Category Archives: Senate Bills 2024

SB6052

SB6052 – Assessing petroleum products supply and pricing.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsors Conway, Hasegawa, Keiser, Kuderer, Liias, Pedersen, Saldaña, Stanford, Valdez – Ds) By request of the Governor.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Scheduled for a hearing in Ways & Means at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2232 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
The substitute in the folder with materials for the executive session has a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of it. The amendment requires the fuels transition plan to evaluate the grid’s readiness to serve as the main source of energy for transportation and ton identify shortcomings where actions must be taken to strengthen its reliability.

Summary –
The bill would have the Utilities and Transportation Commission collect, analyze, and report on operational, pricing, and cost information from fuel suppliers, refineries, and other entities in the supply chain for transportation fuels sold in the state. It creates an independent Division of Petroleum Market Oversight with a director appointed by the Governor.

The Division would provide independent oversight and analysis of the transportation fuels markets to protect consumers by identifying market design flaws, market power abuses, and any other ways in which market participants act to harm competition or contrary to the best interests of consumers. It would be authorized to compel witnesses to testify under oath and to subpoena relevant material including current and historical pricing and sales data and industry contracts.It would provide guidance and recommendations to the Governor, as well as members and other divisions of the UTC on issues related to transportation fuels pricing and transportation decarbonization in Washington, and would report its findings and recommendations to improve market performance at least annually to the Legislature, the Governor, the UTC, the Attorney General, and the Department of Licensing.

Refiners, marketer, transporters, storers, pipeline operators, terminal operators, and ports through which transportation fuel is imported or exported would have to report a range of specified information to the UTC on a monthly or an annual basis. The Commission could require additional information needed to fulfill its responsibilities under the bill, and would create a quarterly public report summarizing the collected monthly data from refiners and major marketers, aggregated to preserve the confidentiality of protected information. Records of contracts, transactions and prices would have to be retained for three years so they would be available for review by the UTC. Importers of fuels by ship would have to notify the UTC of arrivals in advance and provide specified information about the delivery; refiners and nonrefiners entering into spot market transactions would have to provide monthly reports on those. Refiners would have to report on maintenance and turnaround activities. (The Legislature intends these to be carried out in a way that ensures that there are the minimum levels of fuels in production or reserves to adequately and affordably meet demand.) They would also have to report on unplanned maintenance events.

In consultation with the Department of Ecology, the UTC would adopt a method for refiners to use to quantify the volume-weighted fees or estimated costs associated with the clean fuels program that were embedded in various prices for wholesale transportation fuels. Those would be included in monthly reporting as well.

After notification, there’d be penalties between $5,000 and $20,000 a day for each day the submission of information was refused or delayed, up to a maximum of $500,000 per submission, as well as penalties for false statements or representations. There are provisions about protecting confidential information.

The UTC would analyze and interpret this information to explore:
(a) The nature, cause, and extent of any petroleum or petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply;
(b) The economic and environmental impacts of any petroleum and petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply;
(c) The demand and supply forecasting methodologies used by the petroleum industry in Washington;
(d) The prices charged by the industry, with particular emphasis on retail motor fuel prices including sales to unbranded retail markets; any significant changes in those; and the reasons for changes;
(e) The profits, both before and after taxes, of the industry as a whole and of major firms within it, and where in the supply chain these profits are realized, including a comparison with the profits, return on equity and capital, and price-earnings ratios of other major industry groups and major firms within them;
(f) A comparison of companies’ profits at their Washington refineries and at any other refineries they own in the United States;
(g) Emerging trends relating to the supply, demand, and conservation of petroleum and petroleum products;
(h) The nature and extent of the industry’s efforts to expand refinery capacity and to acquire additional supplies of petroleum and petroleum products; and
(i) The development of an information system that will enable the state to take action to meet and mitigate any petroleum or petroleum products shortage or condition affecting supply.
The commission would also analyze the impacts of state and federal policies and regulations on the supply and pricing of transportation fuels. It would submit a quarterly public summary of its analysis and interpretation of the information it gathered to the Governor and the Legislature, and prepare a biennial assessment of it. (It could hire consultants to help with its work.)

Before July 2026, and every three years after that, the Commission would submit an assessment to the Governor and the Legislature, developed in a public process, that:
(i) Identified methods to ensure a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in Washington, including considering the potential benefits to consumers of creating estimates for the fuels that should be held in reserve by refiners to prevent shortages that result in sharp price increases, and,
(ii) Evaluated the price of fuels and other refinery products, consideringh market demand at three, seven, 10, and 20-year intervals, and examined whether branded fuel additives have any impact on fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions, and if so, how much.

It would also assess the presence and availability of retail outlets, including monitoring changes in their availability that contribute to increasing retail prices in local and regional areas; consider different levels of supply conditions and assess the impact of potential refinery closures in Washington; and include an analysis of the impacts on production of planned refinery maintenance, unplanned maintenance, and turnaround. In consultation with the Department of Labor and Industries and stakeholders, the UTC and the Division would consider ways to manage necessary turnarounds and maintenance that would protect the health and safety of employees and the public, and minimize the impact of maintenance-related production losses on fuel prices. It would evaluate the utility and feasibility of alternative methods to maintain adequate supplies of transportation fuels, including delivery alternatives for fuel and components of fuel, such as delivery by rail, a publicly maintained strategic fuel reserve, and other solutions beyond the activities of refineries and petroleum market participants. It would propose solutions to mitigate any impacts, including an assessment of the employment impacts and the cost and cost-effectiveness of any proposal. The assessments would have to include recommendations and alternatives, and the first one would have to include the evaluation of transportation fuels refining.

By 2026, the UTC and Ecology, would prepare a transportation fuels transition plan, taking into account findings of the assessment. It would have to include include a discussion of how to ensure the supply of transportation fuels is affordable, reliable, equitable, and adequate to meet demand. It would have to be prepared in consultation with a multistakeholder, multiagency work group they convened to identify mechanisms to plan for and monitor progress toward the state’s reliable, safe, equitable, and affordable transition away from petroleum fuels in line with declining demand and its climate goals. (The bill specifies a list of stakeholders that would have to be included in the work group.)

The bill would make it unlawful for a person to make deceptive environmental marketing claims about transportation fuels, whether they were explicit or implied, and authorizes enhanced penalties under the consumer protection laws for violations.

SB6304

SB6304 –Implementing recommendations of the transportation electrification strategy.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsors Nguyen & Kuderer – Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 1:30 PM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
SB5945 would prohibit direct sales by EV manufacturers.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce develop recommended legislative language on maximum timelines for electric vehicle charging equipment project permitting and interconnection; streamlined utility requirements for reporting on transportation electrification; requirements for consumer information on EV chargers; extending right-to-charge policies to tenants and homeowners outside common interest communities; reliability standards for publicly available and shared use EV chargers; and other policies to implement the recommendations on improving EV chargers’ availability and use in the transportation electrification strategy. It would have Commerce develop a comprehensive and publicly available inventory of all electric vehicle supply equipment in Washington by the end of 2025, and require an update of the model regulations for local government on EV charging every five years. The bill would require all this work to be done in coordination with a specified list of stqkeholders.

The bill would have the Department of Transportation use Commerce’s inventory and various estimates developed by the Interagency Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council rather than having Transportation continue to be responsible for doing that work itself.

Public and private utilities’ outreach and investment in transportation electrification currently can’t increase net costs to ratepayers more than one-quarter of one percent. The bill would drop that limit, as well as the current 2% cap on the incentive rate of returns the UTC can authorize for private utilities’ investments in EV chargers. It would have utilities prioritize residential and fleet charging; demand management, including managed charging; and upgrades and expansions of grid infrastructure to deliver power to electric vehicle supply equipment. It would have them meet or exceed the equity investment requirements for the clean fuels program.

The bill would allow a manufacturer of zero emissions vehicles to own, operate, or control a new motor vehicle dealership that only sells its new vehicles; or to own, operate, control or contract with companies that provide finance, leasing, or service for its vehicles. (It would do this by exempting them from the current provisions which generally prohibit manufacturers from competing with dealers.)

The bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to establish and enforce energy efficiency standards for replacement tires for passenger cars and light trucks. Implementing this might include creating a database of replacement tires offered for sale or distribution in the state; requirements for reporting information about replacement tires; a rating system for the their energy efficiency; testing procedures in alignment with enacted regulations by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration; and minimum energy efficiency standards for replacement tires based on their rolling resistance. There’d be exemptions for various special use tires, and the rules could not worsen tire safety or longevity. The bill would authorize inspections and penalties of up to $10,000 per occurrence for repeat violations of the requirements.

