Category Archives: Senate Bills 2021

SB5452 – 2021

SB5452 – Requires giving electric bicycles the same access to non-motorized dirt trails and closed roads that regular bicycles are given.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Cleveland (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Liias – D and Jeff Wilson – R)
Current status – Converted to a study and passed.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing on February 18th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor in a very minor way and passed by the Senate unanimously March 8th. Senate concurred in the House amendments April 14th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources. Had a hearing March 16th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Striker in the House –
This would postpone the due date for the study by nine months, to September 30th, 2022, and would allow people with a current State disabled parking permit to ride Class 1 & 2 electric bicycles on these trails and roads until June 30th, 2023, or the creation of rules or legislation about the issue.

Substitute –
The substitute converts the bill to a study by the Department of Natural Resources, and a study by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to decide which classes of electric-assisted bicycles are acceptable on these trails and roads under each agencies’ management, and where.

Original
The bill would only apply to Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes. Class 1 bikes only provide power from the battery when the rider is pedaling, provide electric assistance up to 20 miles an hour, and would be allowed on non-motorized trails. Class 3 bikes do not include pedaling, have a maximum speed of 28 miles an hour, and would be allowed on roads with nonmotorized access.

SB5461

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

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

SB5460

SB5460 – Authorizes Director of Licensing to make and enforce rules for the current autonomous vehicle self-certification testing pilot program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 18th; drastically amended and voted out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Passed unanimously by the Senate March 8th.

In the House –
Referred to the Transportation Committee. Had a hearing Monday March 15th, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Amendments –
The first amendment in Transportation, by Senator Padden (R – Spokane Valley) removed the section granting the Department of Licensing authority to make rules to administer and implement the AV self-certification testing pilot program. The second amendment, by the sponsor, delayed the program’s start for a year, until October 2022.

Original bill –
The bill would explicitly authorize the Director of Licensing to adopt and enforce rules to administer and implement the autonomous vehicle self-certification testing pilot program that’s already on the books. (It also drops the current prohibition of screens that the driver can see and that can display video besides a backup camera’s.)

SB5457

SB5457 – Extends tax exemptions for commuter ride sharing vehicles to any carpool or vanpool transporting at least three people, including the driver.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation; had a hearing on February 18th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This is a companion bill to HB1514.

Summary –Summary –
Currently, the Commute Trip Reduction Incentives Act provides tax exemptions for vehicles that will be used for at least three years in commuter car pools or van pools making one round trip a day. They’re exempted from the State sales and use taxes, and from the motor vehicle excise tax. (It also exempts them from the regulations applying to drivers or owners of motor vehicles operated for hire, common carriers and public transit carriers, and protects those promoting ride sharing from any civil suits arising from the maintenance or operation of the vehicles.)

The bill expands the scope of these provisions by dropping the references to commuting, and redefining ridesharing as any “carpool or vanpool arrangement whereby one or more groups” of at least three people and not more than fifteen, including the driver, are transported. (I don’t know if this definition would include operations like Uber Pool or not.)

SB5444

SB5444 – Creates a per mile charge on electric and hybrid vehicles, replacing the current special fees; extends the $75 transportation electrification fee to cover all plug-ins.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-sponsors Hobbs, Nguyen and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing on February 18th. Amended and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules. Dead.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Fortunato’s SJR8207 would amend the Constitution to require any revenue from road usage charges of vehicle miles traveled fees to be spent for highway purposes.

Summary –
Senate Transportation amendment –

This shifts the implementation dates back a year and makes some other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Licensing and the Transportation Commission to develop a plan for imposing a per mile charge on electric and hybrid vehicles in place of the current special fees on them. (Owners of plug-in vehicles that can go at least 30 miles on the battery are currently charged an extra $150 a year in place of the gas tax, and they, hybrid, and other alternative fuel vehicle owners are charged another $75 a year to support developing charging infrastructure, green transit, and other clean alternative fuel infrastructure.) The new system would begin July 1 2026, and collect an annual fee for vehicles that can go over 30 miles on the battery of $0.02/mile for three years, increasing to $0.025/mile after that. It would continue the annual $75 fee and expand that to apply to plug-ins with less battery range as well. (Thus, if you drove 10,000 miles a year in an all electric vehicle, you’d pay $275/year, and then $325.) By July 1, 2025 at the latest, owners of vehicles that can go over 30 miles on the battery would be able to choose to switch to the new system early, and would be exempted from the $75 fee (an ongoing exemption according to Plug-In America, though I don’t think that’s clear; it depends on whether you read “actively participate in the program” as referring to the pilot program or the road use charge program). At least 500 varied State light vehicles would be required to participate in it (starting as early as July 2024 if that were feasible), but without paying the fees.

The plan has to take account of previous State research on replacing the gas tax with a road usage charge, and must include:
1. Different mileage reporting methods;
2. Recommended payment collection means and rates for achieving cost efficiency, fairness, minimal administrative cost, payment compliance, consumer choice, and for preserving individual privacy;
3. Options for collaborating with other states or countries in developing and administering the per mile funding system;
4. Evaluation and comparison of the benefits and costs of allowing payment plan options and annual payment;
5. Any recommended statutory changes, including suggested offsets or rebates to the per mile fees that might be approved by the Legislature;
6. Specific recommendations to better align the system with other vehicle-related charges and potentially establish the framework for broader implementation of a per mile funding system, including analysis of the preferred method for addressing potential 18th Amendment restrictions;
(g) A recommended implementation and governance structure, and a transition plan with the Department as the agency operating and administering the funding system;
(h) A recommendation on the best agency to be lead public outreach and education;
(i) Recommendations for augmenting vehicle owner privacy in light of new and emerging mileage reporting methods or technologies, and proposed rules to be adopted by the Commission to protect privacy in the system; and
(j) Detailed information on a recommended periodic review and evaluation process to ensure the system is achieving the policy and revenue goals established by the Legislature.

The bill exempts any personally identifying information of persons reporting mileage or vehicle location information as part of a complying with a mileage tax from disclosure, except to law enforcement agencies in accordance with a court order. The bill prohibits collecting any  personally identifying information beyond what’s necessary to calculate, report, and collect the per mile fee, unless the vehicle owner provides written consent for collecting more. Reporting is allowed to collect general location data if an owner chooses that specific reporting method; proper disclosure of the method was made according to rules adopted by the Transportation Commission; and the owner specifically consents to its reporting. The bill prohibits reporting specific location data to the Department or any subdivision of the state, including travel patterns, origins, destinations, waypoint locations, or times of travel, unless a vehicle owner specifically consents to the recording or reporting. The bill establishes an affirmative public duty to ensure that per mile information is protected with reasonable operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure its confidentiality and integrity; to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure; and to implement and maintain a usage and privacy policy to ensure that the collection of information respects  individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. Any system data retained longer than needed to ensure proper mileage account payment has to have all personally identifying information removed and may only be used for public purposes.

