Category Archives: House Bills 2024

HB1924

HB1924 – Including fusion technology in state clean energy policies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy Monday January 8th; amended to delete adding these facilities to the list of projects of statewide significance 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 –
The bill would require the Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council’s annual report to the Governor and legislative committees to include a recommendation on whether and when fusion energy could be expected to be an appropriate category for which to develop a nonproject environmental impact statement.

It would also add fusion energy facilities or facilities manufacturing or assembling component parts for them to the list of projects of statewide significance that are supposed to get expedited permitting and review of various kinds so they can be completed more rapidly.

HB1900

HB1900 – Implementing strategies to achieve higher solid waste recycling rates.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Reeves, Walen, Rule, Chapman, Bronoske, and Wylie; Ds)
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.
See also HB2049.

Summary –
The bill would expand the State’s current postconsumer recycled content requirements to cover more containers for household cleaning and personal care products; the caps and lids on beverage containers; polypropylene tubs; various single use plastic cups; and PET containers for consumable goods like clam shells and egg cartons and for durable goods. The new requirements begin on different dates for different products, and increase in steps. It would add the percentage of postconsumer recycled content they contain to the information required on the packaging of plastic trash bags. One way a producer can currently qualify for a de minimis exemption from the requirements is by having only a single category of a covered product for sale in the state with revenue less than $1 million a year; the amended law would require global gross revenue less than $5 million a year as well as annual total resin use less than a ton to qualify. (The current standard seems to have been left in the new definitions section at this point, though.)

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to produce a study by 2027 to allow the public to determine whether a particular material handled in curbside programs or other solid waste facilities is recyclable in the state and routinely becomes feedstock for the production of new products or packaging. (The study’s also to identify materials and forms that aren’t sorted for recycling and are considered contaminants.) The research is to be updated in 2030, and at least every five years after that. Material would be considered recyclable in the state if the material in that form was collected for recycling by jurisdictions with at least 60% of the state’s population, was sorted into defined streams for recycling by large volume transfer or by facilities that serve at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, and was sent on to be reclaimed to state standards. To count as recyclable, most packaging and products would have to be designed to avoid any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recycling. Demonstrating that at least 75% of a product or packaging sorted or aggregated in the state was reprocessed into new products or packaging would also qualify it as recyclable. Initially, a product or packaging that was not collected in curbside programs would be considered recyclable if at least 60% of it had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and transported to a facility to be sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material and form; that requirement would increase to 75% in 2033. (Products and packaging would also count as recyclable if they complied with a Federal or State program about their recyclability or disposal that was established after 2025 and Ecology’s director determined that including them wouldn’t increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive the public.)

Ecology would develop and publish a list of recyclable materials suitable for curbside collection and one of materials suitable for residential drop-off collection. The bill specifies ten materials to be included in the initial list for curbside collection, and two for drop-offs. It would require the department to update the lists at least every five years, after consulting with the advisory committee, and after considering a variety of factors the bill specifies.

The bill would raise the State’s goal for recycling of covered products to 60%. It would set a goal for a 50% reduction in the sale and use of packaging that was not recyclable under the law by 2030, and a 75% reduction by 2035. It would require tracking and reporting on progress toward those, and it would have Ecology hire a consultant to conduct a statewide study to determine the costs and investments needed to achieve a 60% overall recycling rate for the materials listed as suitable for residential collection by the department. The consultant would consider each jurisdiction planning under the solid waste management act, evaluating its current capacity and the gaps, needs and costs for it to achieve the bill’s performance targets. The final scope of the study is supposed to be determined after considering comments and recommendations from stakeholders, each jurisdiction, and the advisory committee, but Section 208 of the bill specifies several pages of factors that the study’s required to take into account.

If funding were specifically provided for it, Ecology would contract with with a research university or an independent consultant to study the plastic resin markets, analyzing market conditions and opportunities in the state’s recycling industry for meeting the bill’s minimum postconsumer recycled content requirements, and determining the data needs and tracking opportunities to support a more effective, fact-based public understanding of the industry.

The bill would add a committee with representatives from a long list of specified stakeholders to advise and make recommendations on the program to Ecology. After considering recommendations, the director of Ecology would appoint members, with as much diversity of various kinds as was practical.The committee would elect its own chair and vice-chair and create its bylaws.

