Category Archives: Senate

SB6684

SB6684 – Code requirements for EV ready charging infrastructure in additional buildings.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Saldaña, Nguyen, Hobbs, and Lovelett)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
State law currently requires EV ready charging infrastructure for five percent of the parking spaces in new hotels and motels, and in Group B and Group R-2 buildings. The bill would expand that to require more spaces, and to cover single family residences and some other residential buildings.

Summary –
The bill requires the Building Code Council to add rules requiring a 40 Amp circuit and the wiring to make it easy to add 240 volt Level 2 chargers for new buildings in group B (which includes office buildings and ones containing professional or service businesses); in hotels and motels; in group R-2 (which includes buildings with sleeping units or more than two dwelling units that have primarily permanent occupants); and in group R-3 (which includes single family residences and some other residential buildings like boarding houses).

This infrastructure for at least one charger is to be provided in private parking for an individual dwelling. In multi-family buildings with one to six surface parking spaces, each space is to have it. If there are seven to twenty-five surface spaces, at least six must be ready for chargers. If there are more surface spaces, and in parking garages serving multi-family residences, and in all other residential uses twenty percent of the spaces must be EV ready. Ten percent of the spaces in non-residential uses have to be EV ready. If accessible parking is also provided, at least one of the accessible spaces has to be ready for charger installation.

The Council has to allow limited reductions in the number of required spaces or provide exemptions if there’s substantial evidence that the added electrical load would require on-property power transformation on the utility’s side of the meter, or would require upgrading the existing residential service.

SB6682

SB6682 – Adds $0.03/kWh to the price of electricity from “electric vehicle charging stations.”
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require an electric utility to add a surcharge of $0.03/kWh to the price of electricity at “electric charging stations” served by the utility, and to examine by the beginning of 2021 the technological feasibility of adding the same surcharge to electricity used for residential chargers. (It defines an “electric charging station” by reference as “a public or private parking space that is served by charging equipment”, which seems as if it might include residential chargers, but the context makes it clear that it’s not intended to.)

SB6355

SB6355 – Recognizing contributions of forest products to the state’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim) (Co-Sponsors Short, Takko, King, Mullet, Salomon, Zeiger, Conway, Sheldon, Liias, Warnick, Honeyford, and Wagoner)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 28th. A substitute passed out of committee February 6th. Referred to Rules February 11th; placed on second reading February 17th. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2528 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The substitute keeps the bill in synch with the House version. It adds aquatic lands to the current list of potential sequestration resources in carbon markets, and it adds promoting and investing “in industry sectors that act as sequesterers of carbon” to the short list of what must be done with any revenue the state gets from carbon markets. It adds supporting “other business sectors capable of sequestering and storing carbon” to the declaration of the State’s policy, and switches from language about supporting an “indivisible industrial sector” to supporting a “synergistic” one.

It no longer specifies that the policy of the State is to utilize net flux stock-change carbon accounting principles; now its policy would simply be to use principles consistent with established guidelines, “such as” the IPPC’s and the US national greenhouse gas inventory’s. It expands the possible recipients of grants for carbon sequestration to include nonprofit organizations, local governments, Indian tribes, and state agencies as well as private landowners, and it widens the list of projects that might be funded to include urban forests and “forestlands” rather than “working forests.” It removes the requirement that reforestation and afforestation projects receiving grants would have to remain forested for at least fifty years. Rather than requiring the Department of Commerce to simply promote the forest products industry, it would now require it “when doing so maintains or enhances the forest sector’s contribution to climate change mitigation,” but that doesn’t seem like a significant change, since the bill continues to maintain that the whole industry, as it currently exists, has to be supported in order to contribute.

Summary –
The bill adds language to the findings for the State’s current greenhouse gas legislation (RCW70.235) about sequestering carbon through sustainable forestry and forest products, and about supporting industry sectors that sequester carbon.

It adds a section to that legislation saying that the industrial forest sector is a significant net sequesterer of carbon, and that this value, which is only provided through the maintenance of “an intact and indivisible industrial sector,” is an integral component of the state’s efforts to mitigate carbon emissions. It says that satisfying the goals of that legislation “requires supporting, throughout all of state government, the economic vitality of the forest products sector.” It says it’s the policy of the state to support “the complete forest products sector,” including mills, pulp and paper, and the harvesting and transportation infrastructure that’s necessary to continue the rotational harvest cycle. It says it’s the policy of the state to utilize net flux stock-change carbon accounting principles consistent with the IPCC’s and the national greenhouse gas inventory. It concludes by saying that any state carbon programs must support these policies.

It creates a forest carbon reforestation and afforestation account to be used by the State Conservation Commission, less reasonable administrative costs, in funding competitive grants for private landowners and organizations that work with them to advance the state’s carbon sequestration goals. (Grants are to leverage the sequestration and storage benefits of the State’s investment, and can provide funding for reforestation after a wildfire for which the landowner was not responsible; funding for projects to return fallow land capable of supporting trees to working forest; and funding to plant sustainable forested buffers along nonforested fish bearing streams.) Recipients have to agree to maintain all the land in “forested uses” for a minimum of fifty years. The account can also be used for a study to estimate how many acres of deforested land in the state could be returned to working forests without having an effect on food production.

It adds actively promoting markets for the state’s forest products, including “any products of an indivisible industry sector necessary for the maintenance and expansion of the sector” to the list of the Department of Commerce’s responsibilities.

SB6681

SB6681 – Amends the residential energy code to prioritize reducing construction costs rather than increasing energy efficiency.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee onEnvironment, Energy & Technology. Failed to get out of committee by the 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2667 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill amends the process for developing the residential energy code to prioritize reducing construction costs rather than increasing energy efficiency. It removes the State Building Code Council’s energy efficiency code design standards. It shifts from authorizing the Council to amend the residential energy code to increase efficiency to authorizing amending it to reduce construction costs. It delays implementation of the 2018 residential energy code, and requires the Council to review and amend that by 2021, specifying that the purpose of the review must be reducing construction costs and providing the least burdensome alternatives for compliance, and that the Council may not increase, but may decrease, the energy efficiency requirements of the 2018 code.

It leaves the current legislation for the non-residential energy code in place.

SB6659

SB6659 – Minimum requirements for testing autonomous vehicles in the Department of Transportation’s pilot program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsors Randall, Lovelett, Nguyen, Keiser, C. Wilson, Frockt, and Saldaña)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2676 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill requires an insurance policy covering at least five million dollars per occurrence for bodily injury, death, or property damage for vehicles being tested under the Department of Transportation’s autonomous vehicle self-certification testing pilot program.

Organizations testing autonomous vehicles have to provide the Department with contact information, the local jurisdictions where testing is planned, the vehicle identification numbers, and proof of an insurance policy that meets the requirements. They must notify the department about any traffic incidents and any traffic infractions involving an autonomous motor vehicle within ten days, and about any disengagements of the autonomous driving system system that are made to avoid a possible traffic incident. The information has to include whether the autonomous driving system was operating the vehicle at the time of or immediately before the traffic incident or infraction, and details about any traffic incidents including any loss of life, injury, or property damage that resulted from them.

The bill authorizes the Department to charge a fee to cover the program’s administrative costs, and the Department’s to provide an annual update to the Legislature’s transportation committees summarizing the reported information.

SB6665

SB6665 – Extends the sales and use tax exemption for hog fuel to 2045.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Takko (D; 19th District; Longview) (Co-sponsors Short and Van De Wege)
Current status – …
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2848 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The tax preference statement for the bill says it’s “the legislature’s specific public policy objective to extend the expiration date of these tax preferences in order to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least seventy-five percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan.” I don’t know if that actually requires facilities to do anything to meet that objective…

Summary –
The law currently exempts hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel from the sales and use tax until 2024. The bill extends that tax exemption to 2045.

SB6645

SB6645 – Requires increasing recycled content in plastic beverage containers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsors Carlyle; Wellman; Lovelett; Nguyen; Saldaña; Kuderer; Randall; Wilson, C.; Salomon; Liias)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 4th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2722 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t currently seem to say that manufacturers have to report the number of their containers covered by the bill to Ecology each year, though that’s assumed in other sections.

Summary –
The bill requires increasing in the average annual level of post-consumer recycled plastic in a manufacturers’ beverage containers, beginning with at least 15% in the period between the beginning of 2021 and the end of 2024. The requirement goes up to 25% from January 2025 through the end of 2030; increases to 50% from then to the end of 2034, and is 75% after that.

It requires manufacturers’ to report to the Department of Ecology each year on the percentages of virgin plastic and recycled plastic in the containers they sold or distributed in the state during the previous year. They’re subject to the following fines (adjusted for inflation) if they fail to meet the requirements:
(a) $0.0025 for each container when they have at least seventy-five percent of the required recycled content;
(b)$0.005 for each container when they have between fifty percent and seventy-five percent of that;
(c) $0.01 for each container when they have between twenty-five and fifty percent of it;
(d) $0.015 for each container when they have at least fifteen percent but less than twenty-five percent it; and
(e) $0.02 for each container when they have less than fifteen percent of the required recycled plastic.
Ecology’s authorized to conduct audits and inspections and there’s an additional penalty of $1.15/pound for any over-reporting of recycled content it discovers through those or some other means.

The bill doesn’t apply to polycoated cartons, foil pouches, drink boxes, refillable plastic beverage containers, infant formula, medical containers, or others Ecology decides to exempt.

SB6628

SB6628 – Responds to Supreme Court ruling by specifying that Ecology has the authority to regulate direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 29th. An amended substitute passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff, but referred back to Rules by motion on February 26th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2892 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments – The Washington Supreme Court recently ruled (5-4) that the State’s Clean Air Rule can’t apply to companies that sell or distribute petroleum or natural gas because they don’t make their own emissions — other people burn the fuel they provide. The Court held that the Department of Ecology is currently only authorized to regulate “actual emitters.”

The substitute adds findings, and its definitions specify that the act applies to indirect emissions as well as direct ones in a somewhat different way. (It doesn’t seem like a substantive change to me.) It adds sections requiring the UTC to provide prudent and timely cost recovery for measures that utilities take to comply with the act, and requiring the Department of Ecology to try to integrate new state greenhouse gas requirements with existing ones, and to try to design new requirements to help companies comply with those and with existing regulations at the lowest cost possible. It also adds facilities that can make over 100 million gallons of renewable fuel a year to the list of projects of statewide significance that can apply for expedited permitting and other support.

Summary –
The bill amends the State’s Clean Air Act to specify that it applies to direct or indirect emissions, and to say explicitly that the Department of Ecology “may require persons who produce or distribute fossil fuels or other products that emit greenhouse gases in Washington to comply with air quality standards, emission standards, or emission limits on emissions of greenhouse gases.”

SB6627

SB6627 – Reducing waste associated with non-compostable single-use food service products.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2656 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
Food services businesses that provide opportunities for consuming food on site would be prohibited from supplying customers with single use utensils, straws and condiment packets unless they asked for them. Businesses without on-site opportunities for eating and places with a drive-up window would have to ask if customers wanted them before providing any. They would have to be provided as separate items. (Utensils are defined as things like knives and chopsticks; they don’t include things like plates, bowls, cups, or bottles.) The bill would preempt local ordinances prohibiting businesses from providing them unless customers asked for them.