SB5439

SB5439 – Facilitating the coordinated installation of broadband along state highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-sponsors Kuderer, Lovelett, and Nguyen – Ds)
Current status – Dead
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 15th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of Committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Completely replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor on the floor and passed by the Senate unanimously February 26th. (The changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it.)

In the House –
Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules April 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Floor Amendment –
Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Transportation to provide at least sixty days notice of road construction projects to personal wireless and broadband service providers within the same county or counties, by website or electronic subscriptions, to allow collaboration on the installation of their facilities during construction. (If a provider replies within 30 days, the Department may schedule a consultation meeting to review installation opportunities and may determine the feasibility and viability of a collaboration project, but isn’t under any obligation to provide for installation.)

If there isn’t a service provider ready or able to install personal wireless service facilities or broadband conduit as part of a project, the bill would authorize the Department to do that in order to reduce future traffic impacts to the public; support vehicle miles traveled reduction and congestion management by allowing for more telework; and prepare the transportation system for autonomous vehicles. It also authorizes the Department to allow nonprofit service providers to use a right-of-way for broadband infrastructure in rural and unserved areas at no cost, provided that there’s quantifiable commensurate benefit to the transportation system and users of these specified kinds from the use of the conduit.

The bill requires the Governor’s statewide broadband office, in consultation with local governments and the UTC, to create a registration system for service providers applying to install broadband infrastructure that provides automatic notice to the Department of Transportation and other broadband providers applying for installation permits in the same area so opportunities for coordination can be identified.

It requires the Department of Commerce’s regular reports on broadband infrastructure to include the locations where broadband infrastructure has been deployed in the state during the prior five years and is planned to be employed, including along state highways.

It expands the exemption from the laws governing franchises on State highways that personal wireless services currently have to include broadband infrastructure.

SB5175

SB5175 – Authorizes the Community Economic Revitalization Board to make loans and grants to local governments and tribes for constructing broadband internet infrastructure. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade; had a hearing January 21st. Passed out of committee January 28th and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 11th; passed out of Ways and Means February 16th. Referred to Rules, and placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Community Economic Revitalization Board to make loans and grants to local governments and tribes for constructing open access broadband internet infrastructure, if specifically appropriated funds for that were available. (No more than half the financing it approved in a biennium could go to tribes.)

The board could provide grants or loans for projects to drive job creation, promote innovation, and expand markets for local businesses; or serve the needs of local education systems, health care systems, public safety systems, industries, businesses, governmental operations, and citizens. (The Board could not provide assistance for a project if its primary purpose was facilitating or promoting gambling.)

Applications would have to be approved by the local government and supported by the local associate development organization or local workforce development council, or by the governing body of the tribe. They’d have to demonstrate that no other timely source of funding was available at costs reasonably similar to financing available from the Board, and have a responsible official present during deliberations on the proposal to provide information the Board requested.

When evaluating and prioritizing projects, the board would have to consider at least the project’s value to the community, including evidence of support from affected local businesses and government; its feasibility, using standard economic principles; the commitment of local matching resources and local participation; its inclusion in a capital facilities plan, comprehensive plan, or local economic development plan; and its readiness to proceed.

SB5110

SB5110 – B&O tax credit for 50% of the capital costs of extending internet service to unserved areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; had a hearing January 21st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Most of the bill is about changing the current regulations on cell phone companies; I’m not summarizing those sections.

The bill would also allow a tax credit, divided over fifteen years, of up to 50% of the capital costs (including sales and use taxes) for extending broadband to an unserved area. The credit that could be claimed by a company in a reporting period would be limited to $5 million, and total credits under the bill would be limited to $50 million. Unused credits could be carried forward for up to fifteen years. The bill declares that the Legislature intends to extend the expiration date of the exemption if a review finds that the number of individuals with internet access in unserved areas has increased by ten percent in ten years.

It would also no longer require PUD’s providing wholesale or retail telecommunications services to use any revenues from them only for the costs of building and maintaining them, and no longer require them to account to separately for those revenues and expenditures.

SB5415

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5345

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5383

SB5383 – Allowing PUDs to provide retail broadband in unserved areas if existing providers don’t object and plan to provide it.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-sponsor Short-R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Substitute referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; had a hearing February 3rd, and passed out of committee February 11th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Ways and Means February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate February 26th. Concurred in the House’s changes April 23rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Community and Economic Development. Had a hearing March 17th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations; had hearing on April 1st; replaced the striker from the Committee on Community and Economic Development with a new striker and passed the bill out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd, amended on the floor and passed by the House April 11th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
A limited alternative to the public internet proposal in HB1336.
I think the bill would require an existing provider to have begun construction and to present a plan about how it intends to complete the expansion, not simply present a plan about how it intends to provide service, but the bill isn’t very clear. It doesn’t provide any mechanism for reviewing the adequacy of the plan, or require its approval by the broadband office. It’s unclear about what qualifies as “near”. There’s no timeline for providing notice of the absence of an objection to the PUD.

Summary –
In Appropriations –
The new striker removed the provision that only allowed expansions when using State or Federal funding for the purpose and made a couple of other small changes summarized at the end of it.

In the House committee –
The striker makes the bill contingent on the passage of HB1336 (the Public Broadband Act), and makes this bill expire June 30th 2023. It defines “unserved areas” as those in which households and businesses lack access to broadband service providing at least 100 megabits/second download and 20 megabits/second upload. (The previous version was at least 25 Mbs/sec download and 3 Mbs/sec upload, or a higher level set by the Broadband Office.) It removes the provisions allowing existing broadband providers to object to ports and PUDs providing retail service in unserved areas. It also only allows the ports and PUDs to do that with State or Federal funding for that purpose, allows them to provide retail service to up to 20% of the residences in a served area if expanding through that to reach an unserved area, and makes some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. Amendments removed the restriction about State or Federal funding, removed the 20% limit, and authorized a PUD that doesn’t provide electrical service to provide wholesale telecommunication service in an adjacent county if there isn’t a PUD providing electrical or telecommunications services headquartered in that county. (I don’t know what quirky situation that provision is designed for…)

Substitutes –
The substitute merely corrects a typo. The 2nd Substitute makes quite a few adjustments, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would allow a PUD to provide retail internet service in any unserved area of the state if no company objected and said they were doing it. The PUD would be required to notify the Governor’s broadband office of its intent and post a notice of that on its website. Any existing broadband provider “near the area” to which the PUD wanted to provide service could file an objection within 30 days, demonstrating that it currently provides, or has begun construction to provide, retail broadband with speeds of at least 150 megabits a second in the area. It would also have to submit a broadband service plan about how it “intends” to provide service to the area, showing that it currently provides minimum download speeds “at or near” 25 megabits a second and minimum upload speeds “at or near” 3 megabits a second to end users near the PUD’s proposed area, and “an outline” of how it intends to provide service of at least 150 megabits a second in the unserved area. If the broadband office notified the PUD that no objection has been filed, it would be able to go ahead and provide service in the area.