The bill would have the Department of Ecology enforce the rules about the prevention of idling by medium and heavy vehicles required as part of our adoption of California’s vehicle emission standards.

The bill would have Ecology, in collaboration with OSPI and Commerce, identify target years for requiring all new public school bus purchases be for zero emissions buses and for requiring all the ones in operation to be zero emissions buses, with consideration of the modeling from the transportation electrification strategy, other cost analyses and bus availability projections. It would have them calculate the funding needed to cover higher purchase prices before cost parity, route planning, facility upgrades, charging infrastructure, and training. They would develop a funding process that doesn’t require districts to apply for state competitive grants separate from other direct funding, and that ensures a seamless transition from the clean diesel bus program. They’d develop an exemptions request and approval process that can be used if a district can demonstrate another bus is required by the route; and they’d coordinate with districts through regional transportation coordinators to implement these requirements.

The bill would require the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment at state facilities to be done by people certified by the electric vehicle infrastructure training program or a similarly accredited program.

SB6303

SB6303 – Providing several fifteen year tax incentives to encourage energy storage system and component parts manufacturing in Washington.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Scheduled for executive session in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 8:00 AM on Friday January 26th. (The bill hasn’t ever had a hearing, as far as I can see; the sponsor is the committee chair, which may have something to do with that.). Passed out of committee the same day, and referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax on businesses selling, manufacturing, or processing energy storage system and component parts in the state at 0.275% through 2040. (This would include batteries, thermal storage systems, mechanical systems including pumped hydro, and electrical systems like super capacitors and superconducting magnetic energy storage.)

It would also provide an annual credit of $4,000 for each person employed in a permanent full-time position manufacturing any of these, and an additional $4,000 credit for each position that lasts over ten years.

It would make the construction of facilities to produce these eligible for the sales tax deferrals on materials and equipment, labor, or services currently available for a variety of green investment projects. (These allow you to postpone starting to pay the taxes until two years after the completion of a project, and to pay them gradually over ten years.)

There’d be a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee report on the program after five years evaluating average construction wages for eligible projects; the number of jobs created in the clean technology sector; the use of apprenticeship programs, and women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses by eligible projects; the degree to which the preference encouraged manufacturing and component production for technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; whether facilities benefiting from the preference would have been developed without the preference; and any other relevant metric. However, the bill specifies that the Legislature doesn’t intend to change the expiration of the preference based on the findings of the review…

SB6291

SB6291 – Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Central Washington) (Co-Sponsors Lovick – D; Dozier and Short – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 26th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2465 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
I’m no expert, but I think most of the bill simply codifies the Council’s current processes. The title says it “streamlines” adopting statewide amendments; I don’t see much about doing that in the bill.

In the Senate –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a very brief staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require the Council to review the new editions of the model codes it adopts by reference within 30 months of their publication. It specifies procedures for proposing and adopting emergency statewide amendments to the code at any time. It authorizes a majority of the Council to initiate an interim code adoption cycle between 12 and 18 months after the effective date of codes adopted in the regular three year cycle to correct errors and omissions, or eliminate obsolete, conflicting, redundant, or unnecessary regulations. It allows for off-cycle amendments, but only at the direction of the Legislature.

More generally, the bill specifies that substantive changes to the code must be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare; or clarifies the intent or application of the code; or be necessary for consistency with state or federal laws and regulations; correct errors and omissions; eliminate an obsolete or conflicting regulation; or be directed by the Legislature. Substantive updates will happen only once during the three year code adoption cycle, unless they happen though one of the exceptions above.

The bill also specifies some procedures for submitting proposed statewide amendments. It would require the Council to develop a process for meetings that allowed the public to understand amendments being proposed for adoption, including modifications to proposed rule text to be in writing, specify the reason for the amendment, and be available to the council and the public at least seven days before a vote on final adoption. The rules would have to encourage councilmembers and technical advisory group members to make proposed amendments and text changes available to other members and the public at least 48 hours before the meeting at which they would be discussed.

The bill specifies criteria for membership in a technical advisory group, and requires approval of a proposed amendment by a majority of a TAG for it to be considered by the Council. It eliminates the Council’s authority to contract for services, and specifies that it’s to hire a managing director. It would require its standing committees, ad hoc committees, and technical advisory groups to conform to the requirements of the open public meetings act.

SB6229

SB6229 – Allowing the Department of Transportation to set the matching requirement for a Green Transportation Capital Grant at the level it deems appropriate.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors King and Holy – R; Cleveland, Liias, Lovick, and Nobles – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation on January 23rd, and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2131 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would allow the Department of Transportation to set the matching requirement for a Green Transportation Capital Grant at the level it deems appropriate. (Currently, the law requires a match by the grantee of at least 20%.)

SB6138

SB6138 – Promoting the establishment of thermal energy networks.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Nobles, Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 24th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2131 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would authorize electrical and gas companies to own, operate, or manage nonemitting thermal energy networks piping fluids for transferring heat in and out of buildings to improve energy efficiency and/or eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions of current heating and cooling, domestic hot water or refrigeration. Investor owned projects would have to be reviewed and approved by the UTC, which could authorize the recovery of the costs in rates; public projects would be reviewed and approved by their governing bodies.

The bill would create a pilot project program, giving investor owned gas companies priority for developing projects in their service areas if they notified the UTC of their intention to do a project within a year after the bill took effect and deployed a project within 30 months. The bill would require the UTC to consider a considerable number of factors in deciding whether to approve projects, including the customers and low-income customers served, the use of the existing natural gas workforce and efforts to transition it to thermal energy work, maintaining infrastructure safety and reliability; its ability to meet 100 percent of the customers’ demand for space heating; public health benefits, coordination with any electric utility providing service to the area, and its potential to enable gas pipeline decommissioning and supplant the need for gas pipeline replacement and the associated costs. (There are other items, as well as a list of optional factors that the UTC might take into consideration.) Companies would have to include pilot projects in their RFP’s requests for energy resources, and if a company determined it could deploy a pilot project at the lowest reasonable cost itself instead of deploying one through a heat purchase or energy services agreement, it would be authorized to do that. The UTC might authorize merging a company’s rate bases for its gas and thermal network operations; if a company did that it would have to monetize any benefits it received from Federal and State incentives and use them to mitigate rate impacts on customers.

The bill would require the Department of Commerce to create a grant program to support gas company projects in the program, subject to the availability of amounts specifically appropriated for that. Grants would cover the difference between the company’s lowest reasonable cost resources under its current business practices and the costs of building and operating the pilot project. In reviewing grants, Commerce would consider the same factors that the UTC would be required to take into account in deciding whether to approve them.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would review the program and report on it to the appropriate committees of the Legislature.

SB6278

SB6278 – Creating an organic and regenerative agriculture action plan for the State.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsors Muzzall – R; Billig, Nobles, Saldaña, and Valdez – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 25th. Replaced by a substitute adding one or more historically underserved farmers or ranchers to the task force and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Thw bill would have the Department of Agriculture create and chair an organic and regenerative agriculture task force, including representatives from 15 specified interests, organizations, and state agencies. It would be required to include representatives from large farming operations with gross receipts above $250,000 a year and from smaller operations with receipts below that as well as from farming operations on both sides of the Cascades.

The Department would be required to consult with the task force in developing an organic agriculture action plan, a guide to leveraging organic and regenerative agriculture to address economic, social, and environmental challenges, create opportunities for farmers wishing to transition to organic farming, increase resiliency in agricultural methods, and build a robust regional food system. The plan would include and provide recommendations on
(a) Identifying barriers to achieving organic certification and expanding organic markets;
(b) Defining regenerative agriculture and considering how and where it overlaps and interconnects with organic agriculture;
(c) Providing education to support job creation and retention in the organic sector;
(d) Ways to increase Washington’s certified organic acreage to 25% of agricultural land by 2035, and to increase the number of farmers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers transitioning to organic farming production and sales;
(e) Ways to support entry to organic farming, particularly among youth, overburdened communities, and black, indigenous, and other people of color;
(f) Ways to improve coordination of organic farming with food processing and distribution infrastructures;
(g) Options to increase revenue for organic farms, processors, wholesalers, and retailers, and enhance their sustainability;
(h) Ways to enhance soil health, water and air quality, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and improve on-farm resilience through organic or regenerative farming; and
(i) Research on topics specific to or relevant to organic and regenerative farming, including increasing crop productivity and quality, genetic biodiversity, and alternatives to synthetic pesticides.