Starting in 2028, the bill would prohibit consumer packaging and paper products from making any deceptive or misleading claims about their recyclability in the state through symbols like the chasing arrows or statements. (However, it doesn’t allow local jurisdictions to restrict the distribution or sale of covered products because of symbols or statements implying they’re recyclable if those were required by some other state or by Federal laws or regulations or Federal Trade Commission green guides; if they were part of some widely adopted third-party system; or if they incorporated by reference the ASTM standards for coding resins…)

The bill requires Ecology to establish annual fees paid by producers to cover the costs of administering the postconsumer recycled content program. It makes the other work it assigns to the Department eligible for funding from the cap and invest program. It requires the UTC to consult with jurisdictions and regulated collection companies, then report to the Legislature on how to improve processes for providing discounts for low-income customers, including ways to add customers and make administration easier.

Producers of covered products would have to register their products and brand names with Ecology individually or through a group’s representative, and would have to report annually on the pounds of covered products they’d sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state. The bill would require reports from producers to the State including certification of compliance by a nationally recognized independent third party with the names, locations, and contact information of all their sources and suppliers of postconsumer recycled content, the quantities and dates of their purchases, and how that material was obtained. It would allow producers to petition Ecology to review and adjust the required content percentages for a type of container or product or category for the following year; Ecology would have to consider a number of factors in the process, and the producers would have to supply the department with the information needed for the review. After providing two written warnings, the department would be authorized to fine producers that were out of compliance with the bill’s registration or labeling requirements up to $1,000 a day. Each year it would be authorized to penalize producers twenty cents a pound for any difference between the required minimum percentage of postconsumer recycled plastic in a given product and the percentage actually used in the previous year, though it could grant producers a reduction in the penalty given certain conditions.

HB1908

HB1908 – Creates a grant program for utility scale renewable energy and innovative grid scale storage projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
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 –

If specific funding were appropriated for it, the bill would create a grant program for electric generation from a renewable or nonemitting resource and for grid-scale storage projects using “new or emerging technologies whose practical applications are still largely unrealized at a commercial scale”. (It isn’t clear that all renewable resources would be eligible for funding, since the bill also says that “stable, dispatchable, utility-scale clean energy technologies” are what the funds may be used for.)

The program would be administered by the Department of Commerce; it would prioritize projects capable of catalyzing Federal or private funding. Grants would be available to joint operating agencies, utilities, tribes, and commercial project developers. The bill’s findings declare the Legislature’s intention to provide $100 million in funding for it, and the bill directs Commerce to develop guidelines for applications on the assumption that funding will be available for the 2027-2029 biennium.

HB1904

HB1904 – Using cap and invest revenue to pay for hybrid electric ferries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walsh (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill’s opening says says the Legislature finds “that all costs associated with building hybrid electric ferries and their associated infrastructure must be paid for using Climate Commitment Act revenues.”

However, the bill’s actual provisions simply say that some unspecified amount of revenue from the Act must be used by the Department of Transportation to design, purchase, and construct hybrid electric ferry vessels and install associated and necessary infrastructure for their operation. (“Ferries” are already on the list of projects that transportation appropriations from the Act’s revenues may be used for; the bill would change that item to read “All aspects of ferry vessel construction and supporting electrification infrastructure”, which actually still seems to allow using those funds for conventional ferries as well.)

HB1887

HB1887 – Loosening the cap & invest program’s requirements, expanding its biofuels exemption, providing refunds for exempted fuel purchases, & temporarily lowering license fees.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5783 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –

The bill would exempt all biomass fuels from coverage under the Climate Commitment Act, dropping the current requirement that exempted biofuels have to have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% lower than those of the fossil fuels for which they’re substituted.

It would replace the current requirement for future reductions in the cap sufficient to achieve the covered entities’ share of what’s necessary to achieve the state’s climate targets with annual 3.6% reductions for 2024 through 2040, and 3.1% reductions for 2041 through 2049.

It would require the Department of Ecology to put an additional 5% of the allowance budgets for the twelve years from 2031 through 2042 into the price containment reserve account and to auction all of those additional allowances in separate auctions during 2024.

The bill would use any revenue above the October 2022 estimates from the cap and trade auctions in 2024 and 2025 that was not otherwise appropriated by the Legislature to reduce or replace the license fees for light and heavy vehicles in fiscal 2025 and 2026.

It would create a work group to examine consumer fuel pricing in the state including members of the transportation committees; academic experts; and the representatives of various agencies, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocacy organizations. The group would review:
a) Issues including previous studies and evaluations of fuel pricing, trends in that, factors causing Washington prices to be higher than the national average and how those factors have changed over time; and margins and profits at the fuel production, distribution, and retail levels,
b) State tax policies, environmental protections, and regulatory factors that may impact fuel pricing and make the state’s marketplace more or less competitive,
c) Supply dynamics affecting the fuel markets in the state, and,
d) Potential reporting and audit requirements that would make fuel pricing more transparent to consumers.
This work group would provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature.

