Category Archives: Other 2021

HB1577

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other changes –

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

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

SB5461

SB5461 – Authorizes up to $500 million in bonds to implement DNR’s 20 Year Forest Health Plan, funding forest health and community resilience.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; Skagit County)
Current status – Referred to Senate Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
These would be general obligation bonds, could be issued over eight biennia, and could only be issued if the Legislature had already appropriated the proceeds. (The Forest Health Plan envisions applying techniques such as thinning and prescribed burns to over a million acres.)

HB1488

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5415

SB5415 – Expanding and revising expedited review of projects by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; scheduled for a hearing on a proposed substitute Tuesday, February 9th at 10:30 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The proposed substitute just fixes a typo and eliminates a short section duplicated in the original.

Summary –
Currently, proposed energy facilities and alternative energy resource facilities may both apply to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for an expedited review, and the Council may grant that if it finds that the environmental impact of the proposed facility is not significant or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level under the State Environmental Policy Act’s standard, and the project is found to be consistent and in compliance with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances after a hearing.

The bill would make this option available to electricity storage projects; biofuel facilities that can refine more than 1,500 barrels a day and are not at existing industrial facilities; renewable natural gas and renewable hydrogen projects; facilities that manufacture products, equipment, or components used for renewable energy generation and electricity storage; and facilities that produce zero emission vehicles or charging or fueling infrastructure for them.

It changes the membership of the Council. It no longer offers the Departments of Agriculture; Health, Military, and Transportation the option of adding a member for a particular case, but it now requires notifying them of projects applying for expedited review, as well as the county government where the project would be located, and tribes potentially affected by it. (It adds some language requiring meaningful input and participation by a county and those tribes in the process.)  The bill drops the requirement for adding a member from a port district and a member from the government of a county in which a proposed project would be located; and it makes adding a member representing a city in which a project would be located an option for the city government rather than requiring that. It adds a member designated by the board of directors of the Washington State Association of Counties, and two members selected by tribes within the state.

The bill makes a number of changes in administrative procedure. It combines the current initial informational public hearing and the following hearing on the proposed site is consistent with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances. It would allow the Council to vote to waive the current requirement for an adjudicative public hearing on a proposal if it determined there were no genuine issues of fact about matters material to its recommendation about siting after holding a hearing to take public comment on the question and tribal consultation, and if it decided the project was consistent with local land use rules. The bill adds time limits for various steps, and a provision for judicial review of rules and regulations adopted by the Council. (It also adds a quorum rule, and makes the chair of the Council “the appointing authority” rather than the UTC; I think this refers to appointing administrative staff, but I’m not sure.)

The bill would no longer allow a preliminary study of a site by the Council to be used as the “detailed statement” about environmental impacts that State law requires for all major projects. It allows the costs of a preliminary study to be considered part of the required application fee for a later formal application for site certification. It removes a section specifying that the provisions for conducting preliminary studies do not prevent a city or county from requiring any information it deems appropriate in making a decision about approving a particular location.

If money were appropriated for it, the Council would have the WSU Energy Office develop a least-conflict priority clean energy project siting program, engaging the relevant stakeholders and developing a map highlighting priority areas where there would be the least potential conflict over siting projects. (The Council might create different maps for different kinds of projects, or kinds of potential conflicts, and would have to update the analysis at least once every six years.) The program would also compile the latest information on opportunities for dual-use and colocation of clean energy projects with other land use values.

If money were appropriated for it, the Council would develop a list of potential high priority impacts of projects seeking expedited review, and a list of mitigation measures for their significant likely environmental impacts, including impacts to air quality, land and aquatic habitats, and wildlife. A measure on the list would have to be based on best available science and have a high likelihood of mitigating the identified impact; the Council would need to consider including mitigation banks, and siting and design best practices for projects. Applicants could draw on the list to propose mitigation measures for a project’s impacts, but they’d still have to evaluate their applicability to their particular project or facility and develop individualized mitigation evaluations and requirements for it if measures on the list weren’t applicable.

The bill adds “ongoing regulatory oversight” of energy facilities subject to this chapter to the specification of the Council’s powers, broadens its authority to enter into contracts to include anything involved in carrying out the provisions for siting energy facilities, and allows it to conduct hearings on the operational conditions of facilities as well as their locations.

SB5345

SB5345 – Creates an industrial waste coordination program to support local industrial symbiosis projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Benton County) (Co-sponsors Rolfes, Das, Hasegawa, Lovelett, Mullet, Nguyen, Randall – all Ds, and Rivers – R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology February 3rd. Passed out of committee February 9th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 16th, and passed out of committee on the 18th. Passed by the Senate February 26th. Senate concurred in the House amendments April 14th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 12th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing April 1st and passed out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd; passed by the House April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
House striker –
The striker simply adds environmental justice to the list of program goals and family wage jobs to the list of program goals, and specifies that the program’s grant projects and best practices for industrial hubs should include avoid creating or worsening negative impacts to overburdened communities.

Original bill –
The bill creates an industrial waste coordination program, administered by the Department of Commerce and regional facilitators, to support local industrial symbiosis projects. It’s to develop inventories of current industrial waste innovation; generate a system to manage data on material flows, resource availability and potential synergies; establish best practices for local industrial resource hubs; identify access to capital to fund projects; develop economic and environmental performance metrics to measure the results of industrial or commercial hubs; host workshops and connect businesses, governments, utilities, research institutions, and other organizations to identify opportunities for resource collaboration; assist throughout the life cycle of symbiosis projects, from identifying opportunities to full implementation; develop economic cluster initiatives to spur growth and innovation; and make recommendations to the Legislature about other ways to facilitate industrial symbiosis.

It would establish a competitive grant program for the research, development, and deployment of local waste coordination projects, if funds were specifically appropriated for that. Grants could support:
1. Existing public or private industrial symbiosis efforts;
2. Emerging symbiosis opportunities involving public or private sector organizations, including projects arising from the bill’s industrial waste coordination program, conceptual work by public utilities on redirecting their wastes to productive use; or existing inventories or project concepts for converting specific biobased wastes to renewable natural gas;
3. Research on product development using a specific waste flow;
4. Feasibility studies to evaluate potential biobased resources;
5. Feasibility studies for publicly utilities evaluating business models on transforming to multiutility operations or potential symbiosis with other regional businesses; or
6. Other local waste coordination projects specified by Commerce.
Grants would require equal matching funds, would be limited to $500,000, and would have to be allocated considering factors such as time to implementation and scale of economic or environmental benefits, as well as distributed equally in western and eastern parts of the state, urban and rural areas, and small towns and large cities.

The bill extends the current exemptions from disclosure for financial, commercial, and proprietary information to include this program.