By December 31, 2023, the broadband office would be required to submit a report to the Governor and the appropriate committees of the Legislature evaluating the effectiveness of the bill, including the number of PUDs providing retail services in an unserved area, an analysis of the effectiveness of the required broadband service plans, and any recommendations on improving the provision of retail services in unserved areas.

SB5373

SB5373 – Issuing up to $4.943 billion in bonds, backed by a tax on fossil fuels, to be used for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and natural climate solutions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-sponsors Saldaña, Salomon, Wellman, Das, Hunt, Claire Wilson, Kuderer, Stanford, Pedersen, Dhingra, Frockt, and Nguyen – Ds.)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1513 is a similar bill in the House.
The supporters have a brochure about the bill, and Carbon WA did an FAQ while the bill was being developed.

Summary –
The bill places a carbon tax of $25/metric ton on the life cycle CO2 equivalent emissions associated with the sale or use of fossil fuels burned in the state. It’s to increase by 5% a year and be adjusted for inflation. By January 2031, after ten years, the Department of Ecology is to report on whether it expects these emissions to fall at a sufficient rate to produce their share of the reductions needed to meet the state’s targets, and to make recommendations about how to achieve that. All the revenue is to be used to fund projects and activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate the environmental impacts of those emissions and of climate change.

The tax is to be paid by the state and political subdivisions like counties and cities as well as by businesses. Distribution companies are to pay the tax on natural gas sold to retail customers; direct access customers are to pay the tax on their gas use. The tax on motor vehicle fuel and special fuel is to be paid by the same parties who are currently responsible for paying the fuel tax.

The bill exempts fossil fuels used to generate electricity within the state, fuel brought into the state in a primary fuel supply tank and burned, fuels that the State’s prohibited from taxing by Federal law or by laws about Indians’ property, coal burned at the Transalta plant, agricultural and aircraft fuels, biogas, and fuel bought in the state but burned outside it by ships and interstate motor carriers. During a five year transition period, it exempts fuels used for transporting logs and agricultural products,  and for extracting timber. Fuels that have already paid a carbon tax or charge on their lifecycle emissions to another jurisdiction are eligible for a credit of up to that amount against the tax owed in Washington.

In consultation with Commerce and Ecology, the Department of Revenue is to develop rules by June 30, 2022 for designating exempted energy intensive trade exposed industries. By July 30, 2026, Ecology is to report to the Legislature on whether their exemption should be restricted or eliminated. It’s to solicit input and data from stakeholders in developing the rules, consider the availability of alternative fuels, and include recommendations for minimizing leakage, allowing Washington industries to grow, recognizing and providing credit for early actions to reduce emissions, and incorporating performance benchmarking of emissions intensity in production processes.

The bill gives the Departments of Revenue, Ecology, Licensing, Transportation, and Commerce the authority to adopt any rules they deem necessary to implement it; Ecology, Commerce, and the WSU Energy Extension Program are to provide technical assistance in administering the bill to the Department of Revenue if it requests it. The Department of Revenue is to issue a report every two years including:
1. The total carbon pollution taxes collected during the reporting period and a list of the taxpayers and the tax they paid;
2. Estimated costs incurred by the department, Commerce, and Ecology in administering the bill, as a dollar amount and as a percentage of the tax collected;
3. The impact on the state’s economy including verifiable data on emissions leakage and any job losses since the implementation of the tax, and
4. A summary of the investments made through Commerce’s allocations of the revenue, including amounts invested in each program area, project descriptions, names of grant recipients, an estimate of the emissions reductions achieved or anticipated via the investments, and other information requested by the legislature.
The report’s to include recommendations for modifying or improving the act to ensure its goals are being met, and the first report is to include recommendations for auditing the expenditures. The Department of Commerce is to provide information on its website about the impacts of the tax on the price of natural gas and vehicle fuels by sector, and must provide an environmental justice analysis reporting on the environmental, health, and economic impacts of climate and of state measures taken to meet our emissions limits on highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations.

The Finance Committee is authorized to issue up to $4.943 billion in bonds during a ten year period, with terms that mean they’ll be fully repaid no later than December 31, 2050. They may be tax exempt or taxable, may be certified as green bonds or climate bonds, and may include new bonds to pay off outstanding bonds. They’re to be secured solely by pledged revenues from the carbon tax, and their repayment is to be the first priority for spending those. (Up to 5% of the remaining revenue may be used for administering the provisions of the bill.)

The bill’s backers estimate $16 billion will be raised by the tax over the first ten years, after the payment of 3.5% in debt service. Thus, funds will be available from the bonds when they are issued, and then from the portion of the ongoing revenue stream that isn’t needed for repayment of the principal, debt service and administrative expenses. 75% of that money available for investments is to be spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with high priority given to funding projects that directly benefit economically distressed areas. (75% of this money is to be spent on programs, projects, and activities to reduce or mitigate the impact of transportation emissions, including:
1. Deploying clean alternative fuel vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure;
2. Supporting clean alternative fuel car sharing programs for underserved communities and low to moderate-income workers not readily served by transit, or in corridors with emissions that exceed federal or state standards;
3. Providing financing to facilitate the purchase of battery and fuel cell electric vehicles by lower-income residents;
4. Providing grants to transit authorities for cost-effective capital projects that reduce the carbon intensity of the transportation system including electrifying fleets, modifying
or replacing capital facilities to facilitate fleet electrification or hydrogen refueling, upgrading transmission and distribution systems, and constructing charging and fueling stations;
5. Providing support to small trucking firms in converting vehicles to cleaner alternative fuels, acquiring and accessing fueling infrastructure, and mitigating the costs of transitioning to cleaner vehicles;
6. Electrifying and decarbonizing the passenger ferry fleet; and
7. Converting state, county, city, and public transit agency fleets to battery or fuel cell electric vehicles.