The Department would provide a progress report on the development of the plan to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by November 2024, and submit the finished plan to them by the next November, including recommendations for legislative, administrative, or budgetary actions necessary to implement it, and on whether or not to continue the task force.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would also authorize the Department to reduce the fees for organic certification to decrease the financial burden of achieving or maintaining that and increase participation in organic agriculture.

SB6281

SB6281 – Increasing funding for reforestation after wildfires and other destructive events.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Warnick, Dozier & Short – R’s; Mullet – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 25th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comment –
The bill is nearly identical to HB2446. (However, that does not specify that recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries; prioritize direct reforestation, or specify that funds could also be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program.)

In the Senate –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that. The amendment removed the provision allowing funding form the Climate Commitment Act to be used for the grant program or DNR’s wildfire reforestation programs.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would have the Department of Natural Resources create a grant program for climate-informed reforestation after wildfires and other large scale events that damaged forest ecoservices. Grants would be available to tribal ownerships, nonprofit landowners and managers, industrial and nonindustrial private forestland owners, local governments, and other state agencies. Federal lands and lands directly managed by DNR would not be eligible, though recipients could use the funds to pay for reforestation work by DNR or stock from DNR’s nurseries. The recipents’ share of the costs would be limited to 25%, including in-kind contributions. DNR would prioritize projects on private forest land where the owners weren’t required to replant; projects including reforesting riparian buffers, potentially unstable slopes, or other areas where state regulations restrict harvesting; and direct reforestation. (Funds could be used to support aspects of the reforestation pipeline to ensure the sustainability of the program, though.) The Department would set minimum and maximum sizes for the grants, and take environmental justice into consideration in making awards.

The bill would add the grant program and DNR’s own work reforesting after wildfires to the list of activities that can be funded by revenue from the Climate Commitment Act, and appropriate up to $10 million this fiscal year for each of these.

SB6240

SB6240 – Providing the reduced B&O tax rate for producing alternative jet fuel to much smaller companies in distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Moses Lake)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 25th. Passed out of committee January 30th and referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2410 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current ten year reduced business and occupation tax rate for the production of alternative jet fuel to companies producing at least 500,000 gallons a year, if they were in economically distressed areas. (Currently, you have to produce at least 20 million gallons a year to get the special rate of 0.275 percent.) (Distressed areas are defined by a number of different measures of unemployment and income.)

SB6256

SB6256 – Creating consumer protections for purchasers of solar energy systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Conway, Hasegawa, Kuderer, Nobles, Saldaña, and Valdez – Ds) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce January 25th. Replaced by a substitute from the prime sponsor and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2156 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require anyone selling or installing a commercial or residential system for more than $1,000 to be licensed and have a written contract with the customer. The contract would have to include:
(a) An itemized list of work to be performed including any known or anticipated electrical upgrades;
(b) Any financing that’s incorporated directly in the contract, conforming to all state and federal consumer loan regulations and disclosure requirements;
(c) The exact amount paid, if any, by a solar contractor or salesperson to any lender in the
form of a dealer fee, or other inducement to obtain financing;
(d) The total dollar amount of the contract and the cost per DC watt from the nameplate rating;
(e) A detailed, performance-based payment schedule based on project completion milestones, explaining when costs are due, the customer’s right to cancel the contract, and the cancellation fees that would be due at each milestone in the payment schedule;
(f) The model, brand name and warranty period of the major components to be installed. (The customer would have to agree in writing to any changes in those.);
(g) Any ongoing operations and maintenance costs included in the contract;
(h) A list of anticipated maintenance activities the customer will need to perform to maintain the warranty and performance of the equipment including inverter replacement;
(i) The system’s projected first-year production in kilowatt-hours, based on the characteristics of the specific site, and developed with a nationally recognized methodology and industry-standard tool.
(j) An explanation of what happens annually to any unused net metering or other bill credits from on-site generation;
(k) The contractor’s good faith estimate of electric bill savings the customer is expected to achieve over the first year after interconnection.
(l) The name, business address, and phone number of the primary solar salesperson or sales firm, if different from the contractor;
(m) The name, business address, and registration number of the contractor, with a link to the Department of Labor and Industries contractor verification tool;
(n) A statement of whether all or part of the work is intended to be subcontracted or performed by another person or entity than the contractor’s own workforce;
(o) A recommendation in capital letters about the importance of getting approval of any expected loan for the project before signing the contract and of knowing whether payments would begin before the statement was operational.
(p) A notification in capital letters of the customer’s right to cancel the contract within three days.
(q) Notice about potential complications in receiving the Federal residential clean energy tax credit for the project. (This and the preceding two items would need to be initialed by the customer to acknowledge reading and understanding them.)
(r) A statement clearly explaining whether the contract includes the cost of uninstalling and
reinstalling the system if it’s on the customer’s roof and that must be replaced or repaired in the future. If that isn’t covered, the customer’s responsibility for this work needs to be stated.
(s) A copy of the IRS’s current Form 5695 instructions for the residential clean energy credit qualified solar electric property costs;
(t) A statement that it’s the contractor’s responsibility to install the system per manufacturer instructions, in compliance with the national and local codes, and with the utility’s interconnection standards;
(u) A copy of, or electronic link to, the applicable utility interconnection application, and a statement documenting which party is responsible for getting permission to operate from the utility. (The interconnection agreement would have to be approved by the utility before installation began, unless the utility waived that requirement).

There would have to be a statement that the addition of a solar system may affect the value of the structure as determined by the county assessor and any change in value may be reflected in annual property taxes, and a statement informing the customer that the system will automatically disconnect from the grid in the event of a power outage to protect utility repair personnel from electric shock, and that the solar system will not provide any power to the customer in that case. (This is not required if the system includes energy storage and/or power conversion and control technologies designed and installed to provide backup power during a grid outage.)

There are various provisions protecting the customer’s right to cancel the contract within three days, and prohibiting collecting any payment for the system during that period.

The bill would prohibit trying to sell a system using any statement or representation about the costs, financing, terms, or conditions of its purchase or installation that as deceptive, and would classify violations of the bill’s requirements as unfair or deceptive acts and unfair methods of competition under the Consumer Protection Act. Contractors, subcontractors, or solar salespeople who failed to comply with the requirements would be liable to the customer for any actual damages sustained as a result of the failure, and if you bought or were assigned an installation contract you’d be subject to the same potential liabilities.

SB6243

SB6243 – Exempting clean technology manufacturing from the business and occupation tax for ten years.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Issaquah)
Current status –
Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade at 10:30 AM on Thursday, January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
THe bill would exempt manufacturing of clean technology in the state from the business and occupation tax. It would apply to manufacturing tangible property exclusively or primarily used in vehicles, vessels, and other modes of transportation that emit no exhaust gas other than water vapor; charging or fueling infrastructure for those; generation of renewable or green electrolytic hydrogen; production of energy from alternative resources; retrofitting megawatt-class diesel vehicles, vessels, and other modes of transportation to hybrid diesel-electric; production of clean fuels; and storage facilities for electricity, renewable hydrogen, green electrolytic hydrogen, or a green hydrogen carrier for subsequent delivery or consumption.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would measure the exemption’s effectiveness after eight years, evaluating the average construction wages for eligible projects; the number of jobs created in the clean technology sector; the use of apprenticeship programs and women, minority, or veteran-owned businesses by eligible projects; the degree to which the exemption encouraged manufacturing and component production for technologies reducing greenhouse gas emissions; whether facilities benefiting from it would have been developed without it; and any other relevant metric.

SB6112

SB6112 – Creating a ten year B&O tax credit for food donated by grocery stores and other retailers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Kuderer, Nguyen, Randall, Shewmake, Van De Wege, and Claire Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Ways & Means on January 18th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The buill would create a ten year business & occupation tax credit for 100% of the purchase price of food donations and 50% of the cost of fuel used by a distributor for transporting them to a food bank. It would be available to businesses retailing a general line of groceries, and they would be able to carry credits over for one year.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee would evaluate the year-to-year change in the number of taxpayers claiming the credit and the amount claimed. The bill declares that the Legislature intends to extend the credit if the total value of donations has increased over the period of evaluation. (There’s no mention of a correction for inflation.)

SB6180

SB6180 – Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Torres, Warnick, and Jeff Wilson – Rs; Keiser, Nguyen, Salomon, and Valdez – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2301 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of the copy of it in the folder with materials for the executive session.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology’s Center for Sustainable Food Management to develop and administer new grant programs in consultation with the Department of Agriculture; some of these would support activities reducing emissions by diverting organic materials from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities, or through food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery. They would be administered to prioritize maximizing greenhouse gas emission reductions; eliminating barriers to the rescue and consumption of edible food that would otherwise be wasted; developing stable funding programs for potential recipients to be aware of; and preferring options according to a specified management hierarchy. If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the grants could be used for projects to prevent the surplus of unsold, uneaten food from food businesses or to improve procedures for food donations; projects to improve and reduce the transportation of donated foods and management of cold chains; programs to support the establishment and expansion of wasted food reduction programs to benefit vulnerable communities; and food waste tracking and analytics pilot projects. The Department could award these grants competitively or non-competitively, and would have to prioritize projects benefiting overburdened communities.

