Category Archives: Passed by the House – 2023

HB1768

HB1768 – Public utility tax exemption for electricity used by green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen businesses.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County) (Co-Sponsors Barnard – R; Chapman and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance Wednesday February 22nd. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House with one vote opposed on March 16th.

Changes in the House –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes in the substitute at the beginning of it. The amendment added high heat industrial processes using hydrogen as a fuel, rail, and off-road agricultural or industrial equipment to the uses eligible for the exemption.

Summary –
The bill would create an exemption from the public utility tax for electricity used by businesses producing, storing, or dispensing electrolytic or renewable hydrogen for uses included in the state energy strategy, such as high heat industry, decarbonization of transportation, storage or generation of electricity, or fuels with a carbon intensity less than one under the Clean Fuels Act’s rules.

Operations would have to start before July 2033 to qualify, and utilities would be required to pass the reduction in their tax on to the businesses.

HB1729

HB1729 – Creating B&O tax credits for hydrogen fuel cells and electrolyzers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Abbarno (R; 20th District; Centralia) (Co-Sponsors Klicker, Volz, Orcutt, Schmidt, and Cheney – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance at 8:00 AM on Wednesday February 22nd. Replaced by a substitute that capped the total annual credits at $3 million, required prevailing wage rates to use the credits, and made a few other minor changes. Amended to make expenditures on research, development and deployment of hydrogen products eligible for the credits and passed out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously on March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax on manufacturing or selling electrolyzers and fuel cells at 0.2094% for ten years.

It would provide a ten year B&O tax credit of 1.75% of a business’s expenditures in research and development for these products, capped at the level of the tax due in that year, and allow carrying those credits forward to be applied against later tax bills. (This would apply to expenses for manufacturing tool and engineering design, as well as to other research and engineering activity; it wouldn’t apply to payments to other parties for research and development with the exception of “a public educational or research institution.” These credits could only be carried forward for a year.

It would provide a ten year B&O tax credit equal to a fraction of the property and leasehold excise taxes due on new buildings (as of 2023) primarily used in manufacturing these products, and the land they occupied, as well as on any increased property taxes resulting from expansions or renovations of such buildings. There would be an additional credit for a fraction of the property taxes on any new machinery and equipment (as of 2023) for manufacturing, research, development, and testing that would be exempt from the sales and use taxes under existing law. (As I understand the bill, this additional credit would be calculated as a percentage of the amount of a business’s activity that was taxable under the special B&O rate for electrolyzers and fuel cells compared to the taxable B&O value of all of its manufacturing. For example, if 30% of the business’s manufacturing and sales were eligible for the reduced B&O tax rate, then the credit would be for 30% of the property taxes on that covered research and development equipment.)

HB1433

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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