HB1387

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

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

SB5286

SB5286 – Sets goals and lists possible agency steps to support diverting and reducing organic waste.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsor Saldaña – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill establishes a State goal of diverting and reducing at least 50% of the current level of organic waste by weight from landfill disposal by 2025, and at least 90% of it by the end of 2030. The goal’s to guide the Department of Ecology in developing solid waste handling standards, the State’s solid waste management plan, and the criteria for municipal landfills. It lists actions for better integrating the State’s strategies, policies, and programs, including:
1. Having specific elements on the role soil amendments derived from the solid waste system should play as part of climate sequestration strategies, as well as identifying future research and analysis needs;
2. Including the role of material derived from solid waste systems when developing plans for carbon markets and finance, with special attention to recycling organics and to developing landfill gas mitigation infrastructure; and
3. Establishing practices for monitoring and improving soil health using compost in coordination with the Department of Agriculture, public institutions of higher education, and other parties.

Other actions it mentions as consistent with the goals include developing a revised permitting system for organic waste management facilities to create consistent standards and coordinated permitting; increasing the availability and convenience of collection service for organic materials; setting methane emission standards for landfills to encourage reduction of organic waste; establishing policies and practices to reduce its generation and diversify how its managed; developing a robust in-state market for organic waste products, including through outreach to local governments, state government, and agricultural producers; establishing local procurement policies; and identifying methods for soil carbon sequestration using organic waste.

If money were appropriated specifically for it, cities and counties with over 50,000 people would have to ensure that their waste management plans incorporated approaches for source reduction, on-site and off-site management of organics, and levels of service that would achieve these goals when practicable. The Department of Ecology would be allowed to approve a plan or amendment that didn’t meet these requirements if it determined that areas within a city or county didn’t have a composting facilities within a reasonable distance, but it could convene jurisdictions and the waste handling and recycling industry to evaluate how to meet the goals given local conditions.

HB1168

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1216 – 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5219

SB5219 – Requires more post-consumer recycled plastic in packaging. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsors Liias, Conway, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer, Nguyen, and Claire Wilson – all D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 28th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
I think that the fees per ton that are supposed to raise specified amounts of revenue only apply to packaging that doesn’t meet the recycled content requirements; that implies there there’s expected to be enough of that to generate $20 to $30 million/yr.
The bill defines the “producers” responsible for implementing its requirements as the brand owners of products with plastic packaging sold or distributed for use in the state, or the importers of such products. I think that means there will be a great many of them…

Summary –
The bill requires plastic packaging on products sold or distributed in Washington to increase its postconsumer recycled plastic content. The bill includes things like plastic tags, and packaging intended to be sold to consumers.; it exempts plastic packaging and food serviceware provided for serving prepared food at a drive-through, in a packaged form for takeout or takeaway, and from food trucks, stands, delis, or kiosks; as well as the plastic carryout bags for which State law already has recycled content requirements. Its requirements apply to the brand owners of products with plastic packaging, or to the importers of such products.

From July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2026, it would require at least 15% recycled content; through the next four years it would require at least 25%, and after January 1, 2031, it would have to contain at least 50%. Every other year, and at the request of producers, but not more than once a year, the Department of Ecology would have to consider reducing the requirements, but it would not be authorized to set them below 15% after 2026. (In making the decision, it would have to consider at least changes in market conditions, including supply and demand for postconsumer recycled plastics, collection rates, and bale availability; recycling rates; the availability of suitable recycled plastic; the capacity of recycling or processing infrastructure; the progress made by manufacturers in meeting the requirements; and the carbon footprint of transporting recycled resin.)

The department must implement a fee of up to $200/ton on brand owners and importers whose packaging, “in pounds and in aggregate”, fails to meet the requirements. It’s to be set to  to raise $40 million to $60 million per biennium in 2023 through 2026, no less than $30 million and no more than $50 million per biennium in 2027 through 2030, and no less than $20 million and no more than $40 million per biennium after that. Ecology’s to publish an annual report including estimated revenue from the fee, the amounts and quantities of packaging subject to it, and the number of producers currently in and expected to be in compliance with the requirements. If the department estimates revenues will fall below the ranges the bill specifies, it’s to set a fee of $200/ton and include the revenues expected from that in its report.

Revenue from the fee is to go into a recycling improvement account. Twenty-five percent of the money must be spent on grants to material recovery facilities processing municipal solid wastes to improve their ability to sort and manage plastic packaging, with a goal of improving recycling infrastructure and its recyclability. The rest must be used to cover the department’s administration of the requirements, and distributed to cities and counties that have qualified for State financial aid in planning solid waste management. They may spend the funds  on improving recycling infrastructure and the recyclability of plastic packaging through curbside recycling (or through depots or collection points for plastics that can’t be dealt with effectively through curbside collection), and on solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education. The department’s to distribute this funding in consultation with an advisory committee it sets up, including five members appointed by the Washington Association of County Solid Waste Managers and five appointed by the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials. It must distribute a set minimum amount to each county, and must distribute funds to counties based on their populations, but may incorporate the criteria and prioritization process it’s already developed for distributing solid waste planning funds.

The department’s required to establish a stakeholder advisory committee to periodically review and recommend exemptions, exceptions, or alternative compliance requirements concerning at least:
1. Plastic packaging that is subject to Federal requirements, including those of the FDA;
2. Plastic packaging that the department finds, through life-cycle analysis, provides environmentally superior performance when it doesn’t contain postconsumer recycled content or contains smaller amounts of it than the bill requires;
3. Plastic packaging from brand owners or importers who sell or distribute less than a ton of plastic packaging a year in Washington;
4. Plastic packaging associated with a single point of retail sale in the state; or from women or minority-owned brand owners or importers, if the department determines the exemption’s in the public interest. The committee must include at least one person representing the department; the Department of Commerce; the UTC; small and large,  urban and rural, cities and counties; public and sector recycling and solid waste industries, a regulated solid waste collection company providing curbside recycling; a material recovery facility operator processing municipal solid waste from curbside programs; a company providing curbside recycling service through a municipal contract;  a trade association representing the private solid waste industry; recycled plastic feedstock users; and environmental organizations.

Details –
The bill diverts 4% of the waste reduction, recycling, and litter control account to the Department of Ecology for one year to fund implementing its requirements. There are provisions for required reporting by brand owners and importers, for enforcement, and for appeals.

 

SB5174

SB5174 – Making manufacturers responsible for recycling or reusing wind turbine blades. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Northwest WA) (Co-sponsors Rolfes-D, Wagoner-R, Das-D, Claire Wilson-D, and Hunt-D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 27th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on  February 16th; passed out of Ways and Means February 18th. Referred to Rules, and placed in the “X” file March 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
According to a recent Bloomberg Green article 85% of the steel, copper, electronics, and gearing in the turbines themselves can be recycled or reused, but the fiberglass blades “can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed.” (One company presses them into pellets and uses them in fiber board.) They’re a tiny part of the state’s waste stream; the Electric Power Research Institute estimates that all blade waste through 2050 will equal roughly .015% of all the waste going to landfills in 2015 alone. It isn’t at all clear that the life-cycle carbon footprint of recycling them won’t be larger than just landfilling them. Perhaps the bill is intended to create business for some company or organization, or make wind projects more expensive, but the time, energy, and money it will take to do this might will be better spent on many other kinds of waste that we could actually recycle or reuse effectively, or on other kinds of climate action projects altogether…

The bill’s deadline for submitting a plan and the deadline for having an approved plan in order to sell blades are the same, and there’s no timeline for Ecology’s review of plans, so in practice, plans would probably have to be submitted well before the deadline for doing that. The bill says manufacturers must have an approved plan by July 2023, and it says “manufacturers shall implement the plan”, but it doesn’t seem to actually specify a date by which they must implement it. (Maybe a window for that is implied in the requirement for a report on implementation by July 1, 2024.)