The Center would also be required to develop and administer grants to support the implementation of the bill’s requirements and those of chapter 180, Laws of 2022, which is about waste management and organic materials. Priority would be given to grants implementing source separated organics collection and programs for businesses that are required to arrange for organic material management. The Department would have to provide assistance to each local government that demonstrated eligibility for these grants, and would not be allowed to require matching funds from them.

The Center would convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to address mechanisms to mandate or otherwise improve the rescue of edible food waste from commercial generators, including food services, retail establishments, and food processors. It would consider timelines, exemptions, administration, enforcement, and other logistics to phase in edible food donation programs, incentives, or requirements; as well as the systems needed to support increased donations by commercial generators and whether that certain system components wewre in place before requiring any commercial donations. It would assess asset gaps and food infrastructure development needs, facilitate the creation of networks and partnerships to address those and develop innovative partnerships and models where appropriate. It would consider actions taken, costs, and lessons learned by other US jurisdictions with policies for reducing edible commercially generated food waste and through voluntary pilot projects carried out by commercial generators of food waste. Ecology would submit a report to the legislature by September 1, 2025, with the recommendations of the work group.

The bill would have the Department of Agriculture create a commodities donation grant program for one or more nonprofit food cooperative organizations to acquire food at risk of being wasted directly from food producers for distribution to hunger relief organizations. It would rely on existing infrastructure and similar current programs to maximize short term benefits and expedite grants; be designed to achieve efficiencies of scale, and give priority to organizations that have at least five years doing similar work. It would compensate producers for production costs and postharvest logistical and administrative costs that facilitated the acquisition and distribution of the food. The bill declares the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $25 million per biennium to this program.

The bill would double the size of the school awards in the Waste Not program, to $10,000 a year, and declare the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $1 million per biennium to that program.

After March 2027, jurisdictions accepting food waste in their source separated organics collection programs would be required to collect every week instead of 26 weeks a year, unless they reduced the volume or odor of the waste somehow and got a waiver from Ecology. Beginning in April 2030 jurisdictions would have to provide source-separated organic solid waste collection services to all customers, and accept food waste. With a few exceptions, everyone would have to use the curbside program to dispose of organics. The bill shifts the rules about exempted areas in various ways. It requires at least ten hours a year of independent training in organic materials management for compost and anaerobic digester facility managers and supervisors. Starting in 2026 it would require a business that generates at 96 gallons of organic waste a week to have management services for it. (Currently, this isn’t required unless you have at least 4 cubic yards a week.) It would require uniform color coding and labeling on collection bins across the state. It would prohibit using organic wastes contaminated with clopyralid, aminopyralid, or other picolinic acid herbicides as inputs or feedstocks in an organic materials management facility.

The bill would require packaging labels about food quality to say “Best by…” and those about food safety to say “Use by…”. It would prohibit labels saying “Sell by”, and labels saying “Pull by” or “Pull date” on perishable food packaging, though that information could be displayed in a date and month format that consumers couldn’t decipher readily. (You could still have labels indicating when food was packaged or processed, or saying it was best consumed within a certain number of days after being opened.) There’d be required signs about the new labeling in stores over 10,000 sq. ft. Authority to enforce the requirements could be delegated to local health jurisdictions, and would be required to primarily be in response to complaints; there’d be penalties of up to $500 a day for violations. The bill would also have the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology provide education and outreach activities, as well as technical assistance and guidance on request for businesses required to communicate a quality or safety date on food packaging. After two notices including information, violations of the bill’s labeling requirements would be subject to fines of up to $500 a day.

The bill would prohibit plastic stickers on produce, and add new specifications for when wood or fiber-based materials can be labeled “compostable”, and for coloring film plastic bags to help customers tell which are compostable and which need to be discarded as waste. It specifies requirements for labeling products as “home compostable.” It requires jurisdictions to notify Ecology if they choose to enforce the current prohibitions against claiming plastic products are “compostable” or “biodegradable” when they’re not.

It would authorize local jurisdictions to amend the State building code to provide adequate space for locating organic waste and recycling containers with garbage containers, or require posting of signs notifying residents where those containers are.

SB6121

SB6121 –Regulating and encouraging biochar production from agricultural and forestry biomass.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Nobles and Randall – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 19th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2483 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
The substitute removes the $1/ton cap on the fee for burning agricultural waste and substitutes language about flame cap kilns for the biochar micro and macro units in the original.

Summary –
The bill would add producing biochar using mobile units with reduced emissions relative to open burning, and consuming less than 150 green tons a month of clean cellulosic biomass, to the list of alternative forestry disposal practices DNR is currently supposed to encourage. Those materials are defined as residuals from agricultural and forest-derived biomass including green wood, forest thinnings, wood pellets and various kinds of waste; urban wood including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass; corn stover and other crops used specifically for the production of biofuels; bagasse and other crop residues; and wood collected from fire clearance, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, and clean biomass from land clearing. (Materials couldn’t contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass.)

You’d need a burning permit from DNR to produce biochar with biomass from forestry operations, and a burning permit from Ecology to produce it from agricultural waste, including a fee of up to $1 per ton of waste.

SB6113

SB6113 – Providing fair access to community solar.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek) (Co-Sponsors Dhingra, Hunt, Kuderer, Lovelett, Saldaña, & Shewmake, Ds)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment & Energy & Technology at 8:00 AM on Friday January 19th.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2253 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would raise the maximum size of community solar projects from 1,000 kW to 5,000 kW and allow larger projects with a utility’s approval. (Projects larger than 1,000 kW would have to be built with prevailing wage labor.) On a sizable list of preferred sites, including rooftops, impervious surfaces, and industrial areas, projects could be built on the same parcel as another community solar project. They’d have to have at least three subscribers, and a single customer couldn’t own or subscribe to more than 49% of a project’s capacity. At least half of a project’s capacity would have to be taken by low-income subscribers, low-income service provider subscribers, or both. After 10 years the UTC or a public utility’s governing board could lower the required percentage of low -income subscribers provided it wasn’t made lower than the utility’s percentage of low-income ratepayers. (“Low income” would be defined by the UTC, but could not be more than 80% of area median household income or 200% of the Federal poverty level, adjusted for household size. The bill allows using a number of methods like subscribers’ enrollment in other low income programs to simplify certifying their eligibility.) Low income subscribers would be exempt from any program administrative fees. Any renewable energy credits generated by a project would have to be retired for the benefit of the subscribers.

The bill would provide net-crediting for community solar, including both the community solar subscription cost and a community solar bill credit on the subscriber’s electric bill. (An electric utility could impose a net-crediting fee on the community solar project manager, capped at one percent of the subscription fee.) It would shift the management of projects from “community solar companies” to “community solar project managers”, allowing nonprofits, individuals, and small businesses to fill that role, and would remove the current provisions allowing the UTC to not enroll companies without adequate financial resources or adequate technical competency to provide the proposed service as project managers. There’d still have to be a performance bond of a suitable size for the project, but it couldn’t be set “in such a manner as to preclude” these new managers from participating. The bill would no longer require projects on tribal lands or Federal tribal trust lands to be administered by tribal housing authorities.

The UTC would set the value of credits, taking into account:
(i) The value of the electricity;
(ii) The value of the project to transmission and distribution capacity, deferred transmission and distribution investments, deferred generation investments and added generation capacity, voltage, reduced system losses, reduced line losses, and ancillary services;
(iii) The value of the project to grid reliability and resilience;
(iv) The value of environmental attributes, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, methane leakage reductions, public health, and energy security; and
(v) Other factors the commission determined were associated with locally produced electricity.
The UTC would be required to add some unspecified additional value for community solar projects when the majority of the project’s capacity was subscribed by low-income subscribers or low-income service provider subscribers; the project was owned by or served tribal communities; and it incorporated energy storage. The value of credits would have to be updated biannually or annually, and would include an annual escalator. Credits would be carried forward on a customer’s bill as long as the account existed rather than expiring at the end of each year. However, the UTC or a public utility’s governing body would be able to adopt a different rate for crediting a subscriber’s bill if they had good cause to do that. As far as I can see, the subscription rates will be up to the project managers.