Beginning January 1, 2021, they can’t use styrofoam products for serving or packaging food.

Starting October 1st, 2021, and every year through 2029, the Department of Ecology is to identify the counties and cities with independent solid waste management plans that are served by composting facilities that can effectively deal with compostable food service products. Starting July 1, 2022, food service businesses in those jurisdictions are prohibited from selling or providing food in or with plastic, coated fiber, or coated paper catering trays and produce bags.

Starting on a date to be determined by the Department, they’re prohibited from selling or providing clear plastic food wrap and shrink wrap; plastic containers for uniquely shaped foods like deviled eggs and cupcakes; flexible plastic packaging used to preserve moisture and freshness; and plastic containers for hot meats such as ribs and rotisserie chicken. The Department is to determine the starting date for prohibiting each of these categories by seeing whether at least two suitable and readily available alternatives for the category exist and whether at least two vendors make a suitable alternative commercially available. If they do, the prohibition of that category of items is to begin a year later, and the Department is to repeat this process once a year for any categories it hasn’t yet established a starting date for. On January 1, 2030, these rules are to become effective for all the product categories.

Food service businesses may use durable, reusable food service products; recyclable fiber-based, glass, or metal food ones; recyclable plastic bottles and beverage containers made from high density polyethylene (HDPE) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET); prepackaged foods in plastic; and compostable food service products the Department has verified as free of per and poly fluoroalkyl substances.

It can grant one year waivers from the requirements, and renew them, if applicants show that a restricted category of plastic food service product doesn’t have at least two suitable and readily commercially available alternative products; that there aren’t at least two vendors making a suitable alternative commercially available; or that enforcing the requirements would cause undue hardship.

The bill creates a fee of one cent per item on plastic food service items that aren’t recyclable or compostable; and a fee of up to one cent per item on ones that are, based on the average net cost of recycling or composting each material type and form, and the amount of it used in plastic food service products sold in the state. (I think this means that if it cost $1,000/ton to recycle some kind of item, and there were 10 tons sold in the state, then the fee per item should be set to cover the estimated cost of recycling all of them, or to collect a total of $10,000 in my example.) The fees are to be adjusted for inflation, and products covered by a statewide plastic packaging product stewardship program are exempted. The money can be spent on administering the program; for the State’s solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education; for assisting local solid waste programs, and for supporting statewide composting.

Ecology is to create education and outreach programs about these requirements, and can assess fines of up to $100 a day for violations of them for small retail food service businesses and up to $5,000 a day for larger ones.

In preparation for the 2030 statewide restrictions on plastic food service products, Ecology’s to report every two years on the status of composting infrastructure available to local jurisdictions, and on whether adjusting the State’s definition of “compostable” would help assure that those products could actually be composted and managed effectively by facilities.

The bill adds compostable food products to the items that local solid waste management plans have to consider, and requires them to assess the logistical and economic feasibility of developing infrastructure, including appropriate collection services, to allow widespread commercial composting of the organics and compostable food service products from their jurisdiction by 2030.

SB6622

SB6622 – Retains the photovoltaic product stewardship program and requires a report on a comprehensive alternate.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Substitute passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB2389 proposes an almost identical task force but it repeals the current law rather than leaving it in place.

The findings say that the PV product stewardship program the Legislature created in 2017 through SB5939, which passed with large majorities in both houses, has “created uncertainty for manufacturers who may cease to sell panels in the state.” (The only problem it mentions is that the current system only applies to small system panels sold after July 2017, so it’s unclear what will happen to earlier panels and ones from larger systems; they apparently say they’re worried about ending up with two sets of requirements.)

The House committee substitute merely changes the bill’s title to “Investigating a comprehensive, statewide photovoltaic module recovery, reuse, recycling, and end-of-life program,” instead of “Establishing…”

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to appoint a stakeholders’ task force to develop recommendations by December 1, 2021 for financing and managing the recovery, reuse, and recycling of photovoltaic modules and their components (and for disposing of the remaining materials).

This bill adds reviewing programs in other countries to the new task force’s work, and adds several more specified members to it. It tidies up the language of the current photovoltaic module stewardship and takeback law, but it leaves that in place while the recommendations are being developed.

SB6597

SB6597 – Allows triple trailer rigs on State highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sheldon (D, 35th District, Mason County) (Senator Sheldon caucuses with the Republicans.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 28th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2692 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The EPA has a flyer about combination freight vehicles that estimates turnpike double and triple trailers reduce fuel use by 21%. (Some studies also suggest they’re involved in fewer accidents, though that may reflect other factors, like their getting better drivers at this point.)

Summary –
Currently, the law prohibits operating any semi with a trailer longer than fifty-three or with two trailers longer than sixty-one feet on state highways. (It exempts empty double trailers or semitrailers weighing less than 26,000 pounds if they’re part of the inventory of a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, and the entire rig is less than eighty-two feet.)

The bill requires the Department of Transportation to implement rules allowing semis with three trailers to operate on designated State highways; the rules may include other operating conditions the Department specifies to ensure a safe and efficient highway system. (This is dependent on federal approval of a variance to the freeze of state law imposed by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, so presumably DOT also has to apply for the variance.)

The Department is also to produce an annual status and performance report on the volume of triple trailer traffic, and the segments of the trucking industry taking advantage of the variance; and on their impacts on highway safety, traffic movement, and the environment.

SB6586

SB6586 – Imposes a per mile fee on electric and hybrid vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Hobbs, Liias, and Conway)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 29th. Substitute by the prime sponsor passed out of committee February 10; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The proposal would charge an plug in car owner driving an average amount, say 11,000 miles, $385 a year if they only drove on electricity, plus the gas tax on any fuel they used when they weren’t relying on the battery. It would charge a hybrid owner $220 a year plus the regular gas tax.

The substitute leaves the fees to be specified in future legislation, or according to the recommendations in the plan if the Legislature doesn’t do that. It adds options for variable rates to the items the plan’s to cover, and extends the fee to State light vehicles. The plan would no longer have the Transportation Commission serve in a policy role that ensures independent oversight, reporting to the Legislature, and appropriate public input; it leaves the Department of Transportation as the lead agency in charge of administering and operating the system. (It’s not clear from the language whether this is only during a transition plan, while the bill leaves the ultimate long term role of the Commission open, or if this is to be ongoing…)

Transportation Choices has a flyer about road use charges.

Summary –
Starting January 1st 2024, the bill would charge plug-in vehicles that can go thirty miles or more on the battery three and a half cents per mile, and other hybrids two cents a mile, in addition to other fees and taxes. The proceeds would have to be used for road preservation and maintenance.

By December 1, 2021, the Department of Transportation and the Transportation Commission would develop a plan for imposing the fee, incorporating the ongoing work of the Commission evaluating road usage charges. It would have to include:
(a) Different mileage reporting options;
(b) Recommended methods and rates for achieving cost efficiency, fairness, minimal administrative cost, payment compliance, consumer choice, and preserving individual privacy;
(c) Alternatives to allow for monthly or quarterly payment;
(d) Any recommended statutory changes, including suggested offsets or rebates to recognize other taxes and fees paid by electric and hybrid vehicle owners;
(e) Recommendations to align the system better with other vehicle charges and to establish a potential framework for broader implementation of a per mile funding system, including analysis of the preferred method for addressing Eighteenth Amendment considerations; and
(f) A recommended implementation and governance structure under which the Department would operate the system, but the Commission would ensure independent oversight, appropriate public input, and report to the Legislature.

SB6578

SB6578 – Expedites a pumped storage project by designating them as projects of statewide significance.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Honeyford (R; 15th District; Eastern Yakima County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 4th. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff; placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2819 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
In 2012 SB6044 slightly expanded the powers of PUDs along the Columbia by authorizing them to sell water to privately owned utilities for use in pumped storage projects, and to sell power from such projects. FERC recently approved a permit authorizing a three year study for a 1,200 MW pumped storage project that National Grid wants to build in Goldendale, using water supplied by the Klickitat County PUD. According to that linked article, “The project would be on land owned by NSC Smelter at the former Columbia Gorge Aluminum smelter site, which is designated a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act contaminated site and subject to a cleanup effort being overseen by the Washington Department of Ecology. However, the department has said the pumped storage project will not hinder the cleanup process. … The commission also said the pumped-storage developer has shown its project boundary does not include any land subject to further cleanup activities. Still, FERC said the developer will have to show any future licensing for the project will not impede the cleanup.”

The substitute bill adds a requirement for consultation with affected tribes to the process for any project of statewide significance.

Summary –
The bill would make pumped storage projects using water rights approved by the legislature for that purpose developments of statewide significance, which require:
(1) Expedited permit processing for the design and construction of the project;
(2) Expedited environmental review processing;
(3) Expedited processing of requests for street, right-of-way, or easement vacations necessary for the construction of the project;
(4) Participation of local officials on the team assembled under the requirements of RCW 43.157.030(2)(b); and
(5) Such other actions or items as are deemed necessary by the office of regulatory assistance for the design and construction of the project.

SB6329

SB6329 – Prohibits labeling or advertising for plant-based alternatives from containing any terms for foods containing meat, including “meat”, “burger”, “sausage”, etc.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R, 13th District, Moses Lake)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2696 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – If you’re interested in the potential disruption of the current meat and dairy industry by precision fermented proteins like the heme in Impossible Burgers, you might read Tony Seba’s “Rethinking Food and Agriculture.”

Like the substitute for the House companion bill, the Senate substitute shifts from requiring “imitation” or the phrase, “this product does not contain meat”, to requiring at least one of several possible words or phrases that indicate that the product does not contain meat, like “plant-based,” “veggie,” or “meat-free.”

Summary –
The bill prohibits using “identifiable meat terms” in labeling or advertising food that doesn’t contain meat, unless there’s a disclaimer in the same type immediately after the term saying, “This product does not contain meat,” or the term is preceeded by “imitation” in the same type, like “imitation burger.”

Using the terms without the disclaimers would qualify as misbranding and presumably subject one to legal penalties, though I don’t know what those are.

SB6398

SB6398 – Expands transportation policy goals; requires evaluating projects using performance metrics for the goals before the Legislature considers them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldana (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 28th at 3:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2688 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill revises and expands the current list of policy goals for the State’s transportation system. Under the bill, public investments in transportation would be supposed to support the achievement of:

(a) Accessibility: To improve affordable access to the places and goods Washington residents, organizations, and businesses need to live, work, study, play, and pray;
(b) Safety: To provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation users, the transportation system, and anyone interacting with the system;
(c) Environment and climate: To enhance the quality of life through transportation investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and toxics, promote energy conservation, and protect lands and waterways;
(d) Health and resilience: To promote healthy people and communities through pollution-free transportation, multimodal transportation, integrated land use and transportation projects, clean active transportation, and appropriate infrastructure;
(e) Equity and environmental justice: To eliminate historic and persistent barriers and prioritize investments meeting the goals in this section for highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations, which includes direct inclusion in decision making;
(f) Preservation: To maintain, preserve, and extend the life and utility of prior transportation systems and service investments that meet current and future needs and goals; and
(g) Economic vitality: To promote and develop transportation systems that support and enhance affordability, access to opportunity, and good jobs.