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute requires manufacturers to designate a stewardship organization to carry out their obligations rather than making that an option. It makes recovering a fee to cover administrative expenses a requirement rather than an option, and calculates a manufacturer’s share of the fee on the basis of its average sales in the state over the last three years, rather than the most recent year.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Ecology to develop guidance for manufacturers in developing and implementing a self-directed program and plans for the convenient, safe, and environmentally sound takeback and recycling of blades, their components and materials by January 1st, 2023. The responsibility for this falls on the owners of the brand names that the blades are sold under, on companies that import blades, or on retailers selling imported blades who choose to register as a manufacturer for those. Manufacturers may designate a stewardship organization to fulfill their obligations under the act.

Manufacturers or their organizations must submit a stewardship plan by July 1, 2023 (or thirty days after they sell their first blade in the state) describing how they will:
1. Adequately fund the costs of collection, management, and recycling of blades sold in or into Washington, including a mechanism that ensures they can be delivered to takeback locations without cost to the last owner or holder;
2. Accept all of these wind blades after the effective date of this section;
3. Provide for takeback of the blades at locations as convenient as reasonably practicable within the region in which they were used, and to include an explanation for the lack of such a location if one doesn’t exist);
4. Identify how relevant stakeholders will receive the information required to properly dismantle, transport, and treat end of life blades in a manner consistent with the bill’s objectives; and,
5. Establish performance goals, including one for reusing and recycling of at least 85% percent by weight of the collected wind blades.

Plans must be reviewed and approved by the department, and periodically updated. Starting July 1st 2023, manufacturers must have an approved plan to sell blades in the state; after a written warning, they can be fined up to $10,000 for each sale without one. The manufacturer or its designated stewardship organization must submit an annual report to the department documenting the implementation of the plan and assessing its achievement of the bill’s goals. The department is to collect fees from each manufacturer, in proportion to its percentage of the sales of blades in the state, to cover the costs of administering the program.

Instead of preparing and implementing a stewardship plan, a manufacturer may participate in a national program for the convenient, safe, and environmentally sound takeback and recycling of wind turbine blades and their components and materials, if that’s substantially equivalent to the intent of Washington’s program. (As far as I know, such a program does not exist.)

SB5141

SB5141 – Implements the recommendations of the environmental justice task force.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing on a proposed substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 20th; passed out of committee with a minor technical amendment February 9th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 17th. Amended and passed out of committee February 19th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 1st. Senate concurred in the House’s changes April 20th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 12th, and a second hearing in the committee March 16th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing March 30th; replaced by a new striker, amended and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules April 2nd. Replaced by a striker on the floor,  further amended, and passed the House April 11th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
House Floor Amendments –
The adjustments made by the striker on the House floor are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the end of it. One of the other floor amendments said environmental justice assessments could be done by completing a checklist like the ones allowed in SEPA evaluations, including the criteria specified in the bill; specified that assessments are not required to be comprehensive or exhaustive examinations of potential impacts of a significant action, and do not require novel quantitative or economic analysis; and required agencies to use cumulative environmental health impact analysis as part of environmental justice assessments only where applicable. Others prohibited agencies from contracting with entities that employ registered lobbyists for purposes of implementing environmental justice responsibilities; required agencies to identify overburdened communities in a way that allows measuring “the performance effectiveness” of their environmental justice obligations; clarified that the expected impacts on tribal rights and resources of actions undergoing an assessment are to be identified through the consultation process required for significant agency actions, and eliminated the requirement that covered consultations had to be done in accordance with the existing statute that addresses tribal consultation.

Amendments in House Appropriations –
Fitzgibbon’s second striker adds a few small changes to the previous one, according to the slightly different summary at the end of it. The amendments to it required a technical review of the health disparities map, added a couple of members to the environmental justice council, required agencies to aspire to complete environmental justice assessments within fifteen business days and to report on their record of doing that, and made a few other minor changes.

Striker in House Committee –
The staff summary of the adjustments made by the striker is two and a half pages at the end of it.

Amendments on the Senate Floor –
These required transportation spending decisions made within the framework of the environmental justice implementation plan to be restricted to appropriations in the transportation bill and limited to discretionary spending; specified that agency actions are to be “in consideration of” the Council’s guidelines rather than being consistent with them or following them, and that the Council’s identification and prioritization of actions for agency assessments, and its timelines for actions, funding and expenditures are suggestions. They added a report by the Council to the Governor and the Legislature, removed tribal and indigenous populations from the definition of vulnerable populations; and finally specified that the role of the Council is to be purely advisory and that its decisions are not binding on any agency, individual, or organization.

Amendments in Ways and Means –
The major amendment made a lot of changes specifying and clarifying administrative procedures; they’re summarized by staff at the beginning of it. (The other amendment just made the Governor’s appointments to the Council subject to confirmation by the Senate.)

Substitute –
The substitute narrows the sweeping definition of “cumulative impacts” to “cumulative environmental health impacts” and makes a number of other adjustments that focus more narrowly on impacts on health, but since it retains the definitions of “overburdened communities” and now consistently includes “vulnerable communities” alongside that, I think it still requires addressing burdens due to a variety of adverse socioeconomic factors as well as the problems caused by the physical environment. It now specifies that an “equitable distribution” of benefits and burdens means “a fair and just, but not necessarily equal, allocation” of them, and is to be based on current conditions.

It no longer makes the creation of the Environmental Justice Council subject to funding, increases its size from ten to fifteen, adds specifications about its membership,  and increases its authority. It’s now to adopt additional agency guidelines for community engagement plans, maintaining the reporting dashboard, and designating overburdened communities. It expands the Council’s technical assistance to agencies to include environmental justice obligations for budgeting and financing criteria and decisions, environmental justice assessments and  community engagement plans. It specifies a number of things included the definition of “significant agency actions” requiring environmental justice assessments. The Council’s now to review all agency environmental justice assessments, implementation plans, budgeting and funding criteria, and community engagement plans. (The bill doesn’t seem to say it has to approve them, though it does say it’s an agency’s duty to carry out the bill’s requirements after the Council reviews its criteria for these.) It now says agencies must comply with the Council’s guidelines for environmental justice implementation plans instead of saying they must give substantial weight to them.

It now calls the “omsbuds” the “environmental justice advocate”, and drops the list specifying the items and actions that person is authorized to investigate.

The substitute also requires agencies to conduct regular compliance reviews of existing laws and policies guiding community engagement, and makes a lot of minor changes in language and details.

