Category Archives: House Bills 2024

HB2401

HB2401 – Managing refrigerant gases used in appliances or other infrastructure.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Ramel, Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Appropriations and scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
There’s a staff summary of the original bill and one of the substitute on the tracking page.

HB2483

HB2483 – Regulating and encouraging biochar production from agricultural and forestry biomass.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Shavers & Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would add producing biochar using mobile units with reduced emissions relative to open burning, and consuming less than 150 green tons a month of clean cellulosic biomass, to the list of alternative forestry disposal practices DNR is currently supposed to encourage. Those materials are defined as residuals from agricultural and forest-derived biomass including green wood, forest thinnings, wood pellets and various kinds of waste; urban wood including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass; corn stover and other crops used specifically for the production of biofuels; bagasse and other crop residues; and wood collected from fire clearance, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, and clean biomass from land clearing. (Materials couldn’t contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass.)

You’d need a burning permit from DNR to produce biochar with biomass from forestry operations, and a burning permit from Ecology to produce it from agricultural waste. including a fee of $1 per ton of waste.

HB2486

HB2486 – Extending the commute trip reduction tax credit program and increasing the benefits.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wylie (D; 49th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would extend the commute trip reduction business and occupation tax credit program for two years, until June 2026. It would drop the provision limiting the credit to 50% of what an employer spends on the program, and raise the allowable credit per employee from $60 to $100. It would reduce the maximum credit an employer could receive in a given year from $100,000 to $50,000, and raise the cap for the whole program from $2,750,000 to $4,300,000.

HB2405

HB2405 – Integrating sustainability factors into the State Investment Board’s activities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr; (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Ramel, Berry – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the State Investment Board to integrate sustainability factors into its investment decision making, investment analysis, portfolio construction, due diligence, and investment ownership. Those would include specified corporate governance and leadership factors, and environmental factors that might have an adverse or positive financial impact on investment performance. They’d include social capital factors that impact relationships with outside parties, including human rights, customer welfare, customer privacy, data security, access and affordability, selling practices and product labeling, community reinvestment, and community relations. They’d also include human capital factors such as labor practices, responsible contractor and responsible bidder policies, employee health and safety, employee engagement, diversity and inclusion, and incentives and compensation. They’d include business model and innovation factors that reflect an ability to plan and forecast opportunities and risks, such as supply chain management, materials sourcing and efficiency, business model resilience, product design and life-cycle management, and physical impacts of climate change.

The bill would allow analyzing these factors in a variety of ways, including considering direct financial impacts and risks; legal, regulatory, and policy impacts and risks; performance in relation to industry norms, best practices, and competitive drivers; and effects of stakeholder engagement.

It would have the Board develop and publish proxy voting guidelines that recognize climate change as a business and systemic risk, and use its authority as a stockholder to mitigate these risks. The bill says it should support shareholder resolutions that call for entities to reduce activities that contribute to climate change, and provide public, written comments explaining why the board chose not to support them when it didn’t.

The bill would require an annual report from the Board to the House Capital Budget Committee and Senate Ways & Means on the environmental sustainability of its investment decision-making process, focusing on its process for identifying climate change-related risks and assessing the financial impact those have on the Board’s operations. The report would have to include actions the Board is taking to manage the risks climate change poses to its investment portfolio and strategies; its operations, and Federal climate-related reporting requirements.

The bill would require the State Auditor to conduct a comprehensive biannual evaluation of the Board’s proxy voting guidelines on climate risks, including consideration of how well the Board was conforming to those and to the bill’s investment guidelines. It would report to the Legislature on proxy votes cast in ways that promoted emissions targets required for keeping global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius, instances where proxy votes cast were effective in directing or maintaining guidance to directors to pursue the goals in those guidelines, the overall efficacy of the proxy voting guidelines, and recommendations for improvements.

HB2465

HB2465 – Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Goehner – R; Bateman – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 30th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 31st. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6291 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comment –
I’m no expert, but I think most of the bill simply codifies the Council’s current processes. The title says it “streamlines” adopting statewide amendments; I don’t see much about doing that in the bill.

In the House –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of its changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require the Council to review the new editions of the model codes it adopts by reference within 30 months of their publication. It specifies procedures for proposing and adopting emergency statewide amendments to the code at any time. It authorizes a majority of the Council to initiate an interim code adoption cycle between 12 and 18 months after the effective date of codes adopted in the regular three year cycle to correct errors and omissions, or eliminate obsolete, conflicting, redundant, or unnecessary regulations. It allows for off-cycle amendments, but only at the direction of the Legislature.

More generally, the bill specifies that substantive changes to the code must be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare; or clarifies the intent or application of the code; or be necessary for consistency with state or federal laws and regulations; correct errors and omissions; eliminate an obsolete or conflicting regulation; or be directed by the Legislature. Substantive updates will happen only once during the three year code adoption cycle, unless they happen though one of the exceptions above.

The bill also specifies some procedures for submitting proposed statewide amendments. It would require the Council to develop a process for meetings that allowed the public to understand amendments being proposed for adoption, including modifications to proposed rule text to be in writing, specify the reason for the amendment, and be available to the council and the public at least seven days before a vote on final adoption. The rules would have to encourage councilmembers and technical advisory group members to make proposed amendments and text changes available to other members and the public at least 48 hours before the meeting at which they would be discussed.

The bill specifies criteria for membership in a technical advisory group, and requires approval of a proposed amendment by a majority of a TAG for it to be considered by the Council. It eliminates the Council’s authority to contract for services, and specifies that it’s to hire a managing director. It would require its standing committees, ad hoc committees, and technical advisory groups to conform to the requirements of the open public meetings act.

HB2446

HB2446 – Providing increased funding for reforestation after wildfires and other destructive events.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Paul; (D; 10th District; Island County) (Co-Sponsor Dent – R)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill is nearly identical to SB6281. (However, that specifies that recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries; prioritizes direct reforestation, and specifies that funds could also be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program.)

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would have the Department of Natural Resources create a grant program for climate-informed reforestation after wildfires and other large scale events that damaged forest ecoservices. Grants would be available to tribal ownerships, nonprofit landowners and managers, industrial and nonindustrial private forestland owners, local governments, and other state agencies. Federal lands and lands directly managed by DNR would not be eligible, though recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries. The recipents’ share of the costs would be limited to 25%, including in-kind contributions. DNR would prioritize projects on private forest land where the owners weren’t required to replant; projects including reforesting riparian buffers, potentially unstable slopes, or other areas where state regulations restrict harvesting. The Department would set minimum and maximum sizes for the grants, and take environmental justice into consideration in making awards.

The bill would add the grant program and DNR’s own work reforesting after wildfires to the list of activities that can be funded by revenue from the Climate Commitment Act, and appropriate up to $10 million this fiscal year for each of these.

HB2444

HB2444 – Defining the legal liabilities associated with the operation of autonomous vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would define the legal liability of manufacturers of autonomous vehicles. They’d be responsible for the safety of occupants, other users of the road, and property to the same extent that an attentive and unimpaired human driver in similar circumstances would be. Breaches of the system’s duty of care would include operating in a way that would be negligent if a person did it; failing to obey motor vehicle laws, rules, and regulations; failing to make defensive driving maneuvers without undue risk, and requesting a person to take control of the vehicle in circumstances in which it was unreasonable to do that expeditiously and without creating an additional hazard. Such failures would count as ordinary or gross negligence, and manufacturers’ could be financially liable for losses resulting from them. They’d still be liable if intervention by a third party had contributed to a system’s failure to control the vehicle.

The bill would establish strict liability for autonomous vehicles being tested, were running without human supervision, or claimed to be capable of doing that. Manufacturers would be liable for damages to people or property regardless of whether the automated system or a person was in control of the vehicle immediately before the accident, and regardless of any failures on the part of the test driver. Unless you’d deliberately engaged in a malicious act, you could get paid for damages simply by showing that the car had caused them. Drivers who’d taken over partial or complete control of a vehicle from the system would not be responsible for any loss arising from their negligent acts or omissions during the first 10 seconds after the transfer of control; they might be liable if they didn’t respond within 10 seconds to requests from the system about taking over or shifting control of the vehicle.

However, people who were responsible for supervising the operation of a system might be liable for losses rather than the manufacturer if the loss happened more than ten seconds after they took over control of a vehicle, the loss was caused by a readily apparent hazard that could have been avoided or mitigated through reasonable intervention without unduly endangering the them, other individuals, or property; they knew or should have known that the system wouldn’t deal with the hazard adequately without intervention; and they had a reasonable amount of time to perceive, react to, and avoid the hazard.

Systems would have to shut down and stop at the first available safe location if they couldn’t continue operation of the vehicle without undue risk and a person was unwilling or unable to intervene in the vehicle’s controls or provide adequate remote supervision. If a vehicle had urgent-egress or demand-stop features, occupants wouldn’t be liable for using or failing to use them when the vehicle was operating fully autonomously. Manufacturer would have to have automated vehicles display appropriate and effective visual warnings to motorists and vulnerable road users while they were being tested on the road.

HB2429

HB2429 – Making procedural changes in the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s consideration of applications for site certifications.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Pollet – D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 29th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
When the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council holds the required public hearing, conducted as an adjudicative procedure, before submitting its recommendation about a site application to the Governor, the bill would require the attorney acting as counsel for the environment to state full support for the application for certification; qualified support for it with recommended modifications; or opposition to its approval. It specifies that people testifying at the hearing in support of approval or in opposition to it have the right to call any witness with relevant information except for members of the Council and its staff.

