Category Archives: Senate Bills 2022

SB5974

SB5974 – 2022 Transportation Package.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Southwest Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsor Saldaña – D)
Current status – Sent to conference  committee; its report was adopted by both houses March 10. Relative to the amended House striker, the final version restores the specification that $500 million in preservation and maintenance funding is for stormwater projects with an emphasis on green infrastructure. It no longer specifies an intent to fund projects according to the LEAP document.  It drops the 6¢/gallon tax on fuel exported to other states, and transfers $57 million a year to the Move Ahead WA flexible fund from the general fund; allows using the Public Works Assistance account for Move Ahead WA projects; and transfers $57 million a year from that account to Move Ahead WA. It restores the inflation adjustment to the border fuel tax, and drops the authorization for voters to approve an increase of up to 2% in their local gas utility tax, and the tax sticker on fuel pumps. It allows extending the local transit benefit tax with a vote more than once. It shifts creating the rail crossing grant program to the Department of Transportation, and limits regional mobility grant awards to transit authorities with free fares for riders 18 and under. It requires Transportation to estimate and report on the cap and invest program credits to be generated as a result of Move Ahead WA projects, and to make recommendations on the most effective ways to invest those to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize transportation. It specifies that completing Connecting Washington projects is a legislative priority, and recognizes that “the application of practical design” during project design may produce cost saving, but it specifies various requirements for legislative oversight of proposed changes. It requires reporting on estimated savings as a result of practical design, and transfers those and some other possible project savings to the transportation future funding program to be split evenly between accelerating current Connecting Washington projects and funding new ones.
Next step would be – To the Governor
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2119 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed
Referred to Transportation February 17th; then passed to Rules without a hearing on February 25th. The bill was amended on the floor by Representative Fey to eliminate the 6% tax on fuel exported to other states, to partially replace the expected revenue by transferring $100 million a year for the next 15 years from the Public Works Assistance Account to the Move Ahead WA program, resulting in a estimated net reduction of roughly $500 million in funding for the program over that period, and to drop the specification that $500 million of the preservation and maintenance funding is for enhancing stormwater runoff treatment with an emphasis on green infrastructure retrofits. His striker also defines biofuels in the Fuel Tax Act as those with life cycle emissions at least 40% below those of the petroleum products they’re replacing; drops the authorization for local increases of up to 2% on utility taxes to fund transportation; drops the required railway crossing grant program; adds some environmental justice provisions; drops the increased license plate fee from $50 to $40 for used cars; and has the Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council develop of a public and private outreach plan and create an industry electric vehicle advisory committee. Other amendments have the Department of Agriculture produce and distribute a sticker required on motor fuel pumps with information on Federal and State tax rate, and remove the inflation adjustment from the provision authorizing jurisdictions within ten miles of the border to raise the border fuel tax from 1¢/gallon to 2¢.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Transportation Committee Thursday February 10th at 10:00 AM; continued February 11th at 8:00 AM. Referred to Rules. Amended by the prime sponsor to adjust the bill in a number of small ways; and by others to declare the State’s intention to fully fund the ferry vessel and terminal electrification program in accordance with the 2040 Long Range Plan and the need to replace vessels on a biennial basis; and to delay the imposition of the tax on imported fuel for five months, reducing expected revenues by $51.2 million. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to eliminate telephone businesses from the optional additional 2% tax; to specify that $500 million of the preservation and maintenance funding under LEAP 2 is to go to enhance stormwater runoff treatment with an emphasis on green infrastructure retrofits; to create a grant program for projects that eliminate at grade highway-rail crossings; to create a Department of Transportation program focused on safety improvements to prevent lane departures in dangerous areas; and to make a couple of other minor changes. Passed by the Senate February 15th.

Comments –
The Washington State Wire has a summary of the anticipated budget allocations plus a little political commentary.

Summary –
The bill would specify that transportation appropriations from the carbon emissions reduction account which is funded by revenue from the cap and invest program can only by used for active transportation, transit programs and projects, alternative fuel and electrification, ferries, and rail. It would declare the Legislature’s intention to use this money for the activities identified in the LEAP Transportation Document. 24% of that money would be dedicated to active transportation and 56% to transit. The bill would expand the cap and invest program’s requirement for environmental justice assessments, for reporting to the Environmental Justice Council, and for directing specified percentages of funding to vulnerable populations to include these investments.

It replaces the section of  the Clean Fuels Act about Commerce’s creation of implementation rules with a new section, which simply deletes the subsection of the original act that the Governor vetoed.

The bill would apply the fuel tax to direct deliveries and bulk transfers to any destination with the United States, including tribal lands, but then it would provide credits against that, resulting in a tax of 6¢ a gallon, and no tax if the state to which the fuel went imposed a higher tax on it than Washington’s. (It would extend the current provisions that allow claiming a credit against the tax for fuel used in particular activities like urban transit to those uses of fuel exported to other parts of the country.) It would raise the tax on aircraft fuel sold, delivered or used in the state from 11¢/gallon to 18¢/gallon.

The bill would create a Move Ahead Washington account and a Move Ahead Washington flexible account which could only be spent on projects, programs, or activities assigned to those accounts in an omnibus transportation appropriations act. The bill would raise the basic license plate fee from $10 to $50, raise the motorcycle fee from $4 to $20, raise the dealer permit fee from $15 to $40, and raise license replacement fees; most of that additional revenue, the 25¢ license plate technology fee, and the 50¢ license service fee would be directed to the Move Ahead Washington account. It would raise the enhanced license fee from $32 to $56; add $2 to the fee for abstracts of driving records (and $4 after July 1st 2029); raise the fee for replacing driving identification to change or correct material information from $10 to $20; and deposit the additional revenue in the Move Ahead Washington flexible account. It would raise the documentary service fee that dealers can charge to cover their administrative costs in concluding sales and leases, which include licensing and registration fees and other agency fees, from $150 to $200.

The bill would direct $31 million a year from the general fund to the Move Ahead Washington flexible account from 2026 through 2038. (The bill says this represents the estimated state sales and use tax generated from the new transportation projects and activities it would fund.)

It would fund the sales and use tax reductions for the sale or lease of plug-in and fuel cell vehicles from the general fund rather than the electric vehicle account. It would fund the credits against the B&O tax and the public utility tax for purchases of alternative fuel vehicles over 14,000 pounds, for alternative fuel infrastructure, and for employers’ investments in financial commute trip reduction incentives from the general fund rather than the multimodal transportation account. It would fund the exemptions from the sales and use taxes for the sales of batteries and fuel cells for vehicles, and for work on them, from the general fund, and not the multimodal account.

The bill would raise the maximum amount of the excise tax voters in border area jurisdictions could decide to impose on the retail sale of fuel for the purpose of street maintenance and construction from 1¢/gallon to 2¢/gallon, adjusted for inflation going forward. It would allow cities and towns to impose an additional tax of up to 2% on natural gas, steam energy, or telephone businesses. (This would not require a vote of the people as I read the bill). The revenue would have to be used for improvements in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, the city, or the county, but might include public transportation and transportation demand management projects. It would allow transportation benefit districts to increase an existing sales or use tax for special transportation needs from 2/10 of one percent to up a maximum of 3/10 of one percent. It would allow the governing board of a district that included all the territory of the jurisdiction establishing it to impose a new local sales and use tax of up to 1/10 of one percent, and to vote to extend it for up to ten years.

The bill would make having all new vehicles sold, purchased, or registered in Washington be electric beginning with the 2030 models a target for the State, and would require the Department of Commerce to create “a scoping plan” for achieving that.

It would have Commerce establish a competitive bus and bus facilities grant program to provide funds to transit authorities for the replacement, expansion, rehabilitation, and purchase of transit rolling stock (including ferries and vans); the construction, modification, or rehabilitation of facilities; and the retrofitting of rolling stock and facilities to adapt to technological change or innovation. It would be required to incorporate environmental justice principles and geographic diversity into the selection process, to exclude fuel type as a factor, to limit any single grantee to a maximum of 35% of the funding in a biennium, and to establish an advisory committee to carry out the requirements for the program, including assisting with establishing the grant criteria.

The bill would establish a Connecting Communities program at Commerce to improve active transportation connectivity in communities by providing safe, continuous routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonvehicle users carrying out daily activities; mitigating for the health, safety, and access impacts of transportation infrastructure that bisects communities and creates obstacles in the local active transportation network; investing in greenways providing protected routes for nonvehicular users; and facilitating the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities to improve the connectivity and safety of that network. The program would propose projects to the Legislature considering
(a) Access to a transit facility, community facility, commercial center, or community-identified assets;
(b) The use of minority and women-owned businesses and community-based organizations in planning, community engagement, design, and construction of projects;
(c) Whether they will serve overburdened communities, vulnerable populations, low income households, and people with disabilities;
(d) Environmental health disparities;
(e) Location on or adjacent to tribal lands or locations providing essential services to tribal members;
(f) Crash experience involving pedestrians and bicyclists; and
(g) Identified need by a community.
Commerce would report to the transportation committees of the Legislature in December of each year for five years on selected projects for funding and on the status of previously funded projects.

The bill would require state transportation projects starting design on or after July 1, 2022, and costing $500,000 or more to identify locations on State rights-of-way that don’t have a complete Americans with Disabilities Act accessible sidewalk or shared-use path, that don’t have a bike lane or adjacent parallel trail or shared-use path, that have such facilities on a state route within a population center with a posted speed over 30 mph and no buffer or physical separation from vehicular traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists, and/or a design that hampers the ability of motorists to see a crossing pedestrian with sufficient time to stop. The Department would be required to consult local jurisdictions about existing and planned active transportation connections along or across those locations; and to identify connections to other existing and planned public transportation services; existing and planned facilities that connect to the location; and the potential use of speed management techniques to minimize crash risks. DOT would be required to lower the speed limit with appropriate roadway design and operations where this approach aligns with local plans or ordinances, particularly in contexts that present a higher possibility of serious crashes. It would have to plan, design, and construct facilities providing context-sensitive solutions needed to integrate the state route into the local network and contributing to connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people accessing public transportation and other modal connections, including ADA accessible sidewalks or shared-use paths, bike facilities, and crossings .

The bill would have DOT establish two statewide school-based bicycle education grant program, one for elementary and middle school and one for older students, to develop bicycling skills and street safety knowledge. It would be encouraged to consult with the Environmental Justice Council and the Office of Equity in the process. It would  contract with a nonprofit organization with relevant reach and experience, including a statewide footprint and demonstrable experience deploying bicycling and road safety education curriculum via a train the trainer model in schools, for the elementary program, and with a non-profit meeting the same requirements plus experience developing and managing youth-based programming serving youth of color in an after-school and/or community for the junior high and high school program. The elementary program is to identify partner schools according to a long list of equity criteria; provide them with a fleet of bikes; provide a free bike with equipment for participants, and provide in-school bike and pedestrian safety education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and physical education teacher training. The junior high and high school program is to use the equity-based criteria to identify target populations and partner organizations that work with youth from 14 to 18, including schools, community-based organizations, housing authorities, and parks and recreation departments.  It would provide education curriculum, materials, equipment guidance and consultation, and initial instructor/volunteer training, as well as ongoing support to those partners. DOT would report annually to the Legislature’s transportation committees on the programs.

The Department would negotiate with the Oregon Department of Transportation to determine the impacts on ridership, revenue, and policy of eliminating Amtrak Cascades fares for passengers 18 years and younger, and report to the transportation committees on the results and the status of fare policy requests to Amtrak by December 1, 2022. The bill would eliminate ferry fares for these passengers. It would establish a transit support grant program to provide support for operating and capital expenses to transit agencies that maintain or increase their local sales tax authority and have adopted a zero-fare policy for at least passengers 18 and younger. Grants would be prorated according to expenditures for operations; no agency could receive more than 35% of the money; and fuel type could not be a factor in the grant process.

The bill would expand the areas in which speed cameras could be used to include any roadway in a school walk area, public park speed zones, and hospital zones, and would require notification signs for drivers in those zones. It would increase the number of additional cameras that cities with over 195,000 people in a county of over 1.5 million were allowed to install, allowing one for every 10,000 residents in specified areas for cities that have done an equity analysis of livability, accessibility, economics, education, and environmental health, and consider that in their placements. Half of the net revenue from cameras in these new specified zones and the additional cameras authorized for larger cities would go to the State’s Cooper Jones active transportation safety account.

The bill would have the Transportation Commission reevaluate options to improve performance on the Interstate 405 and State Route 167 corridors at least every two years, since it has not met the goal of keeping average vehicle speeds in the express toll lanes above 45 mph at least 90% of the time during peak hours. It would remove the block on spending revenue from various accounts until a compliance path for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed businesses to achieve their share of the state’s emissions reduction through 2050 was in place. (HB1682 is intended to provide that.)