Original bill –
The bill says all state agencies should “strive” to act in accordance with its environmental justice policies, and requires the Departments of Health, Ecology, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Commerce and Transportation, as well as the Puget Sound Partnership, to “apply and comply” with its provisions.

It establishes a ten person Environmental Justice Council appointed by the governor and staffed by the Department of Health to represent the interests of community-based organizations. The Council’s to adopt guidelines on implementing the act’s requirements for agencies preparing environmental justice implementation plans, developing budgeting and funding criteria and making budgeting decisions, and preparing and using environmental justice analyses. It’s also to provide technical assistance to support agencies’ compliance with those analyses and enterprise equity implementation; do an annual evaluation of those aspects of their performance, provide appropriate information to various parties about agency compliance with the requirements; review existing environmental laws and make recommendations for additional legislation to further the state’s environmental justice goals, including legislation to be created and requested by particular agencies; hold hearings and conducting proceedings to receive information to assist in performance of their duties; and prepare and submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature on the work of the Council, progress in meeting the state’s environmental justice goals, and implementing this act.

Environmental justice analyses –

The Department of Health is to continue developing an environmental heath disparities map, in consultation with the Council. It’s to use the most currently available information to identify cumulative impacts and overburdened communities, and include tools to visually display environmental disparities over time, tracking agency progress in an interactive, regularly updated dashboard; as well as measuring the link between environmental quality and human health, disaggregated by race. (The department’s to request public comment, and encourage participation in the process by representatives from community organizations representing overburdened communities through engagement and listening sessions in all regions of the state. It may request assistance from academic researchers and other state agencies, and must include a summary of revisions to the map as part of its annual report to the Council on its progress toward meeting the act’s goals.)

The bill requires agencies considering a significant action to do an environmental justice analysis of cumulative impacts, using resources such as the environmental health disparities map, as well as qualitative assessments of environmental and socioeconomic stressors that may contribute to environmental health disparities. It’s to identify overburdened communities and vulnerable populations that may be affected by the proposed action, and how the impacts may be distributed across those. (The act defines “overburdened communities” as those designated by the Environmental Justice Council that the act establishes, with the assistance of the Department of Health. These include rural communities, communities in census tracts that are fully or partially on tribal lands, and areas with a high concentration of members of a “vulnerable population”, ones that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs relative to income, access to food and health care, and linguistic isolation; and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.) It’s also to identify any local and regional impacts to tribal treaty rights and resources; summarize community input and describe how overburdened communities and affected tribes may be further involved in development of the proposed action; and describe options for the agency to reduce the disproportionate impact on overburdened communities, or a reasonable justification for not doing so. (The bill says an agency must consider, without limitation, each of the following methods for reducing an impact:

1. Eliminating disparities and the unequal effect of environmental harms on overburdened communities;
2. Reducing or ensuring the action does not add to the cumulative impact;
3. Providing equitable participation and meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the development of the action;
4. Prioritizing equitable distribution of resources and benefits to overburdened communities,
5. Ensuring positive workforce and job outcomes for them;
6. Meeting a community need identified by an overburdened community;
7. Modifying substantive regulatory or policy requirements; and
8. Any other mitigation techniques, including those suggested by the Council, the office of equity, or representatives of overburdened communities and vulnerable populations.

(If an agency determines it can’t reduce the impact of the action on overburdened communities and vulnerable populations, it must provide a clear explanation of that determination as part of the record of the decision, and provide notice of it to members of the public who participated in the process.)

Budgets and funding –

In making decisions about budget development, investments, granting or withholding benefits, and distributing funding, agencies must:
1. Direct benefits to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities to reduce statewide disparities. (They are to establish a goal “of 40 percent and no less than 35 percent of investments that create environmental benefits directed to” them.)
2. Make investments to eliminate health disparities proportional to those a community experiences;
3.Focus investments on creating environmental benefits, including eliminating health burdens, creating community and population resilience, and raising the quality of life;
4. Ensure investment priorities are self-determined by overburdened communities and vulnerable populations in them through equitable participation;
5. Balance investments across the state and within counties, local jurisdictions, and unincorporated areas to reduce disparities by location and contribute to reducing disparities based on race and ethnicity;
6. Promote transparency by clearly articulating goals and assessment metrics to communicate where, why, and how funds distributed; and,
7. Consider a broad scope of grants so that funds may be applied to a variety of purposes, including community grants to monitor pollution and grants focused on building capacity and training for community scientists and staff; technical assistance for communities new to receiving grants; and education and work-readiness youth programs focused on infrastructure or utility-related internships to develop career paths for youth and eventual community leaders.

Environmental justice implementation plans –

By September 1, 2022, each agency must prepare an environmental justice implementation plan, giving “substantial weight” to the Council’s guidelines. It’s to be updated annually and must include:
1. Goals and deliverables to reduce environmental health disparities and achieve environmental justice in the agency’s programs;
2. Metrics to track and measure accomplishments of those;
3. Methods to equitably solicit and receive information and opinions from members of the public across the state;
4. Strategies to ensure compliance with existing federal and state laws and policies; and
5. A plan for community engagement that evaluates services and programs for equitable participation and the support of meaningful and direct involvement of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities. The plan must include best practices for outreach and communication to overcome barriers to engagement from vulnerable populations, overburdened communities, and other historically or currently marginalized groups; tools that integrate spatial, demographic, and health disparities data to evaluate and understand the nature and needs of the people who may be impacted by agency decisions; processes to include members of the affected communities including providing child care and other expenses; and methods for outreach and communication with those who face language or other barriers to participation.

The Omsbuds –

If funding’s provided, the bill creates an Office of Environmental Justice Ombuds within the Office of the Governor to provide information to overburdened communities and the council; promote public awareness and understanding of environmental justice for overburdened communities; identify system issues and responses for the Governor and the Legislature to act on; and ensure agency compliance with the provisions of this act. After consultation with the Council, appropriate committees, representatives of overburdened communities, and other relevant stakeholders, the Governor is to appoint an ombuds who’s a person of recognized judgment, independence, objectivity, and integrity, and is qualified by training or experience in environmental justice. The ombuds holds office for three years, and may only be removed, by the Governor, for neglect of duty, misconduct, or the inability to perform duties. Administrative and staff support is to be provided by the Governor’s office. The Council is hold a portion of its meetings to jointly receive stakeholder input on the ombuds’ activities and priorities.

The omsbud is to maintain a number of avenues of communication for receiving complaints and inquiries; monitor agency compliance with the requirements of the act; establish a statewide uniform reporting system to collect and analyze data related to complaints about agencies, and establish procedures to receive, investigate, and resolve them; establish procedures to gather stakeholder input into the ombuds’ activities and priorities, and submit an annual report to the Governor, the Legislature, and the Council including the ombuds’ budget and expenditures, agencies’ compliance with the act; the number of complaints received and resolved; a description of significant systemic or individual investigations or outcomes achieved during the prior year; outstanding or unresolved concerns or recommendations; and comments from stakeholders, including representatives of overburdened communities, on activities during the prior year.