The bill specifies that majority consensus by a quorum of the Council is required to conduct the its business, and that the Chair cannot conduct it unilaterally. It also specifies a few other minor procedural points, including stating that applications for facility site certification have to contain sufficient information for the Council to evaluate all their potential impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act.

HB2417

HB2417 – Creating a revolving loan fund to support developing clean energy in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Pasco) (Co-Sponsor Hackney – D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it in this session, the bill would create a revolving loan fund to support developing clean energy in the state. It could make loans to public or private entities for electric vehicle or hydrogen vehicle fleets, charging, or refueling stations; siting evaluations and permitting for generation or transmission projects promoting energy reliability; installation of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydrogen infrastructure to assist with supplying the applicant’s energy needs; the buildout of advanced nuclear reactor technology including small modular reactors; and decarbonization of facilities. It would be managed by the State Energy Office, and the bill has a few provisions about due diligence, conflicts of interest, and canceling loans for ethics violations.

HB2410

HB2410 – Providing the reduced B&O tax rate for producing alternative jet fuel to much smaller companies in distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Caldier – R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6240 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current ten year reduced business and occupation tax rate for the production of alternative jet fuel to companies producing at least 500,000 gallons a year, if they were in economically distressed areas. (Currently, you have to produce at least 20 million gallons a year to get the special rate of 0.275 percent.) (Distressed areas are defined by a number of different measures of unemployment and income.)

HB2376

HB2376 – Adjusting the Climate Commitment Act’s provision of free allowances to municipal gas utilities.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Robertson (R; 31st District; Sumner) (Co-Sponsors Stokesbary, Dent, Ybarra, and Caldier – Rs)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the free Climate Commitment Act allocations that municipal gas utilities receive to cover their emissions decline by 2% each year, rather than declining in proportion to the reductions in the cap needed to meet the State’s climate goals. It would increase the percentage of their free allowances they had to auction to provide rate reductions for customers by 2% a year, leaving the increases for other utilities at the current rate of 5% a year.

The bill would also authorize public entities subject to the CCA to go into executive session to discuss financial, proprietary, or other market sensitive information related to their participation in its markets. (The Act already exempts records about these, but it doesn’t exempt discussions of them.)

HB2301

HB2301 – Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Ormsby, Peterson, Pollet, Macri, Cortes, Shavers, Leavitt, and Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Appropriations; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6180 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology’s Center for Sustainable Food Management to develop and administer new grant programs in consultation with the Department of Agriculture; some of these would support activities reducing emissions by diverting organic materials from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities, or through food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery. They would be administered to prioritize maximizing greenhouse gas emission reductions; eliminating barriers to the rescue and consumption of edible food that would otherwise be wasted; developing stable funding programs for potential recipients to be aware of; and preferring options according to a specified management hierarchy. If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the grants could be used for projects to prevent the surplus of unsold, uneaten food from food businesses or to improve procedures for food donations; projects to improve and reduce the transportation of donated foods and management of cold chains; programs to support the establishment and expansion of wasted food reduction programs to benefit vulnerable communities; and food waste tracking and analytics pilot projects. The Department could award these grants competitively or non-competitively, and would have to prioritize projects benefiting overburdened communities.

The Center would also be required to develop and administer grants to support the implementation of the bill’s requirements and those of chapter 180, Laws of 2022, which is about waste management and organic materials. Priority would be given to grants implementing source separated organics collection and programs for businesses that are required to arrange for organic material management. The Department would have to provide assistance to each local government that demonstrated eligibility for these grants, and would not be allowed to require matching funds from them.

The Center would convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to address mechanisms to mandate or otherwise improve the rescue of edible food waste from commercial generators, including food services, retail establishments, and food processors. It would consider timelines, exemptions, administration, enforcement, and other logistics to phase in edible food donation programs, incentives, or requirements; as well as the systems needed to support increased donations by commercial generators and whether that certain system components wewre in place before requiring any commercial donations. It would assess asset gaps and food infrastructure development needs, facilitate the creation of networks and partnerships to address those and develop innovative partnerships and models where appropriate. It would consider actions taken, costs, and lessons learned by other US jurisdictions with policies for reducing edible commercially generated food waste and through voluntary pilot projects carried out by commercial generators of food waste. Ecology would submit a report to the legislature by September 1, 2025, with the recommendations of the work group.

The bill would have the Department of Agriculture create a commodities donation grant program for one or more nonprofit food cooperative organizations to acquire food at risk of being wasted directly from food producers for distribution to hunger relief organizations. It would rely on existing infrastructure and similar current programs to maximize short term benefits and expedite grants; be designed to achieve efficiencies of scale, and give priority to organizations that have at least five years doing similar work. It would compensate producers for production costs and postharvest logistical and administrative costs that facilitated the acquisition and distribution of the food. The bill declares the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $25 million per biennium to this program.

The bill would double the size of the school awards in the Waste Not program, to $10,000 a year, and declare the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $1 million per biennium to that program.

After March 2027, jurisdictions accepting food waste in their source separated organics collection programs would be required to collect every week instead of 26 weeks a year, unless they reduced the volume or odor of the waste somehow and got a waiver from Ecology. Beginning in April 2030 jurisdictions would have to provide source-separated organic solid waste collection services to all customers, and accept food waste. With a few exceptions, everyone would have to use the curbside program to dispose of organics. The bill shifts the rules about exempted areas in various ways. It requires at least ten hours a year of independent training in organic materials management for compost and anaerobic digester facility managers and supervisors. Starting in 2026 it would require a business that generates at 96 gallons of organic waste a week to have management services for it. (Currently, this isn’t required unless you have at least 4 cubic yards a week.) It would require uniform color coding and labeling on collection bins across the state. It would prohibit using organic wastes contaminated with clopyralid, aminopyralid, or other picolinic acid herbicides as inputs or feedstocks in an organic materials management facility.

The bill would require packaging labels about food quality to say “Best by…” and those about food safety to say “Use by…”. It would prohibit labels saying “Sell by”, and labels saying “Pull by” or “Pull date” on perishable food packaging, though that information could be displayed in a date and month format that consumers couldn’t decipher readily. (You could still have labels indicating when food was packaged or processed, or saying it was best consumed within a certain number of days after being opened.) There’d be required signs about the new labeling in stores over 10,000 sq. ft. Authority to enforce the requirements could be delegated to local health jurisdictions, and would be required to primarily be in response to complaints; there’d be penalties of up to $500 a day for violations. The bill would also have the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology provide education and outreach activities, as well as technical assistance and guidance on request for businesses required to communicate a quality or safety date on food packaging. After two notices including information, violations of the bill’s labeling requirements would be subject to fines of up to $500 a day.

The bill would prohibit plastic stickers on produce, and add new specifications for when wood or fiber-based materials can be labeled “compostable”, and for coloring film plastic bags to help customers tell which are compostable and which need to be discarded as waste. It specifies requirements for labeling products as “home compostable.” It requires jurisdictions to notify Ecology if they choose to enforce the current prohibitions against claiming plastic products are “compostable” or “biodegradable” when they’re not.

It would authorize local jurisdictions to amend the State building code to provide adequate space for locating organic waste and recycling containers with garbage containers, or require posting of signs notifying residents where those containers are.

HB2028

HB2028 – Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers’ ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Santos (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Robertson and Sandlin – Rs;  Reeves & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 17th. Passed out of committee January 31st, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5945 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit direct sales or leases of vehicles to retail customers. (Tesla sells directly to customers like this, without dealers, and Rivian and other new EV companies are adopting this model.)

The bill would prohibit offering consumers a subscription service for any vehicle feature that uses components and hardware that are already on the vehicle when it’s purchased or leased and that is typically offered to a consumer as an upgrade at that point, if it would function after activation without ongoing costs to or support by a dealer, manufacturer, distributor, or a third-party service provider. (The prohibition doesn’t apply to navigation system updates, satellite radio, roadside assistance, software-dependent driver assistance or driver automation features, or services that rely on cellular or other data networks.)

It would prevent manufacturers and distributors from creating programs or policies encouraging or requiring dealers to install direct current fast charging stations, unless those required public access to the stations and  they reimbursed the dealer for half of the cost of installing and maintaining them when the dealer gave them half the net income from charging. They wouldn’t be allowed to encourage or require a dealer to install DC fast charging if the dealer could obtain access to stations that satisfied the program or policy within five miles of the dealership. A program or policy would have to be reasonable in light of all existing circumstances including local conditions; supply and time constraints; and advances in vehicle technology and grid integration. They would have to allow a new dealer to purchase or lease goods or services of like kind and quality from an alternative vendor if goods or services are to be supplied by a vendor chosen by the manufacturer or distributor.

It would also prohibit manufacturers from implementing an incentive program that did not provide an equal opportunity for all dealers to qualify because of their location or sales volume, that predetermined the price of a vehicle, that limited eligibility based on nonvehicle product penetration, or that required use of specific software or service vendors to qualify. If manufacturers provided parts for repairs to dealers free or at a reduced rate, they’d be required to compensate the dealers for using those at the same rate that they’d have compensated them for parts supplied to do repairs under warranty. The bill also changes the method for calculating the rate at which manufacturers compensate dealers for the labor and diagnostic work involved in warranty repairs.