It would create a formal interagency council for coordinating the state’s transportation electrification efforts to ensure it’s leveraging state and federal resources to the best extent possible and to ensure zero emissions incentives, infrastructure, and opportunities are available and accessible to all. This would be led by the Departments of Commerce and Transportation with participation from Ecology; Enterprise Services; the State Efficiency and Environmental Performance Office; Agriculture; Health; the UTC; a representative from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction knowledgeable about student transportation; and other agencies with key roles in electrifying the sector. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees. It would develop a statewide transportation electrification strategy to ensure market and infrastructure readiness for all new vehicle sales; identify EV infrastructure grant related funding opportunities, and coordinate grant funding criteria across agency programs to most efficiently distribute state and federal electric vehicle-related funding in a manner that is most beneficial to the state, and advances best practices. It would recommend additional criteria that could be useful in advancing transportation electrification. It would provide ongoing reports to the Governor and appropriate legislative committees.

SB5967

SB5967 – Imposing a state climate resiliency and mitigation surcharge on large financial institutions financing the global fossil fuel industry.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Rolfes -D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
From 2023 through 2049, the bill would impose a climate resiliency and mitigation surcharge on financial institutions that are members of a consolidated financial group with an annual net income of at least $1 billion, and that are bankers of fossil fuel industries. If fossil fuel financing minus financing for renewable energy were 4% or more of the groups’ total financing for all industries, the rate would be 0.5%; if it were from 2.5% to 4% of total financing the rate would be 0.375%; and if it were less than 2.5% the rate would be 0.25%. However, institutions with a rate of 0.375% would be able to reduce their current 1.2% B&O surcharge to 1.075%, so they’d actually pay an additional 0.25%, and institutions with a rate of 0.25% would be able to reduce their current surcharge to 0.95%, so they’d actually break even. The rate would be adjusted each July, on the basis of published reporting by the Department of Commerce developed from “league tables published by a well-established financial data analytics and services firm that provides financial, economic, and government information covering industry sectors”. The revenue would go into the climate resiliency account along with some of the revenue from the cap and invest bill and could be spent in a variety of ways.

SB5962

SB5962 – Planning for and implementing the conservation or restoration of 30% of Washington’s lands and waters by 2030.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Rolfes, Lovelett- Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources, and Parks.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Director of the Recreation and Conservation Office to adopt a plan to conserve or restore 30% of Washington’s lands and waters by 2030, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Lands, and the directors of the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Commerce, Ecology, and Agriculture. The plan would have a collaborative and inclusive approach to conservation; benefit everyone in the state; support locally led and designed efforts; honor tribal sovereignty and support the priorities of tribal nations; pursue conservation and restoration, use science as a guide; and build on existing tools and strategies, emphasizing flexibility and adaptive approaches. It would be adopted by December 31, 2023, and the Director would publish periodic progress reports on its implementation and progress toward achieving the 30 by 30 goal.

The bill says that “conservation” should be considered to include “not only preservation, but also the restoration as well as the use of lands and waters that are consistent with providing the critical resources that sustain all life on earth”. It also says that lands and waters designated for special protections like parks, marine sanctuaries and “other public lands” should be considered as “conserved” by the plan, as well as additional lands and waters in public or private management that protect important ecosystem functions.

The bill would create a 30 by 30 Commission, chaired by the Director of the Office, to assist in the development of the plan. It would include representatives of the other departments listed above, and the Director would appoint other members, including land conservation and preservation advocates; additional rural landowners; advocates for outdoor recreation and parks, including urban park accessibility; and representatives from disproportionately impacted communities identified by the environmental health disparities map; from forestry, farming, and ranching; and from cities, counties, and special purpose districts. The Director would also invite representatives of Federal agencies managing lands in the state and representatives of tribes to serve on the Commission. The Director and the Commission would have to include a robust public engagement program in the development of the plan, providing equitable community engagement among all segments of the state.

As a foundation for the plan, the director would be required to adopt guidance for including lands and waters considered to currently be in conservation status, and to prepare an assessment of current progress toward meeting the policy, informed by data and maps provided by relevant governments.

The bill would require state agencies to act consistently with this policy goal, and be
guided by the plan in achieving it. (The bill would encourage cities, counties, and special purpose districts to act consistent with it.)

SB5849

SB5849 – Extends the reduced B&O tax rate for manufacturers of solar systems and components for five years; creates 10 year property tax exemption for new industrial or manufacturing facilities in designated areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Referred to House Finance; had a hearing March 7th, and passed out of committee March 8th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th, and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 17th, and passed out of committee February 24th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to remove the provisions for tax exemptions in designated distressed areas. Passed by the Senate March 4th.

Summary –
Currently the law reduces the B&O tax rate for manufacturing solar energy systems or solar grade silicon to 0.275%. (The normal B&O tax rate for manufacturing is 0.484%.) The bill would extend the expiration date of this exemption from July 1st 2027 to July 1st 2032.

(It would also extend a 10 year sales and use tax exemption for new Industrial or manufacturing facilities of any and all kinds in designated areas.)

SB5033

SB5033 – Limiting the property tax exemption for improvements to single-family dwellings to the construction of accessory dwelling units.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsors Saldaña, Das, Nguyen, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in Ways and Means Thursday January 27th at 4:00 PM.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
In the House 2022 –
Reintroduced in Ways and Means January 10th.

Current substitute –
The law currently provides a three year property tax exemption for any physical improvement to single-family dwellings on real property, including constructing an attached or detached ADU, “to the extent that the improvement represents 30% or less of the value of the original structure”. [I think that probably means that up to 30% of the cost is exempt, rather than that you can’t get the exemption if the improvement costs more than 30% of the value of the original structure.] The bill would limit the exemption to the construction of ADUs.

In the House 2021 –
Referred to Housing & Local Government Jan 13th; had a hearing there on the 21st; replaced by a substitute and referred to Ways and Means. Died there.

SB5896

SB5896 – Shifts a report by the Department of Enterprise Services on the use of electricity to recharge vehicles at State Offices from an option to a requirement.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Sefzik (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Lovelett, Carlyle, Liias, Lovick, Saldaña, Frockt, Nobles, Randall, Salomon, Wellman – Ds; Fortunato, Honeyford, Schoesler, Warnick, Lynda Wilson, and Jeff Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 26th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Currently, the Department of Enterprise Services is authorized to report to the Governor and the appropriate committees of the Legislature on the the number of plug-in electric vehicles charging at State offices, and the amount of state-purchased electricity consumed by them. The bill would change this from a report made when the Director deemed it necessary, if the cost were significant, to an annual requirement.

SB5908

SB5908 – Creating a Clean Car Authority to distribute, coordinate and oversee electric vehicle grants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle, Hunt, Nguyen, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in State Government and Elections January 28th; passed out of committee February 2nd. Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a new State agency, the Clean Car Authority, to distribute electric vehicle grant funding awarded to Washington from the Federal Infrastructure bill, provide a vision for the state about the most beneficial and efficient distribution of electric vehicle grants, as well as coordinating and overseeing their administration by state agencies and local governments. (It would coordinate with the Office of Climate Commitment Accountability, if that were created by SB5842. It would be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Justice Act.

Its Director would be appointed by the Governor the State’s with the consent of the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The Director would have complete charge and supervisory powers over the authority, and could create the Authority’s administrative structures and employ any necessary personnel.  (They would be covered by civil service provisions, except for the Director and the Vice Director, if one were created.) The director would be required to appoint an industry advisory committee including representation from the electric vehicle industry, interested stakeholders, and state and local governments administering electric vehicle grants.

SB5903

SB5903 – Requiring multimodal transportation options at drive-up services.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Billig (D; 3rd District; Spokane) (Co-Sponsors Rivers – R; Das, Dhingra, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer, Liias, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Randall, Saldaña, Trudeau, and Wellman – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation January 31st. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require any public or private drive-up service open to motor vehicles to allow bicyclists, pedestrians, and other nonmotor vehicle modes of transportation to access the service. (If mixing multimodal traffic and motor vehicles in the same lane would create a safety hazard, an alternative lane or lanes would have to be made available for it.)

SB5910

SB5910 – Accelerating the availability and use of renewable and electrolytic hydrogen.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Hawkins -R; Billig, Conway, Hunt, Mullet, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Passed by the House March 7th. Senate concurred in House amendments March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 5th; passed out of committee on the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 12th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy on February 22nd. Replaced by a striker that drops the authorizations for municipal utilities and PUDs to produce, use, sell, and distribute some kinds of hydrogen; drops the provision making the Facilities Site Review process available to additional facilities; requires specific commitments from participants in an application for Federal hydrogen hub funding; and makes some other changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it.

Replaced by a striker in Appropriations; amended to make it null and void if funding for it isn’t appropriated, and passed out of committee February 28th. The new striker restores the authorizations for municipal utilities and PUDs to produce, use, sell, and distribute some kinds of hydrogen; it restores the tax breaks for producing electrolytic hydrogen and for the sale of electricity to produce it and renewable hydrogen that the Senate substitute dropped.  It allows Commerce to provide funding (at an appropriated amount, not the earlier version’s $500K) to support applying for Federal hydrogen hub funding. It requires the Department of Revenue to produce guidance for county assessors to refer to in appraising solar and wind projects of at least one megawatt. Referred to Rules; amended on the floor to require utilities to provide certain information to the UTC before replacing natural gas with renewable or electrolytic hydrogen, and to provide some general guidelines for what the UTC is to consider in setting rates for it; passed by the House March 7th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute no longer expands the tax breaks for the production of renewable hydrogen to include electrolytic hydrogen, and no longer provides the tax breaks on the sale of electricity to produce either of them. It moves the Office of Renewable Fuels under the Director of Commerce, removes the $500,000 appropriation to support applying for Federal clean hydrogen hub funding, and it would add facilities for storing any sort of electricity, not just electricity from renewable sources,  to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process.

Original bill –
The bill would create a Statewide Office of Renewable Fuels, with a Director appointed by the Governor. It would work with other state agencies to:
(a) Accelerate comprehensive market development with assistance along the entire life cycle of renewable fuel projects;
(b) Support research into, development, and deployment of renewable fuel production and distribution.
(c) Drive job creation and support the transition to clean energy;
(d) Enhance resiliency by using renewable fuels to support climate change mitigation and adaption; and
(e) Partner with overburdened communities to ensure they benefit from renewable fuels efforts equitably.

It would also collaborate with local government, state and Federal agencies, private entities, public four-year institutions of higher education, and others on research, development, and deployment efforts in the production, distribution, and use of renewable fuels including electrolytic hydrogen. It would review existing renewable fuels initiatives, policies, and investments; consider opportunities for coordinating public, private, state, and federal funds to develop and deploy renewable fuels; and assess opportunities for and barriers to their deployment in hard to decarbonize sectors of the economy. The Office could request recommendations from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals on fire and safety standards adopted by authorities.

By July 1, 2024, it would be required to develop a plan and recommendations for the Legislature and Governor on renewable fuels policy and funding including project permitting, state procurement, and pilot projects. It could apply for Federal funds and grants, would collaborate with a range of other agencies, and might work with them on compiling data about the State’s use of renewable fuels.

The bill would appropriate $500,000 for the next biennium to have the Department of Commerce provide funding to one or more local government bodies or a public-private partnership to prepare an application to secure federal funding to locate one of the four planned regional clean hydrogen hub in Washington. The Infrastructure Bill provides $8 million over four years to develop these; they’d work toward achieving a hydrogen fuel carbon intensity goal; would demonstrate the production, processing, delivery, storage, and end use of hydrogen; and would be the basis for developing a national network to facilitate a clean hydrogen economy. (The bill lists some reasons to think Washington would be a good location.) The Director would seek strong and timely applications with a broad range of participants for developing and implementing the hub’s infrastructure, and that had commitments from manufacturing industries, transportation, utilities, and other sectors to incorporate hydrogen fuels into their transition to cleaner energy.

The bill would have the UTC report to appropriate Legislative committees by December 1, 2024 about whether it should regulate rates and services for the production and distribution of hydrogen fuels; and whether the electric utilities it regulates should be required to analyze the costs and benefits of adopting special tariffs for power used in producing electrolytic hydrogen. The report would also address the adoption of safety standards for distributing and dispensing hydrogen fuel; recommended standards for blending it into natural gas distribution infrastructure; and the role it may serve as the state reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

It would make changes in the definitions of the “alternative energy resources” to add projects for producing renewable natural gas, for renewable and electrolytic hydrogen, and for energy storage to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process. (HB1812 makes some of the same changes, but adds clean energy manufacturing, expands the pre-applicant process to more than transmission facilities, and includes biofuels used for things besides transportation.)
The bill would authorize PUDs to produce, distribute and sell electrolytic hydrogen as well as renewable hydrogen, and authorize municipal utilities to operate with renewable and electrolytic hydrogen as well as natural gas. It would expand the current sales and use tax exemptions for renewable hydrogen (as “electric vehicle infrastructure”), and the exemption from the leasehold excise tax collected instead of property tax form leased public lands  to include electrolytic hydrogen production facilities, in addition to ones for renewable hydrogen.
It would provide a 25 year rebate of the sales tax on electricity used in producing electrolytic hydrogen or renewable hydrogen,  or in compressing, liquifying, or dispensing them, by exempting those sales from the tax if the utility reduced the price for producers by the same amount.