The ombuds may initiate and attempt to resolve an investigation upon the ombuds’ own initiative, or upon receipt of a complaint regarding significant legislative rules; agency budgets, investments, or funding distribution; resource allocation; programmatic or project actions; policies, rules, or procedures; or proposed legislation that may create environmental harms or benefits for overburdened communities. If the ombud believes that an agency should reconsider, explain, or change something, the omsbuds is to have access to records and reasonable access to agency facilities to conduct a full investigation, including the opportunity to interview employees who might reasonably be believed to have knowledge of what’s being investigated. The ombuds may not levy any fees, must remain neutral and impartial, and must render a public decision on the merits of each complaint at the conclusion of an investigation, stating the ombuds’ recommendations and reasoning. If the ombuds concludes there’s significant noncompliance with the act’s requirements, that must be reported to the Governor, the Council, and appropriate committees of the Legislature. (The ombuds must consult with a person or agency before announcing a conclusion or recommendation that criticizes them expressly, or by implication.) Agency employees’ interactions with the omsbud are covered by the whistleblower law.

SB5126

SB5126 – Creates a cap and trade program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Saldaña – D) (Requested by the Governor)
Current status – To the Governor
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 19th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and voted out of committee February 25th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there March 15th. Replaced by a second substitute, amended a number of times, and passed out of committee March 22nd. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor, and passed the Senate 25-24 on April 8th. Senate concurred in House amendments April 24th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing April 14th; replaced by a striker, amended repeatedly, and passed out of committee April 16th. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing there on April 19th, was replaced by a new striker, further amended, and voted out of committee April 20th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a new striker on the floor, amended, and voted out of the House April 23rd. Referred to the Senate for consideration of concurrence in the House’s changes.
Next step would be – To the Governor
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The cap and trade program is a revised version of the one in Senator Carlyle’s SB5981, from 2019-2020.

Summary –
Changes on the House floor –
The striker removes the provision that made the transfer of funds to the account for transportation reduction after 2027 dependent on enacting a clean fuel standard with a carbon intensity reduction of more than 10% by then. It would now make the program contingent on a gas tax increase of at least 5 cents a gallon after April 2021, rather than on the addition in some budget cycle of at least $500 million per biennium above the November 2020 forecast to the transportation accounts. It now allows EITEs to bank unused allowances, “including for future sale and investment in best available technology when economically feasible”. It restores the Senate’s language about allocations of allowances to electric utilities, allowing them to bank allowances without limits and dropping the specifications about Ecology’s rulemaking from the earlier House versions, among other things.

It says that the State, agencies and other jurisidictions may only consider the State’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets “in a manner that recognizes, where applicable, that the siting and placement of new or expanded best-in-class facilities with lower carbon emitting processes is in the economic and environmental interests of the state of Washington, and it makes a number of changes in the language about siting and permitting facilities in Section 10 (9), including “expanded” facilities as well as new ones, and saying agencies “shall” rather than “may” allow them to meet their GHG mitigation requirements under SEPA by complying with this act’s requirements.

The striker exempts railroads from coverage for the first eight years of the program. It restores the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program; and adds forest health and clean energy to the list of potential workforce development areas. It requires Ecology to do a formal evaluation of the potential consequences of permitting the use of banked allowances from a linked program before entering into an agreement, and it specifies that isn’t acceptable unless a linking jurisdiction has provisions to ensure the distribution of benefits from the program to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities; Ecology determines it won’t produce net adverse impacts to either jurisdictions’ highly impacted communities or “analogous communities in the aggregate; and it won’t adversely impact our ability to meet the State’s targets. These and other changes are summarized by staff at the end of the new version.

One amendment requires annual reporting on the recipients, amounts, and actual results of funding, the reductions in emissions (if any) from each project and their cost per tonne, as well as a comparison to other projects, to facilitate the development of cost-benefit ratios for them. Another requires Ecology to develop a proposal in collaboration with stakeholders for assisting residential households that use fuels that besides electricity or natural gas for home heating, giving priority to assisting low-income households through weatherization, conservation and efficiency services, and bill assistance.

In House Appropriations –
The striker in Appropriations creates a new Air Quality and Health Disparities Improvement Account, and declares the Legislature’s intention to dedicate at least $20 million per biennium to it, for reducing criteria pollutants and improving health outcomes in overburdened communities through spending on capital projects and transportation. Though it retains the provisions in Section 13(4)(a) for reducing EITEs emissions between 2035 and 2050, it now also requires Ecology to request legislation in the 2022 session outlining a pathway, developed in consultation with stakeholders, for EITEs to achieve their share of the state’s emissions reductions through 2050, and it says that no expenditures of the program’s revenues may be made if the Legislature has not “considered and enacted” that request legislation by April 1st, 2023. It replaces the provision saying no state agency may adopt or enforce a program that regulates greenhouse gas emissions from a stationary source except as provided in this chapter by specifying that the cap and trade program preempts the Clean Air Rule.

This striker no longer requires Ecology to revise linkage agreements to ensure reductions of criteria pollutant emissions or to reduce the offset limits and the allocation of no cost allowances to entities identified as high priority emitters of criteria pollutants with a source that’s correlated with their emissions of greenhouse gases. It no longer requires the Climate Investment Account to be included in the legislature’s balanced budget requirements, and makes some other changes summarized at the end of it.

One of the amendments says that in dealing with criteria pollutants in overburdened areas Ecology can’t impose requirements on a permitted stationary source that are disproportionate to the source’s contribution to air pollution compared to other permitted stationary sources and other sources of criteria pollutants in the community. One requires Ecology to conduct an environmental justice assessment before entering into a linkage agreement, and makes a number of other clarifications, adjustments and procedural changes that are summarized at the end of it. One amendment modifies the provisions about SEPA review, specifying that Ecology must evaluate any potential net cumulative greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the project “as compared to other existing facilities and existing or emerging low carbon processes that supply the same product or end use,” authorizing Ecology to decide the appropriate threshold for an analysis of the potential net emissions rather than requiring one for projects emitting over 25,000 tonnes a year, and no longer specifying a life-cycle analysis. (That may already be required by SEPA.)  It makes some other changes to the interactions of the program with SEPA that I don’t follow, but which are summarized by staff at the end of it. I also don’t see how the text amends the definition of “supplier” for the GHG reporting requirements, though the summary says it does.)

An amendment rewrites the section on EITEs. It drops the provisions for adjusting the requirements to get to the state’s targets, creates a formula for set reductions of 3%, adjusted for production levels, in each compliance period through 2035, leaves what happens after that open, and makes it easier for aerospace industries to shift from mass-based accounting to carbon intensity accounting, (There’s a summary of these and other changes at the end of the amendment.) (Fitzgibbon supported this amendment, suggesting that the provision for enacting legislation about the 2035-2050 compliance path for EITEs by 2023 in order to keep the program going would put a lot of pressure on the Legislature to replace this section in the next session.)