The remaining 25% of this money for reducing emissions may be spent on programs, activities, or projects in the state including:
1. Supplementing the growth management planning and environmental review fund for making grants or loans to local governments for land use planning;
2. Deploying renewable energy resources or distributed generation, energy storage, demand side technologies and strategies, and modernizing the grid;
3. Increasing the energy efficiency or reducing the greenhouse emissions of industrial facilities including implementing combined heat and power, district energy, or on-site renewables, upgrading the energy efficiency of existing equipment, reducing process emissions, and switching to less emissions intensive fuel;
4. Achieving energy efficiency or emissions reductions in the agricultural sector through steps such as fertilizer management, soil management, bioenergy, and biofuels;
5. Increasing energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, or promoting low-carbon
architecture, including the use of building materials that result in a lower carbon footprint over the life cycle of the building and component materials;
6. Promoting the electrification and decarbonization of new and existing buildings, and
7. Improving energy efficiency, including supporting district energy, and investments in market transformation by energy efficiency products.

The other 25% of the initial revenue from the bonds, and what’s remaining from the ongoing tax revenue after servicing the bonds and paying administrative expenses, is to be spent on natural climate solutions – to increase the resilience of waters, forests, and other vital ecosystems to the impacts of climate change, and to increase their carbon pollution reduction capacity through sequestration, storage, and ecosystem integrity. It can be spent to:
1. Restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats, and prepare for sea level rise including making fish passage correction investments;
2. Increase the ability to remediate and adapt to ocean acidification;
3. Reduce flood risk and restore natural floodplain ecological function;
4. Increase the sustainable supply of water and improve aquatic habitat, including groundwater mapping and modeling;
5. Improve infrastructure treating stormwater from previously developed areas within an urban growth boundary, with a preference for projects that use green stormwater infrastructure; or to
6. Preserve or increase carbon sequestration and storage benefits in agricultural soils and timber stock , including funding the sustainable farms and fields grant program established to assist participants with increasing the quantity of organic carbon in soils and reducing or avoiding carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in or from soils.

It can also be spent on forest investments to:
1. Increase resilience to wildfire in the face of increased seasonal temperatures and drought;
2. Improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change; or
3. Assist forestland owners in the protection of riparian and other sensitive aquatic areas by providing compensation to small forestland owners for easements under the Stewardship of Nonindustrial Forests and Woodlands program.

At least 35% of the investments under the bill must provide direct benefits to vulnerable populations in highly impacted communities; at least 25% of them must benefit rural areas, and at least 10% of them must benefit tribes. The bill establishes an environmental and economic justice panel appointed by the Governor to make recommendations on developing and implementing the programs, activities, and projects funded by the bill. It’s to be co-chaired by a tribal leader and a representative of the interests of the highly impacted communities identified by the Department of Health’s health disparities map. It’s to have at least ten members, including a tribal leader and four other people representing the interests of vulnerable populations in highly impacted communities in different rural and urban areas of the state; two people representing union labor with expertise in economic dislocation, clean energy economy, or energy-intensive, trade-exposed facilities; another person to represent tribal governments; and two people representing low-income and community advocacy organizations. (I think the co-chairs are members of the committee, rather than additional appointments, but I’m not sure.) The panel’s to:
1. Provide recommendations in the development of the investment plans and funding proposals authorized by the bill;
2. Provide a forum to determine if policies adopted lead to improvements in highly impacted communities;
3. Recommend procedures and criteria for evaluating programs, activities, or projects for funding;
4. Evaluate the level of funding provided to assist vulnerable populations, low-income individuals, and displaced workers, and the funding in or benefiting highly impacted communities;
5. Provide recommendations to agencies for meaningful consultation with vulnerable populations; and
6. Periodically evaluate the economic impacts and outcomes of the bill’s emissions reduction policies and financial assistance on low and middle-income households and vulnerable populations, including communities of color and tribal communities.

Agencies receiving funding under the bill have to consult with tribes on all decisions that may affect their rights and interests in tribal lands, using a framework for consultation developed in coordination with tribal governments. Projects directly affecting tribal lands can’t be funded without a written resolution from the affected tribe or tribes providing consent.

SB5357

SB5357 – Appropriations for matching grants from the Federal broadband infrastructure program to increase broadband access in rural and distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Honeyford (R; 15th District; Eastern Yakima County)
Current status – Dead
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means; had a hearing, February 11th; replaced by a substitute removing the specified appropriation and voted out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules February 18th, amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 5th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on the Capital Budget. Had a hearing March 16th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Floor Amendment –

The amendment requires the Statewide Broadband Office to develop a process for evaluating projects that supports coordination with the Public Works Board and the Community Economic Revitalization Board to maximize opportunities to leverage federal funding and ensure efficient state investments in broadband infrastructure; however, those other agencies would no longer be part of spending the funds for administering the program.

Substitute –
The substitute removed the specified $200 million appropriation.

Original Bill –
The bill would establish a competitive grant program to increase broadband access in rural and distressed areas of the state, funding it from the state building construction account this biennium with as much of $200 million as was needed to provide the matching required for grants from the Federal broadband infrastructure program. (3% of the money could also be used for administrative expenses.) Grants would be open to a range of public and private entities.

SB5363

SB5363 – Requires retail bills to compare actual electricity costs to the costs if power came exclusively from least-cost resources, and to imply the difference is due to wind and solar subsidies. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Schoesler (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Dead bill; never heard.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1327 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require retail electricity bills to provide a prominent graphic comparing the actual bill total with an estimated total for that customer’s rate class if the utility had only used power from least-cost resources. An accompanying footnote would be required to read, “Direct subsidies to generators of renewable power from wind and solar projects are paid for by Washington taxpayers. Purchase of this subsidized renewable power from wind and solar projects by electric utilities is mandated by the state Energy Independence Act … and by the state Clean Energy Transformation Act …..”

SB5295

SB5295 – Multiyear and performance based rate setting for gas and electrical utilities; expanded assistance for low-income customers and vulnerable populations; and supporting energy conservation measures in rental housing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; NW Seattle) (Co-sponsor Short – R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 27th, replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker and passed by the Senate March 5th.  Senate concurred in the House’s changes April 15th.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 16th; amended and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Rules; amended on the floor and passed by the House April 7th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Representative Shewmake’s HB1125 had nearly identical provisions for efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties, without the required reporting on the results every two years. It’s dead for this session.

Summary –
House floor amendment –
This simply required utilities to propose grants and other assistance programs for low income customers as well as discount rates for them to the UTC for review.

House committee amendments –
One broadened the declarations of State policy about providing gas and electrical services to be declarations about energy services. One requires private gas and electrical companies to propose discount rates for low income customers, to be approved or modified by the UTC. One requires them to defer all revenues more than 0.5% above their approved rate of return for refunds to customers or allocation by the commission; requires, rather than authorizes them, to enter financial assistance agreements when requested with organizations that represent broad customer interests in regulatory proceedings; and specifies a number of other things about such agreements that are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment.