The UTC would develop other specified rules for community solar projects in private utility areas including modifying existing interconnection standards, fees, and processes as needed to facilitate their efficient and cost-effective interconnection, ensure that the interconnection customer pays the reasonable costs, and ensure that interconnections are designed, engineered, and completed in accordance with good utility practice. The rules would also require each investor-owned utility to efficiently connect a community solar project to its electrical distribution grid, not discriminate against facilities or subscribers, and provide for subscribers that receive utility allowances. The Commission would have to have at least two meetings with representatives of specified stakeholders before adopting the rules. Public utilities could adopt the UTC’s rules, create their own if they were compatible with the bill’s requirements, or decide not to participate in the program.

Unsubscribed energy would be carried on the project’s account until the end of the following calendar year and could be allocated to subscribers at any time during that period. After that any undistributed bill credit would be compensated to the project manager.

There’d be reviews of the program by the UTC after five and ten years, with reports to the Legislature.

SB6092

SB6092 – Requiring large businesses to report all their associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen)
Current status – Had a hearing in the the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 17th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Ways & Means; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Senator Nguyen’s substitute removed the reporting requirements and replaced them with a report on the SEC’s climate-related disclosure rules and whether those disclosures would be sufficient to assess compliance with Washington’s policies.

Summary
The bill would require entities doing business in the state and having total annual revenues over $1 billion to report their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to Ecology, beginning in October 2026. (Scope 1 emissions are defined as the direct emissions from any sources they own or directly control, regardless of location, and including emissions from fuel combustion. Scope 2 emissions would be the indirect emissions from electricity they purchased and used anywhere.) Starting in October 2027, they would have to report their Scope 3 emissions, the other indirect emissions associated with their activities regardless of location, including emissions associated with their supply chains, business travel, employee commutes, procurement, waste, and water usage. This would include the emissions from the use of products sold by the oil, gas, coal, and natural gas industries.

Ecology would adopt guidelines for the reporting, incorporating the greenhouse gas accounting and reporting standards and the methods developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to the extent that was practical. (Those include provisions for using industry averages and proxy data for Scope 3 emissions.) The Department would consult with stakeholders and other reporting entities that have demonstrated leadership in the disclosure and reduction of full-scope greenhouse gas emissions. It would have to investigate the availability of data and generally accepted protocols for estimating the carbon intensity of reporting entities’ operations, and if sufficient data and accepted protocols for estimating those were available, it would have to amend the guidelines to require including that information after October 2028. (It would be required to align the reporting timelines and required information with those of other Federal and state emissions reductions laws and policies to the extent that was possible; it might revise the guidelines from time to time to be consistent with protocols that entities follow for reporting in other jurisdictions. A report would have to be accompanied by an analysis from an independent, third-party auditor who had found it to be complete and accurate, or by a filed emissions disclosure under Section 38532 of California’s health and safety code, which includes an audit. (The bill currently has a typo with an incorrect section number.) Ecology would develop a website to make them easily accessible by the public.

Where a reporting entity failed to provide a required report on time, provided an incomplete report, or provided a report containing inaccurate information as determined by the independent auditor, the department would post a notice about that on the program’s website. The bill doesn’t say anything about penalties for these problems, though it would add a chapter to the Environmental Health and Safety laws so it’s possible something in those would cover that…

SB6089

SB6089 – Eliminating certain minimum requirement equivalencies for becoming electrical inspectors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 34th District; Central Washington) By request of the Department of Labor & Industry.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce January 18th, and passed out of committee January 22nd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The law currently makes some years of experience as a “journeyperson electrician” in a couple of different settings two ways to become qualified for these jobs. The bill would replace those with the same experiences as a “journeylevel electrician”. (I think this means that experience would no longer have to be in an apprentice program.) It would also eliminate two other ways you can currently qualify for the job through a combination of college work and installation work.

SB6047

SB6047 – Authorizing executive sessions by public natural gas utilities to allow them to comply with the Climate Commitment Act’s prohibition on disclosing auction participation plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Warnick (R; 13th District; Southcentral Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 26th. Replaced by a substitute expanding the bill’s provisions to apply to all public agencies covered by the open public meetings act and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2173 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would add discussions of greenhouse gas allowance auction bidding information to the reasons that governing bodies are allowed to go into executive session. This would provide the governing bodies of public gas utilities, which are generally subject to the Open Meetings Act, with a way to comply with the provision of the Climate Commitment Act that prohibits disclosing information about their bidding plans.

SB6058

SB6058 – Facilitating linkage of Washington’s carbon market with the California-Quebec market.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) By request of the Department of Ecology.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Scheduled for a hearing in Ways & Means at 1:30 PM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2201 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it; it’s in the folder of materials for the Executive session.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to synchronize Washington’s compliance periods with those of a linked jurisdiction or jurisdictions, and it takes steps in that direction by defining them as a first period, a second period, and so on, as well as by no longer specifying their starting dates or their lengths in years.

It would allow Ecology to require electric power entities to report emissions of greenhouse gases from all electricity that is purchased, sold, imported, exported, or exchanged in Washington. It would eliminate a current exemption from the program’s requirements for the importers of power from unspecified sources with associated exemptions below 25,000 metric tons a year. It would also eliminate an exemption for imports of unspecified power that are balanced by exports of unspecified power by the same entity within the same hour to a jurisdiction that’s not covered by a linked program. It would remove Ecology’s authority to adjust the amount of monetary penalties or the number of penalty allowances in the first compliance period. (It would also specify that the Department is required to establish greenhouse gas emission reporting methodologies for covered entities.)

The bill would allow a general market participant to own more than 10 percent of total allowances to be issued in a calendar year if we linked with a jurisdiction that allowed that.

It would require offsets from a linked jurisdiction to have been generated from projects within that jurisdiction. It also revises the language about the use of offsets from projects on tribal lands. As I read the changes, they simply rephrase the current rules to make it clear that if you use some offsets from projects on tribal lands as part of your basic allowance for offsets, you still can use the additional tribal offsets in the option that allows you to cover some more obligations with those.

The bill also includes a provision to ensure it won’t be put on the ballot as an alternative to Initiative 2117, which would eliminate the cap and invest program.

SB6016

SB6016 – Creating a green energy community fund to support schools and nonprofits in communities where public utilities’ renewable energy projects are located.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 16th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it; it’s in the folder of materials for the Executive session.

Summary –
The bill would allow public utilities to get annual tax credits on the business and occupation taxes and the public utility taxes for their renewable energy projects; each credit would be equal to 75% of a contribution they made to the school district where a project was located or a non-profit operating there. A utility’s credits would be capped at $250,000 a year, and the program’s credits would be limited to $5 million a year.

Utilities would apply for credits in the first half of the year, specifying recipients to which they intended to contribute. If an application were approved, and they actually made the contribution by October, they’d receive the credit.

SB6039

SB6039 – Promoting the development of geothermal energy resources.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsor Shewmake, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 10th. Amended to limit the collaborative assessment of development opportunities and risks to the three most promising sites and make other small changes. Passed out of committee January 19th, and referred to Ways & Means. Scheduled for a hearing there at at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2129 is a companion bill in the House.

In the Senate –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the amendment,

Summary –
The bill would require the Washington Geological Survey to create a comprehensive database of publicly available subsurface geologic information for the state in coordination with various agencies, to maintain it, and to make a searchable interface for it available on the Survey’s website. The Survey would acquire, process, and analyze new subsurface geologic data, would characterize the hazard of induced seismicity for high-potential geothermal play areas, and would provide technical assistance on the proper interpretation and application of subsurface geologic data and hazard assessments.

The Department of Natural Resources would be required to update the State’s geothermal resources lease rates to make them competitive with those adopted by the Federal government and other states in the West. The update would also try to optimize the State’s competitiveness in attracting exploration and development projects, balancing that goal with its obligation to trust beneficiaries.

If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the Department of Commerce would create a competitive geothermal exploration cost-share grant program incentivizing deep exploratory drilling to identify locations suitable for the development of geothermal energy. The grants could be used to offset the direct costs associated with that drilling; awards to private applicants would be limited to half the overall cost of the project and awards to public and tribal applicants would be limited to two-thirds of the cost. Commerce would consult with the Survey to develop a method for awarding the grants, using nine criteria the bill specifies.

The bill would require Ecology, Commerce and the Survey to collaborate in identifying opportunities and risks associated with the development of geothermal resources, consulting with tribes and a variety of other stakeholders. They’d be required to consider the potential impacts of geothermal resources development on the rights, interests, and resources of potentially affected tribes; on listed endangered species, and on overburdened communities. They’d also explore the capacity for geothermal resources to help the state meet its clean energy generation requirements and greenhouse gas emissions limits, and develop factors to guide the identification of preferable sites for the development of geothermal resources including geologic suitability and proximity to electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure. There’d be interim and final reports to appropriate committees of the Legislature.

