards implementing the recommendations in its previous plan;
6. An evaluation of disparities in current conditions for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations in the utility’s service territory based on an assessment of current economic, public health, and environmental conditions ; and,
7. An evaluation of disparities in utility programs and infrastructure for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations based on an assessment of the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens (including those outside the utility’s service territory) associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs.

The bill authorizes a municipal utility or PUD to adopt a beneficial electrification plan if it finds, after input from gas companies in its service area, that outreach and investment in electrifying homes and buildings will provide it with net benefits. Plans must include consideration of system benefits as well as revenues from increased retail loads, distribution system efficiencies resulting from demand response, dynamic pricing, or other load management opportunities, system reliability improvements, indoor and outdoor air quality benefits, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. They must also consider the costs of additional electricity (which must have lower emissions than using natural gas would); any increased distribution system, management, or equipment costs needed to meet increased loads; and the costs of incentives or programs to get customers to switch. They’re to identify options and program schedules for the electrification of various energy end-uses or other energy sources. These utilities are authorized to invest in activities that their plans show provide net benefits and quantifiable verifiable emissions reductions, including promoting electrical equipment, advertising beneficial electrification programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates.  They’re to prioritize incentives and services for highly impacted communities in their service areas. (They may also promote and advertise emissions reductions programs to their ratepayers.)

The bill requires the Department of Commerce to create a statewide program to provide coordination and technical assistance promoting the adoption of high-efficiency heat pump equipment for space and water heating to utilities, housing providers, builders, and the public; develop and distribute educational materials about benefits; develop strategies to ensure that the program serves low-income households, vulnerable populations, and overburdened communities; support the development of a workforce training and certification program for the installation of equipment in coordination with the state board for community and technical colleges, and develop and implement an incentive program for residential and commercial building owners that convert from a fossil fuel system to a heat pump. (Incentives must be limited to projects installed by certified installers; the department may consider higher payments for those with low or moderate incomes, residents or owners of rental properties, and other populations who may be overburdened; and projects or activities funded through them have to meet and be reviewed for specified high labor standards, and maximize access to economic benefits for local workers and diverse businesses.)

The bill also removes the provision that currently prohibits Commerce from participating as an intervenor in utility regulatory proceedings.

HB1075

HB1075 – Requires ride-hailing services to reduce their vehicle emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 15th; substitute passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 19th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
Requires an analysis of the effects on drivers after a year and after five years.
Second Substitute –
Exempts ride-hailing companies using only zero-emissions vehicles from some reporting and regulatory requirements.

Original bill –
By July 1st, 2022 the bill requires the Department of Ecology to establish a baseline of the emissions per passenger-mile-traveled through ride-hailing services in 2018. (It’s to include an estimate of the additional miles using active modes of transportation like walking and biking by passengers whose use of those has been facilitated by the company’s software.) The bill requires the department to set mandatory annual goals and targets that are technically and economically feasible for each company’s emissions per passenger-mile and for increasing the percentage of passenger-miles traveled using zero emission vehicles; they’re to “take into consideration” the state greenhouse gas targets and its vehicle miles traveled goals. To the extent that it’s practical, the rules Ecology’s to create for the program are to have a minimal negative impact on low-income and moderate-income drivers; support providing clean mobility for low-income and moderate-income individuals; and complement and support the long list of goals for planning under the Growth Management Act.

By January 1st 2024, each ride-hailing company must create an emissions reduction plan for reaching the targets; these must be approved by the department; implemented starting January 1st, 2025; and updated every two years. (It’s authorized to delay the process if it finds there are unanticipated barriers to expanding the use of zero-emissions vehicles, and it can create a system to give companies credits toward reaching their targets for providing or supporting charging infrastructure for ride-hailing vehicles.)

Plans have to include proposals for increasing the proportion of zero emission vehicles used, increasing the percentage of overall vehicle miles completed by zero emission vehicles, decreasing the average gram-per-mile greenhouse gas emission rates for vehicles, and increasing the percentage of overall vehicle miles in which passengers are being carried. They also have to consider incentives to increase the percentage of miles traveled by riders whose associated use of active modes of transportation is being facilitated by the company’s software; and to outline actions the company will take to ensure the plan won’t make drivers worse off financially.

Ecology is also to consult with businesses that deliver food and other consumer goods and report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by December 1st, 2022 on ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Details –
Ride-hailing companies are required to provide relevant data to Ecology. The department’s authorized to collect fees to cover the costs of administering the program, and is required to report on it to the appropriate legislative committees. (There doesn’t seem to be an appeals procedure,  and there don’t seem to be any penalties for failing to meet the targets.)