HB2333

HB2333 – Assessing the potential of state-owned natural and built assets to generate offset credits for carbon markets.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way)  (Co-Sponsors Walen, Chapman, Springer, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 22nd, amended to extend the due date for the assessment by six months, drop Ecology from the process of carrying it out, and allow linkage before it’s completed. Passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to the Committee on the Capital Budget.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Natural Resources, in collaboration and coordination with other specified agencies, assess state-owned natural and built assets with the potential to generate offset credits for the state’s carbon market. The study would also analyze their offset credit potential under protocols that the state might adopt by rule in the future, including those in voluntary carbon markets. DNR would report the results and any related recommendations for future coordination with local governments to the Legislature by July 2025; the bill would prohibit any linkage agreements before the assessment was completed.

HB2156

HB2156 – Creating consumer protections for purchasers of solar energy systems.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way)  (Co-Sponsors Doglio and Pollet – Ds)  By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 16th; amended and passed out of committee January 19th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6256 is a companion bill in the House.

In  the House –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made in the amendment.

Summary –
The bill would require anyone selling or installing a commercial or residential system for more than $1,000 to be licensed and have a written contract with the customer. The contract would have to include:
(a) An itemized list of work to be performed including any known or anticipated electrical upgrades;
(b) Any financing that’s incorporated directly in the contract, conforming to all state and federal consumer loan regulations and disclosure requirements;
(c) The exact amount paid, if any, by a solar contractor or salesperson to any lender in the
form of a dealer fee, or other inducement to obtain financing;
(d) The total dollar amount of the contract and the cost per DC watt from the nameplate rating;
(e) A detailed, performance-based payment schedule based on project completion milestones, explaining when costs are due, the customer’s right to cancel the contract, and the cancellation fees that would be due at each milestone in the payment schedule;
(f) The model, brand name and warranty period of the major components to be installed. (The customer would have to agree in writing to any changes in those.);
(g) Any ongoing operations and maintenance costs included in the contract;
(h) A list of anticipated maintenance activities the customer will need to perform to maintain the warranty and performance of the equipment including inverter replacement;
(i) The system’s projected first-year production in kilowatt-hours, based on the characteristics of the specific site, and developed with a nationally recognized methodology and industry-standard tool.
(j) An explanation of what happens annually to any unused net metering or other bill credits from on-site generation;
(k) The contractor’s good faith estimate of electric bill savings the customer is expected to achieve over the first year after interconnection.
(l) The name, business address, and phone number of the primary solar salesperson or sales firm, if different from the contractor;
(m) The name, business address, and registration number of the contractor, with a link to the Department of Labor and Industries contractor verification tool;
(n) A statement of whether all or part of the work is intended to be subcontracted or performed by another person or entity than the contractor’s own workforce;
(o) A recommendation in capital letters about the importance of getting approval of any expected loan for the project before signing the contract and of knowing whether payments would begin before the statement was operational.
(p) A notification in capital letters of the customer’s right to cancel the contract within three days.
(q) Notice about potential complications in receiving the Federal residential clean energy tax credit for the project. (This and the preceding two items would need to be initialed by the customer to acknowledge reading and understanding them.)
(r) A statement clearly explaining whether the contract includes the cost of uninstalling and
reinstalling the system if it’s on the customer’s roof and that must be replaced or repaired in the future. If that isn’t covered, the customer’s responsibility for this work needs to be stated.
(s) A copy of the IRS’s current Form 5695 instructions for the residential clean energy credit qualified solar electric property costs;
(t) A statement that it’s the contractor’s responsibility to install the system per manufacturer instructions, in compliance with the national and local codes, and with the utility’s interconnection standards;
(u) A copy of, or electronic link to, the applicable utility interconnection application, and a statement documenting which party is responsible for getting permission to operate from the utility. (The interconnection agreement would have to be approved by the utility before installation began, unless the utility waived that requirement).

There would have to be a statement that the addition of a solar system may affect the value of the structure as determined by the county assessor and any change in value may be reflected in annual property taxes, and a statement informing the customer that the system will automatically disconnect from the grid in the event of a power outage to protect utility repair personnel from electric shock, and that the solar system will not provide any power to the customer in that case. (This is not required if the system includes energy storage and/or power conversion and control technologies designed and installed to provide backup power during a grid outage.)

There are various provisions protecting the customer’s right to cancel the contract within three days, and prohibiting collecting any payment for the system during that period.

The bill would prohibit trying to sell a system using any statement or representation about the costs, financing, terms, or conditions of its purchase or installation that as deceptive, and would classify violations of the bill’s requirements as unfair or deceptive acts and unfair methods of competition under the Consumer Protection Act. Contractors, subcontractors, or solar salespeople who failed to comply with the requirements would be liable to the customer for any actual damages sustained as a result of the failure, and if you bought or were assigned an installation contract you’d be subject to the same potential liabilities.

HB2341

HB2341 – Studying the potential effects of offshore wind development on the oceanographic processes of the Pacific and marine life.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Stokesbary – R; Chapman, Morgan, Timmons, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 19th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the University of Washington School of Oceanography conduct a comprehensive scientific study on the cumulative effects, both positive and negative, of offshore wind development on oceanographic processes such as tides, waves, and currents, and of how changes in those could affect the broader marine ecosystem. It would have to at least address the impact full projected build-out of offshore wind generation along the West Coast is likely to have on ocean upwelling;
wind turbines’ capacity to attract and/or repel fish and marine life; and the physical effects associated with turbines’ construction and operation, including water cloudiness, noise, vibrations, and disruptions to electromagnetic fields. The UW would submit a copy of its study to the Governor and to the committees of the Legislature with jurisdiction over energy and fishing by June 30, 2026.

HB2336

HB2336 – Assessing the suitability of state-owned lands for agriculture and renewable energy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Morgan (D; 29th District; Spanaway) (49 bipartisan co-sponsors)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on January 17th. Amended and passed out of committee January 24th. Scheduled for a hearing in the Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
The amendment in committee would include land that could be used for grazing as land suitable for agriculture; would require an agency to already be considering land for sale or surplus for it to count as underutilized; and would include land that could be used for agrivoltaics as land that’s suitable for renewable energy.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to assess unused and underutilized state-owned lands in consultation with the State Conservation Commission, determining their suitability for agricultural purposes. It would report the results to specified government recipients by June 30th, 2025. The Department would run a campaign to promote agricultural production on suitable land, with an emphasis on reaching communities that might have lacked access to opportunities as agricultural producers historically. It would also assess and evaluate land utilization in the state for agricultural purposes on an ongoing basis, identifying and mapping agricultural uses and water resources, including data on surface water, groundwater resources, and water quality. It would use this data to support and expand agricultural opportunities throughout the state.

The Washington State University Energy Program would use data from Agriculture’s study to identify lands that weren’t suitable for agriculture and assess their suitability for producing renewable energy. It would report its results to the same specified recipients by June 30, 2026.

HB2232

HB2232 – Assessing petroleum products supply and pricing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Mena, Berry, Bateman, Ramel, Ormsby, Reed, Fosse, Macri, Pollet, Peterson, Duerr – Ds) By request of the Governor.
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6052 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would have the Utilities and Transportation Commission collect, analyze, and report on operational, pricing, and cost information from fuel suppliers, refineries, and other entities in the supply chain for transportation fuels sold in the state. It creates an independent Division of Petroleum Market Oversight with a director appointed by the Governor.

The Division would provide independent oversight and analysis of the transportation fuels markets to protect consumers by identifying market design flaws, market power abuses, and any other ways in which market participants act to harm competition or contrary to the best interests of consumers. It would be authorized to compel witnesses to testify under oath and to subpoena relevant material including current and historical pricing and sales data and industry contracts.It would provide guidance and recommendations to the Governor, as well as members and other divisions of the UTC on issues related to transportation fuels pricing and transportation decarbonization in Washington, and would report its findings and recommendations to improve market performance at least annually to the Legislature, the Governor, the UTC, the Attorney General, and the Department of Licensing.

Refiners, marketer, transporters, storers, pipeline operators, terminal operators, and ports through which transportation fuel is imported or exported would have to report a range of specified information to the UTC on a monthly or an annual basis. The Commission could require additional information needed to fulfill its responsibilities under the bill, and would create a quarterly public report summarizing the collected monthly data from refiners and major marketers, aggregated to preserve the confidentiality of protected information. Records of contracts, transactions and prices would have to be retained for three years so they would be available for review by the UTC. Importers of fuels by ship would have to notify the UTC of arrivals in advance and provide specified information about the delivery; refiners and nonrefiners entering into spot market transactions would have to provide monthly reports on those. Refiners would have to report on maintenance and turnaround activities. (The Legislature intends these to be carried out in a way that ensures that there are the minimum levels of fuels in production or reserves to adequately and affordably meet demand.) They would also have to report on unplanned maintenance events.

In consultation with the Department of Ecology, the UTC would adopt a method for refiners to use to quantify the volume-weighted fees or estimated costs associated with the clean fuels program that were embedded in various prices for wholesale transportation fuels. Those would be included in monthly reporting as well.

After notification, there’d be penalties between $5,000 and $20,000 a day for each day the submission of information was refused or delayed, up to a maximum of $500,000 per submission, as well as penalties for false statements or representations. There are provisions about protecting confidential information.