The bill would require Ecology to create an on-line portal allowing the farm fuel users and freight haulers of agricultural products that are exempted from the bill’s coverage to submit documentation each quarter applying for a remittance based on any covered fuels they purchased during that quarter. (If they chose to use it, this would offer an alternative to the current system, which provides them with exemption certificates to be used when purchasing fuel.) The remittance would be equal to 0.008% of the auction price for that quarter for each gallon. (To illustrate roughly how this is supposed to work, as I understand it – since covered fuels emit something like 21 pounds of CO2e/gal, 100 gallons of fuel would emit about a metric ton of CO2e. Suppose the auction price were $50/metric ton, and all the cost for the credits to cover the emissions were passed on to the exempted buyer; they’d pay an extra $50. However, 0.008% of $50 is $0.40; and the rebate for the 100 gallons of fuel would be about $40. It’s not going to be exact, since various fuels with different emissions per gallon are getting lumped together and there will be various lags between the auction prices and whatever their effects on consumer prices turn out to be.)

The bill would provide $25 million for remittances in 2024; in fiscal 2025 and 2026 it would provide what was appropriated, and specifies that the climate investment account and the air quality and health disparities improvement account that get the money for investments from the Climate Commitment Act have to be appropriated at least as much as they were expected to get in the 2022 estimate. In subsequent years those would get the remaining revenue after specified funding for the carbon emissions reduction fund, which is dedicated to reducing transportation emissions, and whatever was appropriated for remittances.)

Those exempted users might choose to have remittances held by the department as credits based on the auction settlement price instead, and would be able to trade them with covered entities that needed credits to meet obligations under the bill through a mechanism the department would create and manage . The department would be allowed to develop other alternatives for handling these exemptions as well. Ecology would also be required to convene a work group with a variety of stakeholders to review the rules and process for handling these exemptions and to develop recommendations for the Legislature to ensure their full use and benefit.

HB1870

HB1870 – Providing local communities with technical support and matching funds for federal grant applications.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Ryu; D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development January 9th, and passed out of committee January 16th. 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.

Summary –
To the extent funding was specifically made available for it, the bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to provide technical assistance to local communities developing competitive applications for federal funding (or to contract for providing it), and would prioritize grants from Commerce’s current program supporting associate development organizations in recruiting, hiring, and retaining grant writers to support applications for Federal funds.

The bill would have Commerce create a resource guide for applicants for federal grants, including links to federal applications and relevant resources, and contact information for departmental assistance. It would require Commerce to create a state pool of matching funds for local communities competing for Federal grants, and to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the program every two years.

HB1868

HB1868 – Restricting new gas outdoor lawn equipment and providing grants and tax breaks for electric alternatives.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
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 Ecology to adopt rules to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from outdoor power equipment with less than 25 horsepower produced on or after January 1, 2026 (or as soon after that as was feasible). Equipment used by governments or their contractors for emergency management or emergency response and equipment for which a suitable zero emission alternative didn’t exist would be exempted.

The bill would create a six year sales and use tax exemption for zero emissions versions of the equipment, and encourage retailers to publicize that. It would add any programs, activities, or projects that reduce and mitigate impacts from greenhouse gases and pollutants on vulnerable populations (including the bill’s outdoor power equipment grant program and transfers to the general fund to offset revenue losses from the tax preferences) to the list of what might be funded by revenue from the cap and invest program.

It would also create a grant program to replace the fossil fueled outdoor power equipment used by local governments with zero emission alternatives. This would be funded with $5 million a year from the cap and invest program for the next five years; Ecology would be required to prioritize grants that resulted in the greatest benefits to vulnerable populations or reduced the most hazardous or frequent occupational exposures caused by the existing equipment.

HB1574

HB1574 – Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Rule (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Dye & Walsh – Rs; Duerr, Doglio, Lekanoff & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Still in committee by 2023 cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and had a hearing in that committee on January 24th. Passed out of committee January 31st and referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would shift the current grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program for equipment purchases to grants for cost-share purchases; and shift recipients of its grants from land-owners to agricultural producers. It would shift the intended distribution of funds from one across crop types and soil management to one across commodities. It would allow conservation districts and other public entities to apply for grant funds to operate equipment sharing programs.