The bill doesn’t apply to taxicabs, charters and excursion services, commercial vehicles on regular routes that include travel outside city limits, non-profits providing passenger service for people with special needs, or limousines.

HB1057

HB1057 – Clarifies that the Clean Air Act’s prohibition of pollution unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of life and property includes publicly owned open spaces. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollet (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Valdez – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 12th; referred to Rules. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of the substitute. (It now just establishes a work group to study the best practices for reducing the odors from asphalt recycling plants rather than regulating the stench from the plant that motivated the bill.)

Original bill –
Clarifies that the Clean Air Act’s prohibition of pollution that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property applies to publicly owned open spaces such as bicycle or
pedestrian trails, parks, and town commons, not just to private property.

HB1053

HB1053 – Postpones the upcoming prohibition of some plastic and paper carryout bags for six months. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Johnson (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-sponsor Dye – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th; the committee adopted and passed a substitute January 19th. Referred to Rules, and placed on second reading January 22nd. Was still in the House of origin at cutoff.
Next step would be – (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Action in the House-
The House Committee on Environment and Energy adopted a substitute that delayed the preemption of local bag ordinances, leaving those in place where they exist for the time being.

Original Bill-
The bill postpones the upcoming prohibition of some plastic and paper carryout bags for six months, from January 1st 2021 until July. It authorizes the governor to extend the postponement for up to six additional months if he decides COVID-19 issues are continuing to cause significant supply chain problems for the carryout bags the current law requires.

Details –
The law (RCW 70A.530.020) in question prohibits single-use plastic carryout bags, and paper or reusable film plastic carryout bags that don’t meet recycled content requirements. (It has a number of longer term provisions as well, but this bill doesn’t affect those.)

HB1050

HB1050 – Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from hydrofluorocarbons.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 15th. Replaced by a substitute, amended in a couple of minor ways, and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 8th; replaced by a 2nd substitute and voted out February 11th. Referred to Rules February 15th. Passed out of Rules, amended on the floor, and passed by the House February 23rd. The House concurred in the Senate’s amendments April 12th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 16th; replaced by a striker and voted out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing March 30th. Amended, passed out of committee, and referred to Rules April 2nd. Passed by the Senate April 7th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill included an amendment to the current law on utilities’ conservation requirements saying utilities had to “consider the nonenergy impacts associated with the generation of electricity as well as from other sources, including refrigerants” in assessing conservation, but that vague and sweeping language has been dropped in the substitute.

Summary –
Ways and Means Amendment –
This required the Building Code Council to solicit input from stakeholder organizations and experts on potential low global warming  substitutes and  equipment before adopting rules about refrigeration or air conditioning systems that use them.

Senate Environment, Energy and Technology Striker –
It made a number of minor technical and procedural changes, which are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes at the beginning of the substitute, and there’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the second substitute at the beginning of that. The House made one minor amendment on the floor, and passed one joke amendment. (They’re at the bottom of the bill page.)

Original bill –
The bill expands the provisions of the 2019 legislation limiting the uses of hydrofluorocarbons (HB1112). It authorizes setting a limit on the global warming potential of any substitute for the chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and other Class I and Class II chemicals regulated under the Federal Ozone Protection Act that’s used as a refrigerant, and authorizes regulating their use in stationary air conditioning in steps over time. (The findings say these are conditional, but I don’t think the language of Section 8 of the bill actually says that.) It does authorize the Department of Ecology to regulate the use of refrigerants in light duty vehicles, conditional on another state’s doing that, and subject to the EPA’s rules on the acceptable conditions for using various substitutes.

The bill requires Ecology to establish a refrigerant management program to lower the emissions from those  to the levels of achievable superior performance established for the EPA’s voluntary greenchill program. It requires operators of equipment with more than 50 pounds of charging capacity to register it with the department. (Larger equipment using a refrigerant that is not a Class I or II chemical, and has a global warming potential less than 150 is also exempt.) Owners of registered equipment must inspect them for leaks periodically and after recharging them, as well as providing leak rate documentation to prospective purchasers. The Department is to establish requirements for reporting on systems, and for repairing leaks; it may establish regulations for servicing them, a policy for applying for exemptions, and a system for collecting fees to cover the costs of the program.

The bill extends the current rules for reducing emissions from ozone-depleting substances to cover these substitutes. (Those include requiring recovering them when servicing, repairing, or disposing of various cooling equipment, and prohibiting their use in containers for consumers to use in recharging appliances or vehicle air conditioning systems.) The bill directs the state building code council to adopt codes allowing the maximum use of substitutes with lower global warming potentials, and intended to minimize leakage.  It establishes a state procurement preference for recycled refrigerants.