The UTC would analyze and interpret this information to explore:
(a) The nature, cause, and extent of any petroleum or petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply;
(b) The economic and environmental impacts of any petroleum and petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply;
(c) The demand and supply forecasting methodologies used by the petroleum industry in Washington;
(d) The prices charged by the industry, with particular emphasis on retail motor fuel prices including sales to unbranded retail markets; any significant changes in those; and the reasons for changes;
(e) The profits, both before and after taxes, of the industry as a whole and of major firms within it, and where in the supply chain these profits are realized, including a comparison with the profits, return on equity and capital, and price-earnings ratios of other major industry groups and major firms within them;
(f) A comparison of companies’ profits at their Washington refineries and at any other refineries they own in the United States;
(g) Emerging trends relating to the supply, demand, and conservation of petroleum and petroleum products;
(h) The nature and extent of the industry’s efforts to expand refinery capacity and to acquire additional supplies of petroleum and petroleum products; and
(i) The development of an information system that will enable the state to take action to meet and mitigate any petroleum or petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply.
The commission would also analyze the impacts of state and federal policies and regulations on the supply and pricing of transportation fuels. It would submit a quarterly public summary of its analysis and interpretation of the information it gathered to the Governor and the Legislature, and prepare a biennial assessment of it. (It could hire consultants to help with its work.)

Before July 2026, and every three years after that, the Commission would submit an assessment to the Governor and the Legislature, developed in a public process, that:
(i) Identified methods to ensure a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in Washington, including considering the potential benefits to consumers of creating estimates for the fuels that should be held in reserve by refiners to prevent shortages that result in sharp price increases, and,
(ii) Evaluated the price of fuels and other refinery products, consideringh market demand at three, seven, 10, and 20-year intervals, and examined whether branded fuel additives have any impact on fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions, and if so, how much.

It would also assess the presence and availability of retail outlets, including monitoring changes in their availability that contribute to increasing retail prices in local and regional areas; consider different levels of supply conditions and assess the impact of potential refinery closures in Washington; and include an analysis of the impacts on production of planned refinery maintenance, unplanned maintenance, and turnaround. In consultation with the Department of Labor and Industries and stakeholders, the UTC and the Division would consider ways to manage necessary turnarounds and maintenance that would protect the health and safety of employees and the public, and minimize the impact of maintenance-related production losses on fuel prices. It would evaluate the utility and feasibility of alternative methods to maintain adequate supplies of transportation fuels, including delivery alternatives for fuel and components of fuel, such as delivery by rail, a publicly maintained strategic fuel reserve, and other solutions beyond the activities of refineries and petroleum market participants. It would propose solutions to mitigate any impacts, including an assessment of the employment impacts and the cost and cost-effectiveness of any proposal. The assessments would have to include recommendations and alternatives, and the first one would have to include the evaluation of transportation fuels refining.

By 2026, the UTC and Ecology, would prepare a transportation fuels transition plan, taking into account findings of the assessment. It would have to include include a discussion of how to ensure the supply of transportation fuels is affordable, reliable, equitable, and adequate to meet demand. It would have to be prepared in consultation with a multistakeholder, multiagency work group they convened to identify mechanisms to plan for and monitor progress toward the state’s reliable, safe, equitable, and affordable transition away from petroleum fuels in line with declining demand and its climate goals. (The bill specifies a list of stakeholders that would have to be included in the work group.)

The bill would make it unlawful for a person to make deceptive environmental marketing claims about transportation fuels, whether they were explicit or implied, and authorizes enhanced penalties under the consumer protection laws for violations.

HB2298

HB2298 – Establishing a climate resilience and environmental equity campus.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Postsecondary Education & Workforce.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources and Highline Community College to establish and administer a climate resilience and environmental equity campus as a joint operating agency. The campus would provide workforce training for postsecondary students pursuing careers in climate-focused science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through on-site training and a variety of internships. It would develop a climate-focused program and curriculum including training in those disciplines as well as social justice, collaborative decision making, ethical climate engagement, and community and civic engagement. It would provide informational exhibits exploring careers in those disciplines. The campus might be “made available” to the State’s public universities and colleges.

The campus would be governed by a Board of Directors with nine members appointed by the Governor and representing Highline, DNR, and specified institutions and stakeholders. It would work with industry to develop opportunities to offer students direct experience providing career and skills training, promote faculty collaboration with industry; encourage projects ranging from small scale research to large multipartner projects; work with industry to market in-state career opportunities in the specified disciplines, diversify the workforce, and educate the public on the pathways to success in those fields. It would work with colleges, universities, and industry to develop an industry-recognized certificate for students who completed training at the campus.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it the bill would have the DNR acquire Weyerhaeuser’s former corporate headquarters as a site for the new campus.

HB2297

HB2297 – Requiring solar systems on certain new school buildings over 50,000 sq.ft. when the State provides the funding.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Orwall (D; 33rd District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Hackney, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Goodman, Riccelli, Simmons, Pollet, and Doglio, Ds.)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday January 18th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
It seems to me that the bill currently says schools must notify OSPI about “qualifying systems”, but they won’t be able to know if they’re actually considering a qualifying system until after the agency does a cost benefit analysis, and OSPI isn’t supposed to do that analysis until after it’s notified of a project.

Summary –
The bill would have public schools planning to construct a building that was over 50,000 square feet (and that the building code required to have a solar zone) notify the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; they’d provide the estimated cost of permitting, purchasing, and installing a qualifying solar energy system, a comparison of the proposed system’s capacity to the school campus’ anticipated electrical consumption. and the electrical consumption of investments in their 10-year capital plans and anticipated improvements required to comply with the State’s energy-related building standards. (A qualifying system would have to maximize buildings’ or sites’ solar potential without exceeding the school campus’ anticipated electrical consumption and have an estimated positive net present value.)

OSPI would provide technical assistance to public schools for estimating a project’s costs and scope, and perform a cost-benefit analysis for each project included in a notification, comparing the state’s investment to the value produced by the project over a period of at least 25 years, and estimating whether it would result in a positive net present value over the period of analysis.

OSPI would develop a program to provide grants to cover the costs of installing systems on buildings that were required to provide solar zones by the building code. The agency would also estimate the cost of implementing the bill before each fiscal biennium, and request appropriations for the cost estimates. The first of these requests would be due by September 30, 2024. The Superintendent would award these grants if funds were specifically appropriated for them.

HB2262

HB2262 – Creating and enforcing energy efficiency standards for replacement tires.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Slatter, Kloba, Ortiz-Self, Ramel, Peterson, Doglio, Thai, Ryu, Cortes, Pollet, Morgan, Simmons, and Macri, Ds.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment on January 24th.Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce establish and enforce energy efficiency standards for replacement tires for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. (The findings say that an analysis by the Department’s energy policy office estimates adoption of reasonable standards could result in a cumulative reduction of 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline and 1,500 gigawatt hours of electricity over the next ten years.) Commerce might implement any combination of a database of replacement tires in production, a system for rating the energy efficiency of replacement tires based on their rolling resistance coefficient, minimum energy efficiency standards for replacement tires, testing procedures aligned with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration regulations when the bill became effective, and requirements for reporting information needed to implement it. The bill would authorize Commerce to prohibit the sale of replacement tires that didn’t meet the minimum efficiency standards.

The rules couldn’t adversely affect tire safety or tire longevity, as demonstrated by independent testing of wet grip or traction and treadwear done by an analyst for the department or another State energy office and verified by the department. They’d have to provide exemptions for snow tires, spare use tires, tires manufactured specifically for use in vehicles with three or fewer wheels, or tires manufactured specifically for use in an off-road recreational or agricultural vehicle.

Commerce or another agency it designated would be authorized to inspect tires sold or offered for sale, and after a first warning violations of the rules would be subject to civil penalties ranging from $100 to $10,000 per occurrence.

HJM4003

HJM4003 – Advocating a Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (There’s a long list of co-sponsors.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment  on January 25th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Memorial would urge the US government to participate in developing a Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty as an international mechanism to manage a global transition away from coal, oil, and gas; and affirm the need for a plan to phase out fossil fuel production that prioritizing the most impacted workers and local government services with short-term and long-term investments including enforceable labor standards to protect workers and communities.

HB2253

HB2253 – Providing fair access to community solar.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Ryu, Orwall, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Paul, Springer, Macri, Bergquist, Pollet, and Tharinger, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 16th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6113 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would raise the maximum size of community solar projects from 1,000 kW to 5,000 kW and allow larger projects with a utility’s approval.  (Projects larger than 1,000 kW would have to be built with prevailing wage labor.) On a sizable list of preferred sites, including rooftops, impervious surfaces, and industrial areas, projects could be built on the same parcel as another community solar project. They’d have to have at least three subscribers, and a single customer couldn’t own or subscribe to more than 49% of a project’s capacity. At least half of a project’s capacity would have to be taken by low-income subscribers, low-income service provider subscribers, or both. After 10 years the UTC or a public utility’s governing board could lower the required percentage of low -income subscribers provided it wasn’t made lower than the utility’s percentage of low-income ratepayers. (“Low income” would be defined by the UTC, but could not be more than 80% of area median household income or 200% of the Federal poverty level, adjusted for household size. The bill allows using a number of methods like subscribers’ enrollment in other low income programs to simplify certifying their eligibility.) Low income subscribers would be exempt from any program administrative fees. Any renewable energy credits generated by a project would have to be retired for the benefit of the subscribers.