(These changes drop a section on increasing mobility and reducing congestion; add the sections about accessibility, health and resilience, and equity and environmental justice; and revise the language of the other sections in a variety of ways, placing more emphasis on progressive goals like affordability, good jobs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.)

The bill also requires projects and any reductions in projects to be evaluated on specified performance metrics for each of these goals, and to meet a performance threshold to be established by the Department of Transportation, before their inclusion in a budget authorization or their consideration by the Legislature. The evaluation process is to include representatives from the active transportation division, the public transportation division, the multimodal planning division, and the ferries, in conjunction with the Department of Ecology, the Interagency Council on Health Disparities, the Department of Health and the Department of Commerce, and is to include a public input process that is inclusive of vulnerable populations in highly impacted communities, as identified by the department of Health. The analysis is to be published on the Department’s website.

There are several pages of metrics which you can find on the last pages of the bill.

SB6529

SB6529 – Revises the State’s urban forestry program to include tribes, and to prioritize salmon and environment justice goals.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2768 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
This bill does a great deal of redlining to make very minor alterations in the current laws; Sections 9 and 10 contain most of the significant changes, as far as I can see.

Summary –

The bill requires the Department of Natural Resources to do and periodically update a statewide inventory of urban and community forests, using protocols established by the Forest Service, to produce statistically relevant estimates of the quantity, health, composition, and benefits of urban trees and forests.

It requires the Department to prioritize regions for delivery of urban forestry programs, policies, and activities by including criteria related to human health and salmon recovery.

It’s to identify these regions using analyses and tools including:
(a) Assessing tree canopy cover and urban forestry inventory data, using recent information when it’s available;
(b) Identifying highly impacted communities at the census tract level using health disparity mapping tools such as the Department of Health’s Washington tracking network;
(c) Using salmon and orca recovery data including the Puget Sound Partnership action agenda and other regional and statewide recovery plans and efforts to target program delivery in areas where there are significant opportunities related to salmon and orca habitat and health; and by;
(d) Using the department’s twenty-year forest health strategic plan.

It may consult with other state agencies; a statewide organization representing urban and community forestry programs; health experts; and salmon recovery experts as part of this analysis, and may hire consultants to get more information or collaborate with local governments to inventory prioritized urban forests where adequate data is not available. It’s to identify areas where urban forestry will generate the greatest combination of benefits related to canopy needs, health disparities, and salmon habitat.

The bill expands the current law to include tribal lands, and requires the Department to consult with the appropriate tribes in watersheds where urban forestry work is taking place.

Fifty percent of the resources used in delivering the policies, programs, and activities of the program, including ones for establishing and maintaining new trees and for maintaining existing canopy must benefit vulnerable populations and be delivered within a quarter mile of highly impacted communities. The most resources must be allocated to the highest impacted communities within these areas. It must encourage communities to include participation and input by vulnerable populations in the development of forestry plans, through community organizations and by members of the public.

The Department must provide technical assistance and capacity building resources and opportunities to cities, counties, federally recognized tribes, and other public and private entities in developing and coordinating policies, programs, and activities promoting urban and community forestry. It can use existing inventory tools or develop additional ones to help them collect tree data that informs management, planning, and policy development. (The Department may consult with the Department of Commerce in the process, on issues including the intersections between urban forestry programs and growth management act planning.) The Department is to help cities’ urban forest managers access carbon markets by working to ensure these inventory tools are compatible with existing and developing urban forest carbon market reporting protocols. It can use existing tools, and develop innovative ones to support urban forestry programs including comprehensive tool kit packages (tree kits) that can easily be shared, locally adapted, and used.

The department may use existing tools to help communities develop urban forestry management plans, which may include:
(a) Inventory and assessment of the jurisdiction’s urban and community forests utilized as a dynamic management tool to set goals, implement programs, and monitor outcomes that may be adjusted over time;
(b) Canopy cover, reforestation and canopy expansion, forest stand and diversity goals;
(c) Maximizing vegetated stormwater management;
(d) Environmental health goals specific to air quality, habitat for wildlife, and energy conservation;
(e) Standards for tree selection, siting, planting, pruning and maintenance for new and established trees, including disease and pest management;
(f) Staff and volunteer training requirements emphasizing appropriate expertise and professionalism;
(g) Wood waste utilization;
(h) Community outreach, participation, education programs, and partnerships with nongovernment organizations;
(i) Time frames for achieving plan goals, objectives, and tasks;
(j) Monitoring and measuring progress toward those benchmarks and goals;
(k) Consistency with the urban wildland interface codes developed by the State Building Code Council;
(l) Maximizing building heating and cooling energy efficiency through appropriate siting of trees; and,
(m) A number of other items.

The department can use existing tools to help communities develop urban forestry ordinances, including such elements as:
(a) Tree canopy cover, density, and spacing;
(b) Tree conservation and retention;
(c) Vegetated stormwater runoff management using native trees and appropriate nonnative, nonnaturalized vegetation;
(d) Clearing, grading, protection of soils, reductions in soil compaction, and use of appropriate soils with low runoff potential and high infiltration rates;
(e) Appropriate tree siting and maintenance for vegetation management practices and programs to prevent vegetation from interfering with or damaging utilities and public facilities;
(f) Native species and nonnative, nonnaturalized species diversity selection to reduce disease and pests in urban forests;
(g) Tree maintenance;
(h) Street tree installation and maintenance;
(i) Tree and vegetation buffers for riparian areas, critical areas, transportation and utility corridors, and commercial and residential areas;
(j) Tree assessments for new construction permitting;
(k) Recommended forest conditions for different land use types;
(l) Variances for hardship and safety;
(m) Variances to avoid conflicts with renewable solar energy infrastructure, passive solar building design, and locally grown produce; and
(n) Permits and appeals.

SB6498

SB6498 – Valuing the carbon in forest riparian easements.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz and Lewis Counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 30th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2714 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill amends the current legislation about compensating landowners for forest riparian easements, specifying that the fair market value of the qualifying timber has to include any value attributable to the carbon stored in it, or reserve that value to be otherwise used or marketed by the landowner.

SB6464

SB6464 – Specifies that the four legislative members of the Building Code Council are voting members.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wilson (R, 13th District, Moses Lake)
Current status – Read and passed out of the Senate Committee on State Government, Tribal Relations & Elections on January 17th. Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government at 8:00 AM January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2372 would do the same thing, through slightly different wording.

Summary –
The State Building Code Council currently consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor, tw Representatives and two Senators, and a non-voting employee of the electrical division of the department of labor and industries. The bill specifies that the legislators are voting members. (I don’t know if there has has been some question about that, or if this is just tidying things up…)

SB6335

SB6335 – Adding proportional greenhouse emissions reductions and resiliency to growth management planning.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2609 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The first section of this bill, which adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes, and is summarized in the first paragraph below, is identical to all of Senator Salomon’s SB6453.

Summary –
The Growth Management Act currently lists fourteen goals that are supposed to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations for cities and counties planning with that framework. The bill adds a fifteenth, which says that they’re supposed to ensure that their own comprehensive plans and development regulations, and the regional policies, plans, and strategies for their countywide planning framework (under RCW 36.70A.210) and for their regional transportation planning (under RCW 47.80) “adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support state greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements and state vehicle miles traveled goals; build resilient infrastructure; and nurture environmental, economic, and human health.”

This bill adds a new climate change and natural hazards resiliency element to comprehensive planning under the GMA for the following counties and cities within those counties – counties west of the crest of the Cascades that OFM estimates had more than 100,000 residents in 2019, and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 500,000 residents; counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 200,000 residents in 2019 and an unincorporated population of less than 40,000; and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 90,000 residents and an unincorporated population of less than 15,000.

The Department of Commerce, in consultation with several other agencies, is to develop an baseline estimate from 2017 data of the share of the State’s transportation and land use greenhouse gas emissions from those emissions in the regions in which multiple counties subject to the act plan together through formal structures, and for each remaining city and county. Then the Department is to calculate the proportional share of reductions that each county or multicounty region would need to acheive for the state to reach its 2035 and 2050 emissions reductions targets.

The new element must be designed:
(a) To result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation and land use systems within the planning jurisdiction consistent with that share of the State’s targeted reductions: and
(b) To result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled consistent with the state transportation policy goals (in RCW 47.01.440); and
(c) To avoid, and build resiliency to, the worst impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems through specific actions consistent with the best available science that institute adaptation or resiliency measures. (These may include actions designed to address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of reasonably anticipated changes to temperature and precipitation.

This new part of the plans must be finalized no later than two years before the comprehensive plan review and revision deadlines specified in RCW 36.70A.130. Other jurisdictions are encouraged to develop a climate change and natural hazards resiliency element in their planning, whether or not they’re doing it under the GMA.

As part of its technical assistance program, the Department of Commerce is to develop a model climate change and natural hazards resiliency plan element that may be used by counties, cities, and multiple county planning regions for developing and implementing climate change and natural hazards resiliency plans and policies. Counties and cities that adopt this element are to treated as in compliance with the GMA’s requirements until January 1st, 2029. A review and update of comprehensive plans must take place by June 30th 2025. If they occur before June 30th, 2029, adoption of the model plan element, development regulations in accordance with it, changes in countywide policies in accordance with it that affect the fiscal impact analysis required by the GMA, and the adoption of a regional emissions and vehicle miles reduction plan by a regional transportation planning organization to address the reductions required by the new element are not subject to appeal. (The comprehensive plan of each county or city would now be required to be consistent with these regional transportation plans.)

Regional transportation organizations including at least one jurisdiction the act applies to would be required to adopt a regional emission and vehicle miles reduction plan addressing all their member jurisdictions implementing the goals for reducing annual per capita vehicle miles traveled; and reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector according to the share of reductions assigned to them by the Department of Commerce.

SB6453

SB6453 – Adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2427 is a companion bill in the Senate.

SB6491

SB6491 – Tax exemptions for integrated electric boat motors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means; scheduled for a hearing there on February 20th at 3:30
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
(I think the definition of integrated electric motors may mean the exemptions basically apply to outboards; HB2486, which would extend the current tax breaks for marine electric motors for another ten years, seems to have a somewhat broader definition.)

Summary –
The bill creates a ten year sales and use tax exemption for any watercraft propulsion system that contains contains a motor, battery, charger, and gear reduction device in a single unit.

SB6432

SB6432 – Bans offshore oil projects and any oil or gas infrastructure on shorelines of statewide significance.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Bainbridge Island)
Current status –
In the Senate (Passed)
Amended and passed by the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 30th. Referred to the Senate Rules Committee. Amended by the prime sponsor on the floor and passed the Senate February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 27th; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments – The staff notes on the amendment say it clarifies the bill’s prohibition; I think the summary below is still right. (The sponsor’s amendment on the floor simply adjusted the bill’s descriptions of covered areas to match other statutory references.)

Summary –
The bill prohibits offshore drilling for oil or gas. It prohibits leasing state aquatic lands, tidelands, or submerged lands on the Pacific coast for purposes of oil or gas exploration, development, or production, or for infrastructure to handle extracted oil and gas transported through state waters off the coast. (The actual language in the bill is about “state waters associated with the outer continental shelf”; I’m not sure how much ocean this includes, but I think the definition in the bill extends to the 200 mile limit.)