The bill would spell out that the current allowable uses of the grants include practices that reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that increase soil carbon, practices that collect, treat, and store manure and agricultural waste to reduce emissions; practices that “increase sequestration in standing vegetation” as well as ones that increase it in soils; and practices that reduce the intestinal emissions of livestock.

It would require funds appropriated through the program for the specific purpose of improving and encouraging climate-smart agricultural waste management and climate-smart livestock management to be used for:
1) Cost-share grants for anaerobic digester development, including projects that codigest manure with other organic waste;
2) Technical and financial assistance for climate-smart livestock management practices;
3) Grants to research institutions for innovative research and for demonstration projects with greenhouse gas emissions reduction benefits, including dairy nutrient management projects;
4) Creating an ongoing advisory committee including specified stakeholders and administered by the State Conservation Commission and Department of Agriculture to inform the agricultural community about opportunities to participate in carbon emissions reduction programs, inform researchers and policymakers of practical implementation challenges, and guide these grant awards, and
5) Creating at least one position at the Commission and other positions as needed with expertise in livestock nutrient management and carbon markets to disseminate information and provide support to agricultural producers applying for funding opportunities.

HB1589

HB1589 – Requiring steps to transition off natural gas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker, amended twice, and passed out of committee March 28th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file April 17th. Reintroduced in House Rules in 2024; passed by the House January 22nd. Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, and scheduled for a hearing there at 8:00 AM on Wednesday January 31st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5562 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Changes in the 2023 Senate –
The striker requires a gas company with other 500,000 customers to offer incentives for electrifying to customers using fossil fuels, prohibits incentives for gas appliances or4 equipment other than backups for electric heat pumps, specifies that half the capacity and energy needed to meet CETA’s requirements are to be owned by the utility, removes the provision allowing a utility to earn a rate of return on power purchase agreements, and makes a number of other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendments allow extending gas service to residential facilities that only use it for power during emergencies, and make a minor adjustment in the timeline for UTC decisions.

In the House – Passed in 2023
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 6th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 13th. Referred to Rules, replaced on the floor with a striker by the prime sponsor, and passed by the House March 6th.

Changes in the 2023 House –
The changes made in the substitute are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the beginning of it. They include raising the threshold at which projects require labor standards from $1 million to $10 million, and requiring PSE to meet at least 2% of its annual load with conservation and energy efficiency resources, and to achieve “annual demand response” of at least 10% of its peak summer and winter loads, unless the UTC finds that higher percentages would be cost-effective. The changes made by the striker, which are summarized by staff at the end of it, exempted certain uses from the ban on new connections, and made many changes to the planning requirements.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit large gas companies serving more than 500,000 customers from providing gas service to new residential and commercial customers after June 30th 2023. (I’m pretty certain that Puget Sound Energy is currently the only company with this many customers.)

Every four years, the bill would require a large gas company to include a gas decarbonization plan for reducing its proportional share of the State’s greenhouse emissions reduction targets as part of its multiyear rate hearings with the Utilities and Transportation Commission. The plan would have to include programs to advance gas decarbonization measures for customers. It would have to prioritize investments that benefited low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; programs targeted to them; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would be required to include a portfolio of resources using alternative energy to the maximum practicable extent. It would have to meet a cost target which would be 2.5% of its approved revenue for each year of the plan. (It might include leak reductions approved by the commission if they demonstrated emissions reductions, whether or not those would produce the reduction targets in the plan.)

A plan would have to quantify the projected cumulative emissions reductions for each reduction period resulting from each portfolio presented; propose budgets resulting from each of those; quantify the cost of implementing each of them; project the annual emissions reductions that would result if each of them were extended through 2050; and describe the effects of the actions and investments in each one on the safety, reliability, and resilience of the company’s service. A plan would identify potential changes to depreciation schedules or other actions to align the large gas company’s cost recovery with statewide policy goals, including reducing greenhouse emissions, minimizing costs, and minimizing risks to the company and its customers. It would explain the company’s analysis of the costs and benefits of an array of alternatives, including the costs of emissions used in the calculations; describe the monitoring and verification methodology to be used in reporting; and include any other information the UTC required.

Starting in 2026, a combination utility providing both electric service to some customers as well as gas service to over 500,000 customers (ie. PSE) would have to file an electrification plan along with the gas decarbonization plan. It might include demand-side management strategies or transportation electrification plans, but it would have to include programs to advance electrification for customers, programs targeted to low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would have to include budgets; targeted numbers of installations; projected fuel savings; projected cost-effectiveness calculations, including the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and projected reductions in those; and other information deemed relevant by the UTC. It would have to meet the same cost target as the gas decarbonization plan would. It would have to provide documentation and data to show the plan was consistent with maintaining the reliability of the grid; and incentives to facilitate electrification, which might include programs for both new and existing buildings. (Products eligible for incentives would have to be Energy Star certified, if certification for that type of appliance existed.)