The bill would provide net-crediting for community solar, including both the community solar subscription cost and a community solar bill credit on the subscriber’s electric bill. (An electric utility could impose a net-crediting fee on the community solar project manager, capped at one percent of the subscription fee.) It would shift the management of projects from “community solar companies” to “community solar project managers”, allowing nonprofits, individuals, and small businesses to fill that role, and would remove the current provisions allowing the UTC to not enroll companies without adequate financial resources or adequate technical competency to provide the proposed service as project managers. There’d still have to be a performance bond of a suitable size for the project, but it couldn’t be set “in such a manner as to preclude” these new managers from participating. The bill would no longer require projects on tribal lands or Federal tribal trust lands to be administered by tribal housing authorities.

The UTC would set the value of credits, taking into account:
(i) The value of the electricity;
(ii) The value of the project to transmission and distribution capacity, deferred transmission and distribution investments, deferred generation investments and added generation capacity, voltage, reduced system losses, reduced line losses, and ancillary services;
(iii) The value of the project to grid reliability and resilience;
(iv) The value of environmental attributes, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, methane leakage reductions, public health, and energy security; and
(v) Other factors the commission determined were associated with locally produced electricity.
The UTC would be required to add some unspecified additional value for community solar projects when the majority of the project’s capacity was subscribed by low-income subscribers or low-income service provider subscribers; the project was owned by or served tribal communities; and it incorporated energy storage. The value  of credits would have to be updated biannually or annually, and would include an annual escalator. Credits would be carried forward on a customer’s bill as long as the account existed rather than expiring at the end of each year. However, the UTC or a public utility’s governing body would be able to adopt a different rate for crediting a subscriber’s bill if they had good cause to do that. As far as I can see, the subscription rates will be up to the project managers.

The UTC would develop other specified rules for community solar projects in private utility areas including modifying existing interconnection standards, fees, and processes as needed to facilitate their efficient and cost-effective interconnection,  ensure that the interconnection customer pays the reasonable costs, and ensure that interconnections are designed, engineered, and completed in accordance with good utility practice. The rules would also require each investor-owned utility to efficiently connect a community solar project to its electrical distribution grid, not discriminate against facilities or subscribers, and  provide for subscribers that receive utility allowances. The Commission would have to have at least two meetings with representatives of specified stakeholders before adopting the rules. Public utilities could adopt the UTC’s rules, create their own if they were compatible with the bill’s requirements, or decide not to participate in the program.

Unsubscribed energy would be carried on the project’s account until the end of the following calendar year and could be allocated to subscribers at any time during that period. After that any undistributed bill credit would be compensated to the project manager.

There’d be reviews of the program by the UTC after five and ten years, with reports to the Legislature.

HB2249

HB2249 – Studying the impact of including general market participants in all the auctions of allowances for the Climate Commitment Program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Pomeroy)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy  on January 25th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Washington State Institute for the Study of Public Policy to publish a report on any impacts that including general market participants in the auctions has on allowance prices. (These are the 40% of current participants in the market that don’t actually have any covered emissions or compliance obligations. They can be buying allowances and retiring them to voluntarily offset emissions that the program doesn’t cover, for example, or trading them to speculate on prices.) The Institute would update its evaluation and report again to the Legislature every other year as long as general market participants were allowed in the auctions.

After each auction Ecology would have to publish the number of allowances purchased by each entity registered with the department as a general market participant. It would also publish
the percentage of the auctioned allowances purchased by general market participants, and the percentage of the auctioned allowances they’d purchased over that compliance period. After the conclusion of each compliance period, the department would also publish:
(i) The total number of retired compliance instruments that were, at one time during the compliance period, held by general market participants;
(ii) The proportion of compliance instruments that were, at one point prior to retirement, held by a general market participant, relative to the total number of allowances retired during that compliance period;
(iii) The number of transactions of compliance instruments involving at least one general market participant as a buyer or seller;
(iv) A rank-ordered list of the most active general market participants, numbered in descending order based on the number of transactions each general market participant participated in during the preceding compliance period; and
(v) The average gross profit margin, positive or negative, of the compliance instrument sales by each general market participant during the preceding compliance period.

(I’m quoting this list, because I’m not sure whether “at one time” is supposed to mean the number at the point in time when the total was largest or the cumulative total of those held at any time during the period. I’m also not sure if “compliance instruments” just means allowances here; offsets are “compliance instruments” too, but I don’t think they’re traded in the auctions… I think that (i) is simply supposed to mean the number of allowances that general market participants bought and then retired during the period, and that (ii) is simply supposed to mean the percentage of the allowances retired during the period that a general market participant held at some point, but I wouldn’t swear to either of those readings.)

The bill also authorizes Ecology to release confidential information needed for the study to the Institute, but it requires the Institute to treat it as confidential too.

HB2234

HB2234 – Revising the utility energy assistance programs for low-income households.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Couture, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would specify that utilities with over 25,000 customers have to have two or more programs for providing energy assistance to low-income households and that other utilities have to have at least one. It would shift from requiring priority for households with a high energy burden to allowing that. Programs could include direct bill assistance, support for energy efficiency and space conditioning measures, support for on-sight generation or energy storage systems or both, or other mechanisms that reduce the amount those households spend on energy.

The law currently requires utilities to assess the energy assistance that would be needed to fund the greater of meeting 60% of current needs by 2030 or increasing assistance by 15% over 2018 levels by then, as well as assessing the assistance needed to meet 90% of the current need by 2050. This bill would change that to simply assessing what would be required to meet 60% and 90% of the current needs for assistance. It would also require an assessment of the average amount that the monthly energy bills of non low-income households would have to increase to fund the utility’s providing assistance at those levels.

HB2199

HB2199 – Creating tax exemptions for amounts received through transactions involving the Climate Commitment Act’s allowances, offset credits, or price ceiling units.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Orcutt (R; 20th District; Kalama) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Reed, Doglio, and Leavitt, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance on  January 23rd and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would exempt past and future amounts received from the receipt, generation, purchase, sale, transfer, or retirement of the Climate Commitment Act’s allowances, offset credits, or price ceiling units from the business & occupation tax and the public utility tax.

HB2198

HB2198 – Mitigating the impact of rising school temperatures resulting from climate change.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint an advisory committee to develop recommendations for public school facilities’ indoor temperature standards, including a maximum temperature recommendation. The committee would include representatives from specified government bodies and other stakeholders, and it would submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature, including draft legislation to implement its recommendations. The Superintendent would also develop and report on estimates of the associated costs, and might request appropriations and the establishment of grant programs to assist schools with those.

Currently, a district’s schools have to be open for 180 days a year in order for it to receive its state education funding. However, the Superintendent is authorized to create rules for some exceptions, including allowing districts to still receive their full funding if one or more of their schools fail to be open long enough due to some specified unexpected natural events like floods or epidemics. The bill would add “excessive heat” in buildings to that list; the temperature or heat index that counted as excessive would be consistent with the National Weather Service’s guidance, and would be established by the Superintendent.

HB2201

HB2201 – Facilitating linkage of Washington’s carbon market with the California-Quebec market.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Thurston County) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon) By request of the Department of Ecology.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 15th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6058 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to synchronize Washington’s compliance periods with those of a linked jurisdiction or jurisdictions, and it takes steps in that direction by defining them as a first period, a second period, and so on, as well as by no longer specifying their starting dates or their lengths in years.

It would allow Ecology to require electric power entities to report emissions of greenhouse gases from all electricity that is purchased, sold, imported, exported, or exchanged in Washington. It would eliminate a current exemption from the program’s requirements for the importers of power from unspecified sources with associated exemptions below 25,000 metric tons a year. It would also eliminate an exemption for imports of unspecified power that are balanced by exports of unspecified power by the same entity within the same hour to a jurisdiction that’s not covered by a linked program. It would remove Ecology’s authority to adjust the amount of monetary penalties or the number of penalty allowances in the first compliance period. (It would also specify that the Department is required to establish greenhouse gas emission reporting methodologies for covered entities.)

The bill would allow a general market participant to own more than 10 percent of total allowances to be issued in a calendar year if we linked with a jurisdiction that allowed that.

It would require offsets from a linked jurisdiction to have been generated from projects within that jurisdiction. It also revises the language about the use of offsets from projects on tribal lands. As I read the changes, they simply rephrase the current rules to make it clear that if you use some offsets from projects on tribal lands as part of your basic allowance for offsets, you still can use the additional tribal offsets in the option that allows you to cover some more obligations with those.

The bill also includes a provision to ensure it won’t be put on the ballot as an alternative to Initiative 2117, which would eliminate the cap and invest program.

HB2189

HB2189 – Exempting regular hybrids, which can’t be charged with an external electrical power source, from the additional $75 registration fee they and plugin vehicles currently pay.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportatiom.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would exempt regular hybrids, which can’t be charged with an external electrical power source, from the additional $75 vehicle transportation electrification registration fee that they and plugin vehicles are currently charged.

HB2129

HB2131 – Promoting the development of geothermal energy resources.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Mena, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment at 1:30 PM on Monday January 29th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6039 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary
The bill would require the Washington Geological Survey to create a comprehensive database of publicly available subsurface geologic information for the state in coordination with various agencies, to maintain it, and to make a searchable interface for it available on the Survey’s website. The Survey would acquire, process, and analyze new subsurface geologic data, would characterize the hazard of induced seismicity for high-potential geothermal play areas, and would provide technical assistance on the proper interpretation and application of subsurface geologic data and hazard assessments.

