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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.