SB5732

SB5732 – Requiring new buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. to include green, agrivoltaic, or bio-solar roofs, or to make a cash-in-lieu payment for local climate resiliency programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Sheldon, Randall, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings declare that green roofs provide greater weatherization and insulation for  a building, can prolong the service life of HVAC systems through decreased use, can triple the life of the roof,  can reduce stormwater runoff, can help clean the air and reduce urban heat island effects, can generate employment, can provide recreational spaces, and can be effectively combined with solar panels. (The Living Roofs website has some photos of these.)

It doesn’t take the differences in their potential performance in the different climates in the Eastern and Western half of the state into consideration in any way.

Summary –

After January 1, 2025, the bill would require the design of any new building where the sum of multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial area was over 50,000 square feet, excluding the parking garage area, to have at least 70% of the roof be a green roof. Half of that area could be solar and half could be an intensive green roof with at least six inches of soil; all of it could be an extensive green roof with between three and six inches of soil if half the area also had solar panels; a quarter of the dedicated area could have solar and three-quarters of it could have an extensive green roof; or a quarter of it could have solar panels, half of it could be an extensive green roof, and a quarter of it could be an intensive green roof producing food.

They would have to be designed and constructed by qualified teams of contractors including engineers, landscape architects, architects, and at least one green roof professional. They’d have to have a five-year maintenance plan with a minimum of two visits a year, and be designed to facilitate inspection by local authorities to ensure ongoing energy and environmental performance.They’d have to  “be part of performance rating systems” including the LEED program, Sustainable Sites, and the Living Architecture Performance Tool. The Building Code Council would have to adopt rules for the requirements by December 31, 2024.

Building owners could apply for full or partial exemptions from the requirements during permitting and make a cash-in-lieu payment of $50/sq. ft. instead. (The bill estimates that as the average cost of constructing a green roof.) [As I read the bill, these exemptions have to be granted if they’re requested; jurisdictions have to spend any payments they receive on local climate resiliency programs.]

The bill would have the Washington State Institute for Public Policy do a report to the Legislature on the cost of constructing a green roof by January 1, 2025; and recommend any  changes to the cost estimates in the Act to ensure that the costs of the various alternative assemblies for complying are roughly equivalent and the cash-in-lieu payments are based on the actual average cost of constructing a green roof.

If funds were appropriated for it, the Institute would also do a cost-benefit analysis of the use of these systems on buildings between 10,000 to 50,000 square feet, in consultation with Ecology, Commerce, and an organization that has experience conducting them. The analysis would include agrivoltaic installation and maintenance costs; and the effects of these various systems on stormwater runoff and water treatment facilities in communities over 50,000; on public health and air quality; on energy efficiency and reductions in fossil fuel use for buildings with agrivoltaic systems; and on Job creation.

SB5715

SB5715 – Increasing the Statewide Broadband Office’s definition of broadband service to at least 100 megabits per second downloads and 20 megabits per second uploads.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Sheldon, Randall, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Community & Economic Development Tuesday February 22nd, and passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 3rd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th, and passed out of committee on February 2nd. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate unanimously on February 15th.

Summary –
The bill would increase the Statewide Broadband Office’s definition of broadband service to at least 100 megabits per second download and 20 megabits per second upload. (Currently, it’s defined as any service that provides at least 25  Mbps downloads and 3 Mbps uploads.)

 

SB5648

SB5648 – Modifying the State’s limits on local jurisdictions’ ADU requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to Housing and Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.”>Senator Liias (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1660 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.

SJR8211

SJR8211 –
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Southeast King and Northeast Peirce Counties)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would submit a Constitutional amendment to the voters that would require any state revenue collected from a road usage charge, vehicle miles traveled fee, or other similar charge be used exclusively for highway purposes.

SB5633

SB5633 – Creating a voluntary, incentive-based plan to conserve at least one million acres of working forestland; and reforest at least one million acres by 2040.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 34th District; Bainbridge Island) (Co-Sponsors Short, Gildon, Hawkins, Wagoner, and Warnick – Rs; Das, Hasegawa, Lovelett, Nguyen, Nobles, Randall, and Stanford – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 20th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1895 is a companion bill in the House.
There’s a staff summary.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to create a voluntary, incentive-based working and nonworking forest conservation and reforestation plan intended to conserve at least a million acres of working forestland and reforest at least a million acres by 2040. The plan would have to respect the full diversity of landowner management and investment objectives, and utilize or develop incentive-based strategies that address preventing the loss of working and nonworking forestland across the state; opportunities to implement incentive-based carbon compensation programs for avoiding conversion and reforestation; reforestation on forestland impacted by wildfire, pests, disease, landslides, land-use change, and other stressors; and tree planting and increased canopy coverage in urban areas. prioritizing highly impacted or overburdened communities. It would have to use the plan to assess and prioritize conservation and reforestation actions each biennium.

The Department would be required to develop a framework to address the goal, mapping and prioritizing areas across the state based on criteria including risk of permanent forest loss, or the loss of critical environmental, economic, cultural, equity, or health benefits including value to local economies, carbon sequestration, landscape-level habitat connectivity, or salmon recovery and important wildlife habitat. It would evaluate and promote existing carbon compensation programs and other incentives for emissions reductions to assist forestland owners in voluntarily engaging in carbon markets. It would map and prioritize historically forested areas, including postwildfire areas and areas where reforestation or afforestation efforts might support environmental restoration, local economic development, or tribal restoration objectives, and it would conduct an analysis of the regional reforestation pipeline, including seed collection, nursery capacity, and workforce needs, to ensure an adequate basis to meet goals and growing needs. (Reforestation analyses would be required to include an ecological assessment of advantages and disadvantages of intervention, and of best strategies for maintaining and restoring ecological integrity and resilience to climate change.) It would map and prioritize urban and community areas where tree planting might provide environmental, economic, or health benefits, particularly to highly impacted or overburdened
communities. It would conduct the analysis needed to develop a strategic plan, including specific criteria to prioritize the conservation of forests at risk of conversion, and analysis of the reforestation pipeline, the state’s private sector logging and milling capacity, and equity and environmental justice impacts.

In developing the framework, the department would have to consult with impacted communities using the State’s community engagement plan and identify opportunities to increase equity in forestland ownership; utilize the Washington health disparities map to help identify highly impacted or overburdened communities lacking equitable access to forest benefits; consult with the Washington State Office of Equity on how to make values-driven, data informed decisions to identify and address disparities impacting communities of color; invite input from tribes on forested areas with important cultural, ecological, and economic values threatened by conversion or other disturbance; and engage a range of stakeholders (including a long specified list) in the development and implementation of the conservation and reforestation plan.

The Department would be required to identify, prioritize, utilize, and develop voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities consistent with the plan, using appropriations provided for that specific purpose. It would have to utilize and build on various previous reports to the Legislature. It would assess and inventory existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentive-based activities relevant to the goals of the plan, and consider new ones. These might include tools such as payment for ecological services, technical or financial support to small forestland owners, tax or market incentives, conservation and working forest easements, fee simple land acquisition, or transfer of development rights. The Department would identify their limitations and make recommendations to improve, accelerate, or expand them to maximize their effectiveness. It would identify new or existing voluntary tools, financing opportunities, and incentives addressing economic stressors that contribute to forest conversion (including the retention of milling infrastructure, market access,
and workforce development); that give financial value to the underlying environmental, health, equity, and cultural values of working forestlands; and that provide support to small working forestland owners achieving their objectives and goals.

The Department would develop a pilot rapid response fund to test opportunities and barriers to acquiring private working forestlands at imminent risk of conversion from willing sellers, and maintaining them as working forests.

By December 1st 2022, the Department would report to the Office of Financial Management and the appropriate committees of the Legislature including a map and justification of identified priority areas, an approach to monitoring to assure that the forested acres were meeting the criteria of success established in the plan, and a description of activities to be undertaken consistent with it. The plan would have to be finalized and submitted to them by December 1st 2023. Each biennium after that, the Department would have to submit a report reviewing previous and future activities. This would include a list and brief summary of tools, financing opportunities, and incentives used in the preceding biennium, including total funding, costs for those, and their outcomes and effectiveness. It would highlight any of them that contributed to more equitable outcomes, including equity in forestland ownership, access to green spaces, and urban tree cover canopy. It would include any barriers to implementation, legislative or administrative recommendations to address those, and a comparison of the requested and actual funding for the plan the previous biennium, with an analysis of the additional progress that would have been expected with full funding, if that’s possible. The report would include a list and brief summary of tools and incentives to be used in the next biennium with requested appropriations, including information from the prioritization process. It would identify potential partnerships between the State and the forest products industry to promote the use of those as a way toward maintaining the state’s forestland base and reaching its emissions goals, and would identify a range of other potential partnership opportunities. The report would include criteria by which working and non-working forested areas would be considered protected from conversion, including a minimum time frame for that conclusion. It would provide an update on the acres of working and nonworking forestland by region, and on private sector logging and milling capacity, including gains or losses, and potential reasons for significant changes. It would provide an update on the quantity and quality of jobs created or sustained through conservation and reforestation activities; on the locations and acres reforested; and on consultation with highly impacted communities.

SB5862

SB5862 – Has the county or county treasurer take any steps in foreclosure proceedings to facilitate the enforcement of a CPACER lien that can’t be done by the capital provider.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Rivers, Fortunato, Gildon, and Jeff Wilson – Rs; Kuderer, Lovick, Nguyen, Nobles, Stanford, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government February 16th. Passed out of committee February 18th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Passed out of Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th; referred to Housing and Local Government. Had a hearing there January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor rewriting the section about responsibilities for collection to try to establish that’s the responsibility of the lender, and that the government is not playing a constitutionally impermissible role in the process. Referred to Rules, and passed  by the Senate unanimously February 9th.

Summary –
The bill would have the county or county treasurer undertake any action or obligation in foreclosure proceedings under RCW 84.64.80 to facilitate the enforcement of a CPACER lien that can’t be done by the capital provider or an assignee. It specifies that these are just to “facilitate the enforcement of the C-PACER lien by the capital provider or assignee” and shall not constitute prohibited enforcement activities under RCW 36.165.110, which says that a county “may not enforce any privately financed debt.” Any money received related to delinquent installments would go to the capital provider, who would reimburse the county or the treasurer for their costs.

SB5697

SB5697 – Creating a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products are responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Rolfes, Kuderer, Lovelett, Lovick, Nguyen, Pedersen, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing on a substitute by the prime sponsor in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 18th. Replaced by a second substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means and scheduled for a hearing there on February 5th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2003 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

Substitute –
The second substitute makes further changes which are summarized by staff in a page of small print at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would create a system in which the sellers and distributors of consumer packaging and paper products were responsible for getting them collected, and then reused, recycled, or composted. They would be required to join a producer responsibility organization, which would submit a nine year plan for approval to the Department of Ecology, implement it, and report to Ecology on its plan performance in specified ways. Ecology would be authorized to collect a fee from producer responsibility organizations to cover the costs of the statewide needs assessment, would administer the program, and would appoint and support an advisory council for it.

The bill is 74 pages long; there’s already a proposed substitute from the prime sponsor, which is what will be heard in committee. (It’s in the folder for the bill on this page with materials for the hearing.). There’s a staff report on the substitute.

SB5872

SB5872 – Would allow any electricity produced with less than the average emissions of new combined-cycle natural gas turbines to keep being sold in spite of the State requirement for carbon-free electricity by 2045.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsors Short, Wagoner and Jeff Wilson – Rs)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology. Did not have a hearing by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow electricity from any power plant producing fewer emissions than the 2008 emissions performance standard for baseload electric generation or the average emissions of available new combined-cycle natural gas thermal electric generation turbines to be sold without counting as a violation of the State requirement that utilities have to deliver carbon-free electricity by 2045.

SB5744

SB5744 – Creates a ten year sales and use tax deferral for projects investing at least $2 million in clean technology manufacturing, clean alternative fuels production, generating renewable electricity, or storing it, with options for reducing or eliminating the deferred taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsors Carlyle, Conway, Das, Kuderer, Mullet, Pedersen, Saldaña, Trudeau – Ds) (By request of the Office of Financial Management.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1988 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would expand the deferral for facilities to store energy from renewable sources to include storage for renewable or electrolytic hydrogen and for any electricity. It would leave the current tax exemptions for renewable hydrogen production facilities as part of “electric vehicle infrastructure” in place. It would require Labor and Industries to adopt rules for the minimum labor standards and good faith efforts required to get the bill’s reductions in deferred tax obligations.