The Department of Natural Resources would be required to update the State’s geothermal resources lease rates to make them competitive with those adopted by the Federal government and other states in the West. The update would also try to optimize the State’s competitiveness in attracting exploration and development projects, balancing that goal with its obligation to trust beneficiaries.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the Department of Commerce would create a competitive geothermal exploration cost-share grant program incentivizing deep exploratory drilling to identify locations suitable for the development of geothermal energy. The grants could be used to offset the direct costs associated with that drilling; awards to private applicants would be limited to half the overall cost of the project and awards to public and tribal applicants would be limited to two-thirds of the cost. Commerce would consult with the Survey to develop a method for awarding the grants, using nine criteria the bill specifies.

The bill would require Ecology, Commerce and the Survey to collaborate in identifying opportunities and risks associated with the development of geothermal resources, consulting with tribes and a variety of other stakeholders. They’d be required to consider the potential impacts of geothermal resources development on the rights, interests, and resources of potentially affected tribes; on listed endangered species, and on overburdened communities. They’d also explore the capacity for geothermal resources to help the state meet its clean energy generation requirements and greenhouse gas emissions limits, and develop factors to guide the identification of preferable sites for the development of geothermal resources including geologic suitability and proximity to electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure. There’d be interim and final reports to appropriate committees of the Legislature.

HB2144

HB2144– Providing for a beverage container deposit return program implemented by a distributor responsibility organization, if it and Ecology agree on a plan.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stonier (D; 49th District; Clark County) (Co-Sponsor Berry, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 9th; amended and passed out of committee January 18th. Scheduled for a hearing in Finance at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments
This is a new version of part of HB1131, which died in Rules last session.

In the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the amendment.

Summary
The bill would allow a group of distributors handling the majority of beverages in qualifying containers sold in or into Washington to form a distributor responsibility organization to operate a deposit return system. (I think it covers glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans.) If they did, other distributors would have to join them, or fulfill all the requirements of the bill independently. The organization would submit a plan for Ecology’s review explaining how it would achieve performance targets, with attention to the volume of sales in different areas and to providing convenient drop off locations in rural areas, small cities, communities close to the ferry system, economically strained areas, and underserved urban areas. It would include education and outreach activities. It would describe how this system would coordinate with other recycling systems and producer responsibility organizations. If Ecology and the organization couldn’t reach an agreement on the plan the system would not be created, and the containers would be subject to any other Washington producer responsibility legislation.

If it came into existence, containers would be refundable for 10 cents and display that on their labels; charges for the refund value of the containers would not count as gross income in calculating the business and occupation tax, and they wouldn’t be subject to the litter tax if they were shown as an item on receipts. Drop-off locations could be located at dealers, any retail establishment, any publicly owned facility, or any other location convenient for consumers. There would also be a convenient bulk drop-off system for containers in the organization’s bags. The organization could use automated equipment to count returned containers and issue redemption vouchers for the deposits; it would not have to provide refunds for contaminated containers, ones that were so damaged that the brand was illegible, or ones it had reasonable grounds to believe were sold outside the state. Dealers over 5,000 square feet and selling more than 100,000 containers a year would have to install a self-service kiosk provided by the organization to print redemption vouchers, pay customers for them, and sell bags for the program at a price established by the organization. (They could choose to let customers redeem their vouchers for store credit rather than cash.) The organization would reimburse dealers for their payments to consumers, and pay the full deposit for containers purchased in the state and returned by recovery facilities, governmental entities, and other processing facilities if the containers had been collected and separated according to the organization’s standards and are delivered directly to one of its processing facilities. (The containers would have to be separated by material type, not contaminated with other materials, and in substantially the same shape as when they were purchased.) It would have to have a way to accept direct, sorted returns in commercial quantities at its facilities for an additional refund premium if they were returned by non-profits that served very low-income individuals who relied on regular container refunds for daily income and that the organization approved.

The organization would reimburse the Department of Ecology for the costs of administering the system. It would pay up to $15 million a year for five years to offset demonstrated losses that local governments and operators of curbside or drop-off recycling programs experienced as a result of scrap material being diverted to the deposit return system.

Starting in 2029, at least 60% of all qualifying beverage containers would have to be redeemed for reuse or recycling through system; this requirement would increase to at least 80% starting in 2032 and at least 1% of the beverages by the end of that year would have to be in reusable packaging. There would be specified annual reporting by the organization and third party auditing of some financial issues. Ecology could collect a annual fee of 10 cents from the organization for each container below that year’s performance target. The Department might choose to propose that the organization add additional drop-off areas as an alternative to the financial penalties or along with a reduction in those. There are also minor possible penalties for other violations of the requirements.

The organization would establish a Consumer Convenience Advisory Council with representatives from various stakeholders to work with it  to identify potential convenient bag drop-off locations. provide input on the location of new drop-off sites, and consult along with Ecology in selecting a third-party firm to conduct consumer convenience assessments. These would be done in the fourth and ninth years of the program, paid for by the organization, and designed to identify any barriers to achieving the performance requirements and to make recommendations if the number of drop-off locations in the plan hasn’t been reached or the redemption rate is significantly below the performance targets. The organization would update its plan in the year after the assessment, taking any recommendations into account.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would consult with the organization, study the impacts of the requirements on the litter rates of beverage containers and other covered products as well as possible improvements to the litter tax, and report to the Legislature.

HB2131

HB2131– Promoting the establishment of thermal energy networks.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Slatter, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 16th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 23rd. Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6138 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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

Summary –
The bill would authorize electrical and gas companies to own, operate, or manage nonemitting thermal energy networks piping fluids for transferring heat in and out of buildings to improve energy efficiency and/or eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions of current heating and cooling, domestic hot water or refrigeration. Investor owned projects would have to be reviewed and approved by the UTC, which could authorize the recovery of the costs in rates; public projects would be reviewed and approved by their governing bodies.

The bill would create a pilot project program, giving investor owned gas companies priority for developing projects in their service areas if they notified the UTC of their intention to do a project within a year after the bill took effect and deployed a project within 30 months. The bill would require the UTC to consider a considerable number of factors in deciding whether to approve projects, including the customers and low-income customers served, the use of the existing natural gas workforce and efforts to transition it to thermal energy work, maintaining infrastructure safety and reliability; its ability to meet 100 percent of the customers’ demand for space heating; public health benefits, coordination with any electric utility providing service to the area, and its potential to enable gas pipeline decommissioning and supplant the need for gas pipeline replacement and the associated costs. (There are other items, as well as a list of optional factors that the UTC might take into consideration.) Companies would have to include pilot projects in their RFP’s requests for energy resources, and if a company determined it could deploy a pilot project at the lowest reasonable cost itself instead of deploying one through a heat purchase or energy services agreement, it would be authorized to do that. The UTC might authorize merging a company’s rate bases for its gas and thermal network operations; if a company did that it would have to monetize any benefits it received from Federal and State incentives and use them to mitigate rate impacts on customers.

The bill would require the Department of Commerce to create a grant program to support gas company projects in the program, subject to the availability of amounts specifically appropriated for that. Grants would cover the difference between the company’s lowest reasonable cost resources under its current business practices and the costs of building and operating the pilot project. In reviewing grants, Commerce would consider the same factors that the UTC would be required to take into account in deciding whether to approve them.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would review the program and report on it to the appropriate committees of the Legislature.

HB2120

HB2120 – Allowing cities to grant nuclear facilities an additional four years to complete projects and qualify for the tax breaks available for new manufacturing in targeted urban areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Shavers, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance on  January 25th and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The State currently provides a tax break to encourage new manufacturing and industrial uses on undeveloped or underutilized lands in targeted urban areas. The law requires projects to be completed within three years to qualify, but cities are authorized to extend that period by up to two years under certain circumstances. The bill would allow extensions of up to six years for nuclear facilities.

HB2073

HB2073– Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from anesthetics and studying alternatives for reducing those from a pesticide.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th. Replaced by a substitute postponing the designation of sulfuryl fluoride as a greenhouse gas and making some other changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it; passed out of committee January 23rd. Scheduled for a hearing in Appropriations at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to commission a study that analyzes the evidence supporting the treatment of sulfuryl fluoride (a fumigant pesticide) as a greenhouse gas. It would determine the potential sources of sulfuryl fluoride and of other gases with a high global warming potential that are used for anesthetic purposes in Washington, including Sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, halothane, and nitrous oxide; and determine how they’re used in Washington and estimate the emissions from them. It would recommend potential points of regulation for each of them and measures for reducing or eliminating their emissions. The study would be due by July 1st, 2025.

Ecology would also be required to consult with a list of medical and environmental stakeholders in developing a guidance document intended to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic gases with a high global warming potential, without unduly limiting the judgment or needs of medical, dental, or veterinary professionals in providing safe and effective care. The Department would be required to consider:
(a) the efforts of other jurisdictions to restrict the use of such gases or otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of anesthesia;
(b) the guidance documents or best practices prepared by national and international anesthesiology professionals and guidance documents published in peer-reviewed medical journals; and,
(c) existing practices in place at facilities and by practitioners in Washington to limit greenhouse gas emissions associated with anesthesia use.
After July 1, 2026, facilities at which anesthetic gases were used, and the medical, dental, or veterinary practitioners that use such gases, would have to use anesthesia in a manner consistent with the guidance document.