Senate Striker –
The prime sponsor’s striker authorizes the UTC to deal with multi-year rate plan proposals rather than requiring that; requires it to set performance measures in approving such plans rather than allowing that; and makes a number of other changes, mostly to the low-income assistance provisions, that are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes, at the beginning of the substitute, which removes the provision allowing utilities to invest in rental energy conservation in lieu of contributions from the owner and makes quite a few adjustments to the rules. (The amendment was minor.)

Original Bill –
The bill would replace the current processes for setting the rates of regulated private gas and electric utilities with multiyear rate plans, to be reviewed and approved by the UTC if it finds they’re lawful, establish just and reasonable rates, are supported by appropriate evidence, and are consistent with the public interest. They could cover up to four years, and are to include a budget, a forecast, a clean energy implementation plan, a price index, and a fixed escalation rate. The Commission’s to approve rates for each year of the plan in advance, and they’d stay as set if actual rates of return remained within 0.5% of those in the plan.  If a company’s quarterly reports demonstrated its actual rate of return was falling more than 0.5% below the approved rate in the plan, it could apply to modify the plan, defer some costs, adopt a new multi-year plan, or start a new general rate setting procedure altogether. (However, the bill also says the UTC can establish procedures to ensure that rates remain just and reasonable during the course of the plan. Presumably, those would deal with rates of return rising more than 0.5% above approved rates.) A company could defer new costs associated with complying with governmental policies or plans that didn’t exist when the plan was developed, without owing interest, and apply to recover those in its next rate case or multi-year plan.

Utilities may ask the UTC to approve proposals for recovering up to 5% of their approved revenue for the first year of a plan from ratepayers to pay for expanding the affordability of services to customers including bill assistance programs or special rates for low-income residential customers. The bill expands utilities’ authority to provide discounts to low income customers to include discounts for customers receiving public benefit assistance that provides cash, housing, food, or medical care including temporary assistance for needy families; supplemental security income; emergency assistance to elders, disabled, and children; supplemental nutrition assistance  program benefits; public housing; federally subsidized or state-subsidized housing; the low-income home energy assistance program; veterans’ benefits. They’re to send out information about the available ways for customers to reduce their bills twice a year, and do substantial outreach to inform customers of these particular discounts, including enrolling them as the default if they’re on a list of the recipients of qualifying public benefits and providing them with information about the program.

The bill authorizes the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow private electric and gas utilities to invest in energy efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties that wouldn’t currently be cost-effective unless the owner paid part of the initial cost. They’re to be allowed a return on these investments over a period of time that reduces the customer’s energy burden and minimizes the impact on the customer’s bill, while incentivizing the company to make them. These investments are to be secured by the meter, and repaid over time through an “energy services charge” on the regular bills paid by tenants or the building owner. (If the owner pays the bill, there has to be a site-specific services agreement; if tenants pay it, the owner has to provide them with at least thirty days notice before work on the project begins, including a description of the work being done and the expected benefits of the conservation measures.) Utilities must prioritize these investments to reduce the energy burden of low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and customers in highly impacted communities. They must report on the performance of these conservation measures to the UTC and the WSU Energy Office every two two years, using smart meter data, and including an estimate of the annual energy savings using normalized weather conditions along with any available supporting data; an estimate of savings on energy costs; and an updated estimate of the payback period.

Utilities may agree to assist organizations representing the interests of customers belonging to a highly impacted community or in vulnerable populations with the costs of participating in the UTC’s regulatory proceedings, and may recover the costs in rates. (More than one utility and more than one organization might participate in one of these agreements.) They’d have to be approved by the UTC, which could determine how they were administered, including how much financial assistance might be provided; how it was distributed, and how it was to be recovered in rates.

SB5308

SB5308 – Removes the additional $75 transportation electrification fee on hybrids and plug-in vehicles that travel less than 30 miles on the battery.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast WA)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently, plug-in vehicles that go more than 30 miles on the battery pay a $150 in fees to make up for miles they’re driving without paying gas taxes, and a $75 transportation electrification fee to support developing charging infrastructure, developing greener transit, and supporting clean alternative fuel infrastructure. Hybrids and plug-in vehicles that go less than 30 miles on a full charge only pay the $75 fee, and the bill would eliminate that charge.

(Incidentally, after 2025, the revenue from this fee is to be shifted into the regular motor vehicle account, where the gas taxes go…)

SB5286

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

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

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

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

SB5154 – 2021

SB5154 – Prohibits ports from enforcing emission standards for trucks operating on their property, and from prohibiting old trucks until July 2036. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsor Jeff Wilson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 21st.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill prohibits port districts from penalizing or discriminating against the operation on port district property of trucks that don’t meet emissions or related engine standards.  Until July 1st, 2036, it wouldn’t allow them to prohibit any trucks older than the 2007 models from operating on district property (For example, trucks that are now 14 years old would be able to keep running until they were 30 years old; trucks from 1995 that are now 25 years old could run until they were 41 years old, even if ports wanted to prohibit them.)

SB5256

SB5256 – Requires ending State registration of fossil fuel cars and light vehicles, starting with 2030 models. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Snohomish County) (Co-sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing (Dead)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1204 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
Coltura has a fact sheet about the bill.

Summary –
The bill requires the State Transportation Commission to develop a plan and implement regulations to require that all new vehicles beginning with model year 2030 must be electric to be registered in Washington. (Model-year 2029 and earlier vehicles, emergency vehicles, vehicles over 10,000 pounds, and those bought by residents of another state before becoming Washington residents are not affected.)

The plan’s to be completed by September 1st, 2023, in consultation with other agencies, and must include:
1. The predicted number of new and used electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles registered in Washington each year during a transition period from 2022 through 2040;
2. The charging infrastructure needed to provide convenient fueling of electric vehicles during that period, and predicted yearly investments required to build it;
3. An analysis of the generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades and build-out required to provide fueling for those electric vehicles, and the predicted yearly and aggregate investment required to implement those upgrades;
4. An analysis of how the grid can be optimized through smart charging and discharging of electric vehicles during that period;
5. An analysis of yearly job gains and losses during the period as a result of the requirement, as well as its effect on state transportation revenues
6. Recommendations on alternative sources of revenues to replace gas tax revenues;
7. An analysis of the requirement’s impacts on equity, especially on disadvantaged and low-income communities, communities of color, and rural communities, and strategies for maximizing equity in implementing the requirement; and
8. A just transition strategy for those negatively impacted by it.

The commission’s to conduct a series of public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan, especially including those from disadvantaged and low-income communities. The plan’s to be updated in 2025 and 2028, and the Commission’s to submit copies each time to the Legislature’s transportation committees.