SB6005

SB6005 – Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2049 is a companion bill in the House.
See also HB1900.

Comments – The House bill is a revised version of HB1131, which was introduced by the same sponsors last session, was much amended, and eventually died in Rules. (Its companion bill, SB5154, died in Ways and Means.) The new version is 104 pages long, so trying to summarize its details seems ill advised; I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Summary
The bill would create a system funded and managed by producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use, and would create new requirements for postconsumer recycled content.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on their activities and the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, and pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program. Producers would fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues. Each organization would also provide up to $5 million/year or 4% of its annual expenditures for a packaging financial assistance program providing grants for governments, non-profits and private organizations to support programs to reduce the negative environmental impacts of covered products through reuse.

In consultation with stakeholders, an advisory council and the UTC, producer organizations would have to develop five year plans for dealing with their covered materials. These would have to meet a long list of requirements plus any added by Ecology, would be due by October 1st 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology) and would have to be implemented by January 2029 and updated regularly. Each organization’s plan would set performance rates including an overall recycling rate for its covered products, a recycling rate for each category of covered materials, a source reduction rate for eliminating plastic components, and (starting with its second plan) a minimum reuse rate. Proposed rates would have to be justified if they differed from those in the most recent performance rates study, and improve over time until Ecology determined that the maximum technically achievable process had been reached. Reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2030. There are requirements for outside evaluations if organizations fail to achieve these rates, and Ecology could require corrective actions or impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for failures to comply with the bill’s requirements.

Plans would also include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing it. and for consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Producer organizations would structure members’ fees to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging.

A consultant would do the needs assessment of the solid waste system, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The advisory council, stakeholders and the UTC would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Ecology would be required to consider a variety of factors to identify materials and methods for the uniform statewide collection of covered products for recycling, categorizing them as suitable for residential curbside collection, drop-off collection, and alternative collection. (Approved pilot programs could try curbside collection of additional materials that were not on Ecology’s list.) The bill would prohibit claiming covered products were recyclable if Ecology didn’t categorize them that way, and prohibit making deceptive claims about their percentages of recycled content or their compostability.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse the costs of regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. (They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover the different categories of materials on Ecology’s list, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. .

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There’d be requirements about labor, health and the responsible management of materials at recovery facilities; for reporting on those by producer organizations; and for detailed reporting on their operations by processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to plastic containers for household cleaning products; personal care products; beverages, milk and wine; plastic tubs for food products, thermoform containers; and plastic single-use cups. Producers of these products would have to belong to producer responsibility organizations and and maintain certification of their compliance with the bill’s requirements from accredited third parties. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2025 and 2036. The producer responsibility organizations would report to Ecology annually on their members’ use of postconsumer recycled content. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet them. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic; it also makes changes to the definitions of producers.

In addition –

The bill would create an advisory council with representatives appointed by the Director of Ecology from ten groups. It would review, comment, advise, and make recommendations on the needs assessment, Ecology’s lists, producer organizations plans, reports, and other aspects of the bill’s programs.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

Beginning in 2029, jurisdictions’ solid waste plans would have to provide for curbside collection of source separated recyclables from single-family and multi-family residences served by curbside garbage collection. (Counties could choose to require the collection of materials that Ecology categorized for curbside recycling collection at drop-off locations in areas regulated by the UTC.) Ecology would create a model comprehensive solid waste plan jurisdictions could adopt rather than developing their own plans for source separation programs.

SB5992

SB5992 – Requiring applicants seeking energy facility site certification for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Warnick (R; 13th District; SouthCentral Washington) (Co-Sponsor King, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 24th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2042 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
My guess is that this is about the proposal for a pumped storage facility at Goldendale.

Summary –
The bill would require applicants seeking site certification through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for a project generating electricity using renewable resources to provide evidence of an adequate water supply for it.

SB5973

SB5973– Guaranteeing owners of units in common interest communities opportunities to install their own heat pumps.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice on January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute which would have several sections making changes to the current common interest communities statutes expire if SB5796, which replaces those, passed. Out of committee on January 25th; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would prohibit an association of apartment owners, a condominium owners’ association, a homeowners’ association, or other associations with the power to create rules for the members of common interest communities from effectively prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the installation or use of a heat pump for a unit owner’s personal use. They might require applications for approval which would be handled in the same way as applications for architectural changes. They’d be prohibited from charging a fee for the installation, and would have to approve applications if the installation was reasonably possible, complied with the association’s reasonable relevant architectural standards, and would be installed by a qualified HVAC contractor. The owner would have to have a permit, comply with local building codes, meet applicable health and safety standards, and pay for the installation. The owner and subsequent owners would be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the heat pump, as well as any damages resulting from its installation, use, or removal. They’d be responsible for removing equipment if that was reasonably necessary for work on aspects pf the property in which the residents held a common interest. An association that willfully violated the bill’s requirements would be liable for actual damages, as well as paying attorneys’ fees and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 if an owner prevailed in court.

SB5965

SB5965– Reducing the environmental impacts of the clothing industry.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 12th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2068 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments
The bill sets a greenhouse emissions reduction requirement, but it looks to me as if it lets retailers and manufacturers set their own targets wherever they like for quite a few things, and I’m not sure if it’s intended to do more about situations where a disclosure would simply say “We’re doing very little about that”, or if it simply intends to get clear about what is and isn’t happening at this point.

Summary
The bill would require every clothing retailer or manufacturer doing business in the state and having more than $100 million in annual gross revenue to disclose various environmental policies, processes, and outcomes, including the significant real or potential adverse environmental impacts of its operations and targets for prevention and improvement. They’d have to identify the suppliers of at least 50% of the volume in their supply chain, from raw materials to final production, making a good faith effort to prioritize the ones involving the largest environmental risks. They would have to report on their policies, processes, and activities for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for potential adverse impacts, including the findings and outcomes of those activities. They’d have to identify relevant policies for responsible conduct of businesses such as theirs and provide information on steps they’d taken to embed those in their own policies and management systems. They’d have to disclose any areas of significant environmental risk they’d identified in their activities and business relationships, and the adverse impacts of those — identified, prioritized, and assessed in the context of their own activities and business relationships. They’d need to disclose the criteria they’d used to prioritize those risks, as well as any actions or plans to prevent or mitigate them. If the information was available, they’d have to include estimated timelines, targets, and benchmarks for improvement and their outcomes. They’d need to disclose measures to track implementation and results, and their provision of or cooperation in any remediation.

Beginning in 2027, they’d be required to establish, track, and disclose progress towards various performance targets, which the bill would require them to meet. They’d have to report independently verified figures for the annual volume of material they’d produced, including a breakdown by material type, and figures for how much production had been displaced with recycled materials as compared to growth targets. They’d have to establish and disclose quantitative baseline and reduction targets for energy and greenhouse gas emissions, water, and chemical management. (Their greenhouse gas emissions reporting would have to be independently verified, and conform to a World Resources Institute target guidance and to its reporting standard.) They’d have to disclose targets for impact reductions, and plans for tracking due diligence implementation and results including, where possible, estimated timelines and benchmarks for improvement.

The bill would authorize civil suits against retailers and manufacturers alleged to be failing to comply with the bill’s requirements, and would authorize suing Ecology to make it investigate alleged violations or make it enforce the requirements. Ecology would publish an annual report on compliance, Violating a disclosure, performance target achievement, or reporting requirement of the bill’s would be subject to a penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation in the case of a first offense, and up to $20,000 for each repeat offense.

SB5945

SB5945 – Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers’ ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Conway (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade; passed out of committee January 9th (without ever having a hearing, as far as I know), and referred to Labor and Commerce. Had a hearing there on January 25th and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2028 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
SB6304 would authorize direct sales by EV manufacturers.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit direct sales or leases of vehicles to retail customers. (Tesla sells directly to customers like this, without dealers, and Rivian and other new EV companies are adopting this model.)

The bill would prohibit offering consumers a subscription service for any vehicle feature that uses components and hardware that are already on the vehicle when it’s purchased or leased and that is typically offered to a consumer as an upgrade at that point, if it would function after activation without ongoing costs to or support by a dealer, manufacturer, distributor, or a third-party service provider. (The prohibition doesn’t apply to navigation system updates, satellite radio, roadside assistance, software-dependent driver assistance or driver automation features, or services that rely on cellular or other data networks.)