An amendment drops grants for sequestration under the sustainable farms and fields bill from the list about funding programs, activities, or projects that achieve agricultural energy efficiency or emissions reductions “including…”, and adds grants, rebates, and other financial incentives for agricultural harvesting equipment, heavy-duty trucks, agricultural pump engines, tractors, and other equipment; grants, loans, or financial incentives to food processors for projects that reduce emissions; renewable energy projects; farmworker housing weatherization programs; dairy digester research and development; and alternative manure management.

House Environment & Energy amendments –
The striker deposits the fixed dollar amounts of revenue that the final Senate version dedicates to Flexible Forward transportation spending (roughly sixty percent of the total program revenue) in a new carbon emissions reduction account, which can only be used to reduce transportation sector carbon emissions through measures including alternatives to single occupancy passenger vehicles; reductions in single occupancy vehicle miles traveled; and reductions in per mile vehicle emissions, including through funding alternative fuel infrastructure and incentive programs, as well as emission reduction programs for freight vehicle and rail transportation, ferries and other maritime and port activities.

After deducting up to 5% for administration, it transfers 75% of the revenue remaining to the climate commitment account, and the other 25% to a natural climate solutions account. It specifies that 35 % of total investments from these accounts must provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities  (and that 40% is a target). The projects, activities, and programs funded from these two accounts “include, but are not limited to” many of those listed for potential funding from the climate commitment  account in the final House version. (The striker adds grants supporting local GMA land use planning, fish passage correction investments, and the intention to dedicate at least $50 million per biennium to supporting tribes’ efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change to its list.)

It also makes imported electricity a covered source in the first compliance period rather than the second, and adds an account for retiring allowances generated by voluntary renewable generation projects. It restores the provisions from the original bill for establishing a governance structure to implement the state’s climate commitment, provide accountability for achieving the state’s targets, establish a coordinated approach to resilience, build an equitable and inclusive clean energy economy, and ensure that the government provides clear policy, requirements, financial tools, and other mechanisms to support achieving the targets. (It omits the Senate bill’s specifications as to what that structure would include.)

It replaces a number of definitions of environmental justice terms in the Senate version with references to the nearly identical definitions in SB5141 (the HEAL Act), except that it seems to refer to a definition for “Environmental justice assessment” that doesn’t exist in the HEAL Act, though the body of that act does specify what’s required for one in considerable detail.

It specifies that allowances cannot be banked for more than eight years. It specifies detailed rules for governing electric and gas utilities’ use of the free allowances they’re to receive for the benefit of ratepayers, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of the striker.

Other amendments require considering the number of no cost allowances in the marketplace in setting the number of allowances offered at each auction, specify that the Department must only offer a number of allowances at each auction that will enhance the likelihood of achieving the state limits, and prohibit EITE’s free allowances being sold or traded. They advance the first environmental review of the program by two years, to 2023; require the review to include an evaluation of initial and subsequent health impacts related to criteria pollution; and require permitted or registered sources in an overburdened community to get an enforceable order under the Clean Air Act if Ecology has imposed stricter standards on the area after a review. Fitzgibbon’s amendment prohibits revenue from being transferred to the account for transportation reduction after 2027 unless a clean fuel standard with a carbon intensity reduction of more than 10% has been enacted by then, allows transferring allowances among an owner or operator’s EITE facilities, and makes some other adjustments about EITEs and landfill emissions that are summarized at the end of it. An amendment adds an exemption for fuel used for agricultural purposes, and provides for creating a five year exemption for fuel used for transporting agricultural products on highways. An amendment eliminates the provisions about the State Environmental Policy Act that prohibit state emission limits from being the basis for the denial of a permit application  or for judicial review and the provision establishing that compliance with cap and trade program requirements is the only mitigation for greenhouse gases that can be required by a state agency or local government, but it allows lead agencies to decide that compliance is sufficient mitigation, and makes a number of other changes about the interaction of SEPA and the bill that are summarized at the end of it.  An amendment requires permits for new or revised facilities to include a clause requiring the facility to comply with the greenhouse gas emission limits if they stop being covered under the cap and trade program. An amendment prohibits the Department from granting any free or discounted allowances to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities that are built or modified after the effective date of the bill and that would increase detectable criteria pollutants or other pollutants harmful to human health in overburdened communities. An amendment establishes a program to assist small forestland owners seeking to benefit from carbon sequestration markets; it would include providing funding or consultation to assess a project’s technical feasibility, investment requirements, development and operational costs, expected returns, administrative and legal hurdles, and project risks and pitfalls. It allows assisting multiple landowners to aggregate sufficient acreage to provide the scale to offer offset credits at a competitive price. It directs that $10 million from revenues go to the Forestry Riparian Easement program, and declares the Legislature’s intention to appropriate $2 million per biennium to assist small forestland owners.

Senate floor amendments –
Senator Carlyle’s floor amendment specified that compliance with the program is the only mitigation for greenhouse gases that can be required by any agency or other jurisdiction; moves up the first evaluation by a year, to December 2027; requires Ecology to take steps to reduce criteria pollutants in overburdened areas if that is not happening, including the option of reducing a EITE facilities’ free allowances; and makes a number of other clarifications and small adjustments that are summarized at the end of it.

The other floor amendments  specify percentage reductions over several three year periods for facilities using mass-based baselines, rather than having Ecology establish obligations and allocations for them that are comparable to those for facilities with carbon intensity baselines. They specify that aerospace industries have to get additional free allowances to accommodate increased production on a basis comparable to those for other facilities, and that if it was “appropriate based on projected production”,  Ecology must “achieve a similar ongoing result” by adjusting a facility’s baseline. They require Ecology to recommend whether to provide EITEs with an annual allocation for process emissions beyond 2034  based on a best available technology limitation. They also require Ecology to notify the Legislature whenever an entity is no longer covered by the program; to retain a list of all the covered entities, opt-in entities and market participants on its website; and to maintain a searchable website showing the contents of each holding account, including its allowances.

Substitute and amendments in Ways and Means –
The substitute by Senator Carlyle, the prime sponsor, allowed qualifying as a “biofuel” with a 40% reduction of emissions compared to the equivalent petroleum fuel rather than requiring a 50% reduction; increased the percentage of offsets in the second compliance period that must provide direct environmental benefits in the state from 50% to 75%; placed the entire compliance program in limbo until there’s legislation which will add at least $500 million in new revenue per biennium to the motor vehicle and multi-modal transportation accounts for an indeterminate period; and made a lot of other adjustments which are summarized at the beginning of it.

Carlyle’s first amendment made the status of energy-exposed trade intensive industries permanent; added asphalt industries and all other petroleum products industries to the EITE list; and provided EITEs with free allowances to cover all their compliance requirements until the end of 2034, rather than stepping it down to 75% of the original allocation by 2026.  The amendment no longer has Ecology create the rules for allocating allowances to EITE’s. [So far, I find the language in the replacement for Section 12 about the new system it would create baffling, but there’s a staff summary of what it’s apparently supposed to do and of a number of additional changes the amendment would make at the end of it.]