Original bill –
The bill would defer state and local sales and use taxes on materials and equipment, labor, or services for projects investing at least $2 million in buildings, or machinery and equipment, or both, for any new, renovated, or expanded clean technology manufacturing operation; facility to produce clean fuels or renewable or electrolytic hydrogen; or facility to generate or store electricity from renewable resources. The manufacturing of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions other than water, including motorcycles would be qualified; so would charging and fueling infrastructure for any of those, as well as equipment and facilities for generating renewable and electrolytic hydrogen (including preparing those for distribution); for producing clean fuel with associated greenhouse gas emissions not exceeding 80% of 2017 levels, and for generating electricity from renewable resources or equipment used directly in storing it.

Applications for the deferral could not be submitted after June 30th, 2032. Ten percent of the deferred taxes would become due on December 31st of the second year after completion of the project, and the rest of them would be due in annual payments of 10% at the end of each of the nine following years. (No interest would be charged, except on delinquent payments.)

The State would reduce its part of the taxes to be repaid by half for projects certified by L&I as including procurement from and contracts with women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses; procurement from and contracts with entities that have a history of complying with federal and state wage and hour laws and regulations; apprenticeship utilization; and preferred entry for workers living in the area where the project is being constructed. (If a project was built without one or more of these, the Department would be allowed to certify that it met them if it demonstrated it had made all good faith efforts to do so, but was unable to due to lack of availability of qualified businesses or local hires.) Projects that met these standards and paid workers at prevailing wage rates determined by local collective bargaining would receive a 75% reduction, and those that also were developed under a community workforce or project labor agreement would not have to repay the deferred taxes at all. A person leasing qualified buildings, machinery, and equipment would only receive the tax benefits if the owner agreed to pass them on in writing, and if the lessee agreed in writing with the Department to do the required tax performance reporting.

Construction would have to begin within two years or the taxes would become due. A gradually decreasing percentage of them would be due if the project had not been completed within five years or if it were used for some other purpose that didn’t qualify for the deferment.

The bill would revise a definition so that renewable hydrogen production facilities would no longer be included under the current sales and use tax exemptions as part of “electric vehicle infrastructure.”

SB5842

SB5842 – Making adjustments to the Climate Commitment Act, and creating an Executive Office of Climate Policy and Accountability in the Department of Ecology.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 11th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Liias, Das, Nguyen, and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The provisions about the Office of Climate Policy and Accountability are presumably intended to shape the provision in the cap and invest act which says “The Governor shall establish a governance structure to implement the state’s climate commitment” in accordance with a long list of criteria.

I would have thought that the earlier provision saying the bill preempted the Clean Air Act would have left anything in that which the new bill didn’t cover operable; one of the Senate floor amendments will also repeal it.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 18th. Replaced by a striker eliminating the requirement that the rules for smoothing obligations over time match those of linked jurisdictions; requiring that investments from the price ceiling auctions produce at least a metric ton of reductions for each unit allowing a metric ton of emissions; and making some other small changes. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 2nd.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 26th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor adding biofuels from wastewater treatment plants to the definition of biomass for the cap and invest bill, and moving a reporting date by six months; passed out of committee February 2nd. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 4th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 7th. (The 2nd substitute would let all covered entities use credits released through the price ceiling mechanisms to meet their compliance obligations. It would allow Ecology to suspend the price floor mechanism if it “might enter into a linkage agreement” with a jurisdiction that doesn’t have one. It specifies that the new Office of Climate Policy and Accountability would only report on the state’s progress in achieving GHG limits, rather than developing a strategic climate work plan; would not represent the State nationally or internationally; and could only implement laws administered by Ecology in accordance with the polices established in the bill and monitor their economic impacts to minimize leakage.) Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to restrict the use of banked offset credits to those issued in the two years before the bill takes effect (or after that); to direct the Department of Ecology to repeal the Clean Air Act (in addition to saying this bill preempts it); and to drop the provision creating the Office of Climate Policy and Accountability. Passed by the Senate February 11th.

Summary –
Original bill –
Currently, the Climate Commitment Act (aka as the cap and invest program) uses the total state emissions between 2023 and 2025 as the basis for calculating the proportion of an entity’s emissions to total state emissions for entities that begin to be covered by the program during the second compliance period, from 2027 through 2030. The bill would use the total state emissions during 2015 through 2019 instead, which is what it does for entities covered during the first compliance period.

The bill would readopt Section 22 of the original act, about the managing and smoothing of compliance obligations, verbatim, except for the part about the poison pill provisions preventing the Act from taking effect unless an additive transportation package was passed. (The Governor vetoed all those provisions in the bill.) He also vetoed the rest of this section, on the grounds that it primarily provided a convenient summary of compliance obligations that duplicated other passages in the Act, that there weren’t any substantive aspects of the section that Ecology couldn’t adopt and implement through its rulemaking authority, and that it created an internal inconsistency with regard to the expiration date of allowances, because the ability of covered entities to rely on the last seven years of allowances in Section 22(1) conflicted with the unlimited time period for use of allowances in Section 9(2).

The bill would exempt a variety of specified bidding information from public disclosure, as well as information contained in the secure online tracking system, and various submitted financial or proprietary information.

It would narrow the current provision preventing a state agency from adopting or enforcing any other program that regulates greenhouse gas emissions from a stationary source. It would now allow them to adopt and enforce limitations on emissions from stationary sources that are not greenhouse gas pricing or market-based emissions cap and reduce programs, and that are authorized or directed by state statute or required to implement a federal statute, rule, or program.

It would create an Executive Office of Climate Policy and Accountability within the Department of Ecology, reporting to the Director. Its primary purpose would be supporting the state’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing accountability to achieve the State’s 2050 emissions limits and providing an accurate inventory of emissions. It would be required to aggressively implement laws and policies to achieve those limits, and would represent the State on national and international emissions reduction policies. It would be required to develop a strategic climate work plan with performance milestones and accountability measures, to present that to the Legislature by January 31, 2024, and to submit a legislative report on progress by January 31, 2025, and every two years afterwards.

Section 7 of the bill would change the name of what’s currently called “an auction ceiling price” to “a reserve auction floor price”, which seems like a confusing choice to me. (The reserve auction floor price is a ceiling price, because extra allowances from the reserve are sold at auction to increase supplies and hold the prices down if they rise above the floor for the reserve auction.)

SB5837

SB5837 – Removing plastic carryout bags as an option for use at retail establishments; making the 8¢ charge for paper carryout bags permanent.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Das, Hunt and Nobles – Ds)
Current status –Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Plastic bags are clearly bad for the environment; whether they’re bad for the climate is unclear; it depends on how often they’d are reused, what bags are used to replace them, how bags are dealt with at the end of their useful lives, and complicated full life cycle estimates of the associated emissions.

Summary –
The bill would advance the date after which retail establishments may not provide reusable film plastic carryout bags to a retail customer or a person at an event from January 1st, 2026 to January 1st, 2023. (The current law would have allowed them to continue providing bags of at least four mils if the 2025 Legislature hadn’t amended the requirements in response to a study it ordered.) (This bill would add an exemption for bags to contain or wrap hot food.)

It would make the 8¢ charge for a paper carryout bag permanent, and continue the 8¢ charge for a compliant reusable plastic carryout bag until the end of 2022. It would eliminate provisions for increasing the charges for them to 12¢ in 2026, for the increase from 20% to 40% in the required post-consumer recycled content of reusable plastic carry-out bags that’s currently scheduled for July 1st, 2022, and for the increase in their minimum thickness from 2.25 mils to four mils that’s currently scheduled for January 1st, 2026. These would be superceded, as I understand the bill, since retail stores would not be allowed to provide them at all after the end of 2022.

SB5828

SB5828 – Drops a requirement for reporting moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs, and requires a plan for interactions with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Wagoner, Rivers – Rs; Dhingra, Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Transportation February 3rd; replaced by a substitute changing the title to drop the reference to the autonomous vehicle work group and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Still in Rules at cutoff. Sent to the “X” file Februry 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Since the bill’s officially titled “Relating to implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group”, the changes it would make were apparently recommended by that group.

Summary –
The bill would no longer require including moving violations by autonomous vehicles in testing programs in their annual reports to the Department of Licensing. It also drops a clause implying the Department can require information about collisions in addition to what the law currently specifies. It requires submitting a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department including information on how to interact with the vehicle being tested in emergency and traffic enforcement situations, and requires submitting the expected period of time during which testing will occur to the Department rather than to various local and state law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways on which testing will occur.

SB5818

SB5818 – Limits review and appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act and Growth Management Act to promote housing construction in cities.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Short – R; Liias, Kuderer, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 24th and passed out of committee. Referred to Rules; replaced by a striker making various changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it; and passed by the House March 4th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Housing & Local Government  January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate February 15th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute simplifies (and perhaps broadens) the exemption from GMA review and SEPA appeal of some local development regulations by saying it applies to any that “increase housing capacity, increase housing affordability, and mitigate displacement” and aren’t in a critical area. It adds projects creating “light and glare” to those that are exempt from SEPA appeals about aesthetics as long as they’ve passed local design review. The staff summary says it “removes the requirement for Ecology to modify the existing rule-based categorical exemption for single-family residential project types in UGAs to apply only to single-family residential types with total square footage of 1500 square feet or more”. (As I read the bill, there’s no difference in the effect of these two versions.) It drops the provision about awarding attorney’s fees, making it more difficult for citizens to go to court.

Original bill –
The bill would remove the ending date for the current exemption from administrative or judicial appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act of any ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions a city takes to implement the twenty-five steps the Growth Management Act encourages to increase residential building capacity. (The exemption, which was adopted in 2020, will expire in April 2023 now.) It would add an exemption from environmental or judicial review under SEPA for them. It would exempt adoption of ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions to implement any strategies adopted in a city’s housing action plan from these SEPA appeals and reviews. (I think that Section 3 of the bill merely adjusts another section of the law to make the same changes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.)

It would exempt any action taken by a city to implement strategies adopted in a housing action plan from review or legal challenge under the Growth Management Act. It would exempt the adoption of any ordinances and amendments to development regulations taken by a city to implement actions specified in the housing element of its comprehensive plan from SEPA environmental or judicial review and administrative or judicial appeal.

It would direct the Department of Ecology to conduct expedited rule making to modify the thresholds for the categorical exemptions from threshold determinations and environmental impact statements in the current SEPA rules to exempt four attached single-family residential units as well as four detached ones; exempt multifamily residential projects of up to 200 units in incorporated urban growth areas rather than projects up to 60 units; exempt single-family residential project types of less than 1,500 square feet in incorporated urban growth areas with up to 100 units, while continuing to cap the current exemption at 30 units for single-family residential projects larger than that.

It would exempt project actions pertaining to residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development from SEPA appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on aesthetics, or those impacts, unless the project had not been subject to local design review requirements. (I think it merely restates their current exemption from appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on transportation, or those impacts, unless DOT had found a project would present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned transportation system.)

The bill adds a provision to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party at trial or on appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a project-specific affordable housing development.

SB5795

SB5795 – Requires manufacturers of portable flat screen digital electronics to provide independent repair providers and owners access to the documentation, parts and tools for repairs that they make available to authorized service providers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Keiser, Pedersen, Saldaña, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
This bill addresses the same issues as HB1810, and makes many of the same provisions in slightly different language. However, it adds an alternative way to comply with many of the requirements for access to information and tools, through aftermarket providers, which isn’t clearly written and doesn’t seem to include any requirements about the extent or quality of that access. This bill would only apply to “handheld or portable devices” with a microprocessor and flat screen, like laptops and smartphones,  that were originally manufactured for distribution and sale in the United States for general consumer purchase.

Summary –
The bill would require original manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state on or after January 1st 2012 to make the same diagnostic and repair information that they make available to authorized repair providers available to independent repair providers in the same format, and for no charge or the same charge, including corrections to embedded software and safety and security patches.

Manufacturers would be required to make them all available for purchase on fair and reasonable terms. It would require them to make equipment or service parts for these, including any updates to their embedded software, available to owners of those products and independent repair providers for purchase on fair and reasonable terms (unless the parts were no longer available to the manufacturer or authorized repair provider). If manufacturers sold any diagnostic, service, or repair documentation any independent repair provider or owner in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they would be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included diagnostic, service, or repair documentation or functionality that was not available in a standardized format. A manufacturer of digital electronic products sold or used in the state would have to make any diagnostic repair tools it makes available to its own repair or engineering staff or any authorized repair provider available for purchase with the same capabilities and at fair and reasonable rates by owners and independent repair providers.

The bill says that manufacturers could fully satisfy all the obligations above by providing “diagnostic repair documentation to aftermarket diagnostic tools, diagnostics, or third party service information publications and systems” and would not be responsible beyond that for the content and functionality of those.