It prohibits infrastructure for handling or transporting extracted gas and oil on the Shorelines Management Act’s shorelines of statewide significance.

SB6430

SB6430 – Establishing a statewide industrial waste coordination program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; TriCities)
Current status – Vetoed by the Governor.
In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Referred to Ways and Means; Had a hearing there February 10th at 10:00 AM. Passed out of Ways and Means February 11th. Referred to Rules; passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House – (Passed the House)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 24th. Passed out of committee February 27th; referred to Appropriations. Passed out of there and referred to Rules March 2nd. Passed the House March 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor for signature.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would establish a statewide industrial waste coordination program to support and coordinate existing collaborations where underutilized resources of one company, such as waste, by-products, residues, energy, water, logistics, capacity, expertise, equipment, and materials are used by another company, and would support new opportunities for such industrial symbiosis projects.

The program would be administered by the Department of Commerce to provide expertise, technical assistance, and best practices to support local industrial symbiosis projects; it would be managed regionally, with a dedicated facilitator and technical and administrative support for each region.

The program would be required to develop inventories of current industrial waste innovation; generate a material flow data collection system to capture and manage data on resource availability and potential synergies provided voluntarily; establish guidance and best practices for emerging local industrial resource hubs; identify access to capital in order to fund projects; develop economic and environmental performance metrics for industrial or commercial hubs; host workshops and connect regional businesses, governments, utilities, research institutions, and other organizations to identify opportunities for resource collaboration; assist organizations throughout the life cycle of projects, from identification of opportunities to full implementation; develop economic cluster initiatives to spur growth and innovation; and make any additional recommendations to the legislature in order to incentivize and facilitate industrial symbiosis.

If funds were appropriated, the program would be authorized to establish a program offering competitive grants for researching, developing, and deploying local waste coordination projects. Grants could be used for existing industrial symbiosis efforts by public or private organizations; emerging opportunities including projects arising from the industrial waste coordination program established by the act, conceptual work by public utilities on redirecting their wastes to productive use, or existing inventories or project concepts involving converting specific biobased wastes to renewable natural gas; research on product development using a specific waste flow; feasibility studies to evaluate potential biobased resources; or feasibility studies for publicly owned utilities evaluating shifting to multiutility operations or potential symbiotic connections with other regional businesses. Grants would be limited to under $500,000, would require a one-to-one match from nonstate funds, would have to be distributed geographically, and would be awarded considering factors such as time to implementation and scale of expected economic or environmental benefits.

The bill extends the current legislation exempting some financial, commercial, and proprietary information from public disclosure to cover this program.

SB6352

SB6352 – Eliminates the option for expedited review of alternative energy resource facilities by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 22nd District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

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 remove this option for alternative energy resource facilities, on the grounds, according to the findings, that an expedited review for these particular facilities “creates an unfair advantage for those facilities, which have the special privilege of being able to opt out of the local review process if the local review process reveals local concerns.”

SJM8018

SJM8018 – Joint memorial urging development of a Federal nuclear waste repository.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sharon Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Passed by the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 30th. Referred to Rules. Failed to pass out of the Senate by cutoff. Placed in the Senate “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Joint memorial requesting that Congress, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency establish and develop a site for the permanent siting and development of a Federal nuclear waste repository.

SB6399

SB6399 – Reduces emissions from on-demand transportation.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lilas (D; 21st District; Lynwood) (Co-sponsors Nguyen, Carlyle, Lovelett, Kuderer, Stanford, Wellman, Billig, Saldaña, Das, C. Wilson, and Hunt)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Scheduled for a hearing February 10th at 1:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2310 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary – Requires companies scheduling rides or consumer food or goods deliveries through digital technology such as webpages or smartphone apps to provide data to create a baseline of their emissions, and to reduce them over time. (The bill exempts a variety of traditional transportation services like taxis and limousines, however.)

Details :
By July 1st, 2021, the Department of Ecology is to create a state-wide baseline for the 2018 greenhouse gas emissions from these companies’ vehicles – per customer mile and per food or goods delivery mile. By July 1st, 2022, it’s to adopt requirements, beginning in 2023, for reductions of those emissions; they’re to include annual targets and goals for increasing the percentage of passenger-miles traveled and customer food delivery-miles traveled using zero emission vehicles.

Beginning in January 2023, each company must submit a plan for making these reductions that are acceptable to Ecology. They’re to include ways to increase the proportion of their trips and the proportion of their vehicle miles made by zero emission vehicles, ways to decrease their average greenhouse gas emission rates, and ways to increase the proportion of passenger-miles traveled or customer food delivery-miles traveled relative to overall miles traveled. Their plans also have to consider incentives to encourage increasing the share of miles traveled by passengers whose walking, biking, or other active or zero emission modes of transportation are facilitated by using the companies’ vehicles, and incentives to increase the total miles they cover delivering food by walking, biking, or other zero emission transportation modes.

Ecology’s to do its best to have the rules minimize negative impacts on low-income and moderate-income drivers and to support providing clean mobility for low-income and moderate-income individuals. The rules for ride-hailing companies are to support the goals of the Growth Management Act. Ecology’s authorized to collect a fee from the companies to cover the expenses of administering the program.

SB6435

SB6435 – Study promoting circular bioeconomy throughout the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Frockt (D; 46th District; Seattle, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2611 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Maybe the bill means that the report should identify potential ways to develop these things rather than actually doing it, since it seems unlikely that the University could do complete much research on new ways to produce high value chemicals of new methods for wastewater treatment in the two years of this study… (The bill doesn’t say anything about funding the study either.)

Summary –
The bill would direct the University of Washington to study ways to expand the use of renewable biological resources in the production of fuels, chemicals, and other materials in the State and report to the Legislature by July 2023. This would include:
(a) Developing new processes using biomass resources to produce high value chemicals and products, and high volume fuels in Washington, including processes to fractionate feedstocks, such as woody biomass;
(b) Developing biomass systems that provide effective water treatments, with an emphasis on cleaning municipal treatment wastewater and roadway stormwater;
(c) Identifying and assessing optimal locations throughout Washington state to site a biorefinery factory; and
(d) Identifying and analyze policy options that can promote the further development of a circular bioeconomy here.

SB6306

SB6306 – Creates the Washington Soil Health Initiative.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lilas (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate –
Passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 3rd. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 28th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there on February 29th, and was passed out of committee and referred to Rules on March 2nd. Passed the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The amendments in Ways and Means simply specify that the program has to operate within the limits of its appropriated budget.

Summary –
The Initiative is to develop collaborative soil health research, education, demonstration projects; and to develop technical assistance activities to identify, promote, and implement soil health stewardship practices that are grounded in sound science. It would be jointly administered by the Department of Agriculture, the Conservation Commission, and Washington State. Its goals would include helping agricultural producers implement good soil health practices and improve farm profitability; supporting the increased nutritional benefits from healthy soils, and enhancing the environmental functions of the state’s soils, such as sequestering carbon and increasing water retention.

The University would have primary responsibility for establishing a regionally dispersed network of long-term agro-ecological research and extension demonstration sites, compiling and developing information on the nutritional effects of soil health, and developing a statewide soil health map to guide future public and private investment in the initiative.

The Department would be primarily responsible for developing a statewide “state of the soils” baseline assessment of soil health practices and indicators; developing accurate and cost-effective standard methods and tools for assessing soil health; and developing and promoting a marketing program focused on the benefits of products from healthy soils.

The Commission would have primary responsibility for providing outreach and education materials to help conservation districts, cooperative extension, and local governments raise awareness of the importance of soil health; providing technical support in coordination with WSU’s extension service to encourage and support farmers, ranchers, and land managers interested in implementing soil health practices; and training volunteers willing to take ongoing soil health measurements and submit them to the state soil health monitoring database.

These organizations are to collaborate in jointly appointing new members to the current Washington soil health advisory committee, and in convening, staffing, and developing agendas for its meetings. They’re to assess the needs of the program, to build their capacities and fill gaps to improve their reach and effectiveness; to prioritize in-state sourcing of needed resources; employ adaptive management in running the program; to develop equitable criteria for the awarding of soil health grants; and to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature every two years including an assessment of progress in meeting the initiative’s goals and objectives, a work plan detailing any proposed legislation, budget requests or administrative rules, and a prioritized list of proposed actions needed to fulfill each collaborating agency’s responsibilities in the upcoming biennium.

SB6272

SB6272 – Increases the State’s emissions reductions targets more.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2311 is the identical companion bill in the House.
(There’s a Senate bill report.)

Comments –
The bill would raise the State’s targets farther than last session’s HB1113, which has been reintroduced. (That bill would set them to match the Paris Accords’.)

Summary –
The bill leaves the State’s current greenhouse gas emissions target of a reduction to 1990 levels by 2020 (which we will not meet) in place. It raises the next target from a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035 to a 45% reduction by 2030. It adds a target for 2040 of a 70% reduction, and it increases the target for 2050 from a 50% reduction from 1990 levels to a 95% reduction. It adds a requirement for achieving net-zero emissions state-wide by 2050.

The targets are about reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere; they don’t address removing CO2 by increasing sequestration. However, the bill also says that “separate and apart” from reducing emissions to meet the targets, it’s the policy of the State “to prioritize sequestration activities in amounts necessary to achieve the carbon neutrality goal established in RCW 70.235.020, and at a level consistent with pathways to limit global warming to one and one-half degrees.” It says the State should promote voluntary and incentive based sequestration on natural and working lands and recognize the potential for sequestration in products and product supply chains associated with working lands. It requires agencies to seek all practical opportunities to cost-effectively maximize carbon sequestration in their operations, contracting, and grant-making activities.

Details –
Commerce’s reports on emissions are now to include those from wildfires.

State agencies’ goals are increased to a 45% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, a 70% reduction by 2040, a 95% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050, and net zero emissions by state government as a whole by then as well. Agencies are now to report every two years to the efficiency and environmental performance office at the Department of Commerce on their plans for reaching these targets and Commerce is to report to the Legislature on those (and on the budget required to implement them).

SB6222

SB6222 – Authorizes counties to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 22nd District; San Juan County, Whatcom, Skagit)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2405 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Comments –
This bill reintroduces the most recent version of Representative Doglio’s HB1796, which she brought forward as striker on the floor in the 2019 session, but which was never considered. (The striker shifted from authorizing municipalities to authorizing counties, and made a couple of further legal adjustments which are summarized by staff at the end of that version. (The House bill is now under Representative Duerr’s sponsorship.)

Property assessed clean energy financing programs make the repayment of a loan for an energy efficiency upgrade a lien on the property, which is repaid through the property tax billing process, and which stays as an obligation of the new owners if the building changes hands. Thirty states have established these programs. However, it isn’t clear that they’re legal in Washington, because our Constitution prohibits any gift of public funds to private parties.

ShiftZero, a coalition of green building organizations, has been promoting this idea, and has obtained a serious legal opinion which says that they would be legal if they were structured the way they are in Texas, because that relies entirely on private financing, rather than lending any state funds. (However, it isn’t clear whether the State using its property tax mechanism to implement a private loan and other details in this bill are constitutional here. Presumably, a court will settle those questions if the bill passes.) ShiftZero has a flyer about the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes counties to set up programs like this for energy efficiency, water conservation, renewable energy, and resiliency projects in agricultural, commercial, and industrial properties; and in multifamily properties with five or more units.