Carlyle’s second amendment eliminated the Governor’s task force, and made a lot of additional changes to the bill, which are summarized at the end of it. Two other amendments included the investment account created by the bill in the State’s requirements for four year balanced budgets and removed the emergency clause.

Substitute and Amendments in Senate Environment, Energy and Technology –
There’s a four page summary by staff of other changes made in the substitute at the beginning of it. Among other things, it directs $650 million of the revenue each biennium between 2022 and 2037 into a Forward Flexible Account; after that 50% of the revenue is to go to funding transportation. The amendments are currently in the committee materials folder for the February 25th session. They allow carbon capture projects to be used as offsets; remove tribal and indigenous populations from the definition of vulnerable communities and revise the language about consultation with tribes; significantly increase the annual amounts going to the Forward Flexible account in the first years of the program and cap total contributions to that fund at $5.2 billion; add petroleum refining to the list of industries getting free allowances in the first phase of the program; and make some minor adjustments to environmental justice provisions, limits on offsets and linkages, and the handling of credits for the benefit of low-income gas customers.

Original Bill –
Climate Commitment Task Force
The bill would have the governor create a comprehensive program to provide accountability and authority for achieving the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets, establish a coordinated and strategic statewide approach to climate resilience, and build an equitable and inclusive clean energy economy.

By July 1st of this year, he’s to form a climate commitment task force, with representatives from state agencies, other governments, members of highly impacted communities, and other stakeholders. (“Highly impacted communities” and “overburdened communities” are defined by the bill as those at least partly on tribal land, or designated by the Department of Health’s cumulative impact analysis, which is still underway, as highly impacted by fossil fuel pollution and climate change.) By December 1st, it’s to deliver recommendations on the development of the program for the Legislature to review, and to act on during the 2022 session; including advice on a governance structure, reporting requirements, a formal process for coordinating within the state and with other governments, structures to facilitate investments, suggested duties and roles related to resilience, proposed legislation, needed funding, and a schedule for implementing the comprehensive program.

The program is to:
1. Address greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors and sources, ensuring emitters are responsible for meeting targeted  reductions and that the government provides clear policy and requirements, financial tools, and other mechanisms to support achieving them;
2. Increase resilience and support an equitable transition for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, including through early and meaningful engagement of overburdened communities and workers. (“Vulnerable populations” include those in communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors, including unemployment, high housing and transportation costs, access to food and health care, and linguistic isolation; and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization.)
3. Apply the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available to guide the state’s climate actions and strategies.
4. Be developed and implemented in consultation and collaboration with all levels of government and society; and implemented with sustained leadership, resources, clear governance, and prioritized investments at the scale necessary to meet the state’s targets in the most effective and efficient manner possible;
5. Include periodic measurement and reporting of progress and changes to the program as needed to meet the limits.

It has to include a strategic plan for aligning existing law, rules, policies, programs, and plans with the state’s greenhouse gas limits; common state policies, standards, and procedures for addressing emissions and climate resilience; a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding; an updated statewide strategy for addressing climate risks and improving resilience; a comprehensive community engagement plan that addresses and mitigates barriers to engagement from historically or currently marginalized groups; and an analysis of gaps and conflicts in state law and programs, with recommendations for improvements.

The Governor is to develop a framework for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes on the implementation of the act, ensuring meaningful tribal engagement on rule making, programmatic decisions, and investment decisions. He’s to convene an annual meeting with all the Federally recognized tribes in the state to share information and discuss progress toward the bill’s goals.

Cap and Trade Program

The bill requires the Department of Ecology to implement a state greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade program requiring allowances from covered sources for each metric ton of emissions above a gradually decreasing cap. The cap is to be set, evaluated, and adjusted over time so that covered entities contribute their proportional share of the overall State reductions needed to meet our emissions limits. Current and future allowances are sold at auction, but participants with emissions may not buy more than 10% of the ones in an auction, and other participants are limited to 4% of them. Allowances can be sold or traded, and they are to be designed with a number of specified features, and to the extent it’s practical, to allow linking the program with those in other jurisdictions. It requires setting a floor and a ceiling on prices for allowances, and mechanisms for increasing or decreasing the allowances available in an auction to help keep prices within that range.

Covered entities –
You need allowances if your facility emits more than 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2 equivalents; if the associated emissions from your generating electricity in the state exceed that level; or if you’re a supplier of fuels other than natural gas that would produce emissions above that level when combusted. Starting in 2027, you need allowances if you have been responsible for emitting more than that in recent years through the sources of electricity you’ve imported into the state, if you’ve supplied natural gas emitting more CO2 than that when burned, or if your facility and the emissions associated with your direct purchases of electricity exceed that level. A covered entity may request a reduction in its obligations if a change in manufacturing reduces its emissions or changes in its external competitive environment result in a significant increase in leakage risk. Others (including tribal governments and Federal agencies) can also opt-in to the program if they’re responsible for emissions but aren’t required to participate (if, for example, they can make reductions cheaply and want to make money by selling the allowances they earn), or if they just want to trade in the market. Participants who don’t submit enough allowances to cover their emissions are to be fined four allowances for each missing one within six months; they can be fined up to $10,000/day for failing to submit these or other violations of terms or orders, and up to $50,00/day for violating the rules against manipulating an auction.

Offsets –
In  2023 through 2026 up to 8% of an entities’ obligations may be met with approved offset credits, and at least 75% of those must reduce “provide direct environmental benefits” in the state; in 2027 through 2030 up to 6% of them may be offset and at least 50% of those must reduce provide those benefits in Washington. At any point another 5% may be met through offsets on tribal land in the US or a linked jurisdiction. (The bill may intend this to mean tribal land in the state, but it doesn’t say so.) Ecology may adjust these limits to ensure achievement of the State’s emission targets or provide for alignment with linked jurisdictions.

Exemptions –
The bill exempts aviation and marine fuel burned outside the state, coal burned at the Transalta plant, and military installations.

Free allowances –
In 2023 through 2040, the bill provides a gradually decreasing number of free allowances to energy-intensive trade exposed industries in ten categories, and to any others that can demonstrate through objective criteria that they meet requirements about their energy use and trade exposure that the Department of Commerce is to establish by January 1st, 2024 . Facilities with relatively lower emissions than others in a sector may receive a larger share of the allowances. Starting in 2027, free allowances for each entity receiving them are to be reduced each year in proportion to the program’s scheduled reductions in total allowances.

The Department of Ecology is to develop rules, in consultation with Commerce, providing electric utilities with free allowances in 2023 through 2026, and providing enough of them to consumer owned utilities in 2027 through 2030 to cover the emissions budgets in their clean energy implementation plans.  The bill provides natural gas utilities ongoing free allowances for the gas sold to low-income customers receiving rate or bill assistance. (The utilities are to auction these allowances for the benefit of their ratepayers; gas utilities can only use the proceeds to minimize cost impacts on low-income consumers through actions such as weatherization, conservation, and help paying bills.)