It also says that utilities “must consider” the nonenergy impacts associated with the generation of electricity as well as from other sources, including refrigerants, in assessing the cost-effective, reliable, and feasible energy conservation they’re legally required to pursue.

The bill requires the Department to make recommendations on the end-of-life management and disposal of refrigerants to the Legislature by December 1st 2021, after soliciting feedback from potentially impacted parties and the public. These must include the legal and financial obligations of manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, equipment owner-operators and service technicians to support or participate in the program; a funding mechanism for refrigerant recovery and disposal activities including a financial incentive for the recovery and emission-reducing management of refrigerants; and performance goals and operational standards for activities to collect, transport, and recycle, reuse, or dispose of refrigerants.

Details –
The bill doesn’t cover chillers. It allows manufacturers to disclose a product’s compliance with the regulations as an alternative to identifying the substances used in labels on products and equipment. It extends the current penalty system for violations of the air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements.

HB1046

HB1046 – Requires private utilities to buy power from community solar projects, credit participants’ bills, and make 40% of that power available for use by low-income consumers and service providers. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bateman (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-sponsor Duerr – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Executive session scheduled but no action taken February 4th and 5th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
Community Solar Washington has a flyer about the bill.

Comments –
All three of the private utilities testified in opposition to the bill, starting at one hour into the hearing. They argued that it doesn’t place any limits on the size or location of projects or require utility approval of them, that utilities would have to buy power from projects that didn’t have enough subscribers, that any extra costs that might involve as well as startup costs and undefined operating expenses would be shifted to ratepayers, that any net metering unfairly lets solar owners avoid paying the share of the system’s fixed costs that’s included in charges for the kWhs they would be paying for except for the net metering credits they’re receiving, and that it’s unfair that the bill’s requirements only apply to private utilities. They prefer the compromises embodied in the community solar bill that passed last session, but was vetoed because of pandemic fiscal concerns, HB2248.

Summary –

Requires private utilities to buy power on contracts for at least 20 years from community solar projects certified by the Utility and Transportation Commission, to make 40% of that power “available for use” by low-income consumers and service providers, and to credit participants’ bills with their share of the revenue from a project’s power production at the retail rate.

The UTC is to create rules for how projects can qualify for the program. These must at least minimize the shifting of costs from the program to ratepayers that don’t own or participate in a project; incentivize customers to participate; protect participants from undue financial hardship; and protect the public interest.

A project must have at least one system in a utility’s Washington service area, and ownership of a project or participation in one is limited to customers in that area. Their annual returns are limited to their average annual consumption of electricity. (Any revenue above that is to be used by the utility in support of low-income customers or service providers.)

The UTC may set the rates at which a utility buys power from a project and credits participants’ bills for their shares of that production, as well as the rates at which it buys any unsubscribed power. These must allow a utility to recover all its prudent costs for starting up a project or modifying it, as well as any costs it incurs as a result of a power purchase agreement with a project. The associated renewable energy certificates may belong to the utility, or be retired on behalf of the project participant.

Details –
The bill simply amends the section on the previous rules about engaging in business and registering with the UTC for community solar companies  (RCW 80.28.375) to apply to the new community solar project managers it creates. (The production credit program those rules applied to has reached the cap on its enrollment and costs well ahead of schedule.)

It no longer limits the size of projects, and allows customers to participate as direct owners of a project as well as through leases, loans, power purchase agreements, and other financial arrangements. (I think direct ownership would allow individuals to benefit from the 26% federal investment tax credit on the cost of their share of the project.)

HB1039

HB1039 – Reports on, updates, and expands school bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative McCaslin (R; 4th District; Spokane Valley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 4th. Executive session scheduled February 11th, but no action taken.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to review and update its bicycle and pedestrian safety curriculum in coordination with a specified list of agencies and stakeholders. The new version is to “include more hazard avoidance skills and address the additional distractions associated with the use of modern technology when individuals are walking, biking, or driving,” as well as a plan to increase bicycle and safety education throughout the state and improve opportunities in distressed areas while reducing disparities in communities of color and other marginalized communities.

It requires the Washington State Patrol to create a bike safety awareness program for third to fifth grade students as part of its current elementary school bicycle awareness program, coordinating with OSPI and consulting with bicycling groups and the traffic safety commission’s active transportation safety council. It’s to include the same specified skills and content and be deployed in at least two school districts with up to 15,000 students on either side of the Cascades. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to fund presentations of the Patrol’s new bike safety awareness program to students by state or local officers as part of the safe routes to schools program.

It also requires the Department of Health to report to the House and Senate Transportation Committees on its head injury prevention program by September 1st, 2021.