It would prevent manufacturers and distributors from creating programs or policies encouraging or requiring dealers to install direct current fast charging stations, unless those required public access to the stations and they reimbursed the dealer for half of the cost of installing and maintaining them when the dealer gave them half the net income from charging. They wouldn’t be allowed to encourage or require a dealer to install DC fast charging if the dealer could obtain access to stations that satisfied the program or policy within five miles of the dealership. A program or policy would have to be reasonable in light of all existing circumstances including local conditions; supply and time constraints; and advances in vehicle technology and grid integration. They would have to allow a new dealer to purchase or lease goods or services of like kind and quality from an alternative vendor if goods or services are to be supplied by a vendor chosen by the manufacturer or distributor.

It would also prohibit manufacturers from implementing an incentive program that did not provide an equal opportunity for all dealers to qualify because of their location or sales volume, that predetermined the price of a vehicle, that limited eligibility based on nonvehicle product penetration, or that required use of specific software or service vendors to qualify. If manufacturers provided parts for repairs to dealers free or at a reduced rate, they’d be required to compensate the dealers for using those at the same rate that they’d have compensated them for parts supplied to do repairs under warranty. The bill also changes the method for calculating the rate at which manufacturers compensate dealers for the labor and diagnostic work involved in warranty repairs.

SB5951

SB5951 – Repealing the State’s authorization to allow charging by the public at locations where it’s providing the power.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Schoesler (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would repeal the current provision authorizing the State to allow charging by the general public and by people who are there conducting business with the State at locations where it’s providing the power.

SB5909

SB5909 – Reimbursing tow truck operators for the towing, transport, and storage of electric vehicles; providing grants to protect facilities from risks associated with storing them.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor Lovick, D)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 4:00 PM on Tuesday January 23rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Department of Licensing to develop a program reimbursing tow truck operators for towing, transporting, and storing electric vehicles. Reimbursements would be limited to a maximum of $10,000 per vehicle; funding for them would come from the additional $75 transportation electrification fee that’s currently charged for the registration of plugin vehicles each year.

It would require the Department of Commerce to create a program awarding grants to registered operators for retrofitting storage facilities to provide for additional protections to accommodate electric vehicles.

SB5919

SB5919 – Authorizing public utility districts to sell biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of biogas processing at wholesale.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 14th District; South Central Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 16th. Replaced by a substitute also allowing sales to end-use customers and including CO2 byproducts of biological processes in industrial or manufacturing facilities as “biogenic CO2”. Passed out of committee January 26th, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2069 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would authorize public utility districts to wholesale biogenic carbon dioxide and other coproducts of processing biogas from landfills, anaerobic digesters, and wastewater treatment facilities. (Capturing CO2 from biogas can result in a negative CO2 emission, depending on the situation and how you do the calculations.)

SB5918

SB5918 – Providing fossil fuel facilities that aren’t owned or operated by utilities with free Climate Commitment Act allowances to cover their emissions from generating power delivered in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; Sequim) (Co-Sponsor MacEwen, R)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1965 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would provide fossil fuel facilities that aren’t owned or operated by utilities with free Climate Commitment Act allowances to cover their emissions from generating power delivered in the state. It would also provide them to cover their costs in complying with the Acts’ requirements. These free allowances would continue through 2044. The bill says that it’s providing them “in order to mitigate the cost burden of the program on electricity customers,” but it doesn’t actually include any requirement for reducing customers’ costs.

SB5877

SB5877 – Requiring gas and electric bills to include a complete, itemized list of any rates and charges imposed by a utility to recover costs of complying with the Climate Commitment Act.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require customers’ gas and electric bills to include a complete, itemized list of any rates and charges that are being imposed by the utility to recover the costs of complying with the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap and invest bill).

SB5876

SB5876 – Streamlining the application processes for state voluntary programs funding water and salmon ecosystem investments.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 15th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the bill would require the Puget Sound Partnership, the Department of Ecology, the Recreation and Conservation Office, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Conservation Commission to work together to create a streamlined application process for state voluntary programs funding water quality, watershed restoration, and salmon recovery. They’d be required to work on improving grant application processes and streamlining management processes for recipients; improving connectivity and accountability between project proponents and agencies; streamlining and improving the accuracy of reporting of accomplishments by recipients; and improving collaboration and information sharing among grant managers. They’d agree on a biennial work plan selecting priority projects and deliverables; create working groups and identify agency staff to support projects, and identify representatives of the agencies to serve as a working group supporting coordination and communication between other working groups and agency leaders. (Agencies could make substantive changes to the work plan that they agreed on at any time.)

The agencies would be required to use an interagency forum for staff members making grants to share updates, develop common resources, leverage successes, and consider innovative approaches; maintain regular dialogue with applicants to identify administrative challenges, barriers, and gaps; engage agency leaders in prioritizing and implementing improvements to funding systems; and secure and mobilize resources to move a clear plan of work agreed on by the agencies forward.

In addition to improving administrative processes for voluntary funding programs within their existing authority, they might develop policy recommendations about improvements for consideration by the Legislature; develop joint application forms; or establish other working groups including invited experts and stakeholders to support discussions, provide additional technical capacity, and improve coordination.

The agencies would be required to make an annual report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature on their actions and administrative improvements.

SB5875

SB5875 – Restricts the Building Code Council’s authority to adopt residential Energy Code measures increasing efficiency to those where the benefits aren’t outweighed by considerations of housing affordability, development costs, feasibility, or “other similar factors”.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would restrict the Building Code Council’s authority to adopt residential Energy Code measures increasing efficiency to those where the benefits aren’t outweighed by considerations of housing affordability, development costs, feasibility, or “other similar factors”.

SB5872

SB5872 – Requires a human safety operator in any autonomous vehicle operated on the highway.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovick (D; 44th District; Mill Creek)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 4:00 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require a human safety operator to be physically present in any autonomous vehicle operated on the highway to monitor the its performance and intervene if necessary, including operating it, stopping it, or shutting it off. The safety operator would have to meet any State or Federal requirements for operating a motor vehicle.

SB5826

SB5826 – Requiring rates or charges authorized by the UTC to recover utilities’ costs in implementing the Climate Commitment Act to be listed on customers’ bills.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwan (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology on January 24th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the UTC to consider and perhaps approve tariff schedules that contain rates or charges requested by utilities to recover their costs for implementing requirements of the Climate Commitment Act. The Commission would require utilities to include any corresponding rate increase or charge as a line item on each customer’s bill.

SB5812

SB5812 – Requiring a study of best practices for responding to electric vehicle fires.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation on January 18th. Replaced by a substitute adding consultation with “a representative of the towing and recovery industry, and other entities” to the study, and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be –Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Washington State Patrol do a study of electric vehicle fires in consultation with the Department of Ecology and local fire protection districts. It would cover impacts to the environment and nearby residential areas; health impacts to responding firefighters; best practices for fire response; and best practices for clean-up and disposal. A report on its findings and policy or legislative recommendations would be due to appropriate committees of the Legislature by January 1st, 2025.

SB5783

SB5783 – Loosening the cap & invest program’s requirements, expanding its biofuels exemption, providing refunds for exempted fuel purchases, & temporarily lowering license fees.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Mullet (D; 5th District; Central King County) (Co-Sponsors Van De Wege, Conway, and Cleveland – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1887 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –

The bill would exempt all biomass fuels from coverage under the Climate Commitment Act, dropping the current requirement that exempted biofuels have to have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% lower than those of the fossil fuels for which they’re substituted.

It would replace the current requirement for future reductions in the cap sufficient to achieve the covered entities’ share of what’s necessary to achieve the state’s climate targets with annual 3.6% reductions for 2024 through 2040, and 3.1% reductions for 2041 through 2049.

It would require the Department of Ecology to put an additional 5% of the allowance budgets for the twelve years from 2031 through 2042 into the price containment reserve account and to auction all of those additional allowances in separate auctions during 2024.

The bill would use any revenue above the October 2022 estimates from the cap and trade auctions in 2024 and 2025 that was not otherwise appropriated by the Legislature to reduce or replace the license fees for light and heavy vehicles in fiscal 2025 and 2026.

It would create a work group to examine consumer fuel pricing in the state including members of the transportation committees; academic experts; and the representatives of various agencies, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocacy organizations. The group would review:
a) Issues including previous studies and evaluations of fuel pricing, trends in that, factors causing Washington prices to be higher than the national average and how those factors have changed over time; and margins and profits at the fuel production, distribution, and retail levels,
b) State tax policies, environmental protections, and regulatory factors that may impact fuel pricing and make the state’s marketplace more or less competitive,
c) Supply dynamics affecting the fuel markets in the state, and,
d) Potential reporting and audit requirements that would make fuel pricing more transparent to consumers.
This work group would provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature.