Producers or suppliers of sulfuryl fluoride would be included in the Climate Commitment Act’s annual report if their greenhouse gas emissions exceeded 10,000 metric tons of CO2e. Ecology would also consult with the Department of Agriculture and stakeholders and report to the Legislature on the availability of alternative chemicals or practices that would be less hazardous to humans or the environment than the current uses of sulfuryl fluoride. By October 1st, Ecology would consult with the Department of Health and stakeholders, considering these studies, and recommend any further statutory changes needed to appropriately and effectively reduce these emissions.

HB2082

HB2082– Requiring a study of the employment and workforce education needs of the electrical transmission industry.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fosse (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Low, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Post-Secondary Education & Workforce on January 17th. Amended twice and passed out of committee January 23rd; referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
The  amendments made some changes in the requirements for the report  and recommendations, as well as some changes in the representation in the workgroup and minor changes in its rules.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for the bill’s requirements, it would have the Department of Commerce or a consultant it selected conduct a study of the employment and workforce education needs of the electrical transmission industry.

A report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature would be due by November 1, 2025, including:
(1) Estimates of jobs needed to expand electrical transmission capacity to meet the state’s clean energy and climate goals;
(2) An inventory of existing training programs and the anticipated need for expanding them or adding others to meet current and future workforce needs;
(3) The numbers of apprentice line workers, line clearance tree trimmers; and substation technicians;
(4) Demographic data for the workforce;
(5) Identification of gaps and barriers to a full electrical transmission workforce pool including the loss of workers to retirement in the next five, 10, and 15 years, and other retention issues;
(6) A comparison of wages between different jurisdictions in the state and between Washington and neighboring states, including any incentives they offer;
(7) Available data on the number of line workers, line clearance tree trimmers; and substation technicians that completed training in the state and left to work elsewhere and on the number of out-of-state workers who come to Washington to meet workforce needs on large scale electrical transmission projects;
(8) Key challenges that could emerge in the foreseeable future based on factors such as growth in demand for electricity and changes in energy production and availability; and
(10) Recommendations for the training, recruitment, and retention of the current and anticipated electrical transmission workforce.
(A preliminary report would be due this November.)

Commerce would also convene a work group by this November to provide advice, develop strategies, and make recommendations on efforts to support the provision of what the industry needs to meet the state’s climate goals. The work group would consist of eight members, four from labor organizations around the state, two from different private utilities, and two from different public utility districts. The work group would review Commerce’s reports and, if appropriate, recommend any changes needed to address issues raised in the reports to the Legislature. It would review the status of the workforce issues periodically, and provide ongoing input and recommendations to the Legislature, state and local agencies, labor, and utilities regarding the needs and challenges of the industry.

HB2069

HB2069 – Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; South Central Washington) (Co-Sponsor Doglio; D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute also allowing sales to end-use customers and including CO2 byproducts of biological processes in industrial or manufacturing facilities as “biogenic CO2”. Passed out of committee January 30th, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5919 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would authorize public utility districts to wholesale biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of processing biogas from landfills, anaerobic digesters, and wastewater treatment facilities. (Capturing CO2 from biogas can result in a negative CO2 emission, depending on the situation and how you do the calculations.)

HB2068

HB2068– Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5965 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments
The bill sets a greenhouse emissions reduction requirement, but it looks to me as if it lets retailers and manufacturers set their own targets wherever they like for quite a few things, and I’m not sure if it’s intended to do more about situations where a disclosure would simply say “We’re doing very little about that”, or if it simply intends to get clear about what is and isn’t happening at this point.

Summary
The bill would require every clothing retailer or manufacturer doing business in the state and having more than $100 million in annual gross revenue to disclose various environmental policies, processes, and outcomes, including the significant real or potential adverse environmental impacts of its operations and targets for prevention and improvement. They’d have to identify the suppliers of at least 50% of the volume in their supply chain, from raw materials to final production, making a good faith effort to prioritize the ones involving the largest environmental risks. They would have to report on their policies, processes, and activities for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for potential adverse impacts, including the findings and outcomes of those activities. They’d have to identify relevant policies for responsible conduct of businesses such as theirs and provide information on steps they’d taken to embed those in their own policies and management systems. They’d have to disclose any areas of significant environmental risk they’d identified in their activities and business relationships, and the adverse impacts of those — identified, prioritized, and assessed in the context of their own activities and business relationships. They’d need to disclose the criteria they’d used to prioritize those risks, as well as any actions or plans to prevent or mitigate them. If the information was available, they’d have to include estimated timelines, targets, and benchmarks for improvement and their outcomes. They’d need to disclose measures to track implementation and results, and their provision of or cooperation in any remediation.

Beginning in 2027, they’d be required to establish, track, and disclose progress towards various performance targets, which the bill would require them to meet. They’d have to report independently verified figures for the annual volume of material they’d produced, including a breakdown by material type, and figures for how much production had been displaced with recycled materials as compared to growth targets. They’d have to establish and disclose quantitative baseline and reduction targets for energy and greenhouse gas emissions, water, and chemical management. (Their greenhouse gas emissions reporting would have to be independently verified, and conform to a World Resources Institute target guidance and to its reporting standard.) They’d have to disclose targets for impact reductions, and plans for tracking due diligence implementation and results including, where possible, estimated timelines and benchmarks for improvement.

The bill would authorize civil suits against retailers and manufacturers alleged to be failing to comply with the bill’s requirements, and would authorize suing Ecology to make it investigate alleged violations or make it enforce the requirements. Ecology would publish an annual report on compliance, Violating a disclosure, performance target achievement, or reporting requirement of the bill’s would be subject to a penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation in the case of a first offense, and up to $20,000 for each repeat offense.

HB2049

HB2049– Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Doglio & Fitzgibbon, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 9th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6005 is a companion bill in the Senate.
See also HB1900.

Comments – The bill is a revised version of HB1131, which was introduced by the same sponsors last session, was much amended, and eventually died in Rules. (Its companion bill, SB5154, died in Ways and Means.) The new version is 104 pages long, so trying to summarize its details seems ill advised; I’ve tried to cover the important points.

In the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the substitute.

Summary
The bill would create a system funded and managed by producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use, and  would create new requirements for postconsumer recycled content.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on their activities and the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, and pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program. Producers would  fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues. Each organization would also provide up to $5 million/year or 4% of its annual expenditures for a packaging financial assistance program providing grants for governments, non-profits and private organizations to support programs to reduce the negative environmental impacts of covered products through reuse.

In consultation with stakeholders, an advisory council and the UTC, producer organizations would have to develop five year plans for dealing with their covered materials. These would have to meet a long list of requirements plus any added by Ecology, would be due by October 1st 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology) and would have to be implemented by January 2029 and updated regularly. Each organization’s plan would set performance rates including an overall recycling rate for its covered products, a recycling rate for each category of covered materials, a source reduction rate for eliminating plastic components, and (starting with its second plan) a minimum reuse rate. Proposed rates would have to be justified if they differed from those in the most recent performance rates study, and improve over time until Ecology determined that the maximum technically achievable process had been reached. Reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2030. There are requirements for outside evaluations if organizations fail to achieve these rates, and Ecology could require corrective actions or impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for failures to comply with the bill’s requirements.

Plans would also include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing it. and for consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Producer organizations would structure members’ fees  to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging.

A consultant would do the needs assessment of the solid waste system, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The advisory council, stakeholders and the UTC would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Ecology would be required to consider a variety of factors to identify materials and methods for the uniform statewide collection of covered products for recycling, categorizing them as suitable for residential curbside collection, drop-off collection, and alternative collection. (Approved pilot programs could try curbside collection of additional materials that were not on Ecology’s list.) The bill would prohibit claiming covered products were recyclable if Ecology didn’t categorize them that way, and prohibit making deceptive claims about their percentages of recycled content or their compostability.

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

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There’d be requirements about labor, health and the responsible management of materials at recovery facilities; for reporting on those by producer organizations; and for detailed reporting on their operations by processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to plastic containers for household cleaning products; personal care products; beverages, milk and wine;  plastic tubs for food products, thermoform containers; and plastic single-use cups. Producers of these products would have to belong to producer responsibility organizations and and maintain certification of their compliance with the bill’s requirements from accredited third parties. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2025 and 2036.  The producer responsibility organizations would report to Ecology annually on their members’ use of postconsumer recycled content. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet them. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic; it also makes changes to the definitions of producers.

In addition –

The bill would create an advisory council with representatives appointed by the Director of Ecology from ten groups. It would review, comment, advise, and make recommendations on the needs assessment, Ecology’s lists, producer organizations plans, reports, and other aspects of the bill’s programs.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

Beginning in 2029, jurisdictions’ solid waste plans would have to provide for curbside collection of source separated recyclables from single-family and multi-family residences served by curbside garbage collection. (Counties could choose to require  the collection of materials that Ecology categorized for curbside recycling collection at drop-off locations in areas regulated by the UTC.)  Ecology would create a model comprehensive solid waste plan jurisdictions could adopt rather than developing their own plans for source separation programs.