Equipment or parts sold or used in the state to provide security-related functions would not be allowed to exclude diagnostic, service, and repair information need to reset a security-related electronic function from the information provided to owners and independent repair facilities. The bill also says that if information necessary to reset an immobilizer system or security-related electronic module is excluded in the sub-section it “may be” obtained by owners and independent repair facilities through the appropriate secure data release systems, but there doesn’t seem to be an exclusion in the current version.

The bill would prohibit manufacturers of digital electronic products sold in the state on or after January 1, 2023, in Washington state  from designing or manufacturing them in a way that prevented reasonable diagnostic or repair by an independent repair provider, including  attaching a battery in a way that made it difficult or impossible to remove. They’d be prohibited from establishing end user license agreements that restricted the legal uses of a product after purchase, and from dictating the venue for legal disputes in them.

The bill would make a violation of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, and would create an additional civil penalty of $500 for each violation of its provisions.

SJM8008

SJM8008 – Urging the United States Government to enter into a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-sponsors Senators Lovelett, Lovick, Salomon, and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would transmit a memorial from the Legislature to the President Biden, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and Washington’s Congressional representatives urging them to begin good faith negotiations to enter into a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. (It would commit participating nations to end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion, phase out existing production in line with the global commitment to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and accelerate equitable transition plans.)

SB5658

SB5658 – Creates criteria for recyclable products and packaging; prohibits “deceptive or misleading claims” about recyclability; requires increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content in plastic tubs, thermoform containers, and single-use cups.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Rivers – R; Das, Hunt, Saldaña, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology  January 18th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1932 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The bill doesn’t say so, but I assume its categorizing misleading labels about reyclability as “deceptive or misleading claims” is intended to make them subject to the consumer protection laws.

Summary –
The bill would establish standards for what products and packaging the State considers to be recyclable, and would make symbols or statements on them suggesting they were recyclable a “deceptive or misleading claim” unless they met those standards and were “of a material type and form that routinely became feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.”

By January 1, 2025, Ecology would complete a study of the material types and forms that are collected, sorted, sold, or transferred by facilities that process recyclable materials from curbside recycling programs and other solid waste facilities. It would identify which of these are actively recovered and not considered contaminants by included operations or facilities; and how material was collected or processed. It would publish its preliminary findings on its website, take public comments before the final version, and update the study every five years.

A product or packaging would be considered recyclable if at least 75% of what’s sorted and aggregated in the state is reprocessed into new products or packaging; or if the material type and form are collected for recycling in jurisdictions that encompass at least 60% of the population, and are sorted into defined streams for recycling by large transfer or processing facilities that collectively serve at least 60% of programs statewide, and then sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the State’s solid waste management requirements. (Ecology could modify the rules to include smaller facilities to meet the goals of the program.) Until 2031, product or packaging not collected under a curbside collection program would count as recyclable if the program recovered at least 60 percent of its material and that had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material type and form; after 2031 recovering at least 75% of the material would be required. Products or packaging in compliance with State or Federal laws passed after 2023 and governing recyclability or disposal would count if the Director of Ecology determined they wouldn’t increase increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive consumers about their recyclability. Plastic packaging could not count as recyclable if it included any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent that.

Cities, counties, and the State would be authorized to impose civil liability in the amount of $500 for a first violation of the law, of $1,000 for a second one, and of $2,000 for a third and any subsequent one.
Ecology would be required to develop an enforcement program to investigate and identify violations by 2026.

The bill would include plastic tubs and thermoform plastic containers like clamshells and egg cartons (starting in 2026), as well as single-use plastic cups (starting in 2029) in the current law requiring gradually increasing minimum postconsumer recycled content and annual reporting about that.

SJR8210

SJR8210 – Adding a section to the Washington Constitution on the conservation and protection of the state’s natural resources.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent) (Co-Sponsors Senators Lovelett, Liias, Rolfes, Saldaña, Stanford, and Wilson, C. – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HJR4209 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The resolution would submit an amendment to Article I of the Constitution to the voters for their approval and ratification, or rejection. It would affirm that the people of the state, including future generations, have the right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems, and a stable climate, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful qualities of the environment. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall serve as trustee of those natural resources and conserve, protect, and maintain them for the benefit of all the people, including future generations. It would specify that those rights are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among the rights reserved to all the people, and are on par with other protected inalienable rights. It would declare that the State and its political subdivisions shall equitably protect those rights for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, geography, or wealth, and shall act with prudence, loyalty,
impartiality, and equitable treatment of all beneficiaries in fulfilling its trustee obligations.

SB5717

SB5717 – Increasing government purchases of compost products, and creating a pilot program to reimburse farming operations for purchasing and using them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell.)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5731 is a much more ambitious compost bill; this bill shares some of its provisions.

Comments –
Since a given amount of collected organics turns into a much smaller amount of compost product, I think the bill’s targets must mean jurisdictions are supposed to buy percentages of the amount of finished compost that a certain amount of collected organics would produce after it was processed.

Summary –
Like SB5731, the bill would require local jurisdictions with curbside organics collection services available to residents to adopt a compost procurement ordinance to implement the State’s current law about using compost in government projects, and a compost procurement plan to meet its requirements. By January 1, 2024, they’d have to make reasonable efforts to purchase finished compost products equivalent to 25% of the amount of organic materials collected and delivered to their compost processor each year. This target would increase to  50% starting in 2026, and to 70% starting in 2028.

Both bills would require the use of compost products to the maximum extent economically feasible to meet the State’s current requirements for using them in projects, though this bill requires that of “governmental units” in general, rather than  just state agencies, local governments, and public schools. They both would allow preferential purchasing of compost in order to meet the State’s requirements for projects, rather than having to go with the lowest bidder.

In both bills, if funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored. (However, this bill would not make the purchase of compost spreading equipment for financing for it eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program.)

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology as well as the Attorney General, cities, and counties to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, but would not make the other changes in the enforcement of the Plastic Product Degradability Act that SB5731 does.

SB5678

SB5678 – Provides for preliminary declarations by the UTC on whether proposed energy projects would comply with a utility’s requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Energy Transformation Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast Washington.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Carlyle- D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 22nd; referred to Rules; passed by the Senate March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th; replaced by a substitute, which limits the option of seeking a declaratory order to investor owned utilities and clarifies a couple of procedural things. Passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing February 4th and passed out of committee the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would allow a private utility or the person proposing an energy transformation project, nonemitting electric generation project, or renewable resource project that might be acquired by the utility to petition the Utilities and Transportation Commission for a declaratory order to determine whether the project would comply with the utility’s need to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to comply with the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Projects that the UTC determined would comply with the requirements could be identified in a utility’s Clean Energy Action Plan and its Clean Energy Implementation Plan. The Commission could reevaluate a resource or a project in considering whether to approve a Clean Energy Implementation Plan or in a rate case, if it deviated substantively from the one described in the application foe a declaratory order.

(In fact, the last section of the bill says that “nothing” in the section of it about the declaratory orders “preempts the authority of the commission from making a determination, independent of the processes under [that] section … on whether a proposed energy transformation project, nonemitting electric generation project, or renewable resource project … meets the planning and portfolio requirements of an investor-owned utility’s Clean Energy Implementation Plan.)

SB5714

SB5714 – Creates sales and use tax deferments for large solar canopies on commercial, industrial & residential parking lots.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Liias – D)
Current status – Referred to House Finance; had a hearing and passed out of committee March 8th. (There were four proposed amendments; though the Legislature’s website doesn’t indicate whether they failed, none of them seem to have made it into the current version of the bill.) Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 9th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill’s findings say that the initial capital costs of installing solar generation on parking lot canopies will in most cases be fully amortized over time with the power generated and sold into the electricity system, but that initial capital costs may deter incorporation of installations into new projects.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there  February 17th, and passed out of committee the 24th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to add specifications for the development of the labor standards rules, and passed by the Senate March 4th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute reduces the amount of deferred tax owed by 25%, 50%. or 100% if various labor standards are met, and requires complete repayment of the taxes owed in eight years.

Original bill –
The bill would defer the sales and use taxes for solar canopies with at least a megawatt of capacity in parking lots for commercial, industrial and residential buildings. (If I’ve done the arithmetic correctly, this would be roughly 50,000 sq. ft. of panels.) Applications for the deferral would include the location of the project, its estimated or actual costs, time schedules for its completion and operation, anticipated nameplate capacity and use of the electricity, and any other information the Department of Revenue required. They could be filed until June 30th, 2032.

Applicants would have to begin actual construction on a project within a year of receiving a deferral certificate, unless it was delayed due to circumstances beyond the recipient’s control. (Problems with funding would not count.) Recipients would have to pay any taxes incurred if they didn’t begin construction within a year, and would have to notify the Department if a completed project was going to produce less than 85% of the electricity originally assumed. If a project wasn’t completed within two years, or the Department found it wasn’t being used as a qualifying solar canopy at any time within eight years of its completion, a gradually decreasing proportion of the deferred taxes would be due, with interest.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would be required to evaluate the program, considering the number of solar canopies receiving the deferral, their average and total electric output, the total beneficiary savings from the tax preference, the estimated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions assuming an equivalent amount of energy would otherwise been generated through the combustion of fossil fuels, and any other metrics the committee finds relevant.

SB5668

SB5668– Modifying the regulation of gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes.) (Co-Sponsor Liias -D)
Current status – Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
HB1766 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require each non-municipal gas utility to develop a clean heat transition plan for meeting the state’s greenhouse gas limits with respect to the emissions from fossil natural gas combustion; limiting the expansion of the gas system for residential and commercial space and water heating; advancing the use of high-efficiency electric equipment and production and the distribution of clean gas fuels; and ensuring the safe and equitable transition of the system. Plans would have to ensure that the transition achieves benefits for low-income households, overburdened communities, and vulnerable populations; and ensure the equitable distribution of the energy and nonenergy benefits of the utility’s programs and infrastructure to those communities and populations, including the reduction of energy burdens and improvement of indoor and outdoor air quality.

Plans would have to identify specific actions to achieve the company’s share of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets; and include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative transition actions, including those for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and incorporating the social cost of emissions. They would have to consider recommendations from the latest state energy strategy; identify changes to depreciation schedules or rate design consistent with specific actions in the plan; and prioritize the remaining use of fossil natural gas by residential and commercial customers in consultation with electric utilities. They would have to assess overall current conditions within the company’s service territory, including the state of the economy, public health, and environmental conditions; the energy and nonenergy benefits and burdens associated with the utility’s infrastructure and programs, including those caused by utility actions outside its service area; and the relative impact of alternative emissions reduction strategies on indoor air pollution and the health of customers. Plans would have to support an equitable transition for overburdened communities and low-income customers through no-cost grant programs for low- income residents and low-cost or specially targeted incentive programs for moderate income or fixed income seniors. Companies would have to consult with any electric utility with customers in their service area in developing plans, and those would be subject to review, modification, and approval by the Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Plans would have to be based on a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of multiple emissions reduction strategies to identify the combination that complied with the requirements at lowest reasonable cost.They would be required to consider:
(a) Measures to increase the efficiency of energy use in residential, industrial, and commercial buildings through thermal load reduction strategies such as envelope efficiency improvements, hot water conservation, or process load reductions;
(b) Development of geothermal and industrial waste heat, and other heat sources that don’t involve substantial emissions of greenhouse gases;
(c) Development of district heating systems using waste heat; and
(d) Reduction of the carbon content of delivered gas by incorporating renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen.
They might also consider expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs, using dual heating systems to limit the use of fossil gas to periods of peak energy demand during a transition period, converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; targeted programs to permanently decommission areas of the company’s distribution systems; using offset credits to the extent the cap and invest program allows; and implementing projects to reduce nonhazardous leaks from pipelines.

The bill would exempt gas companies from the requirement that utilities provide new service on request, and prohibit companies from extending service to new customers unless they determined that was compatible with their plan; it would prohibit them from expanding their service area unless the UTC determined that was consistent with their plan and would not result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the gas plant to be installed in the expanded area. It would require them to charge the full cost of a line extension. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize an extension to a new customer.) After December 31, 2024, it would prohibit them from including any conservation measure that requires the installation of new gas-fired equipment in their conservation acquisition targets or offering financial incentives to acquire any, unless the commission found the measures were consistent with the company’s plan and didn’t result in a net increase in emissions over the expected useful life of the equipment.

It would expand the renewable natural gas program to allow a utility to propose delivering renewable hydrogen and hydrogen produced by hydrolysis using any energy source as well, provided that it demonstrated that would reduce its greenhouse gas intensity per therm, including life-cycle emissions, and would not reduce the safety or reliability of its service. The bill would require the UTC to establish safety standards for the use of hydrogen before approving a program that includes it, and would allow the retail customer charge for a program to exceed 5% of the charge for natural gas if the Commission determined that was necessary under an approved transition plan.

Once major projects in an approved plan began operating, the bill would allow the utilities to account for and defer all operating and maintenance costs, depreciation, taxes, and cost of capital incurred in connection with them, as well as costs for contracts to purchase renewable natural gas or renewable hydrogen, until the UTC considered their application to recover them through rates.