HB1036

HB1036 – Implements a low-carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; SW Seattle & Vashon Island) (Co-Sponsor Slatter – D)
Current status – This bill has been replaced by HB1091, an updated version. (The only substantive change requires fuels to have associated emissions at least 20% below 2017 levels to generate credits.) Assigned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Department of Ecology is to establish rules to reduce the intensity of transportation fuels, including electricity, used in the state. They’re to take effect January 1st, 2023, and to reduce the full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions attributable to fuels other than electricity to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (By 2031, Ecology is to update them so emissions from transportation sources will meet the state’s target of a 95% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.)

The rules are to create a system of trackable, verifiable, tradeable, and bankable credits, generating a credit (or a deficit) when the production, importing, or dispensing of fuel with a lower (or a higher) carbon intensity than the department’s standard results in the emission of a metric ton of CO2e. The estimates of greenhouse gas emissions may not privilege fuels from any particular places, and must reflect the carbon intensity of each electric utility’s mix of generation sources. The rules must include cost containment mechanisms, such as provisions allowing  the department to establish a credit clearance market and sell credits at a price it sets after the end of each compliance period, a similar means for complying if participants haven’t been able to acquire enough credits to meet the requirements by the end of a period, and a similar means of ensuring that the prices of credits don’t significantly exceed those of credits in similar programs in other jurisdictions. (Such mechanisms must be designed to financially disincentivize participants from relying on them rather than reducing emissions.) Persons associated with the supply chains of transportation fuels covered by the program and those generating credits from fuels that aren’t not covered by the program may elect to participate in the market. (The department may also designate an entity to aggregate and use credits generated by any persons covered by the program that generate credits but choose not to participate.)

Electricity and fuels used by aircraft, vessels, railroad locomotives, and military vehicles are not covered by the program. Fuel for off-road logging vehicles, construction and mining, and agriculture isn’t covered until 2028, but can be used to generate credits and trade them before then. Ecology is also authorized to allow the generation of credits associated with electric or alternative transportation infrastructure that already exists when the bill becomes effective.

The rules must allow generating credits from providing zero emission vehicle refueling infrastructure and other low carbon fuel infrastructure including, fast charging battery electric vehicle infrastructure and hydrogen electric vehicle refueling infrastructure. They may allow generating credits from any activities that reduce emissions in the state, including carbon capture and sequestration projects, such as innovative crude oil production projects including carbon capture and sequestration; refinery investments in it; or direct air capture projects; and fueling of vehicles with electricity the department certifies as net-zero. (This must include electricity for which a renewable energy credit or other environmental attribute has been retired or used only for purposes of the program; electricity produced using a zero emission resource that’s directly supplied as a transportation fuel by its generator, and the smart charging of an electric vehicle when the carbon intensity of grid electricity is comparatively low.) The department’s to periodically consult with and advisory panel, including representatives of forestland and agricultural landowners, on how to best incentivize and allot credits for sequestration through activities on agricultural and forestlands. It may set yearly limits on the credits that can be generated by emissions reducing activities that it chooses to include, providing those “take into consideration” the return on investment needed for it to be financially viable.

Before each compliance period, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Agriculture and Ecology, is to estimate whether the expected supply of low-carbon fuels will generate enough credits to meet the program’s compliance requirements.

Utilities must spend half of their low carbon fuel standard revenues from supplying retail customers of projects supporting the use of electrification or renewable hydrogen in transportation. Sixty percent of that must go to projects in or directly benefiting areas with high levels of air pollution or disproportionately impacted communities identified by the department of health. Ecology may adopt requirements, developed in consultation with utilities, for spending the other half of these revenues.

Details –
Calculations of life-cycle emissions may include “changes in land use associated with transportation fuels and any permanent greenhouse gas sequestration activities”, and may consider the efficiency of a fuel as used in a powertrain.

The department may obtain additional information it needs to estimate fuel emissions from suppliers and utilities; companies covered by the program should be allowed to demonstrate appropriate carbon intensity values to the department if that doesn’t counter the reduction goals of the program or prove administratively burdensome.

It’s to try to harmonize the rules with those of other states that have adopted low carbon fuel standards or similar requirements for low-carbon transportation fuels and that supply (or might supply) significant quantities of those to the state, or get them from us.

There are variety of reporting requirements. The bill allows Ecology to collect fees from participants to to cover the costs of administering the program.  It extends the current penalties  for violations of air pollution standards to include violations of the bill’s requirements. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee is to report to the Legislature on a variety of issues about the program after five years, including its costs and benefits, associated emissions reductions, and its effects on employment and fuel prices. The bill removes a poison pill provision about the transfer of transportation funds  which has been intended to block adoption of the standard.