 

HB2051

HB2051 – Reducing emissions from small off-road engines.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at 8:00 AM January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would adopt California’s small off-road engine and equipment emissions standards for engines and equipment produced after January 1st, 2027. Those apply to engines with less than 25 horsepower, which are primarily used for lawn, garden, and other small off-road equipment, and are intended to reduce their emissions to zero by 2035 where that’s feasible. The Washington bill wouldn’t apply to chainsaws, generators, licensed on-road motor vehicles, off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, marine vessels, snowmobiles, or model airplane, cars, and boats. The bill would also allow the Department of Ecology to delay the start of restrictions for certain kinds of small off-road engines or equipment if it determined that suitable zero emissions technology was not yet available as a replacement.

The bill would require Ecology to create a five year program providing grants for local governments to replace working outdoor power equipment powered by liquid, gaseous or fossil fuels with zero emissions equipment. It would prioritize grants providing the greatest
benefits to vulnerable populations or reducing the most hazardous or frequent occupational exposures caused by outdoor power equipment. It declares the Legislature’s intent to provide $5 million a year for the program.

The bill would also create a sales and use tax exemption for zero emissions outdoor equipment producing less than 25 horsepower, and for push lawnmowers. It would add programs, activities, or projects that reduce and mitigate impacts from greenhouse gases and pollutants on vulnerable populations, including the outdoor power equipment grant program and transfers to the general fund to offset revenue losses from the tax preferences, to the list of things that can be funded using revenue from the Climate Commitment Act.

HB2050

HB2050 – Requires posting stickers on fuel pumps showing the effects of State and Federal taxes and the Climate Commitment Act on fuel prices.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Goehner (R; 12th District; Chelan County) (Co-Sponsor Barkis, R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to produce a sticker for display on fuel pumps showing the Federal and State fuel tax rates in cents per gallon. The Department would also calculate companies’ cost per gallon of complying with the Climate Commitment Act using the average cost of allowances in a given year, and would produce another sticker showing that in cents per gallon. The climate commitment stickers would be updated at least every three years, and the fuel tax stickers would be updated whenever there was a change in those tax rates.

Stickers would be mailed to fuel pump owners who requested them, as well as being displayed and updated on pumps in the course of government fuel pump inspections.

HB2039

HB2039 – Streamlining the appeals process for environmental and land use matters.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 23rd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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

Summary –
Currently, a superior court can certify final decisions of the pollution control hearings board, the shorelines hearings board, and the growth management hearings board that meet certain criteria for direct review by a court of appeals, rather than reviewing them itself. In addition, if one of these boards decides that one of its final decisions involves urgent statewide or regional issues or that its appeal is likely to create significant precedents the board can submit the decision to a Court of Appeals to be considered for direct review. The bill would eliminate this second process and would authorize a superior court to transfer decisions that met those criteria to the higher court as direct appeals.

In land use cases under the bill, a superior court would no longer require the consent of all the parties in order to transfer a case to a court of appeals for review. It would be authorized to do that if it found that:
1) the transfer would serve the interest of justice,
2) it wouldn’t cause substantial prejudice to any party, including any unrepresented party, and,
3) the review could occur based on an existing record.

The bill authorizes the presiding officer for these boards and for the shorelines hearings board to consolidate multiple appeals that arise out of the same project when he or she finds that will expedite disposition of the appeals; avoid duplication of testimony; and will not prejudice the rights of the parties.

The bill adds a number of penalties, orders, and decisions to the list of those that can be appealed to the pollution control hearings board, and expands the current rules for the board about notice, appeals, and the use of penalty revenue to cover additional cases. It would provide for handing penalties for violations of the State’s standards for mercury and products containing flame retardant chemicals through this board’s procedures.

HB2042

HB2042 – Requiring applicants seeking energy facility site certification for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Corry (R; 14th District; Yakima)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5992 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comment –
My guess is that this is about the proposal for a pumped storage facility at Goldendale.

Summary –
The bill would require applicants seeking site certification through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.

HB2040

HB1981 – Creating a rebate program to compensate vehicle owners for increases in fuel costs due to the Climate Commitment Act.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Connors (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Dye, R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would provide a rebate to compensate vehicle owners for increases in fuel costs due to the Climate Commitment Act. It would take any revenue from the Act between July 1, 2022 and June 30th 2024 that hadn’t been appropriated for other purposes by the Legislature in the 2022 and 2023 sessions and divide that by an estimate of the number of people expected to renew their vehicle licenses between July 1 2024 and June 30 2025 to calculate the amount of the rebate. The Department of Licensing would send each owner a check in the summer of 2024, accompanied by an explanation of the source of the funds. (Rebates would go to the owners of trucks, light vehicles, and a variety of other small vehicles like motorcycles. You’d get one rebate even if you owned more than one vehicle; you’d get the same rebate regardless of how much fuel you’d bought; and as I read the bill, owners of electric cars would also get rebates.)

Although the bill would only authorize the rebates in fiscal 2025, the findings declare the Legislature’s intention to continue the program if the Climate Commitment Act is not repealed by initiative in the November 2024 election. (Since the checks would arrive in the summer before that election, accompanied by an explanation of the source of the funds, they would presumably also remind people of the effect of the Climate Commitment Act on fuel prices.)

HB1981

HB1981 – Setting a preferential B&O tax rate for manufacturing fuel and/or fuel assemblies for nuclear reactors.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Stearns, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance  on  January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax rate on the manufacturing of nuclear fuel and/or assemblies at 0.25 percent. (Fuel assemblies are the collections of fuel rods or elements that make up the core of as reactor.) It would apply to the gross proceeds from sales for businesses selling these at retail or wholesale; it would apply to the value of the product for businesses manufacturing them; and it would apply to the gross income of the business activity for businesses paid to process them. These rates would apply for ten years.

HB1976

HB1976 – Allowing the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fosse (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Appropriations; sent on to Rules January 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.

HB1965

HB1965 – Providing fossil fuel facilities that aren’t owned or operated by utilities with free Climate Commitment Act allowances to cover their emissions from generating power delivered in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Port Angeles) (Co-Sponsor McEntire, R)
Current status – Prefiled
Next step would be – Referral to a committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5918 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would provide fossil fuel facilities that aren’t owned or operated by utilities with free Climate Commitment Act allowances to cover their emissions from generating power delivered in the state. It would also provide them to cover their costs in complying with the Acts’ requirements. These free allowances would continue through 2044. The bill says that it’s providing them “in order to mitigate the cost burden of the program on electricity customers,” but it doesn’t actually include any requirement for reducing customers’ costs.

HB1955

HB1955 – Repeals redundant 2019 bill requiring utilities to calculate and report the greenhouse gas emissions of their fuel mix.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 9th; passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House January 29th. Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Department of Commerce, which requested this bill, says that the reporting required by the 2019 bill that would be repealed “…is unnecessary because more complete and stringent reporting requirements were enacted by the Legislature in 2021” (presumably in the Climate Commitment Act).

HB1948

HB1948 – Ensuring that methods for calculating a utility’s load under the Energy Independence Act don’t discourage voluntary investments in renewables.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Under the bill, when retail customers chose to participate in a program in which a utility covered by the Energy Independence Act purchased power for delivery to its system from sources that the Act counted toward meeting its requirements for increased use of renewables, and then retired the associated renewable energy credits on behalf of the customer, that power would not count as part of the utility’s load. It also wouldn’t count toward meeting its requirements.

(If those voluntary purchases by customers are counted as part of the utility’s load they raise its requirements, which are defined as a percentage of its load, but if the customer is claiming the credit for the renewable characteristics of the purchases, they don’t contribute to meeting that increase in the utility’s requirements. The bill would avoid that problem by excluding this power from the Act’s calculations.)

HB1935

HB1935 – Creating a Washington State Green Schools Program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bergquist (D; 11th District; Renton) (Co-Sponsor McEntire, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Education January 15th and passed out of committee on the 29th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Superintendent of Public Instruction create a voluntary program to expand resource conservation practices in public schools, including waste reduction, energy reduction, water conservation, urban forestry education, and environmental preservation. It would provide education and leadership opportunities for students seeking to promote conservation practices in their schools. It would complement existing programs, provide opportunities for establishing new ones, support instruction on climate aligned with related state learning standards, and collaborate with DNR on schoolyard greening projects, schoolyard forests, and career learning opportunities within the National Forest’s school forest network and other urban forestry projects.

If money were appropriated for it, the bill would have OSPI create two grant programs. One would provide one year grants of up to $15,000 to to help create or expand these programs in schools; applications for these would have to demonstrate the involvement of a student-based team, group, or club in the selection and support of the projects proposed for funding. The other program would offer grants of up to $600 per school each year to support stipends for school-based advisors who assisted students in learning about, promoting, and implementing resource conservation practices in school facilities. School districts, charter schools and state-tribal education compact schools would be eligible to apply for either of these programs.

HB1936

HB1936 – Creating a B&O tax credit for farmers participating in conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment  January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute limiting the credit to participants in State conservation programs and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a tax credit for farmers receiving grant funds from the Washington State Conservation Commission or indirectly from it through a conservation district or other public entity; participating in a Conservation Commission or conservation district conservation program; or participating in a US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation program. It would allow them to treat 25 percent of their expenditures for purchasing new equipment, infrastructure, seed, seedlings, spores, animal feed, and amendments in the previous year as a credit against their business and occupation taxes.They’d be allowed to roll any unused credit over and apply it against their tax bills for the next two years.