Before January 1, 2025, the commission, in coordination with appropriate agencies, is to adopt regulations consistent with the scoping plan, requiring that all passenger and light duty vehicles of model year 2030 or later sold or registered in Washington state are electric. The regulations are to be designed to maximize equity and total benefits to the state while minimizing costs and risks, minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying with them, and rely on the best available economic and scientific information and its assessment of existing and projected technological capabilities.

The commission’s to consult with the UTC, investor-owned utilities, public utility districts, and municipal utilities in the development of the regulations insofar as they affect electricity providers, in order to to minimize duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.

SB5219

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

SB5206

SB5206 – Excludes solar projects on agricultural land from the expedited process for siting energy projects. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology  January 27th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently, the developer of an energy facility or an alternative energy resource facility may apply for expedited processing of the application by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, and the Council may provide that, if it finds that the environmental impact of the proposed facility isn’t significant or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level; and that the project’s consistent and in compliance with city, county,or regional land use plans or zoning.

The bill would make solar projects on agricultural lands with long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products ineligible for expedited processing, in order to allow for a comprehensive review of local concerns if there are any.

SB5192

SB5192 – Requires signage, multiple payment methods, and interoperability for publicly available EV chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 26th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee February 11th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there March 15. Amended and passed out of committee March 18th. Referred to Rules, and passed the Senate April 6th. Senate concurred in the House’s changes April 22nd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing April 19th, replaced by a striker and voted out of committee April 20th. Referred to Rules, and passed the House April 21st. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
The NW Energy Coalition maintains a web page supporting and tracking the bill.

Comments –
I’m not sure how expansive the requirement to “facilitate means for conducting a charging session in languages other than English, and means for facilitating charging sessions for consumers who are unbanked, underbanked, or low-moderate income” is, or how one would meet it for everyone in those categories.

Summary –

Striker in House Appropriations –
This made some minor changes which are summarized at the end of it.

Amendments in Ways and Means –
The amendments created a ten year exemption from the requirements for the testing and inspection of weights and measuring equipment for equipment in place before 2024, exempted chargers at auto dealers, and made some other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the amended version.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill requires publicly available EV chargers to display a specified set of information, and to accept multiple payment methods in accordance with rules created by the Department of Agriculture. It requires the hardware, software, and communications network of a provider of public charging systems to be able to interact with, exchange, and make use of information, including payment information, from a different provider’s systems.

It applies to chargers that a lessee or property owner designates as available only to customers or visitors of a business; or ones that any member of the public can drive to in a parking garage or gated facility, with or without an entrance fee. (However, chargers that are clearly marked as available for use by the general public at no cost at all times are exempt from the bill’s requirements. So are free chargers are clearly marked as reserved for workplace use by workers or contracted employees, and free chargers reserved for residents, tenants, visitors, or employees of a private residence; a development with individually owned units in addition to shared facilities and common areas; or a residential building adjacent to a private residence.) The director of the Department of Agriculture is authorized to expand the requirements to other chargers to benefit the public and protect consumers.

Providers of service at covered chargers are required to clearly mark and disclose all the charges, fees, and costs associated with a charging session at each charger or location at which users can pay for and begin a session. They must include any fee for use of the parking space; any nonmember plug-in fee; the price to refuel in dollars/kWh or megajoule; any potential changes in that price due to variable pricing; and any other fees charged for a charging session. If a session or portion of one is offered at no cost, that must be disclosed.

In consultation with Commerce and the UTC, the department must adopt and update rules requiring charger providers to make multiple payment methods available at all publicly available Level 2 and DC fast chargers. The rules must include deadlines for compliance for previously installed and future chargers, and payment methods that must be available at a minimum. (These must be convenient and reasonably support access; they can include a credit card reader, a toll-free number on each charger that allows starting a session and paying whenever the charger’s available for use, or paying using a mobile phone or device.) They must also provide a means for conducting a charging session in languages other than English; a means for facilitating sessions for consumers who are unbanked, underbanked, or have low to moderate incomes. Providers can’t require a subscription, membership, account or a minimum balance to begin charging; if they sell or intend to sell consumer data from associated with charging, they have to disclose all the types of data they’re collecting to users.

By July 1st, 2022, the department is to require all providers to meet and maintain interoperability standards for these chargers that align with national and international best practices or standards. These should allow the hardware, systems, software, or a communications network provided by one party, vendor, or service provider to interact with exchange and make use of information, including payment information, with the corresponding systems provided by a different one. Starting July 1, 2022, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Agriculture and the UTC, is to adopt and update rules establishing inventory, payment, and reliability reporting requirements for providers. These must include requirements for collecting and submitting information including provider contact information; certification for each charger model operated in Washington; an inventory of active, retired, decommissioned, or removed charging equipment in the state; annual reports detailing charging equipment payment information; and specifications for reporting data to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Alternative Fuels Data Center.

The Department of Agriculture is allowed to establish a reasonable registration fee for electric vehicle supply equipment to cover the costs associated with enforcing the bill’s requirements. It must adopt, and amend as needed, rules for metering the sale of electricity as a vehicle fuel consistent with the the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s handbooks, except where modified to achieve state objectives. (These may not take effect before January 1, 2024.) It adds penalties of $200 for a first violation, and $500 for each subsequent one, on errors in the metering of electricity use by charging equipment that benefit its owners.

SB5174

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5168 – 2021

SB5168 – Requiring Ecology to provide advisory opinions on whether proposed projects will meet the Clean Energy Transformation Act’s requirements for greenhouse gas neutral electricity. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast WA)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 27th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
As I read the bill, getting an opinion from Commerce advising that a project will comply with the requirements guarantees that it will (assuming it’s built according to the proposal), regardless of what other authorities might have concluded. If a developer hasn’t asked for an opinion, then the other authorities retain their power to make that decision. (I think it implies that one of them might conclude a project did comply, even if Commerce had been asked for an opinion and hadn’t been willing to issue one saying it would.)

Summary –
Between 2030 and 2045, the Clean Energy Transformation Act requires all retail sales of electricity in the state to be “greenhouse gas” neutral. The Act allows utilities to meet this requirement in a number of ways, including supplying power from renewable and non-emitting resources, and investing in energy transformation projects that meet requirements the Act specifies and criteria established by the Department of Ecology. (Starting in 2045, they can only supply retail power from non-emitting and renewable sources.)

The bill requires the Department of Commerce to provide utilities and developers with a legal analysis of a proposed generation or energy transformation project on the basis of an application with information that “accurately describes the proposed project”, and an advisory opinion about whether it would count the Act’s requirements for greenhouse gas neutrality. Commerce is to solicit and consider comments from interested parties in the process; it’s to create rules for the process, and can charge a fee to cover its administrative expenses.