Investments –
Revenues from the program are to go into a climate investment account. Investments from it must meet specified high labor standards, and projects must be be reviewed for a number of equity and opportunity efforts. These funds may only be used for a wide range of specified activities:
1. Covering the costs of administering the program;
2. Implementing the working families tax rebate;
3. Paying for clean transportation programs that reduce emissions, including ones that accelerate the deployment of zero-emission vehicles, provide refueling or grid infrastructure for them, or reduce vehicle miles traveled;
4. Supporting natural resilience to the impacts of climate change and increasing sequestration;
5. Funding clean energy transition and assistance programs, including ones that reduce lower income people’s energy burden and rural residents’ transportation fuel burden, ones that reduce dependence on fossil transportation fuels, such as public transit and car sharing, and community renewable energy projects that provide benefits to qualified participants at reduced or no cost;
6. Supporting fossil fuel workers affected by the transition to a clean energy economy, including providing full wage replacement, health benefits and pension contributions for every worker within five years of retirement, and for one to five years for workers who have been employed for those periods; wage insurance for up to five years for reemployed workers with more than five years of service; up to two years of retraining costs; peer counseling and employment placement services; investing in workforce development; and investing in transportation, municipal services, and technology that supports a community’s capacity for clean manufacturing.
7. Supporting projects in the state that produce verifiable emissions reductions beyond baseline estimates, including deploying renewable energy resources, distributed generation, demand-side technologies and strategies, and grid modernization projects; reduce the emissions of industrial facilities; achieve energy efficiency or emissions in the agricultural sector, including through bioenergy and biofuels; promote low-carbon architecture; promote the electrification and decarbonization of buildings; or improve energy efficiency, including district energy projects and investments in transforming the market for high-efficiency appliances.

The Office of Equity is to creates an environmental justice and equity advisory panel to provide recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature about a number of different aspects of the program and investments made from it . The panel’s to include members representing union labor; a member from each side of the state representing tribal governments; and members with expertise in environmental justice and equity issues representing the interests of vulnerable populations in communities in different areas of the state at least partly on tribal land or identified by the Department of Health as highly impacted by fossil fuel pollution and climate change. There’s to be consultation in advance with tribes on all funding decisions that affect their rights and interests in their lands. Agencies are to report to the panel each year on their progress in meeting environmental justice and equity goals.

When they’re allocating funds or issuing grants using the revenue agencies must conduct an analysis to ensure that a meaningful percentage of total investments from the program provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within overburdened communities by reducing those environmental burdens, or their disproportionate risk from them; supporting community-led project development, or meeting a community need identified by vulnerable members of the community that’s consistent with the intent of the bill. The analysis has to “adhere to” various principles, including  that the benefits should reduce state-wide disparities, and be proportional to the health disparities a community experiences. These agencies are to report annually to the environmental justice and equity advisory panel and the office of equity on their progress toward meeting environmental justice and health goals.

Clean Air Act –
The bill responds to a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of Ecology’s authority under the Clean Air Act, specifying that it authorizes the department to adopt air quality standards, emissions standards, or emissions limitations for the production and distribution of fossil fuels or any other products that emit greenhouse gases in the state,  and to prioritize reducing emissions of those and criteria pollutants in overburdened communities if that’s needed to meet the bill’s goals. It specifies that Ecology has the authority to regulate indirect emissions from any products whose consumption, use, combustion, or oxidation releases contaminants into the air. It adds single suppliers’ annual electricity emissions over 10,000 tonnes to the reporting requirements, and requires Ecology to establish methods for verifying emission reports, at least for sources over 25,000 tonnes a year. It also allows Ecology to add greenhouse gases included in linked programs to Washington’s definition.

Details –
The bill requires creating an electronic system for handling allowances. There are provisions for managing and maintaining the integrity of the auctions,  and it requires appointing an independent organization to run them.

SB5081

SB5081 – Places the burden of proof in any enforcement action on the Department of Ecology (and applies to four other agencies). (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; Skagit County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 2nd. No action taken in scheduled executive session February 4th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill places the burden of proof in any enforcement actions by the Departments of Ecology, Agriculture, Health, Natural Resources, or Fish and Wildlife on the agencies.

HB1118

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details –

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

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

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

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

 

 

HB1057

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

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

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

HB1053

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

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

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

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

SB5022

SB5022 – Implements a minimum recycled content requirement for plastic beverage containers, prohibits the sale and distribution of some polystyrene products, and establishes optional serviceware requirements. (Changed title)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsor Rolfes – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing for a substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 26th. Passed out of committee February 3rd; referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 16th. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 18th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker and further amended on the floor; passed the Senate March 2nd. Senate concurred in the House amendments April 19th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing on March 11th and 12th. Replaced by another striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing April 1st. Was replaced by yet another striker, amended, and passed out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd. Amended on the floor and passed by the House April 7th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1118 is an identical companion bill.
The sponsors have a flyer summarizing the bill. (My summary, based on my reading of the original text of the bill, differs from this in some ways.)

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

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

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

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

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

Summary –
House floor amendments –
One of these revised the provisions for collecting fees from producers to cover Ecology’s costs. The other lets Ecology temporarily exclude containers from the content requirements if a producer demonstrates annually that it isn’t technically feasible to meet them because of Federal health or safety requirements, added consumer electronics and personal care products representatives to the stakeholder committee, and made some other minor adjustments.

Appropriations striker and amendments –
(The materials folder for this meeting doesn’t have the usual indications of whether amendments were approved or not, so I’m assuming they were all approved, which may not be right.) The striker retained some of the changes in the committee striker, and made other small adjustments; the changes are summarized at the end of it. One amendment would exempt styrofoam food service containers from the prohibition if they had at least 25% postconsumer recycled (PCR) content beginning in 2023, 50% PCR content beginning in 2030, and 75% PCR content beginning in 2035; the others made minute changes.

House committee striker and amendments –
The striker made a lot of small changes and adjustments which are summarized at the end of it. One amendment would make the requirements for postrecycled content in plastic mini wine bottles the same as those for dairy milk bottles. The other would create an impartial third party facilitator for the stakeholders’ advisory committee, with specified qualifications and responsibilities; have its members selected by the facilitator rather than Legislative leaders; and making some other minor changes that are summarized at the end of it.

Striker and other Senate floor amendments –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made in the striker at the end of that. (It added recycled content requirements for plastic trash bags and for household cleaning and personal care product containers, and made quite a few other small changes.) The other amendments created a stakeholder advisory committee to make recommendations on developing recycled content requirements for plastic packaging, and made a tiny technical clarification.

Substitute –
The substitute heard in committee would actually only implement a minimum recycled content requirement for plastic beverage containers, prohibit the sale and distribution of some polystyrene products, and establish optional serviceware requirements; it doesn’t include provisions about extended producer responsibility any more. There’s now a staff summary of these and other changes in the substitute, at the end of the bill report. (The amendments in Ways and Means were minor, but one changed the actual title of the bill to reflect the big changes made in the substitute.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details –

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

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

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

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