A county can impose fees on property owners who want to participate in order to pay for the reasonable costs of administering the program, provided the fees don’t exceed the county’s actual costs. It can contract with another county or entity to administer loans, or administer them in cooperation with other counties.

The Department of Commerce is also to set up or contract for the administration of a program to administer these loans, and a county could contract with Commerce to participate in that program. However, the county itself would remain responsible for collecting payments on a loan, and for foreclosing on the property if that became necessary.

If Commerce contracted with a third party to administer the statewide program, it would have to be done efficiently and transparently, including:

Making any services offered to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers;
Making information about any properties joining the program available to all interested and qualifying third-party capital providers so the owners could receive impartial terms from them;
Disclosing any financial interest the administrator had in any of the services provided to property owners to the public;
Allowing financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers, and;
Working in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop a program guidebook and documents or forms.

If funding were appropriated, Commerce could set up a loan loss reserve or credit enhancement program to support financing of qualified projects.

SB6231

SB6231 – Extends the remodeling property tax exemption to adding an ADU.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 48th District; Bellevue)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing Stability & Affordability January 15th. A substitute passed out of committee January 27th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means on February 20th; amended and voted out of committee March 2nd. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 11th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House and passed March 12th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor,
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a Senate Bill Report.

Comments –
Rather than adding ADUs to the improvements that can currently qualify for a tax exemption, the substitute narrows the exemption so it only applies to building ADUs. The amendment in Ways and Means returns to the original provision about improvements, and adds a report to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the measure.

Summary –
Currently, physical improvements to single family residences that add less than 30% to the value of the building are exempt from property taxes for three years. The bill extends this exemption to the construction of an ADU.

SB6223

SB6223 – Enhances opportunities to participate in community solar projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; San Juan County, Whatcom, Skagit)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, January 22nd. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(HB2248 is a companion bill in the House.)

Summary –
The bill extends the expiring community solar incentive program, retaining many of its provisions, but it would allow subscribers who invest in a project to get net metering payments from their share of it in the same way they would if the panels were on their own roofs. (With net metering, you get a credit at the retail rate on your bill each month for the electricity your share of the project produced, so it’s as if the utility was not charging you for that power, and you can carry that credit forward if you have a surplus and use it to reduce later bills. (The credits are only good until the end of each year, though, so you don’t want to subscribe for more power than you’ll use in that time.)

The bill would also extend the $0.10/kWh production incentive credit that the current program ended with to all the subscribers of projects that had at least 40% of their subscriptions from any combination of low-to-moderate-income households and low-to-moderate-income service providers like housing authorities and food banks. The incentives would last for eight years; subscribers could receive up to 50% of the cost of their share of the project from them. However, the bill would provide an additional $0.10/kWh incentive credit to the low-to-moderate-income households; they would also be eligible to get production incentives for up to 100% of their costs. (These are defined as customers with up to 115% of the household median in their area. Average household median income for the state is about $64,000, though it varies a lot.) (In addition, the bill would also allow utilities that created community solar projects to meet requirements for energy assistance to low-income households under the Clean Energy Transformation Act by not charging for or discounting part or all of the costs of those subscriptions; they could also retain the RECs associated with the production of power from these shares of a project.)

As I read the bill, service providers can subscribe to projects, but aren’t eligible for the additional incentive. One of these organizations has to certify the income status of each of the low-to-moderate income households subscribing, which sounds as if it may not be attractive to people in that category who aren’t currently depending on those services. Projects can’t be bigger than one thousand kilowatts; at least 40% of all the subscriptions have to be for less than twenty kilowatts; and no customer can subscribe to more than 40% of a project. (However, customers can subscribe to more than one project, but not for more than their total estimated annual usage, or for more capacity than 100 kW AC.)

Details –

The bill would stop certifying projects under the current incentive program at the end of June 2020. Projects could apply for precertification under the new program for six years, between the first of July 2020, and the end of June 2026. (They’d get another two years to complete them; but as I read the bill they wouldn’t be eligible for the incentives. The previous two sentences may not be right; I don’t think the bill’s current language is consistent about how the timetables for projects and incentives relate toward the end of the period.)

Utilities can currently receive annual tax credits (up to the greater of 1.5% of their 2014 sales or $250,000) for community solar production incentives if they choose to provide them; for projects under the new program that are certified by the end of June 2026, the bill increases that to the greater of 1.75% of sales or $300,000. Total incentives under the new program are capped at $20 million.

SB6213

SB6213 – Bans manufacturing and distributing styrofoam containers, packing material and coolers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Amended and passed by the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 30th. Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 10th. A second substitute passed out of Ways and Means and was referred to Rules on February 11th. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2429 is the companion bill in the House.

Comments –
There are other reasons for banning styrofoam, but really comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of using these items with those of the alternatives requires a complicated full life-cycle analysis. (HFCs have been often been used in the production of styrofoam, and they have a global warming potential between 12,000 and 14,800 times that of CO2; their use as propellants in Washington was banned by HB1112, and it banned some styrofoam board, but not containers.)

The only lifecycle comparison I found in a casual Google search was done as a project by a group of seniors in a UBC environmental studies projects class; for what it’s worth they concluded that the global warming effects of styrofoam takeout containers were a lot lower than those of ones made from plastic, corn-based biodegradeable plastic, and aluminum. If everything went to the landfill, paper containers were slightly better than styrofoam ones.

Summary –
The bill bans the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene containers, packing material and coolers made from petroleum, starting July 1st, 2021. After two notifications of violations, food service operators and food packagers are subject to fines of up to $250/day for their third and subsequent violations.

The amendments in the Committee on Environment include an intent section expecting that the new recycling development center and the current study of plastic packaging will provide better options for dealing with it, and declaring that the state intends to ban all styrofoam by 2025. They allowed the manufacture of the covered products (but continued to restrict their distribution and sale within the state.) They now also exempt coolers for shipping perishable commodities from a retail establishment; egg cartons for more than 12 eggs; and packaging for raw meats, seafood, and vegetables. They remove all the requirements for food service establishments, food packagers, and local health jurisdictions, presumably because banning the sale and distribution of these items means they won’t be available in the first place. They clarify that packing peanuts, but not other loose packing materials, have to be compostable after June 1, 2022. After January 1, 2021 the bill would preempt any local ordinances restricting the products it covers.

The amendments in Ways and Means expanded the exemptions to include fruit trays, coolers used for biological materials, and all egg cartons; expanded the definition of “manufacturer” to include importers and distributors, making them subject to the same penalties for violations, and raised the level of second and subsequent fines to up to $1,000; it would now preempt any local ordinances that had not been passed by June 1st of this year. The floor amendment moves the date for banning covered products and packing peanuts back a year, to 2023.

Details –
There are some exceptions, including styrofoam containers for drugs and medical devices, and containers in which food’s been packaged and sealed before they’re delivered to a service establishment. The bill doesn’t apply to packaging in containers from out of state. It provides for outreach and education about the ban by the Department of Ecology, and for an appeals process.

SB6195

SB6195 – Authorizes $500 million in bonds to fund DNR’s 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz & Lewis Counties)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 6th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
In 2017, the Legislature passed SB5546 unanimously, directing the Department of Natural Resources to address wildfire risk by developing a forest health assessment and treatment framework, with the goal of assessing and treating 1.25 million acres by 2033.

DNR’s response, the 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan, would approach the problem through active management, using strategies like thinning and prescribed burns. This bill would authorize funding the program by issuing up to $500 million in general obligation bonds over the next eight biennia.

SB6172

SB6172 – Revives B&O tax exemption for Bonneville funds utilities spend on low-income bill assistance or weatherization.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz & Lewis Counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 28th. Passed out of committee February 6th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 20th; passed out of Ways and Means February 28th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2505 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
A similar exemption was created by the Legislature in 2010 and expired in June 2015. In the 2018 session, Senator Hobb’s SB6323 proposed reviving it through 2029, but the bill died in the Ways and Means Committee. (At that point, the fiscal note estimated that the bill would reduce the general fund by $600,000 in the first biennium, and $1.2 million per biennium going forward.)

Summary –
The bill creates a permanent exemption from the B&O tax for funds utilities receive from the Bonneville Power Administration as credits against contracts or for energy conservation or demand-side management, provided that they use that money for bill assistance or weatherization for low-income customers, and that it’s an addition to what they would be spending in any case.

SB5412

SB5412 – Creates a low carbon fuel standard.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing on a proposed substitute in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 16th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(HB1110 began as an identical companion bill in the House last session; it passed out of the House with amendments, and out of the Senate Environment Committee with further amendments, but didn’t get out of the Transportation Committee there before cutoff.)

2109 Legislative History
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 30th, 2019. Still in committee at the 2019 cutoff date; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Ecology to create rules to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels used in Washington to 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and to 20% below 2017 levels by 2035. (Fuels for aviation, shipping, and locomotives are exempted.)

Comments –
Governor Inslee’s 2020 budget proposal would provide $1.5 million for the Department of Ecology to implement the program.

Rep. Fitzgibbon’s LCFS bill, HB 2338, which passed out of the House Environment and House Transportation committees in 2018, would have created a standard at the same level. Carbon Wa’s testimony in support of that bill included quite a bit of useful analysis.

Climate Solutions has produced a flyer supporting the bill in 2019.

Details :

Standards –

Must be based on a full lifecycle analysis of the emissions associated with each fuel, including its production, storage, transportation, and combustion, as well as associated changes in land use.
Must measure the emissions from electricity for each electric utility based on its mix of power sources.
Ecology can require additional reporting from fuel distributors and utilities if it’s needed.
The department may create additional exemptions to avoid mismatched incentives among programs, fuel shifting among markets, or other unintended consequences.
It must decide whether or not emissions reductions under the clean fuels program will count toward meeting the requirements of the clean air rule, and vice versa.

– Credits and trading

Ecology must create a system for generating, banking, trading, and verifying credits for emissions reductions. Participation in this system is voluntary, and it’s also open to suppliers and users of aviation, shipping, and locomotive fuels who make reductions in their associated emissions. Credits may be awarded for producing, importing, or dispensing fuels for use in the state, and for other activities that reduce the emissions associated with transportation fuels. They may not be awarded for any fuels with emissions above 80% of the standard.

The bill extends the penalties for violations of the Clean Air Act to violations of this act. Ecology may charge a fee to cover the costs of the program; these and any penalties collected under the program go into a new clean fuels fund account, which can only be spent through appropriations.

– Cost containment mechanisms

These may include creating a credit clearance market to put a ceiling on prices by making credits available at a level Ecology sets, and/or some similar method to provide credits to participants who have not been able to attain them. (These mechanisms must be designed to financially discourage people from relying on them instead of reducing emissions.)

Ecology can create an entity to aggregate and use credits for emissions reductions made by parties that choose not to participate in the credit market.

– Relations with other states

Ecology should seek to adopt rules that work well with the systems in other jurisdictions that have adopted clean fuels standards (such as Oregon, California, and British Columbia), and in ones we import fuels from or export fuels to.