SB5731

SB5731 – Diverting organic materials from landfills, increasing composting, and reducing food waste. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Lovelett – D)
Current status – Did not have a hearing; still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1799 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would add to the State’s current food waste reduction goals by establishing goals to reduce the disposal of organic materials in landfills by 75% from 2015 levels by 2030, and to recover at least 20% of the amount of edible food that was disposed of in 2015 for human consumption by 2025. It defines “organic materials management” to include vermiculture, black soldier fly, or similar technologies as well as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Jurisdictions would be required to provide organic solid waste collection services to all their residents and businesses that generate more than .5 cubic yard of organic materials; and provide for their organic management. (Jurisdictions disposing of less than 5,000 tons of solid waste or with populations under 25,000, census tracts with fewer than 75 people per square mile in unincorporated portions of a county,and areas receiving waivers for up to five years from the Department of Ecology on the basis of factors including the distance to organic management facilities, the facilities’ ability to manage additional organic materials, and current restrictions on their transport would be exempt. However, Ecology could apply the requirements to sparse census tracts and areas with waivers after January 2030 if it determined that the new goals had not or would not be achieved. Counties’ and cities’ solid waste plans would be required to be consistent with the new goals, to identify the capacity for organic management needed to meet them, to consider other methods of managing organics in addition to composting and anaerobic digestion, and to identify priority areas for that in industrial zones in the jurisdiction (and not in overburdened areas). The bill would add composting and other organic materials management facilities to the list of local public works projects eligible for State loans, grants, financing guarantees, and technical assistance through the Public Works Board. By 2023, local governments would be required to adopt a compost procurement ordinance and a procurement plan to implement the State’s current requirements for using compost in projects, giving priority to purchasing compost products from companies that produce them locally, are certified by a nationally recognized organization, and produce compost from municipal solid waste, and meet quality standards comparable to those adopted by the Department of Transportation or Ecology.

Beginning January 1, 2024, the bill would require a business that generates at least eight cubic yards of organic waste per week that isn’t managed on site to arrange for organic materials management of that; beginning in 2025 the requirement would apply to businesses generating at least four cubic yards, and beginning in 2026, businesses that generate at least four cubic yards of any solid waste per week would have to arrange for organic management of their organic waste, unless the department determined that additional reductions in the landfilling of organic materials would be better achieved, at reasonable cost to businesses, by establishing a different threshold. Businesses could fulfill the requirements by:
(a) Source separating organic waste and subscribing to a service with organic waste collection and materials management;
(b) Managing its organic waste on-site or hauling its own organic waste for organic management; or
(c) Qualifying for exclusion from the requirements of this section consistent with subsection (1)(b) of this section.
Businesses’ contracts for gardening or landscaping service would have to require that the organic waste be managed organically. (The requirements wouldn’t apply in areas of a jurisdiction with no available businesses that collect and deliver organic materials to solid waste facilities that provide for the organic materials management of it and food waste, and would not apply at all in jurisdictions with no available capacity at the solid waste facilities to which businesses that collect and deliver organic materials could feasibly and economically deliver them.)

The bill would modify the current Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which reduces gleaners and food donors exposure to liability, by only requiring  the “apparently fit grocery products” it covers to meet all safety and safety-related labeling standards; those would not include certain current required pull dates or a “best by,” “best if used by,” “use by,” “sell by,” or similarly phrased date intended to communicate information about the freshness or quality of a product to consumers. The bill would allow donors to be paid for the costs of handling, administering, and distributing donated food and grocery products, and would allow charging needy individuals that much for them.

The bill would create a Washington Center for Sustainable Food Management at the Department of Ecology to help coordinate statewide food waste reduction. It would be authorized to:
(a) Coordinate the implementation of the State’s food waste reduction plan;
(b) Draft plan updates and measure progress on actions and strategies, and toward the statewide goals established in the bill and that plan;
(c) Maintain a website with current food waste reduction information and guidance for food service establishments, consumers, food processors, hunger relief organizations, and other sources of food waste;
(d) Provide staff support to multistate food waste reduction initiatives in which the state is participating;
(e) Maintain the consistency of the plan and other food waste reduction activities with the work of the Conservation Commission’s food policy forum;
(f) Facilitate and coordinate public-private and nonprofit partnerships focused on food waste reduction;
(g) Collaborate with federal, state, and local government partners on food waste reduction initiatives;
(h) Develop and maintain maps or lists of locations of the food systems of Washington that identify food flows, where waste occurs, and opportunities to prevent food waste;
(i) Collect and maintain data on food waste and wasted food;
(j) Research and develop emerging organics and food waste reduction markets;
(k) Develop and maintain statewide food waste reduction and food waste contamination reduction campaigns, in consultation with other state agencies and other stakeholders, including the development of materials may inform food service operators about the protections from civil and criminal liability under federal law and under the Samaritan Donation Act when donating food; and develop guidance in support of distribution of promotional materials by local health officers as part of routine inspections, and State agencies; and,
(l) Distribute and monitor grants for food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery.
The Center would be required to research and adopt several model ordinances for optional use by counties and cities that provided mechanisms for commercial solid waste collection and disposal designed, in part, to establish disincentives for generating organic waste and for landfilling organic materials. Ecology would do a State Environmental Policy Act review of these, and actions by jurisdictions adopting them would not be subject to its requirements. The department would be authorized to establish a voluntary reporting protocol for reports by businesses that donate food and recipients, could encourage its use, and could also request information about  the volumes, types, and timing of food managed by a facility, and the food it generated

The bill would make the purchase of compost spreading equipment or financial assistance to farmers to purchase that eligible for grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program, if it were for annual use for at least three years with significant volumes of compost from a composting site that wasn’t owned or operated by the farmer. If funds were appropriated for it, the Department of Agriculture would be required to create a three-year pilot program to reimburse farming operations for up to $10,000 a year or 50% of the costs of purchasing and using compost products that were not generated by them, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor costs. To be eligible an operation would have to complete an eligibility review to ensure that the proposed transport and application of compost products is consistent with the Department’s agricultural pest control rules, to verify that it would allow soil sampling to be conducted by upon request during the duration program as necessary to establish a baseline of soil quality and carbon storage and for subsequent evaluations to assist the department’s reporting, and release the State from any claims based on the use of the compost. The Department of Agriculture would have to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, including the amount of compost for which reimbursement was sought under the program; the qualitative or quantitative effects of the program on soil quality and carbon storage; and an evaluation of the benefits and costs to the state of continuing, expanding, or furthering the strategies it explored.

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to pursue false or misleading claims for plastic products claiming to be “compostable” or “biodegradable”, rather than the Attorney General. It would shift the definition of “Supplier” in the State’s Plastic Product Degradability law  to make manufacturers (or importers into the State, if the State lacked authority over the manufacturers) responsible for compliance with it. It would require plastics labeled as compostable to use green, beige, or brown labeling, striping, or other design patterns that help differentiate them from noncompostable materials, prohibit the use of similar schemes on plastics and food service products that weren’t compostable, and would add beige to the acceptable colors in the current State rules about making it easy to identify compostable plastic film products. It would prohibit plastic produce stickers that were not biodegradable.

It would shift the State’s share of  the responsibility for enforcing the Plastic Product Degradability law from the Attorney General to Ecology, specify that it’s enforcement must be  based primarily on complaints filed with the Department and cities and counties, require the Department to create ways to file complaints, and require it, cities and counties to provide education and outreach activities to inform retail establishments, consumers, and suppliers about the requirements of the law.

SB5722

SB5722 – Creates a benchmarking and energy management program (and eventual performance standards) for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and other buildings between 20,000 and 50,000 sq.ft.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Liias – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1774 is a companion bill in the House. (Dead bill)

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 13th. Replaced with a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing February 4th and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 17th, and passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Appropriations; amended to make it null and void if funding for it isn’t appropriated; and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor delaying the start date of the expanded early adoption incentive program for smaller buildings by a year, to July 2025, and making a couple other minor changes. (I now think the bill caps these expanded incentives at $150 million.) Passed by the House March 3rd.

Summary –
Substitutes –
The substitute would expand the current early adoption incentive program to include buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. They’d get 30¢/sq.ft for implementing their benchmarking, energy management, and operations and maintenance planning requirements without having to meet the performance standards for bigger buildings, and these incentives would be available for buildings using gas, without regard to their greenhouse gas emissions. Multifamily buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. would be eligible for these incentives as well, rather than being able to choose to apply for the 85¢/sq.ft. incentives for early compliance with the performance standards for non-residential over 50,000 sq.ft as they could in the first version of the incentives. Owners could apply from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2030. (I think the bill would allow another $75 million for these incentives, and that the additional funding would not be available for the previous phase of incentives, which reached their $75 million cap very quickly, but the language of that provision isn’t very clear.)

The bill also requires a small business impact statement, and an appeals process for administrative decisions including penalties. It would authorize enhanced incentive payments for building owners committing to anti-displacement provisions rather than limiting incentives for multifamily buildings to those limiting increase in rent to inflation for four years.

Original bill –
By December 31, 2023, the bill would have the Department of Commerce create a benchmarking and energy management requirement for multifamily buildings of at least 50,000 sq. ft. and buildings where the sum of multifamily, nonresidential, hotel, motel, and dormitory areas is between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The requirements are to be consistent with the current Clean Buildings energy performance standards for non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq ft, but are limited to energy use analysis through benchmarking and reporting, energy management planning, and operations and maintenance planning. The Department would be required to create an actual performance standard for these buildings by 2030, and the bill would authorize it to establish targets for buildings’ greenhouse gas-adjusted energy use intensity in this and the current performance standards.)

Commerce would provide a support program for building owners including outreach and informational materials connecting them to utility resources, periodic training, phone and email support, and other technical assistance. It would have to include enhanced technical support such as assistance with benchmarking and planning for buildings whose owners typically don’t employ dedicated managers, such as multifamily housing, child care facilities, and houses of worship. The bill also says the department “shall consider” underresourced buildings with a high energy use per square foot, buildings in rural communities, buildings whose tenants are primarily small businesses, and those located in high-risk communities according to the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities map. [I think that probably means it’s supposed to consider what additional support owners of those buildings might need, and provide that, but it’s not clear.] (The requirements would also have to include provisions for financial hardship.)

Commerce would also be required to establish an incentive program to supplement the cost to building owners or tenants, less utility incentives and annual savings resulting from the requirements. It would have to require that tenants’ rent could not be raised at a rate above inflation for four years after receiving the incentives.

The Department would have to notify the owners of covered buildings of the requirements by July 1, 2025, and owners would have to file reports demonstrating they’d developed and implemented the bill’s required procedures by July 1st, 2027 and every five years after that. It would adopt rules imposing a penalty of not more than 30 cents a square foot for failing to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements, or for increasing rent above the rate of inflation for multifamily leased space receiving the incentives. (Penalties would be deposited in the low-income weatherization and structural rehabilitation assistance account and reinvested into the program to support compliance with the standard.) [I think this means the actual performance standard to be established by 2030.]

The department would have to evaluate the benchmarking data to determine energy use and greenhouse gas emissions averages by building type, and report to the Legislature and the Governor by October 1, 2029, with recommendations for cost-effective building performance standards for the covered buildings, their estimated costs for building owners, and anticipated implementation challenges.

By December 31st, 2030, the Department would be required to adopt rules to add these buildings to the State’s energy performance standard program. It would have to consider the age of buildings in setting performance targets, and might establish a longer timeline for compliance by multifamily buildings than for the other buildings covered by the bill. The rules could not take effect until the end of the 2031 regular session.

SB5670

SB5670– Requiring local governments to allow additional duplexes through sixplexes near major transit stops and in areas now zoned single family.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Kuderer – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be –  Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1782 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
In the Senate –
Had a hearing in Housing & Local Government January 18th; amended to allow zero lot line setbacks where appropriate and passed out of committee January 27th.

Original bill –
The bill defines “middle housing” to mean duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments with up to six units. The bill would require cities with over 20,000 people planning under the Growth Management Act [GMA] to allow them on all lots zoned for single family within half a mile of a major transit stop, and to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on all other lots zoned for single-family. As an alternative, a city with a population of 500,000 or more could alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of at least 40 units/acre across all of its urban growth area; a city with between 100,000 people and 500,000 could rezone to an average minimum density of at least 30 units/acre across its UGA; and a city with between 20,000 and 100,000 people could rezone to an average minimum of at least 25 dwelling units/acre across its UGA. Within nine months of the effective date of the bill any of these cities that had not adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of its comprehensive plan’s mandatory elements would be required to perform the actions for addressing racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion specified in the GMA for areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop. (The bill would define a major transit stop for the purposes of the entire GMA as a ferry terminal; a stop on a light rail, commuter rail, or fixed rail system; a stop on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on HOV lanes; or a stop for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of 15 minutes or less for at least five hours during weekday peaks.