The bill says any project that an advisory opinion states will qualify, and that is built or acquired as proposed, must be considered as complying with those requirements for resources by any agency authorized to enforce them.

It also says that nothing in it preempts the authority of any governing board of a consumer-owned utility, the UTC, or any agency authorized to enforce these requirements from making a determination, independent of this process, on whether a proposed project qualifies to meet the requirements.

SB5141

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental justice analyses –

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

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

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

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

Budgets and funding –

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

Environmental justice implementation plans –

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

The Omsbuds –

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

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

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

SB5126

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cap and Trade Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5081

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

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

SB5093 – 2021

SB5093 – Reducing emissions from natural gas space and water heating in residential and commercial buildings. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-sponsor Slatter – D) (By request of the Governor)
Current status – Assigned to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Dead bill; never had a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
This is a companion bill to HB1084.

Summary –
The bill moves the date by which updates to the state energy code must achieve a 70% reduction in energy use from the 2006 levels forward by four years, to 2027, makes 70% a minimum, and requires eliminating on-site fossil fuel combustion for space and water heating and minimizing their indirect emissions. It removes the Code Council’s authority to defer implementation of the reductions.

It makes the State Energy Code for residential construction the minimum for local codes, rather than the maximum and the minimum, authorizing local jurisdictions to require greater reductions than the state code does. It shifts the standards the Council’s to follow from constructing increasingly “energy efficient” homes to increasingly “low-emission energy efficient homes”, and from “helping to achieve” construction of zero-fossil fuel buildings by 2031, to actually achieving that by 2030.

It requires the Department of Commerce to create energy management and benchmarking requirements for non-residential buildings, hotels, motels and dormitories between 50,000 and 10,000 sq ft. along with provisions for reporting and penalties. (Since this is modeled on some of the current requirements for buildings over 50,000 sq ft in HB1257, I think this is supposed to mean that they have to have an energy management plan in addition to benchmarking.) By October 1, 2027, Commerce is to recommend energy performance standards for these buildings to the Legislature, and it’s to adopt rules starting in 2029 that cover them under the state’s energy performance standard .

The bill amends the language of the Legislature’s current policy declarations about gas and electric services, replacing “natural gas and electricity services” with “energy services”, and adding language about maintaining affordability, reducing the use of fossil fuels in space and water heating, and advancing the use of high efficiency electric equipment.

It removes gas companies from the requirements about supplying service to all reasonably entitled applicants, requires them to charge new customers the full costs of any pipeline extensions to provide them with service, and prohibits companies from expanding their service areas. It requires each company to develop comprehensive transition plans approved by the UTC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of natural gas, evaluating cost and life-cycle emissions associated with alternative pipeline fuels and electric alternatives, and identifying specific actions to achieve their share of the reductions needed to reach the state’s targets at the lowest reasonable cost for customers. They must evaluate and compare multiple strategies to identify the lowest reasonable cost combination of strategies to achieve the reductions, including evaluating measures to reduce buildings’ thermal loads; converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; permanently decommissioning portions of their distribution systems; incorporating renewable natural gas, hydrogen, or other low-carbon fuels in their systems; and expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs. (Their cost analysis must include at least resource costs, market-volatility risks, demand-side resource uncertainties, the risks imposed on ratepayers, resource effect on system operations, public policies regarding resource preference adopted by the state or the federal government, and the need for security of energy supply. It’s to include the cost of risks associated with environmental effects, including the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions calculated according to the estimates of the Federal Interagency Working Group using a 2.5% discount rate, which is currently about $78/tonne.)

They have to including an estimate of the costs and benefits that will accrue to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities; ensure that the transition does not disproportionately impact low-income households or overburdened communities; ensure those get an equitable share of the energy and nonenergy benefits of utility programs and infrastructure, including the reduction of burdens and improvement of indoor air quality; and provide for layoff avoidance strategies and a specified list of high labor standards.

A plan must also consider recommendations from the latest version of the state energy strategy and input from any electric utilities operating in the company’s service area, as well as identifying any changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with actions in the plan. Plans may include authorized projects to reduce the emissions from non-hazardous leaks.

The UTC is to establish a climate protection surcharge per therm of natural gas use, which isn’t to exceed the social cost of carbon. (PSE’s emissions are currently 14.6 lbs/therm; at that rate, the current cap on the surcharge would be about $0.50/therm, and the maximum surcharge would work out to something like $270 a year on the bill for a medium sized gas home built to the 2018 code.) The money would be spent by the utilities, subject to the UTC’s approval, on implementing the transition plans, assistance to low-income customers, programs to avoid worker dislocation, and ensuring the transition doesn’t unduly burden vulnerable populations or overburdened communities. (These projects and activities would also have to meet high labor standards and maximize local workers’ and diverse businesses’ access to associated economic benefits.)

Each gas utility would be required to develop an integrated resource plan for meeting system demand with the least cost mix of energy supply, including electrification and conservation. These would be informally reviewed by the UTC and it would be required to “consider the information reported in them” when it evaluates the performance of the utility in setting rate and other proceedings. They must include:
1. A range of forecasts of future demand in firm and interruptible markets for each customer class , examining the effect of economic forces on consumption and forecasting changes in end uses;
2. Assessments of commercially available conservation, including load management, and of policies and programs needed to obtain it; of conventional and commercially available nonconventional gas supplies; of the impact of the electrification of the building sector; of opportunities for using company-owned or contracted storage; and of pipeline transmission capability and reliability.
3. A comparative evaluation of the cost effectiveness of gas purchasing strategies, electrification, storage options, delivery resources, and improvements in conservation
4. The integration of demand forecasts and resource evaluations into a plan for at least the next ten years, describing the mix of resources to meet current and future needs at the lowest reasonable cost to the utility and its ratepayers;
5. A short-term plan outlining the specific actions to be taken by the utility in implementing the long-range plan during the following three years; and a report on the utility’s progress towards implementing the recommendations in its previous plan;
6. An evaluation of disparities in current conditions for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations in the utility’s service territory based on an assessment of current economic, public health, and environmental conditions ; and,
7. An evaluation of disparities in utility programs and infrastructure for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations based on an assessment of the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens (including those outside the utility’s service territory) associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs.