– Electric utility reinvestments

Half the revenue from credits earned by an electric utility must be reinvested in transportation electrification projects, and 60% of that (30% of the total) must be spent on projects in places where air pollution is bad enough so they’ve been identified as non-attainment or maintenance areas under the National Air Quality Act. Ecology may adopt requirements for the reinvestment of the other half of this revenue, in consultation with the utilities.

– Reporting
Requires an annual report about the program on Ecology’s website, and an annual report to appropriate committees of the Legislature, starting in 2022, including draft legislation for any recommended changes to achieve the program’s goals more efficiently.

Requires a fuel supply forecast by Commerce, in consultation with Ecology and the Department of Agriculture, at least 90 days in advance of each compliance period; this must include a prediction about whether sufficient credits from low carbon fuels (and banked credits) will be available to meet the program’s requirements.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee must report to the Legislature on the impacts, costs and benefits of the first five years of the program before the end of 2027.

– Removes “poison pill” provisions

In 2015, Republicans inserted provisions into the transportation package to transfer the state’s funds for bicycling and transit to highway projects if a clean fuel standard was created; the bill removes those.

SB6135

SB6135 – Adds more reporting on reliability to the 100% Clean Electricity Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sheldon (D-Caucusing with Republicans; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle & Short)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy, and Technology January 21st. Substitute by the prime sponsor passed out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 27th. Referred to Rules March 28th. Passed by the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The substitute adds findings, and completely replaces the original required reporting on the system with a requirement for an annual meeting of stakeholders to discuss the current, short-term, and long-term adequacy of energy resources, and to address specific steps the utilities can take to coordinate planning. The meetings are to be convened by the Department of Commerce and the UTC, and they’re to provide a summary of each of them, including any specific action items, to the Governor and the Legislature.

Summary –
The original bill required a report from the Department of Commerce to the Legislature on system reliability by January 1, 2022, two years ahead of the first full report on the system in the original legislation, and provides for updates every four years after that. (That is, there will now be a full report at least every four years, and an update every four years, in between each of the full reports.)

In addition, the bill would have required Commerce to provide specific recommendations for legislative action if it should determine that risks to the reliability of the system have developed.

SB6124

SB6124 – Develops K-12 field work experiences in environmental and sustainability education.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hunt (D; 22nd District; Thurston County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education January 15th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(There’s a Senate Bill Report.)
HB2811 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The list of requirements for the “qualified non-profit” eligible for funding under the bill essentially specify some particular organization, apparently the Pacific Education Institute.

Summary –
Subject to funding, the bill would have OSPI contract with a “qualified non-profit” to work with K-12 teachers and communities to develop local stewardship projects and work based learning opportunities in environmental science and engineering, natural resources, sustainability, renewable energy, agriculture, and outdoor recreation. The program’s supposed to integrate the state learning standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science with the FieldSTEM model of outdoor field studies and project-based and work-based learning opportunities. It’s supposed to provide models for integrating the history, culture, and government of the nearest tribe or tribes in the curriculum. It’s to prioritize schools that have been identified for improvement through the Washington framework and communities historically underserved by science education including tribal compact schools, ones with high free and reduced-price lunch populations, rural and remote schools, and schools serving migrant students, students in alternative learning environments, students of color, English language learner students, and students receiving special education services.

Details –
The bill specifies that any “qualified non-profit” contracted to develop these programs must be physically located in Washington; have at least fifteen years of experience collaborating with school districts across the state to provide professional development to K-12 educators about teaching students real-world environmental science and engineering outside the classroom; must deliver project-based learning materials and resources that incorporate career connections to local businesses and community-based organizations, contain professional development support for classroom teachers, have measurable assessment objectives, and have demonstrated community support; and that its materials must align with the State’s learning standards and emphasize the next generation science standards…

SB6091

SB6091 – Continues the work of the Washington Food Policy Forum
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; parts of Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln, and Yakima County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed)
A substitute bill with very minor changes passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd; referred to Senate Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 3rd; passed out February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate February 12th.

In the House – (Passed)
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources. Had a hearing February 21st; passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of Appropriations March 2nd and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The Legislature set up the Food Policy Forum (Forum) in 2016 to make recommendations for improving the state’s food system. (Some of these are about supporting small farms and local food in various ways.) The Washington State Conservation Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and the Office of Farmland Preservation convened a group of food system stakeholders to do this work. They produced several reports, and in 2019 the Legislature provided further funding for them to develop a report on preferred implementation approaches for their recommendations.

Summary –
The bill thoroughly rewrites the language of HB1562, the previous extension of the Forum, with ongoing minor shifts in emphasis and focus, but almost no fundamental change in the setup or functioning of the Forum, as far as I can see. (There’s somewhat less language about urban diet issues and somewhat more about rural agricultural issues, unsurprisingly, since the prime sponsor of the previous bill was Representative Gregerson, from SeaTac.) The Director of the State Conservation Commission now has to have the agreement of the Director of the Department of Agriculture in appointing the participants for the next round of the Forum, and staff is now to come from both agencies, but it’s to continue to make recommendations on pretty much the same wide range of food issues, and it’s to produce another report to the Legislature by the end of October, 2021.

SB6108

SB6091 – Cancels Sound Transit 3 funding (and future Sound Transit funding) within Pierce County.
Prime Sponsor – Senator O’Ban (R; 28th District; Pierce County)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation February 4th at 3:30 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator O’Ban also has four bills from last session (SB5044, SB5043, SB5042, and SB5037) proposing various reductions in Sound Transit’s funding.

Summary –
Within Pierce County, the bill cancels any taxes approved by regional transit authority voters after January 1, 2015 (ie in the measure for funding Sound Transit 3). It cancels any bonds issued under that authority that contain a clause allowing it, and it restricts the spending of any revenue already collected to legal expenses for cancelling bonds or refunds to voters.

It also cancels, within Pierce County, any taxes approved in the future by the regional transit authority voters.

SB6082

SB6082 – Specifies that various current limitations on car manufacturers’ practices do not apply to Tesla’s direct sales model.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce February 4th. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Car dealers in a number of states have filed lawsuits or lobbied for legislation trying to keep Tesla from selling its cars through its own showrooms, without relying on dealerships. There’s currently an exception in Washington law that allows Tesla to do that. The bill would expand the exception to any manufacturer that only makes electric vehicles. (I’m told that Rivian is lobbying for it at this point.)

Summary –
The bill amends a current law that limits how manufacturers can discriminate among or compete with dealers to specify that its provisions don’t apply to any manufacturer of all electric vehicles.

SB6019

SB6019 – Tax exemptions for waste to energy plants
Prime Sponsor – Senator Palumbo (D; 1st District; parts of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish & eastern King County)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Establishes various tax incentives, expiring in 2030, for new waste to energy plants built within a mile of an existing landfill, and for new manufacturing within five miles that uses the power from such a plant. (It also says that they have to be operating under Federal and State environmental laws and regulations, except that “permit actions to site an energy recovery facility may be exempt from compliance” with the State’s Environmental Policy Act.)

Details:

It exempts such plants from the B&O tax; exempts the sale of the power the plants produce from the public utility tax; and exempts the purchase of machinery, materials and equipment for them, and labor and services for their construction, from sales and use taxes.

It exempts the purchase of machinery, materials, and equipment for such manufacturing facilities, and labor and services for their construction, from sales and use taxes, provided that the new plant maintains at least twenty-five family living wage jobs for at least ten years.

SB5981

SB5981 – Creates a cap and trade system.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 21st. Still in committee by the 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Scheduled for a hearing on a draft substitute, February 4th 2020 at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

2020 Substitute –
The substitute delays any implementation of its provisions until a new act providing at least $2 billion per biennium in new transportation funding has been passed. It creates a fourth destination for the revenue, the Strategic Transportation Investment Account, though the draft leaves the division of funding between the four accounts open. This account must be used to provide cost-effective congestion relief, enhance all modes of mobility, assist highly impacted communities, and address the impacts of the transportation system on carbon pollution and other quality of life issues, including impacts to salmon. This funding can include projects to reduce congestion and improve air quality, including multimodal alternatives; ones to reduce carbon emissions from transportation including ones to accelerate the deployment of zero emission vehicles or deploy grid infrastructure for vehicle charging; and fish barrier correction projects.

The new version specifies that Ecology must allocate allowances to electric utilities between 2021 and 2035 covering their average annual emissions over each previous three year period, and that it’s to adopt rules “providing the method for distribution of no-cost allowances” to them between 2035 and 2050. (I assume this means the rules would gradually step down their allowances in some way to be determined in the future.) The substitute exempts emissions associated with electricity exported from the state. The State would actually get the allowances back immediately, auction them, and then give the proceeds to the utilities, to be used exclusively to minimize the bill’s impacts on customers. Each utility would have to develop a plan, conforming to rules from the UTC or the Department of Commerce, with a portfolio of mechanisms for aiding customers, like weatherization, energy efficiency, electrification of heating in buildings, electric vehicle incentives, and infrastructure. At least half the money would now have to go to rate relief.

Natural gas suppliers would be covered by a similar scheme, but their starting allocation in 2022 is left open in the draft, and it would be required to step down annually between then and 2035 in proportion to the gas utilities’ share of the reductions needed to meet the State’s 2035 target. Their plans would have to give the highest priority to assisting low-income customers, and use at least twenty-five percent of the money for rate relief for residential customers. Proceeds from the sale of allowances are used for investments to reduce emissions, including efficiency and renewable gas projects. The UTC is to provide for timely recovery for prudent and reasonable costs associated with complying with the act, and gas companies are prohibited from passing costs on to customers whose emissions are covered by its other provisions.

The substitute specifies that energy efficiency projects, carbon capture, and sequestration may be used to provide offsets. (It would no longer allow the aggregation of temporally separate offset activities.) It raises the limit on using offsets between 2024 and 2034 from 6% to 8%. The current bill requires certain percentages of offset projects to provide direct environmental benefits to the state. The substitute lets projects within the state count toward those requirements, and raises the required percentage between 2024 and 2034 from 50% to 90%. It says Ecology can restrict the use of offsets from areas and plants failing to meet air quality standards; eliminates the provisions allowing the use of up to an extra 5% of offsets from tribal lands; directs Ecology to keep the total quantity of allowances and offsets below the total of required compliance obligations “to the extent practicable,” and adds a regular review of the offset protocols.

The substitute drops the section prohibiting regional air quality agencies and other jurisdictions from directly regulating greenhouse gas emissions through a cap, charge, low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuels standard, or charge upon sale or use. It adds some progressive requirements about standards that have to be met by parties receiving project contracts, and moves various dates forward a year.

Summary of the 2019 bill –
Raises the State’s targets for greenhouse gas reductions to match the Paris Accords’. Creates a state greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade program requiring allowances for each metric ton of emissions above a gradually decreasing cap. Allowances are sold at auction, and can be sold or traded within the state and in linked programs in other jurisdictions. Requires setting a floor and a ceiling on prices for allowances, and mechanisms for increasing or decreasing the allowances available to help keep prices within that range.

Details –
The cap is to be set and adjusted over time so that covered entities contribute their proportional share of the overall State reductions needed to meet the new targets.