The bill would require these companies (ie. PSE) to calculate their reporting to the State about emissions from gas by including methane leaked from its transportation and delivery in distribution and service pipelines from the city gate to customer end use; emissions resulting from the combustion of gas by customers not otherwise subject to federal greenhouse gas emissions reporting (excluding all transport customers); and emissions of methane resulting from leakage in the delivery of gas to other gas companies. They’d have to show their emissions baseline and projected cumulative emissions for the applicable emissions reduction period separately, and would have to show that the total reductions were projected to make progress toward achieving the reduction targets identified in the applicable decarbonization plan.

The UTC might approve, modify, or reject a proposed plan. It would take into account whether a gas decarbonization or electrification plan achieved reductions for each emissions reduction period; whether a plan demonstrated progress toward meeting its targets through maximizing the use of alternative energy resources; whether its investments prioritized serving low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; whether it resulted in a reasonable cost to customers; and whether it maintained system reliability. The commission would have to require a large gas company to achieve the maximum level of greenhouse gas emissions reductions practicable using alternative energy resources at or below the applicable cost target. (It might approve, or amend and approve, a gas or electric plan with greater costs if it found that the plan was in the public interest, costs to customers were reasonable, it included mitigation of rate increases for low-income customers, and its benefits including consideration of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions exceeded its costs.

Any combination utility with an electrification plan approved by the Commission would be required to get 40% of the total capacity and energy it needed to meet the requirements of the Clean Energy Transformation Act (aka the cap and invest bill) through power purchase agreements through which it bought energy, capacity, and environmental attributes from “resources” owned and operated by entities that were not affiliated with the utility, and that gave the utility rights to dispatch, operate, and control the resources in the same ways as the utility’s managing its own. [I think this subsection is supposed to read “renewable resources.] (The rest of the needed capacity and energy would have to come from resources owned and operated by the combination utility or an affiliate. Once the UTC approved a power purchase agreement included in an approved electrification plan, the utility would be allowed to set its rates to recover the operating expense of the purchases of “renewable resources” under the agreement as well as earning a return on those expenses at a rate no less than the authorized cost of its debt and no greater than its authorized rate of return. (Apparently, this would mean that customers paid for the profits of the independent power producers developing those projects as well as paying PSE the standard rate of return on those purchases even though it didn’t have any capital invested in the projects.)

The bill would require the UTC to start adopting depreciation schedules for any gas plant a combination utility had in service as part of considering a multiyear rate plan filed by a combination utility. The incremental depreciation for each year of the plan would be 1% of the utility’s gas revenue requirement for the preceding year. If the utility’s rate base for gas operations was less than or equal to 20% of the rate base for its electrical operations, and the utility chose to request the change, the Commission would merge the rate bases supporting gas and electric service in the next multiyear plan and adopt rates supporting recovery of the merged rate base. [I think this last provision means that if PSE’s gas business got small enough it could spread the costs of maintaining the gas system’s infrastructure over all its customers, not just the ones who were still using gas, and including the customers for electricity in the areas where it’s never sold gas .]

The bill would require a large gas company, with over 500,000 customers, to include community workforce agreements or project labor agreements, the payment of area prevailing wages, and apprenticeship utilization requirements in contracts with competitive bidding for projects costing over $1 million. It would encourage any entities providing retail electric service in the state to work with a large gas company providing service within their areas to identify opportunities for electrification and the provision of energy peaking service by the large gas company; to account for the costs of greenhouse gas emissions, set total energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals; develop and implement electrification programs in collaboration with large gas companies providing service in their area; and to include an electrification plan or transportation electrification program as part of a clean energy plan.