The bill authorizes a municipal utility or PUD to adopt a beneficial electrification plan if it finds, after input from gas companies in its service area, that outreach and investment in electrifying homes and buildings will provide it with net benefits. Plans must include consideration of system benefits as well as revenues from increased retail loads, distribution system efficiencies resulting from demand response, dynamic pricing, or other load management opportunities, system reliability improvements, indoor and outdoor air quality benefits, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. They must also consider the costs of additional electricity (which must have lower emissions than using natural gas would); any increased distribution system, management, or equipment costs needed to meet increased loads, and the costs of incentives or programs to get customers to switch. They are to identify options and program schedules for the electrification of various energy end-uses or other energy sources. These utilities are authorized to invest in activities that their plans show provide net benefits and quantifiable verifiable emissions reductions, including promoting electrical equipment, advertising beneficial electrification programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates. They’re to prioritize incentives and services for highly impacted communities in their service areas. (They may also promote and advertise emissions reductions programs to their ratepayers.)

The bill requires the Department of Commerce to create a statewide program to provide coordination and technical assistance promoting the adoption of high-efficiency heat pump equipment for space and water heating to utilities, housing providers, builders, and the public; develop and distribute educational materials about benefits; develop strategies to ensure that the program serves low-income households, vulnerable populations, and overburdened communities; support the development of a workforce training and certification program for the installation of equipment in coordination with the state board for community and technical colleges, and develop and implement an incentive program for residential and commercial building owners that convert from a fossil fuel system to a heat pump. (Incentives must be limited to projects installed by certified installers; the department may consider higher payments for those with low or moderate incomes, residents or owners of rental properties, and other populations who may be overburdened; and projects or activities funded through them have to meet and be reviewed for specified high labor standards, and maximize access to economic benefits for local workers and diverse businesses.)

The bill also removes the provision that currently prohibits Commerce from participating as an intervenor in utility regulatory proceedings.

SB5026

SB5026 – Authorizes ports’ purchases of zero and near zero emissions cargo handling equipment; prohibits purchase of automated container cargo handling equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsor Cleveland – D)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Transportation January 25th; referred to the Committee on Housing and Local Government and had a hearing there on Tuesday, February 2nd. Passed out of committee February 10th, and referred to Rules. Passed out of Rules, amended on the floor and passed by the Senate February 23rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Local Government. Had a hearing on March 10th, and passed out of committee March 12th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill authorizes purchases of zero and near zero emissions cargo handling equipment for the use of a port district, a port development authority, or its tenants or lessees. It also prohibits the purchase of any container cargo handling equipment that’s remotely operated or remotely monitored. (I think the floor amendment in the Senate would make the bill expire ten years from now, at the end of 2031, though the staff summary only says it expires the prohibition on fully automated equipment.)

SB5022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details –

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

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

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

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

SB5008

SB5008 – Revives B&O tax exemption for Bonneville funds utilities spend on low-income bill assistance or weatherization.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Robinson (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Short)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 21st; referred to Ways & Means. Had a hearing there on March 11th, and passed out of committee March 18th. Referred to Rules March 19th, and passed the Senate April 11th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing April 16th; referred to Rules, and passed the House unanimously April 22nd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
An identical measure (HB2505) was sponsored in 2020 by Senator Robinson (who was then a Representative). It passed both houses unanimously and was signed by the Governor, then vetoed right afterwards as the pandemic’s potential effects on the budget became clear.

A similar exemption was created by the Legislature in 2010 and expired in June 2015. In the 2018 session, Senator Hobbs’s SB6323 proposed reviving it through 2029, but that 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 an exemption from the B&O tax for funds utilities receive from the Bonneville Power Administration as credits against contracts, for energy conservation, or for 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. (The exemption would expire in ten years, though the bill declares the intention of making it permanent.)

SB5007

SB5007 – Uses savings from suspending conservation and planning requirements for utilities to fund customer assistance and write off unpaid bills.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van de Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim)
Current status – Assigned to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
In the four years from 2022 through 2026, the bill would relieve utilities getting at least 80% of their power from clean sources from their obligations to create integrated resource plans and report on their compliance with I-937’s requirements.  If a utility’s costs for customer bill assistance, losses from unpaid bills, and conservation in the four years from 2020 through 2024 met or exceeded the level of its expenditures on energy conservation in 2018 and 2019, the bill would count that as meeting its obligation to pursue all cost-effective energy conservation.

The bill says any utility savings from these changes must be used for “financial support to customers that have been economically impacted by COVID-19”, but doesn’t provide any details about how these are supposed to be determined or equitably distributed. (As noted above, it specifies that a utility’s losses from any unpaid customer bills are to be treated as “indirect customer assistance”.)

SB5000

SB5000 – Creates a different sales and use tax exemption for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hawkins (R; 19th District; Wenatchee) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 21st; had a hearing on a substitute bill in the Senate Committee on Transportation January 26th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of Transportation February 11th; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 18th. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate March 3rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Finance. Had a hearing March 15th, and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing March 29th and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules. Passed the House April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The State’s current tax exemptions for clean alternative fuel vehicles already cover the same vehicles. However, the current exemptions will step down on August 1st, 2021; again two years later; and then end July 31st, 2025. This bill’s exemptions might last through 2030, if its caps at 650 new and 650 used vehicles aren’t reached before then. (The bill specifies that you can’t claim both its exemptions and the current ones.) During the overlap, which exemptions are more generous may depend on the cost of the sale or lease, and which period it occurs in; I haven’t tried to work through the various possibilities.

The program is to be funded by transfers from the electric vehicle account established in RCW 46.17.324, which has received a $75 piece of the EV registration fees since October 2019. (That fee will currently expire in 2025, five years before the expiration of this pilot program, but I don’t know how much money may have accumulated in the account.)

Summary –
Amendments in Ways and Means –
One allowed PUDs to produce renewable hydrogen from non-emitting sources (like nuclear) as well as from renewable resources; the second one removed the feasibility study.

Substitute –
The substitute adds a study of the feasibility of converting public fleet vehicles to hydrogen fuel cell technology including infrastructure needs, manufacturing capabilities, estimated price differences and total cost of ownership comparisons for diesel, electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; and recommendations on how to cost-effectively deploy and operate fuel cell technology. The 2nd substitute, by Senator Hobbs, made the WSDOT study of the feasibility of converting pubic fleets to hydrogen dependent on specific funding for that being included in the transportation budget,

Original bill –
Establishes a pilot program exempting the sale or lease of fuel cell passenger cars, light duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles from 50% of the State’s sales and use taxes. Completely exempts up to $16,000 of the cost of the sale or lease of a used fuel cell vehicle from these taxes.

The exemptions would be available for up to eight years, beginning on July 1, 2022; however, the exemptions for new vehicles and for used ones would each be capped at 650 transactions. (There are reporting requirements, and provisions for an analysis of the program’s effectiveness in promoting the technology by the joint legislative audit and review committee.)