Covered entities
You need allowances if your facility emits more than 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2 equivalents (on its own or when the emissions associated with your direct purchases of electricity are included); if the associated emissions from your generating electricity in the state, importing it, or supplying natural gas are above that level; or if you’re a supplier of other fuels like gasoline or diesel that would produce emissions above that level when combusted. You can also opt-in to the program if you’re responsible for emissions but aren’t required to participate (if, for example, you can make reductions cheaply and want to make money by selling the allowances you earn), or if you just want to trade in the market. Allowances can be banked and used in later years. There’s a penalty of $200 per allowance, adjusted for inflation starting in 2025, for failing to provide enough of them to cover your emissions in a given year, as well as a penalty of up to $10,000 for violations of the rules.

Offsets
Between 2021 and 2023 up to 8% of an entities’ obligations may be met with approved offset credits, provided at least 75% of those reduce emissions in the state; through 2034 up to 6% of them may be met with offsets if at least 50% of those reduce emissions 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.) The bill creates an advisory committee to provide guidance on rules to increase offset projects with other environmental benefits in the state while prioritizing projects that “benefit highly impacted communities, Indian tribes, and natural and working lands.”

Exemptions
The bill exempts biomass from various approved sources, all biofuels, aviation fuel, coal burned at the Transalta plant, marine fuel burned outside the state, vented or unintentional emissions, and military installations.

Between 2021 and 2035, it provides a gradually decreasing number of free allowances to energy-intensive trade exposed industries in eleven categories, and to any others the Department of Commerce may identify through quantitive criteria about their energy use and trade exposure. (However, the bill also says in Section 14(1) that they don’t have to start complying until 2023…) The number of free allowances is to decrease at the same rate needed for reductions in allowances for covered entities as a whole to result in meeting the targets; facilities with relatively lower emissions are to receive more allowances. (The Department’s to review the program every two years to see if it is avoiding significant leakage from the transfer of activities out of state, or awarding more free allowances than are necessary for that goal.)

If a 100% Clean Electricity bill passes, the bill requires the Department of Ecology to develop rules, in consultation with Commerce and the UTC, providing utilities with enough free allowances through 2035 to avoid the bill’s impacting rates or charges. It provides natural gas utilities free allowances for the gas sold to low-income customers, so the company does not have to pay to offset those emissions. (I think that the bill requires the value of those allowances to be spent funding measures to benefit low-income consumers such as weatherization, conservation, and help paying bills.)

Investments
The bill creates a climate oversight board with a lot of members, including representatives of the Governor, the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Auditor, four legislators, two tribal representatives, various stakeholders, and an indeterminate number of other experts. (It isn’t clear how some of these people are to be selected.) It’s responsible for ongoing review of the cap and trade system and the funding provided by it, but the bill doesn’t say what happens to any conclusions it draws from that review, or what if any power it has to affect what it “reviews”.

The bill creates an environmental and economic justice panel, appointed by the Governor. The panel’s to include two members representing union labor; two members representing tribal governments; and five other members, including at least one tribal leader and at least two nontribal leaders representing the interests of vulnerable populations residing in “highly impacted communities”. (Those communities are to be identified by the Department of Health, considering “vulnerable populations” and environmental hazards; including census tracts that are partly or wholly on tribal land; and building on a particular analysis already completed by the UW.) The panel’s to be co-chaired by a tribal leader and a representative of the interests of highly impacted communities. It’s to make recommendations on the plans for spending this revenue and their implementation, evaluate the funding levels, and analyze the policies to determine if they produce the intended improvements. The Department of Ecology is to consult with the panel and “accord substantial weight” to its recommendations in developing implementation plans for spending from each of the funds the bill sets up, and in developing biennial spending plans for each of them. It’s to update the identification of highly impacted areas every two years “under advisement from” the panel.

Any agency receiving funding from the system must consult with Indian tribes “on all decisions that may affect Indian tribes’ rights and interests in their tribal lands.” (Perhaps this only covers decisions implementing this bill, but it doesn’t seem to say that.) The process must be independent of any public participation process required by state law, or by a state agency, and regardless of whether the agency receives a request for consultation. No project that affects tribal lands can be funded without “meaningful consultation” with affected Indian tribes. Any project that “directly impacts” tribal lands must have written consent from the relevant tribal governments.

40% of the revenue goes to an energy transformation account, to be spent on projects and programs in Washington that provide additional reductions in carbon pollution. These include residential, industrial, construction, transportation, and agricultural investments in renewable energy, efficiency, conservation, sequestration, and carbon emissions reductions. They have to provide real, specific, quantifiable, additional, and verifiable reductions for periods of time to be determined by the Department, and meet high labor standards. They have to be ranked and sortable based on quantitative performance metrics, including the avoided cost of a ton of carbon dioxide, though the bill does not say they have to be selected on that basis, or provide any criteria for deciding which projects that meet the basic standards will be selected, beyond saying 10% of these funds have to be spent in highly impacted areas.

35% of the revenue goes to an energy transition account, to provide funding to assist low-income households with increased energy prices; to help provide clean energy and low-carbon housing, transportation options, and technologies to people with greater barriers to accessing those, and where pollution is concentrated; and to support displaced fossil fuel-related industry workers. Spending has to be prioritized to help with additional energy and transportation costs resulting from policies and programs to reduce fossil fuel use, and to assist displaced workers, but it can also be used “to reduce carbon pollution and reduce vulnerable population characteristics or environmental burdens in highly impacted communities.” Thus, the money can be spent in a very wide variety of ways, including direct financial assistance, social and health services programs, energy bill subsidies, efficiency and weatherization services, affordable transportation, affordable housing, and improved community services. The Department must develop a worker support program for bargaining unit and nonsupervisory fossil fuel industry workers who are affected by the transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy, and may allocate additional funds to it if there’s an unexpected amount of dislocation.

25% of the revenue goes to a climate impacts resilience account. Expenditures from it are to prioritize funding and investments to benefit “highly impacted communities”. At least half of it’s to go to community preparedness and awareness “before, during, and after” wildfires; resources to help tribal communities deal with wildfires; relocating tribal communities impacted by flooding and sea level rise; and programs to increase awareness of and preparedness for impacts of climate change and to educate people about ways to reduce pollution. The remainder’s to be spent on “natural resources resilience and related purposes” including, but not limited to, funding for improving forest and natural lands’ health and resilience to climate change, including thinning and prescribed fire projects and wildland fire prevention; for reducing stormwater impacts; for reducing flooding risks; for improving the availability and reliability of water supplies for in-stream and out-of-stream uses; for fish barrier correction projects; for projects to prepare for sea level rise and restore habitats, including small forestland owner fish passage barrier projects; and for adapting to and remediating the impacts of ocean acidification.

Details –
There are provisions for entering into agreements linking the program and its auctions with other jurisdictions’. The bill requires creating an advisory committee to make recommendations about designing and implementing the system, and to report on its functioning every two years. It requires appointing an independent organization to monitor and report on the auctions and on secondary markets that buy and sell allowances. It requires creating an electronic system for handling allowances and the auctions, or sharing another jurisdiction’s.

It prohibits regional air quality agencies and local jurisdictions regulating greenhouse gas emissions through “a cap, charge, low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuels standard, or charge upon the sale or use”.

SB5970

SB970 – Authorizes $5 billion in bonds backed by revenue from SB5971.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hobbs (D; 44th District; Lake Stevens)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th. Passed out of committee to Rules March 6th 2019. Still in committee by the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status in 2020 session; referred to Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB5971 raises the revenue to support these bonds. SB5972 appropriates the new funds.)

Summary –
The bill authorizes $5 billion in bonds for transportation projects, backed by new revenue from SB5971.

SB5971

SB971 – Raises revenue to fund transportation projects. (Includes a carbon fee.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hobbs (D; 44th District; Lake Stevens)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing there February 28th. 1st substitute with significant changes passed out of committee March 6th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing, but still in that committee at the end of the 2019 session. Reintroduced and retained in present status in 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by Ways and Means.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
(SB5970 authorizes $5 billion in bonds to fund projects, backed by the additional revenue this bill would raise. SB5972 appropriates the new funds.)

Comments –
The changes in the 1st substitute are summarized on pp. 11-12 of the Senate Bill Report. Among other things, it reduces the carbon fee to $10/tonne for utilities, lowers the increase in EV registration fees to $150 from $200, adds $50 to the registration fee for hybrids, and expands the exemptions for energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries in various ways.

Summary –

The bill raises the fuel tax by 6¢/gallon. It adds a freight project fee of 10% of the license fee on vehicles over 10,000 pounds to the current 15% fee and increases the new fee by 3% every two years until 2031. It adds $5 to the $30 passenger car license fee. It raises the vehicle trip permit from $25 to $45. It raises the fee for an international fuel tax agreement license from $10 to $32.50. Starting in 2020, it raises the fee for an enhanced driver’s license from $24 to $54, and the fee for shorter extensions from $4/year to $9/year. It raises the annual registration fee for electric vehicles from $150 to $350. It adds a surcharge of 25¢ to each ferry ride. It puts a carbon pollution fee of $15/metric ton of CO2 (with no inflation adjustments) on the carbon content of electricity and on fossil fuels, other than those used to generate electricity in the state. These increased revenues go to a new Forward Washington transportation account, which is mostly appropriated for highway projects in SB5972. The bill adds two $10 fees to the license fees for vehicles up to 12,000 pounds; they both go to the Forward Washington account until June 30th, 2020; after that one of them goes to the highway patrol, ferries, and various other transportation funds.

The bill raises the sales and use taxes on automobiles, auto parts, and bicycles 1%. It creates a special transportation benefit assessment on the increase in assessed value resulting from new construction – $2/$1,000 in added value for residential property; $1/$1,000 for manufacturing facilities; and $4/$1,000 for other construction. It raises the mobile home registration fee from $75 to $100, and adds an additional fee of $10. It raises the sales and use taxes on car rentals 1%. It charges a 50¢ fee for each ride in a for-hire vehicle like a taxi or Uber. It creates an additional fine for driving in the HOV lane illegally of $175 for the first offense, $250 for the second offense, and $350 for each offense after that. 14.5% of the revenue from car rental taxes, and the increased revenue from these other changes goes to a new Forward Flexible account, which is mostly appropriated for other transportation than highways in SB5972.

Aviation fuel; agricultural fuel; the Transalta coal plant; biogas; log trucks; facilities making renewable energy equipment; copper, nickel, lead, and zinc mining; the fuel used outside the state by trucks and vessels primarily engaged in interstate commerce; and various other obvious things are exempted from the carbon fee. The Department of Commerce is to develop objective numerical standards for the energy intensity and trade exposure which will qualify energy-intensive trade-exposed manufacturing facilities (EITEs) as exempt.

Details:
The bill prohibits any other fees within the state on the carbon in fossil fuels or used in the production of electricity. (I think this section intends to prohibit cities, counties and other jurisdictions from doing this, though the first sentence reads as if it’s to keep the Legislature from passing any other carbon fees.)

It adds “local agencies” to the current poison pill provisions about moving the funding for transit and highway safety into the construction fund if an agency adopts a low carbon fuel standard. Presumably, this is motivated by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency considering adopting a Regional Clean Fuel Standard for King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish Counties. (People say it announced it would do this, but their website doesn’t say that yet.)