Any city with a population of at least 10,000 planning under the GMA would have to allow duplexes on any lots currently zoned for single-family. (Any city with a population between 10,000 and 20,000 would be able to alter its zoning to allow an average minimum density of 15 dwelling units or more per acre instead.) Cities choosing any of the alternatives based on average minimums in the bill would also have to adopt findings of fact demonstrating that will not result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, or further exclusion in housing, and then transmit those findings to the Department of Commerce.

Cities would be allowed to adopt development and design standards for middle housing, provided that those didn’t discourage it through unreasonable costs, fees, delays, or other requirements or actions which individually, or cumulatively, made developing it impracticable. They would be prohibited from requiring zoning, development, siting, or design review standards for it that were more restrictive than those for single-family residences, and would be required to apply the same development permit and environmental review processes to both. They would be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition of developing it  within a half mile of a major transit stop; from requiring more than than one off-street parking space per lot for it on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet; and from requiring more than two off-street parking spaces per lot for it on lots larger than that.

The Department of Commerce would provide technical assistance to cities implementing  the bill’s requirements, and prioritize cities demonstrating the greatest need for it. It would publish a model middle housing ordinances within 18 months of the bill’s effective date, and that would preempt local development regulations until a city took all the actions necessary to implement  the bill’s requirements. Commerce would establish a process by which cities implementing the requirements could seek approval of necessary local actions. Any local actions approved by the department would be exempted from appeals under the GMA and the State Environmental Policy Act. It would exempt amendments to development regulations and other nonproject actions taken by a city to implement its requirements from administrative or judicial appeals under the GMA. [I think the language of the bill would only exempt them if they had been approved by Commerce, but I’m not sure.]

The bill’s zoning requirements would take effect twenty-four months after its effective date for cities over 10,000 people, or twelve months after the Office of Financial Management determined that a city had reached one of the population thresholds in the bill.

SB5669

SB5669– Strengthens State energy codes by adding reductions in net energy use, net-zero readiness, and wiring for solar in new buildings for the 2031 code cycle, and by creating a residential stretch code.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Senator Stanford – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Never heard. (Dead bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1770 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require the State Energy Code to provide an 80% reduction in residential and non-residential energy use compared to the 2006 baseline by 2034. (This would be 10% more than the reduction currently required by 2031. Since buildings are constructed under the code in place when they’re permitted, it takes a couple of additional years for a code update to actually become effective.)

It would also require those buildings to be “net zero ready”, and to include wiring for photovoltaic panel installation in the future. (The Department of Energy defines “net zero ready” buildings as being so energy efficient that an added renewable energy system could offset all or most of the building’s annual energy. The bill would have the Building Code Council develop the actual rules for meeting the State’s definition of that standard.)

The bill would have the the Department of Commerce propose rules for the technical provisions of an optional statewide residential reach code, and would require the Code Council to adopt one. Any city, town, or county could choose to adopt and enforce it in place of the State Energy Code’s standard requirements. It would have to become effective by 2023, and have to achieve the reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that would become effective in the regular State residential code by 2034, but could not exceed the “net zero” energy standard.

The bill would also eliminate a provision specifying that space heating equipment efficiency should be allowed to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance in the code.

SB5666

SB5666– Allows public electric utilities to fund outreach and investment to convert customers’ equipment from fossil fuels to electricity if they have approved plans establishing that will provide net benefits to the utility.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett.) (Co-Sponsor Senator Carlyle – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1767 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would allow public electric utilities to adopt a targeted electrification plan after public comment, establishing that the sum of the benefits of an option for electrifying its residential and commercial customers’ gas or wood equipment would equal or exceed the sum of its costs. (These utilities would still be authorized to offer incentives and programs to accelerate the electrification of homes and buildings if that were in their direct economic interest.)

The benefits they consider may include system impacts, as well as:
(i) Utility revenue from increased retail load;
(ii) Distribution and transmission system efficiencies resulting from demand response or other load management opportunities associated with the increased load, including direct control and dynamic pricing;
(iii) System reliability improvements;
(iv) Indoor and outdoor air quality benefits to existing and future customers;
(v) Reductions in customers’ greenhouse gas emissions, taking into consideration the utility’s obligations under the cap and invest act and the State’s greenhouse gas emissions limits;
(vi) Public health benefits, such as resilience in dealing with extreme heat and wildfire smoke for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations.
The analysis may differentiate the benefits and costs for low-income customers, highly impacted communities, and vulnerable populations in their service area.

The costs they consider must include:
(i) The electricity, which must be demonstrated to have a lower greenhouse gas emissions profile than direct use of natural gas or any other resources that might be used to serve or offset the load from electrification during the life of the equipment;
(ii) Any upgrades to the utility’s distribution or transmission system or load management practices and equipment made necessary by the increased load; and
(iii) The cost of any incentives, advertising, or other inducements used to encourage customers to electrify a use served by a different fuel.

After adopting a plan, a public utility would be authorized to offer incentives and establish other programs to accelerate the targeted electrification of homes and buildings, including the promotion of electrically powered equipment, advertising programs and projects, educational programs, and customer incentives or rebates. A utility offering these incentives and programs would be required to prioritize service to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities, and to ensure that all customers were benefiting from the transition to clean energy through the equitable distribution of energy and non energy benefits and the reduction of burdens to vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities including long-term and short-term public health and environmental benefits; reduction of those costs and risks; and energy security and resiliency.

SB5641

SB5641 – Makes commercial greenhouses with plastic roofs as well as residential ones, and temporary growing structures with permanent walls as well as those with plastic sides, exempt from the building code.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeastern Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government February 18th, and passed out of committee the 22nd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 18th; passed out of committee January 20th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate January 28th.

Comments –
On average, transportation from the farm to the supermarket accounts for less than 4% of total food emissions. (Food that’s flown, like fresh fish and flowers, has relatively high transportation emissions; food that travels a long way by ship has suprisingly low ones.) Local food raised in a heated greenhouse may well not involve lower greenhouse gas emissions than food shipped a long way from a warmer location.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current exemption of “temporary growing structures” with plastic roofs from the requirements of the building code to include commercial greenhouses as well as residential ones, and to include buildings with permanent walls as well as those with sides made of plastic.

SB5626

SB5626 – Adding a climate resilience element to water system plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 22nd. Did not progress by cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th. The substitute adds some specifications about the Department’s technical assistance, and would have the UW’s Climate Impacts Group assist in the development of tools for that if funding were appropriated. It would also eliminate the Public Water Board’s and Commerce’s participation in the administration of the Water System Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program. Had a hearing in Ways and Means February 3rd; passed out of committee on the 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 12th.

Summary –
The bill would require public water systems serving 1,000 or more connections to include a climate resilience element as part of their water system plans. They would have to determine which extreme weather events pose significant challenges to their system and build scenarios to identify potential impacts; assess critical assets and the actions necessary to protect the system from the effects of extreme weather events on operations; and generate reports describing the costs and benefits of the system’s risk reduction strategies for decision makers and stakeholders.

The Department of Health would be required to update its water system planning guidebook to assist systems in implementing the climate resilience element, including guidance on any available technical and financial resources. The bill would authorize the Department’s water system acquisition and rehabilitation program to make loans to systems to partially cover project costs as well as the current grants, and would make climate resilience planning and actions to protect system from extreme weather events, including infrastructure and design projects, eligible for financing from the program.

SB5619

SB5619 – Develops a plan to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1661 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The findings say:
These marine forests and meadows play an important role in climate mitigation and adaptation by sequestering carbon and relieving ocean acidification. Marine vegetation can sequester up to times more carbon than terrestrial forests, and therefore represent a critical tool in the fight against climate change.
There’s research on using kelp growing on open ocean platforms, where the biomass falls into regions where there’s so little biological activity that it doesn’t break down and the carbon captured in its growth stays sequestered. I don’t know how much carbon from our local kelp forests stays sequestered for long. How well local eel grass meadows sequester carbon is unclear.


In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 20th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. The substitute, which matches the one for HB1661, would focus the Conservation Plan on native species; have it address current conservation efforts; and identify research needed on native seaweed aquaculture. It specifies consultation and adds reporting requirements. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 5th. Amended and passed out of committee February 7th. (The amendment has DNR map both native and non-native eelgrass and kelp throughout the Sound and along the coast and allows it to use that mapping  in establishing the health and conservation plan.)  Referred to Rules; passed the Senate unanimously February 10th.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources February 18th; passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Appropriations. Amended to make it null and void if funding isn’t appropriated for it, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 2nd.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to work with partners to establish a kelp forest and eelgrass meadow health and conservation plan that tries (subject to available funding) to conserve and restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040.

They would develop a framework to identify and prioritize kelp forest areas in greatest need of conservation or restoration, mapping areas throughout Puget Sound and along the coast where they were historically present, identifying priority locations for restoration that are at highest risk of permanent loss, or that contribute significant environmental, economic, and cultural benefits to tribal nations and local communities; locations where opportunities for partnership and collaboration exist, and locations where restoration would most benefit nearshore ecosystem function including salmon recovery, water quality, and other ecosystem benefits. They would identify potential stressors impacting the health and vitality of forests and meadows in prioritized areas in order to specifically address them in conservation and restoration efforts.

The department would collaborate with impacted tribal nations, and other local and regional partners, to address conservation and restoration needs in the priority areas and the appropriate tools and partnerships to address them. In developing coordinated actions and success measures, it would assess and inventory existing tools for conserving and restoring these ecosystems and reducing stressors related to their decline; identify new or amended tools that would support the goals of the plan; and identify success measures to track progress toward them.

The department would submit a report to the Office of Financial Management and the appropriate committees of the Legislature by December 1, 2022, including a map and justification of identified priority areas, an approach to monitoring the areas that are meeting the criteria for conservation or restoration established in the plan, and activities to be undertaken consistent with the plan. A final version of the plan would have to be submitted to OFM and these committees by December 1, 2023.

The department would continue to monitor kelp forests and eelgrass meadows to inform adaptive management of the plan and coordinated partner actions, and submit a report every two years including an updated map of distributions and trends; a summary of success measures and findings, including relevant information from the prioritization process; an updated list summarizing potential stressors, prioritized areas, and corresponding coordinated actions and success measures; an update on the number of acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows conserved by region, including restoration or loss in priority areas; an update on consultation with impacted tribal nations and local communities; any barriers to plan implementation; and legislative or administrative recommendations to address those barriers.

SB5616

SB5616 – Allows using the energy efficiency account permanently for loans, loan guarantees, and grants that reduce greenhouse gas emissions for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (By request of the Office of Financial Management)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations February 22nd. Passed out of committee February 24th, and referred to Rules. Passed by the House March 3rd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Ways & Means January 17th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 31st. Referred to Transportation and had a hearing there February 3rd. Replaced by a second substitute making a couple of housekeeping changes and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously February 11th.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would make the change allowing the energy efficiency account to be used for projects reducing EITE emissions permanent.

Original bill –
During the next biennium, the bill would allow money in the energy efficiency account to be appropriated and spent on loans, loan guarantees, and grants for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries. (It would also create a clean energy transition workforce account to support workers affected by the state’s transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy, and a forest resiliency account dedicated to spending on forest health, carbon sequestration, and any other activities that help protect Washington forests.)

SB5580

SB5580 – Authorizes loans and grants for emergency public works broadband projects, and no longer requires UTC assessments of applications’ technical feasibility.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsor Senator Mullet -D) (By request of the Public Works Board)
Current status – Referred to Rules. Still there at cutoff; sent to the “X” file February 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1673 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th.

Summary –

Substitute –
When the Board was funding emergency public works projects, the substitute would require it to prioritize replacing an existing provider’s damaged infrastructure, and prohibit funding a new provider to overbuild the existing one.

Original bill –
The bill would authorize the board to make low-interest or interest-free loans or grants for emergency public works broadband projects, including the construction, repair, reconstruction, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement to critical broadband infrastructure damaged by unforeseen events.

It would no longer require the board to consult with the Utilities and Transportation Commission to assessments of the technical feasibility of applications and to consider those as part of its evaluations of them.

It would also make financial and commercial information and records supplied by businesses or individuals in applying for loans or program services exempt from disclosure under the public records act, and make very minor changes in the processes for applications and for objections by current providers.

SB5590

SB5590 – Eliminates the expiration date for the Marine Advisory Council, which works on addressing the impacts of ocean acidification.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; parts of Skagit, Snohomish and King Counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 24th, and passed out of committee. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 4th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th; amended to keep an expiration date, but extend it to 2032, and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 14th.

Comments –
The original section of the law establishing the Council says that it’s to deliver recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature, but it doesn’t actually ever specify what those are supposed to be about…

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would eliminate the expiration date for the Marine Advisory Council, which works on addressing the impacts of ocean acidification. It’s currently June 30th, 2022.