HB1391

HB1391 – Creating a state-wide building energy upgrade assistance program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Anacortes and San Juans) (Co-sponsors Doglio, Duerr, Berry, Pollet, Reed – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd and 24th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Completed a continued hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 31st. Replaced by a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing there February 21st, was replaced by a second substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. The second substitute specified that the program would have to include resources for renters and that its energy efficiency projects did not have to include weatherization; the amendment would make the bill null and void if it wasn’t funded in the budget.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to create a statewide building energy upgrade navigator program, in collaboration with the WSU Energy Office. The program would provide a statewide resource to assist building owners with electrification services and energy efficiency services and with funding for those, as well as providing other assistance in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, job creation, business opportunities, and workforce development in the sector. By March 1st, 2024, Ecology would be obliged to contract with an administrator or administrators, selected through a competitive process, to implement the program. Contracts could not be for more than five years, and would have to include sufficient performance metrics to let the department and the Legislature evaluate the program’s energy savings, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, consumer cost savings, wage and employment impacts, and customer satisfaction. The bill would convene a technical advisory group including a representative from each of a list of stakeholders to provide ongoing guidance to the program, including recommendations on continuously improving and growing it, addressing any gaps in its design and implementation, addressing split incentives, and incorporating the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities mapping tool into its work. The advisory group would provide an annual report on the program’s progress to the Legislature.

The program would have to provide outreach and deliver energy services to owner-occupied and rental residences, commercial buildings under 20,000 square feet; and single and multifamily dwellings. It would support energy efficient and emissions reductions alternatives for all types of fuel, and strive to cover all regions of the state. It would prioritize services to low-income households, vulnerable populations, and overburdened communities, including tribal communities, having considered recommendations of the UTC’s natural gas decarbonization study. It might dedicate some of its funding for these services. It would support accessible administration of programs authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act, and the integrated implementation of all relevant clean buildings programs funded by the state budget, including several currently described in the 2023 House Omnibus Appropriations Bills. It would implement a process in coordination with the Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises to help customers find qualified energy contractors, including considering whether they met the program’s labor standards and reporting requirements.

The program’s outreach to customers would have to include creating and maintaining updated educational and marketing materials, including advice about all relevant funds and
financial assistance available from Federal, State, local, and energy utility programs. (It would be required to focus on this outreach about funding first.) It would also provide assistance with performing energy audits to provide recommendations to customers on a wide range of cost-effective energy and health improvements, including weatherization, appliance upgrades, electrification, smart meters, solar photovoltaic panels and other on-site sources of renewable energy, electric vehicle charging; and smart thermostats. It would provide community outreach in collaboration with Ecology’s programs to reach and serve underserved communities.

The program’s energy services for customers would have to include help in finding qualified contractors to implement audit recommendations; recommendations for programs that customers might be eligible for based on their income, and assistance with securing financing. Program administrators would have to develop community workforce agreements between labor representatives and contractors for the work performed on projects funded by the program, considering the size and complexity of projects, number of trades and crafts anticipated to be used, the availability of trained and skilled workers, and the location of projects. Any community workforce agreement would have to establish goals for labor hours or percentages of work to be performed by underrepresented groups, by local residents, and by state registered apprentices. They’d have to specify that workers performing work on projects under a community workforce agreement were paid a wage rate that was at least equivalent to the prevailing wage rate of workers, laborers, or mechanics in the same trade or occupation in the locality in which the work was being performed.

The program would also identify statewide workforce and contractor training needs and develop training. It might directly administer incentives and rebates for programs when directed to do that by Ecology, but would not provide any financial or technical assistance for projects including installation of new fossil fuel appliances. The administrator might develop a database portal to identify and track the locations of services provided, customer interactions, and performance metrics for completed work.

Ecology would provide a report on the program to the Legislature every other year, covering the implementation of the navigator program and community workforce agreements. It would include details on the monetary, greenhouse gas, and energy savings achieved; the savings to investment ratio achieved for customers; the wage levels of jobs created; the utilization of state registered preapprentice and apprenticeship programs; the efficiency and speed of delivery of services; and the public health benefits, including indoor and outdoor air quality improvements and increased access to cooling for climate resilience. It would also have to include recommendations for additional energy efficiency, electrification, and distributed energy programs for customers to maximize deployment of energy efficiency services, and to achieve higher rates of penetration and economies of scale through implementing multiple measures simultaneously.

HB1433

HB1433 – Adopting a standard method for use in programs for the energy labeling of existing residential buildings.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Ramel, Fitzgibbon, Berry, Reed, and Doglio – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd and March 24th. 2nd Substitute returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session. Amended to make labeling a local option and remove the licensing of home energy assessors; passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2024 – Passed
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the Energy & Environment.

In the House 2023 – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 24th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 13th. Replaced by a second substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 21st. Referred to Rules and passed by the House March 1st.