Commerce is to create a stakeholder work group to study how to efficiently and consistently integrate carbon pricing in electricity markets and recommend ways to improve their carbon transparency and market liquidity to the Legislature. By 2026, the Department of Revenue, Commerce, Ecology are to review the method for protecting EITEs and the merits of alternatives.

It would let utilities deduct any carbon fees they pay for the carbon content of imported electricity from the alternative compliance fees they would pay under SB5116 if they failed to meet the targets for reducing their use of fossil fuels under that bill, so they would not pay twice.

SB5947

SB5947 – Creates grant program for sustainable farms and fields.
Prime Sponsor – Senator McCoy (D; 38th District; Snohomish County)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2095 is an identical companion bill in the House.

2020 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House at end of 2019 Session; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Passed by the Senate January 15th; referred to the House. Senate concurred in the House changes March 10th.

In the House (Amended version passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources February 7th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to the House Committee on the Capital Budget; had a hearing and passed an amended striker out of committee there on March 2nd. Passed by the House March 4th. Returned to the Senate for possible concurrence.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Referred to Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Had a hearing in that committee February 19th. A rewritten substitute bill with minor changes in the content passed out of committee February 21st. Had a hearing in Senate Ways and Means March 1st, and passed out of that committee with amendments. Placed on 2nd Reading by Rules March 4th. Passed the Senate March 6th.
In the House
Referred to the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, and Natural Resources. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, and Natural Resources on March 28th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; returned to Senate Rules 3rd Reading by the House at end of 2019 Session.

Comments –
The 2019 substitute bill delays appropriation of any funding except for rule making and the report until January 2020, makes the grant program an option for the Department of Agriculture even if it’s funded, makes its different aspects dependent on appropriated specific funding, and allows grants for some commercial forestry projects including work in areas depleted by fire or pests.

(The original bill made the grants dependent on the provision of available funding for a dedicated account it established, but it seemed to require the Department to develop the program whether or not there was any funding provided for it.)

The 2020 striker in the House committee eliminates any references to reductions of emissions from fossil fuels, water, energy use, and fossil-fuel based herbicides or pesticides; it adds a number of references to encouraging more use of precision agriculture. It shifts the primary responsibility for the program to the Conservation Commission, and increases its ability to shape the program very significantly, by eliminating most of the previous version’s specifications for how the money is to be allocated, how grants are to be awarded, and what they can be awarded for. (There is still a list of allowable uses, but it now concludes with “other equipment purchases or financial assistance deemed appropriate by the Commission”; it does include new limits on how much funding can be spend on developing, advertising, and administering the program.) It uses the previous bill’s specification of the method for estimating carbon storage as a starting point, but lets the Commission change that. It limits the length of carbon storage contracts to twenty-five years, and it requires prioritizing proposals that benefit fish habitat and reducing the priority of any that are expected to significantly damage fish or wildlife habitat.

The amendment makes the bill contingent on the appropriation of at least $400,000 each to the Conservation Commission’s water irrigation efficiencies program; its natural resources investments program; and its shellfish growing area improvement program. The changes in the House Capital Budget Committee replace this provision with one that makes the program dependent on specific appropriation for it, and drop a final section about encouraging cost sharing and prioritizing grants which I think was probably more or less redundant, given language earlier in the bill about that.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Agriculture to develop a sustainable farms and fields program to make grants supporting agroforestry; increasing the carbon content of soils; and reducing agricultural uses of water, energy, and of fertilizers and pesticides produced from fossil fuels. There’s no provision in the bill for funding the program, other than providing for an account in the treasury for the program.

Details –

Roughly sixty percent of the funding is to be divided evenly among grants for agroforestry; for carbon sequestration; and for reducing the use of water, energy, and fertilizers and pesticides. Grants can be used for down payments on equipment. The rest of the money is to go to what the Department judges will be the most effective of the remaining projects.

(However, there may not be money for further grants. The Department can also spend up to 20% of the funds on watershed protection projects, research programs or to support the development of new businesses in the state, even if those expenditures would not qualify for program funding otherwise. It can also spend up to 10% of the money on administrative assistance to applicants, up to 5% of it on educational campaigns to publicize the program, and up to 5% of it on administrative costs. During the first five years of the program, up to 5% of the funding can be used in developing methods for prioritizing projects.)

Activities on commercial working forest land, aquaculture and blue carbon projects, and activities other than agroforestry on land that’s in a land retirement program are not eligible for these grants.

The Department’s to consult with other agencies to develop methods for estimating, measuring, and verifying outcomes; and to prioritize awards to try to maximize the reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases per dollar awarded by leveraging other funding. It’s to estimate these reductions by counting the storage of a ton of carbon dioxide equivalents in soil or standing trees for 100 years as the equivalent of avoiding putting a ton of them into the atmosphere, and by treating storage for lesser periods of time proportionally.

The Department can require applicants to enter into contracts committing them to carry on activities for various periods of time, including in perpetuity, as a condition for receiving funding for a project. They can receive an annual payment for storage during the previous year, or a payment based on expected future storage, with a provision for recovering funding if that doesn’t materialize because they’re negligent.

The Department’s to report to the Legislature on the program every two years.

SB5811

SB5811 – Allows the Department of Ecology to adopt Zero Emission Vehicle standards.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate – (Passed by the Senate)
Returned to Senate Rules by the House at end of 2019 Session; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Placed on 3rd reading by the Rules Committee. Passed by the Senate January 15th. Senate concurred in the House amendments March 9th.

In the House – (Passed by the House)
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing February 13th; replaced by a striker and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 29th. Passed out of Appropriations March 2nd and referred to Rules. Passed by the House March 5th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1999 is an identical companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Coltura has a flyer about the bill.

The striker in the House Committee on Environment and Energy adopts the zero emissions vehicle standards, rather than simply removing the prohibition on adopting them from the current law. It no longer limits them to the model years that Oregon’s version covers, and it no longer says that vehicles for the model year in which the requirement comes into effect aren’t subject to the requirement. It also repeals current provisions (in RCW 70.120A.020) requiring Ecology to provide two systems of early credits and banking for ZEVs produced and sold before the implementation of the program in Washington.

2019 Legislative History –
In the Senate (Passed)
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology, February 12th at 10:00 AM. Passed out of committee February 14th; sent to Rules for 2nd Reading; placed on 2nd Reading February 19th. Passed by the Senate March 4th.
In the House – 2019
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Environment. Had a hearing Tuesday March 19th. Returned to Senate Rules by the House at end of 2019 Session;

Comments –
SB5336 would also do this, but it includes a lot of other measures to reduce transportation emissions.

Summary –
The bill removes the prohibition on adopting the California Zero Emission Vehicle standards from the current law authorizing Ecology to adopt the rest of California’s emissions standards.

(It may also extend the range of vehicles that Ecology’s authorized to regulate some by changing its authority over the emissions from “medium duty passenger vehicles” to authority over “medium duty vehicles”.)

SB5747

SB5747 – Requires a report on ways to expand the use of solid waste-to-energy plants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (D; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Requires the Department of Ecology and the Utilities and Transportation Commission to submit a jointly prepared report to the Legislature by the end of 2019 examining opportunities, and making recommendations, for expanding the use of waste-to-energy plants in Washington.

SB5730

SB5730 – Authorizes jurisdictions to establish commercial property assessed clean energy financing programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Palumbo (D; 1st District; Snohomish County)
Current status – Referred to Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1796 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Property assessed clean energy financing programs make the repayment of a loan for an energy efficiency upgrade a lien on the property, which is repaid through the property tax billing process, and which stays as an obligation of the new owners if the building changes hands. Thirty states have established these programs. However, it isn’t clear that they’re legal in Washington, because our Constitution prohibits any gift of public funds to private parties.

ShiftZero, a coalition of green building organizations, has been promoting this idea, and has obtained a serious legal opinion which says that they would be if they were structured the way they are in Texas, because that relies entirely on private financing, rather than lending any state funds. (However, it isn’t clear whether the State using its property tax mechanism to implement a private loan and other details in this bill are constitutional here. Presumably, a court will settle those questions if the bill passes.) ShiftZero has a flyer about the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes municipalities to set up programs like this for energy efficiency, water conservation, renewable energy, and resiliency projects in agricultural, commercial, and industrial properties; and in multifamily properties with five or more units.

A municipality can impose fees on property owners who want to participate in order to pay for the reasonable costs of administering the program, provided the fees don’t exceed the municipality’s actual costs. It can contract with another municipality or entity to administer loans, or administer them in cooperation with other municipalities.

The Department of Commerce is also to set up or contract for the administration of a program to administer these loans, and a municipality could contract with Commerce to participate in that program. However, the municipality itself would remain responsible for collecting payments on a loan, and for foreclosing on the property if that became necessary.

If Commerce contracted with a third party to administer the statewide program, it would have to be done efficiently and transparently, including:

Making any services offered to property owners, such as estimating energy savings, overseeing project development, or evaluating alternative equipment installations, priced separately and open to purchase by the property owner from qualified third-party providers;
Making information about any properties joining the program available to all interested and qualifying third-party capital providers so the owners could receive impartial terms from them;
Disclosing any financial interest the administrator had in any of the services provided to property owners to the public;
Allowing financial underwriting and evaluation to be performed by capital providers, and;
Working in a collaborative process with capital providers and other stakeholders to develop a program guidebook and documents or forms.

If funding were appropriated, Commerce could set up a loan loss reserve or credit enhancement program to support financing of qualified projects.

SB5629

SB5308 – Promoting small modular nuclear reactors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on February 6th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Though the bill removes the provision in RCW 82.85.020(1)(b) that limits the sales and use tax deferral to two projects a year, RCW 82.85.040 still says the department may not approve applications for more than two projects a year. (Maybe this is intended to mean that the Department can now approve an unlimited number of deferrals, but only two from a given applicant…)

Summary –

Small modular reactors (SMRs) under the bill have an output no greater than 300 MW, and are designed to be manufactured in a factory and transported to sites. The bill specifies that the clean energy technology innovation to be supported in the State’s clean energy strategy includes SMRs. It exempts their manufacture and sale, and the manufacture and sale of any components, from the tax on manufacturing (0.484 percent), the tax on wholesale sales (0.484 percent), the State tax on retail sales (0.471 percent), and any other business and occupation taxes. (They must develop an apprenticeship, training, or workforce development program in cooperation with a public institution of higher education to be eligible for the tax breaks.) The bill exempts these tax breaks from expiring after ten years.

It expands the current provisions for deferring the payment of state and local sales and use taxes on the first $10 million of the costs of constructing, expanding, or renovating the facilities of manufacturing businesses, removing the limitation of the deferral to two projects a year and the requirement that they be located on different sides of the state. (It also specifies that projects that utilize or produce small modular reactors or other green technologies are encouraged.) The bill converts the current pilot program for directing these deferred taxes into supporting workforce training for manufacturing businesses when they are repaid into a permanent one.

These deferred taxes are to be paid in equal parts over ten years, without any adjustment for inflation, beginning five years after the completion of a project. The bill would add four years to the lifespan of this tax break, which would now expire in 2030.

Details –
It declares that the Legislature intends to extend these tax exemptions if a review finds that the number of jobs in the SMR industry in the state has increased by at least 10%. (This should be an easy standard to meet, since there are almost none now.)