The Council’s composed of 23 voting members representing State and tribal government, State agencies, and a range of stakeholders, with invited participation as non-voting members by representatives of NOAA and academic institutions conducting scientific research on ocean acidification. It’s to focus in a sustained and coordinated way on increasing the state’s ability to address impacts of ocean acidification; to advise and work with the University of Washington and others to conduct ongoing technical analysis on accidification’s effects and sources; and to deliver recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees in the Legislature [presumably about ways to address those impacts], identifying actions necessary to implement them, and   taking the differences between in-state and out-of-state impacts and sources into consideration.

The Council’s also to seek public and private funding for resources needed for ongoing technical analysis to support its recommendations; and to help conduct public education about ocean acidification’s impacts,  contributions to those, and implementation strategies “to support the actions adopted by the Legislature”.

It’s to meet at least twice a year, and accept public comment on agenda items and other matters relating to the protection and conservation of the state’s ocean resources.

SJM8007

SJM8007 – Senate Joint Memorial urging the Federal government to move forward with steps to manage and permanently store spent fuel from commercial nuclear plants.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Brown (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities & Benton County)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would urge Congress and the Secretary of Energy to implement the recommendations of a 2021 study by the Government Accountability Office on commercial spent nuclear fuel.

That recommended Congress consider:
(1) Amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to authorize the Department of Energy to initiate a new consent-based process for siting, developing, and constructing new consolidated interim storage and permanent repository facilities;
(2) Creating an independent board to ensure the long-term continuity of leadership for managing spent nuclear fuel;
(3) Restructuring the Nuclear Waste Fund so funds used to develop, construct, and operate a permanent repository are based on the spent nuclear fuel program’s life-cycle costs; and
(4) Directing the Department of Energy to develop and implement an integrated waste management strategy.

SB5543

SB5543 – Creates a program providing rebates for new all electric landscaping equipment in exchange for operating gas and diesel equipment that would be scrapped or recycled.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Carlyle (D; 36th District; Northwest Seattle)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in Ways and Means on Thursday February 17th at 4:00 PM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 11th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 20th. (The substitute would  convert the rebate for new equipment to a point of sale incentive, structured as a B&O credit on sales of discounted new equipment, limited to one item a year per customer. The credit would be limited to $50,000 per retailer, capped at $2 million altogether, and usable until the end of 2024.)

Summary –
The bill would establish a cash for clunkers pilot exchange program providing rebates for new all electric landscaping equipment, if funds were appropriated for that purpose. (It would be eligible for funding from the Climate Commitment Act – aka the cap and trade program.)

The program would cover edgers, trimmers, chainsaws, and pole saws; leaf blowers and vacuums; walk-behind mowers; ride-on or stand-ride mowers; additional batteries and chargers; and any other equipment approved by the Department of Ecology. Residents who turned in any operable gasoline or diesel landscaping equipment to be scrapped would be eligible for one rebate of $100 on any new piece of all electric equipment costing up to $300 including tax, or a rebate of $200 on a more expensive piece. Commercial landscapers could turn in up to three pieces and get up to three rebates.

The Department of Ecology would administer the program, and could coordinate doing that with local clean air agencies, or regional offices where a local clean air agency doesn’t exist. The department would be required to maintain a public list of retailers that agreed to take old gasoline or diesel equipment for recycling or disposal, and to track the effectiveness of the program by estimating emissions reductions from the exchanges.

SB5528

SB5528 – Allows a regional transit authority to create enhanced service zones with improved service from rail or high capacity systems, to be approved by residents of the zone and financed by them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Pedersen (D; 43rd District; Seattle); Co-Sponsor Rep. Liias (D; 21st District; Everett)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2062 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
It’s hard to see how the operators of commercial parking facilities without attendants are supposed to be able to keep track of how many of the vehicles that used them were exempt from a commercial parking tax.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Transportation February 24th; passed out of committee the 28th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to prevent a regional transit authority from proceeding with improvements financed by an enhanced service zone if they will delay the estimated completion date of high capacity improvements in an existing voter-approved regional transit plan by more than six months rather than preventing this if it would create a material and unreasonable delay. Passed by the House March 3rd.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation  January 13th; replaced by a substitute making changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 11th.

Summary –
The bill would authorize regional transit authorities to create enhanced zones to improve rail or high capacity service in ways that directly benefited residents of the zone. A zone would have to be recommended to the authority by an advisory committee whose members represented the proposed zone, and then authorized in a special election by the voters in the zone. The improvements would be financed by increasing the maximum rate of the local special motor vehicle excise tax available to regional transit authorities in counties with a population over 1.5 million from .85% to 1.5% within the enhanced zone, and/or through a local commercial parking tax.

The parking tax could be imposed as a tax on commercial parking businesses in the zone, based on the number of stalls or gross proceeds, or as a tax “for the act or privilege of parking a motor vehicle in a facility operated by a commercial parking business.” In that case, it would still be collected and paid by operator of the facility, but it might be a fee per vehicle or proportional to the charge for parking, and might vary according to a number of reasonable factors including the facility’s location, the time of day, or the duration of the parking. It would also apply to leased spaces as well as temporary parking, unless those were for buildings’ residents. Carpools, vehicles with a disabled parking placard, and government vehicles would be exempt.

An enhanced service zone would have to be within the transit authority’s boundaries and include at least all of a city or town within them; it could also include one or more entire adjacent cities or towns and adjacent unincorporated areas. There might also be multiple enhanced service zones encompassing the same city or town, or adjacent unincorporated area.

SB5526

SB5526 – Requires a report to the Legislature on the global availability of lithium and rare earth minerals used in battery manufacturing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 31st District; Auburn)
Current status – Had a hearing in Business, Financial Services & Trade January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff. Sent to the “X” file February 17th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
I hope the study will take account of recent work by Amory Lovins, the founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, about how the substitution of other materials, technological innovations, and increasing recycling are rapidly reducing the need for rare minerals in these applications. (See “RMI Reality Check: Greener, Friendlier Alternatives Exist for Rare Minerals in Batteries“)

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute would also have Commerce research successful approaches and methods used to develop infrastructure for recycling EV batteries, including incentives for manufacturers to extract critical materials from them for reuse and requirements for designing them to support recycling. It would have the Department collaborate with Ecology in drafting legislation to establish a statewide recycling program for EV batteries, and allow collaborating with PNNL and the Joint Center for the Deployment and Research in Earth Abundant Materials as well. It specifies that this work is subject to appropriation, and requires a report to the Legislature by June 30th 2023.

Original bill –
The bill would require the Department of Commerce to report to the Legislature on the global availability of lithium and rare earth minerals used in battery manufacturing, since “the State is increasingly encouraging new energy storage technologies such as electric vehicles and electric grid scale battery storage … dependent on rare earth minerals and difficult-to-source earth components.”

SJM8006

SJM8006 – Senate Joint Memorial expressing support for a National Infrastructure Bank.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Seattle)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business February 21st; passed out of committee the 23rd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade January 13th. Passed out of committee January 25th, and passed by the Senate February 15th.

Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would communicate the Legislature’s support for the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank, and its reasons for that support, to the President and both houses of the United States Congress.

SB5495

SB5495 – Prohibits scrap metal dealers from buying a catalytic converter from anyone but a business or the owner of the vehicle from which it came.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in Law & Justice January 25th; replaced by a substitute, passed out of committee, and referred to Ways and Means February 3rd. Had a hearing February 5th; replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file February 17th
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1815 addresses converter thefts, by requiring unique identifying marks on them and creating a task force on the issue; so does HB1873, which is identical to this bill except that it would make a second or subsequent violation of the current law’s prohibitions on removing identifying marks from metal property, or entering into a transaction where they’ve been deliberately and conspicuously altered, a Class C felony. See also HB1994.

Summary –
Substitutes –
The initial substitute would have made unlawful possession and attempting the unlawful sale or purchase of a catalytic converter crimes. It appropriated $4 million to have the State Patrol develop a comprehensive enforcement strategy targeting metal theft, including a grant and training program for local law enforcement and a database on people who attempt to purchase or sell unlawfully obtained metals or attempt to conduct transactions under the influence of controlled substances. It removed a couple of the original’s new regulations on scrap metal businesses.

The 2nd Substitute (which I’m assuming overrides a couple of successful previous amendments to the first substitute in the same session) reduces the appropriation to $2 million; shifts the administration of the law enforcement strategy targeting metal theft and the grant program to the Criminal Justice Training Commission and the responsibility for the database to Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs; and makes a couple of other small changes in the rules about metal transactions.

Original bill –
The bill expands the regulations about scrap metal dealers to prohibit them from buying a catalytic converter from anyone but a commercial enterprise or the owner of the vehicle from which it came. (The owner would have to provide the year, make, model, and vehicle identification number for the vehicle.) It adds precious metals to the dealers’ reporting requirements for “private metal property” and “non-ferrous metal property” transactions (though it doesn’t specify that addition each time those others are specified). It requires a five day delay before cash payments can be made for these materials, and requires keeping records of them for at least three years.

It makes it a gross misdemeanor, and a civil infraction subject to a $1,000 fine, for any scrap metal business and for any owner, partner, or employee of one to purchase or receive private metal property knowing that it’s stolen.

SB5494

SB5494 – Prohibits products that contain olefins derived from methanol manufactured from natural gas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit the sale or distribution of products containing olefins derived from methanol manufactured from natural gas, on the grounds (according to the bill’s findings) that the Department of Ecology refused to permit the proposed Kalama methanol plant because “the manufacturing process does not comply with Washington’s rules for reducing global emissions” and that it’s only consistent for us to not support its being done anywhere else.

SB5493

SB5493 – Reopens the Renewable Energy System Incentive Program, but only for residential systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Renewable Energy System Incentive Program established by ESSB 5729 in 2017 for residential and commercial renewable energy projects and for community solar projects reached its $100 million cap early in 2019, though the bill would have allowed new enrollments for another two and a half years if the funding had not been used up. This bill would reopen the program for residential systems only.

It would place a new $100 million cap on the program as a whole. Incentives would still be distributed to customers by participating utilities, with funding for those provided to each utilitiy as credits against its taxes, up to an annual limit of one and one-half percent of its power sales in 2014 or $250,000, whichever was greater. The reopened program would phase down the incentives in the same way, going from $0.16/kWh for systems certified in 2022 down to $0.10/kWh in 2025, and stepping the Made in Washington bonus from $0.05/kWh down to $0.02/kWh. Annual payments for a residential system would still be limited to $5,000. There would still be a one-time application fee of $125.

Details –
Utility participation in the program is still voluntary. Puget Sound Energy submitted a letter withdrawing from it in December 2019. (Apparently, PSE and some other utilities withdrew from the program because the law required the Energy Program to keep accepting applications after the money for funding them ran out, confusing people and supporting some misleading sales pitches by some bad actors; withdrawing from the program shut down applications in a utility’s service territory.) I don’t know if they’ll renew their participation now or not, though it would seem likely. A comment on the WSU Energy Program’s web page about its administration of the  program does make it sound as if residential projects on PSE’s waiting list at that point might well be eligible for a renewed program.

The bill drops the requirements for a report on the program to the Legislature.

SB5492

SB5492 – Requires Ecology to develop a program for collecting, managing, and recycling wind turbine blades, paid for by the manufacturers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in Environment, Energy & Technology Wednesday January 19th at 8:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –

According to a recent Bloomberg 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 well 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 a revised version of Senator Wilson’s SB5174, which died in the Senate Rules Committee last session. It currently requires stewardship plans to be submitted by July 1, 2024, even though Ecology isn’t required to have finished the guidance for them until January 1, 2024.

Summary –
The bill requires Ecology to develop “guidance” for a program for collecting, managing, and recycling wind turbine blades by January 2024. It’s supposed to be a “self-directed” program, and is supposed to be implemented and paid for by their manufacturers, but it must be based on one or more stewardship organizations operating and implementing as agents on their behalf, and it has to be approved by Ecology. (“Manufacturers” are defined to include retailers and importers of blades; they would be allowed to participate in an approved national program instead, if there were one Ecology determined has requirements substantially equivalent to the State’s.)

Plans must describe how manufacturers will finance the system and include an adequate funding mechanism ensuring blades can be delivered without cost to the last owner or holder to takeback locations within the region in which they were used and that are as convenient as reasonably practicable; accept all blades sold in or into Washington after July 1, 2024; identify how stakeholders including installers, demolition firms, and recycling and treatment facilities will receive information needed to properly dismantle, transport, and treat the blades; and establish performance goals, including one for reusing and recycling at least 85% of the weight of collected blades.

There are reporting requirements, fees to cover Ecology’s administrative costs, and penalties on manufacturers of up to $10,000 a blade (after an initial warning) for each sale or installation of one without an approved stewardship plan. (The bill prohibits installations, and provides for issuing warnings to installers, but it only applies penalties to manufacturers.)