Substitutes –
This extended various deadlines by a year or eighteen months and specified that score reports to Commerce wouldn’t include the addresses of individual residences or the owner’s names. The second substitute in Appropriations made a few minor changes, and removed the language specifying that nothing in the bill prohibited jurisdictions requiring HERS scores at time of sale, or prohibiting requiring them as a condition for receiving efficiency incentives from Commerce.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Commerce to create rules for using the US Department of Energy’s Home Energy Scores as the primary system for assigning residential buildings scores evaluating their energy efficiency. (These DOE scores are based on an assessment of the building’s characteristics by a trained and certified rater, rather than on the energy used by its current occupants.) Cities and counties could promote or administer home energy score programs, require a score when a residential building is advertised for sale; or require a score to be eligible for Commerce’s financial incentives for efficiency improvements, but the bill itself wouldn’t require buildings to have scores.

The report on a building would have to include its home energy score, on a relative scale of one to 10, with 10 being best; its energy use per year by fuel type; the unit prices for each fuel used to calculate energy costs; the kilowatt hours per year of renewable energy it generated, if there were any; the annual cost of energy by fuel type and altogether; and its estimated current carbon emissions in tons/per year, which would have to be shown on a graphic scale from zero to 15 so a reader could visualize how a building compared to the worst and best possible greenhouse gas outcomes.

The report would also have to include itemized recommendations for priority energy saving improvements that had an expected payback of 10 years or less, as well as for additional improvements. (Recommendations might include upgrades to windows, and wall, roof, attic, and floor insulation.) The report would estimate the home energy score and the expected annual reduction in energy bills after itemized priority improvements were completed. (Reports would also include the building’s floor area, address, and year of construction; the date of the assessment; the assessor’s name, contact information, license number, and employer; a statement indicating that the report met Washington state standards for energy score assessments; and other energy efficiency and green building certifications for which the building had qualified.)

The Department of Licensing would create requirements for licensing home energy assessors by December 31st, 2023, and they would have to be licensed by the next September. (I’m not sure whether the bill’s language would require someone doing assessments using some other system to have a license or not.) The requirements for a license would include standards for training, including provisions for recognizing training provided by other organizations, as well as standards of professional conduct, practice, and ethics.

HB1368

HB1368 – Requiring and funding purchases of zero-emission school buses after September 2035.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Senn (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Fey, Berry, Doglio, Peterson, Chapman, Fosse, Slatter, Gregerson, Callan, Lekanoff, Ramel, Stonier, Street, Santos, Fitzgibbon, and Berg – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education. Redirected to the House Committee on Environment & Energy; had a hearing there February 7th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Appropriations, and died there. Reintroduced in 2024, and had another hearing in House Appropriations on January 11th. Replaced by another substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5431 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Substitutes –
The 2023 substitute changed the requirement to purchasing 70% zero-emission buses by 2030 and all zero-emission buses by 2033, as well as specifying environmental justice priorities and making some other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. The folder with materials for the 2024 executive session has the next substitute and there’s a staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require purchasing zero-emission school buses after September 1, 2035. It would create a grant program using any specifically appropriated funding to support school districts, charter schools, and state-tribal education compact schools purchasing them, and to support purchasing and installing charging stations and associated infrastructure and equipment. To be eligible for grants, buses powered by fossil fuels would have be at the end of their depreciation schedule and eligible for replacement under the current state law about reimbursing districts for the cost of student transportation vehicles. Grants for buses would not be allowed to exceed the purchase price minus any salvage value of the bus being replaced.

There would be a competitive application process, prioritizing grants that provided the greatest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the amount of state support, and considering expected improvements in health equity for communities of color and low-income communities; and the age of applicants’ fleets. OSPI would also be allowed to consider other factors such as air quality improvements in areas with high traffic congestion. (At the time of an award, a grantee would have to have enough charging infrastructure in place to operate the replacement bus; or have secured enough funding in addition to the grant to purchase and install that.) OSPI would also publish an annual list of Federal grant opportunities pertinent to replacing nonzero emission school buses.

HB1283

HB1283 –Requiring some ESG reporting and increased ESG investment options in the State’s retirement system.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 11th District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Berry, Ramel, Macri, Doglio, Reed, and Pollet- Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Appropriations Committee in 2023. Died in committee; reintroduced there in 2024.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the State’s Investment Board to report on the climate-related financial risk, the social responsibility, and the establishment and use of proxy voting and corporate governance policies in its private and public portfolios by January 1st 2024, and every three years after that. By 2024, it would have to provide at least three investment options consistent with its environmental, social, and governance policies for individuals participating in self-directed funds. (The options would reflect a range of policy preferences and investment objectives consistent with those ESG concerns to the extent that was consistent with the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities.)

HB1185

HB1185 – Updating and expanding the state’s producer stewardship program for lighting products.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Fitzgibbon, Doglio, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Died in Rules 2023. Returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session. Had a hearing January 18th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
The substitute in 2023 prohibited disposing of lights in most solid waste and recycling containers, and made some other small changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. In the folder with materials for the executive session, there’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute in 2024 at the beginning of it; they mostly dealt with lights containing mercury.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit the sale of lights containing mercury starting in 2026, with some exceptions for special purpose lights, and create penalties for violations. It would expand the current product stewardship program for lights containing mercury to include the end of life management of most lights by the same date.

The producers of lights for sale in the state would have to continue to manage and fund the current product stewardship program, expanded to cover collecting, transporting, reuse, recycling, processing and final disposition of all types of lights, including the special purpose ones containing mercury which could still be sold. The bill would eliminate the environmental handling charge which is currently added to the price of lamps containing mercury to fund the program; it would be directly funded by the producers. (However, they still wouldn’t be responsible for the costs of curbside or mail-back collection programs, except for transporting and processing the lights from those. They would still have to fund and manage free collection sites and pay for the transportation and processing of lights from those.

At least 90% of the state’s residents would have to have a permanent collection site within 15 miles, and an additional site would be required for every 30,000 residents in urban areas. The program would have to provide reasonable opportunities for people in rural areas farther from the required sites to drop off unwanted lights at collection events. The bill specifies additional requirements for outreach and consumer education about the expended program, including a survey about public awareness of it at least every five years. It adds specifications about the safe handling of lights containing mercury, and specifies that plans have to prioritize recycling of other materials to the extent that’s practicable. It would now require programs to include contingency plans to keep providing services if a stewardship organization stopped.

Stewardship programs would be required to design their charges to producers to encourage the use of recycled content and discourage the use of undesirable materials. They’d have to reimburse local governments for the costs when a local government facility or solid waste handling facility served as a collection location. The bill also adds provisions for Ecology’s review and approval of stewardship organization’ plans, and revises Ecology’s procedures for dealing with violations to adjust them to the expanded system. It drops the current law’s provisions for reporting on the availability and purchasing of energy efficient lights in the state.

HB1078

HB1078– Requires local urban forestry ordinances to include a tree bank provision for replacing trees, in order to avoid blocking development that involves removing them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor – Doglio – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 11th; replaced by a substitute, amended and passed out of committee February 3rd. Died in Appropriations in 2023. Reintroduced there in 2024; had a hearing on January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. (It dropped requirements for providing tree bank provisions as an option, and made other minor changes; the amendment simply revised language in the findings.)

Summary –
Tree banks are designated areas where trees can be planted to compensate for the removal of trees elsewhere in order to enable development. The tree bank provisions required in local urban forestry plans would have to conform to guidelines established by the Department of Natural Resources. Those would create criteria for designating areas to be used as tree banks. (They would have to be located in priority areas the Department identified using canopy analysis and inventories, mapping tools that identify highly impacted communities, data on habitat for salmon recovery, and DNR’s 20 year forest health strategic plan.)

The required guidelines would include the appropriate ratios of trees planted within the tree bank to trees removed elsewhere within the community; the appropriate species of trees to be used; and how to effectively support urban forest management plans through the use of a tree bank.

HB1012

HB1012 – Creating an extreme weather response grant program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Leavitt (D; 28th District; SW Pierce County) (Co-Sponsor Rep. Robertson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections March 14th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Reintroduced in the House for the 2024 Session, sent to Rules, and passed by the House on January 8th. Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2024 – Passed

In the House 2023 – Passed
Passed out of the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans January 13th ; had a hearing in Appropriations on January 30th. Amended and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Changes in Appropriations –
The amendment would narrow eligibility for the grants to areas where populations face “combined, multiple environmental harms and health impacts”, and widen the definition of the people they might be used to benefit from those who are “socially vulnerable” to those who are “vulnerable” more generally.

Summary –
Subject to appropriation, the bill would have the State Military Department create a grant program to help cities, counties and towns that have emergency management organizations, and tribes, meet the costs of responding to community needs during periods of extremely hot or cold weather or in periods with severe poor air quality from wildfire smoke. Recipients would have to demonstrate that they lacked the local resources to address these needs and that the costs were incurred for the benefit of vulnerable populations.

Grants could be awarded for establishing and operating warming and cooling centers, as well as transporting people and their pets to them, and providing facilities for pets in them; purchasing fans or other supplies for cooling congregate living settings; providing emergency temporary housing such as rented hotel rooms; and other activities the department determined were necessary for life safety during these periods.