The bill would require Ecology to create an on-line portal allowing the farm fuel users and freight haulers of agricultural products that are exempted from the bill’s coverage to submit documentation each quarter applying for a remittance based on any covered fuels they purchased during that quarter. (If they chose to use it, this would offer an alternative to the current system, which provides them with exemption certificates to be used when purchasing fuel.) The remittance would be equal to 0.008% of the auction price for that quarter for each gallon. (To illustrate roughly how this is supposed to work, as I understand it – since covered fuels emit something like 21 pounds of CO2e/gal, 100 gallons of fuel would emit about a metric ton of CO2e. Suppose the auction price were $50/metric ton, and all the cost for the credits to cover the emissions were passed on to the exempted buyer; they’d pay an extra $50. However, 0.008% of $50 is $0.40; and the rebate for the 100 gallons of fuel would be about $40. It’s not going to be exact, since various fuels with different emissions per gallon are getting lumped together and there will be various lags between the auction prices and whatever their effects on consumer prices turn out to be.)

The bill would provide $25 million for remittances in 2024; in fiscal 2025 and 2026 it would provide what was appropriated, and specifies that the climate investment account and the air quality and health disparities improvement account that get the money for investments from the Climate Commitment Act have to be appropriated at least as much as they were expected to get in the 2022 estimate. In subsequent years those would get the remaining revenue after specified funding for the carbon emissions reduction fund, which is dedicated to reducing transportation emissions, and whatever was appropriated for remittances.)

Those exempted users might choose to have remittances held by the department as credits based on the auction settlement price instead, and would be able to trade them with covered entities that needed credits to meet obligations under the bill through a mechanism the department would create and manage . The department would be allowed to develop other alternatives for handling these exemptions as well. Ecology would also be required to convene a work group with a variety of stakeholders to review the rules and process for handling these exemptions and to develop recommendations for the Legislature to ensure their full use and benefit.

SB5594

SB5594 – Allowing fully autonomous vehicles with requestable remote intervention on public roads, with nearly the same rules as for human drivers’. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke, (R; 8th District; Kennewick) (Co-sponsors Nguyen, Liias, and King)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Transportation February 7th. Still in committee by cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 4:00 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill would allow a fully autonomous vehicle on all public roads without a human driver if:
1) It was licensed in the normal way, could carry out all the real-time operational and tactical functions required to operate in traffic (except for things like selecting a destination), and could comply with the traffic and vehicle safety laws and rules;
2) It would achieve “a minimal risk condition” to reduce the risk of crashes if a failure of the automated driving system rendered it unable to do everything needed to drive in traffic;
3) It would issue a request to intervene whenever the system wasn’t capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task, with the expectation that the person responsible for it would respond appropriately; and
3) It displayed the manufacturer’s label indicating that it complied with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, including reference to any exemption granted by the NHTSA, when it was manufactured.

Operating such a vehicle on a public road would require submitting a law enforcement plan to the State Patrol describing how to communicate with a fleet support specialist available when it’s in operation; how to safely remove it from the road and how to tow it; how to recognize whether it’s in autonomous mode; and any other information the manufacturer or owner deemed necessary about hazardous conditions or public safety risks associated with its operation. Until 2029, it would require the owner of the vehicle to submit the most recent voluntary self-assessment that’s been provided to NHTSA to the Department of Licensing, and to provide notice to the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the area where the vehicle will be operating “within 14 days of operation” including the owner’s contact information and a copy of the interaction plan. The owner would have to register the vehicle in the usual way, and submit proof of financial responsibility that was satisfactory to the Department showing that vehicle was covered by insurance or proof of self- insurance that satisfied the requirements for other vehicles, as well as carrying an umbrella policy providing at $5,000,000 of coverage per occurrence for bodily injury, death, or property damage resulting from the operation of the vehicle.

On-demand transportation service networks using these vehicles would have to be permitted to operate under the standard state laws governing transportation network companies, taxis, and other ground transportation for-hire of passengers . Fully autonomous commercial vehicles would be allowed, under the provisions for other commercial vehicles. Provisions for other vehicles that reasonably applied only to a human driver would be excepted.

If one of these vehicles were involved in an accident or a collision it would have to remain on the scene when that would be required of other vehicles, and the owner would have to report the event in the usual way. By February each year until 2028, the owner would have to submit a report covering reported crashes or collisions from the previous year to the Department and all municipalities where the vehicle had operated for more than five days.

The bill would give the Department of Licensing exclusive responsibility for governing autonomous vehicles, automated driving systems, and on-demand autonomous vehicle networks and would prohibit all other agencies and jurisdictions from having taxes, fees, or other requirements limiting their operations.

SB5570

SB5570 – Authorizing electric utilities to establish revolving energy efficiency loan programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Trudeau, Hasegawa, Keiser, Nguyen, Nobles, Pedersen, Randall, Rolfes, Saldaña, Valdez, and C. Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a 2023 hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 8th. Died in committee at cutoff. Apparently reintroduced in 2024, and had a hearing in that committee January 9th. Amended and passed out of committee that day; referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2024 –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the amendment.

Summary –
The bill would create an Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Capitalization Grant program in the Department of Commerce, if funds were specifically appropriated for it. Electric utilities would be able to apply to the Department for funding to establish a revolving loan program making loans to low and middle income households for energy efficiency and weatherization projects, including repairs needed to achieve energy savings. A list of participating contractors would be provided as part of the loan application process, and a separate billing system or an on-bill repayment program would be provided. The loans would be interest free and secured with a lien on the property, and priority in awarding them would be given to properties in overburdened areas. The funds would be exempt from the public utility tax, and all loan repayments would have to be deposited into the revolving loan account.

Deferred loans for income-qualified customers owning and occupying their home could cover the full cost of a project. They’d have to allow repayment to be deferred until the home is sold, when the loan balance would be paid as part of the sales transaction; and would have to allow customers to qualify based on their payment history with the utility.

Forgivable loans could be made to property owners with income-qualified tenants. These would require an energy audit of the property. It would have to be continuously occupied by income-qualified tenants for five years after the upgrades; and the owner would have to keep the rent during that period within the fair market rent determined by HUD. If the owner failed to meet those requirements, the loan balance would be transferred to a new loan and become due on the sale of the home.

A utility could contract with a third party to implement the program, and could apply energy savings from cost-effective measures financed through a loan program toward achieving its conservation acquisition targets under the Energy Independence Act.

SB5562

SB5562 – Requiring steps to transition off natural gas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 1st. Replaced by a substitute to match the changes made in the companion bill by the House and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Ways and Means and had a hearing there on February 20th. Still in committee at fiscal cutoff. Reintroduced in Ways & Means for the 2024 session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1589 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes made in the substitute to match the House’s changes are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the beginning of it. They include raising the threshold at which projects require labor standards from $1 million to $10 million, and requiring PSE to meet at least 2% of its annual load with conservation and energy efficiency resources, and to achieve “annual demand response” of at least 10% of its peak summer and winter loads, unless the UTC finds that higher percentages would be cost-effective.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit large gas companies serving more than 500,000 customers from providing gas service to new residential and commercial customers after June 30th 2023. (I’m pretty certain that Puget Sound Energy is currently the only company with this many customers.)

Every four years, the bill would require a large gas company to include a gas decarbonization plan for reducing its proportional share of the State’s greenhouse emissions reduction targets as part of its multiyear rate hearings with the Utilities and Transportation Commission. The plan would have to include programs to advance gas decarbonization measures for customers. It would have to prioritize investments that benefited low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; programs targeted to them; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would be required to include a portfolio of resources using alternative energy to the maximum practicable extent. It would have to meet a cost target which would be 2.5% of its approved revenue for each year of the plan. (It might include leak reductions approved by the commission if they demonstrated emissions reductions, whether or not those would produce the reduction targets in the plan.)

A plan would have to quantify the projected cumulative emissions reductions for each reduction period resulting from each portfolio presented; propose budgets resulting from each of those; quantify the cost of implementing each of them; project the annual emissions reductions that would result if each of them were extended through 2050; and describe the effects of the actions and investments in each one on the safety, reliability, and resilience of the company’s service. A plan would identify potential changes to depreciation schedules or other actions to align the large gas company’s cost recovery with statewide policy goals, including reducing greenhouse emissions, minimizing costs, and minimizing risks to the company and its customers. It would explain the company’s analysis of the costs and benefits of an array of alternatives, including the costs of emissions used in the calculations; describe the monitoring and verification methodology to be used in reporting; and include any other information the UTC required.

Starting in 2026, a combination utility providing both electric service to some customers as well as gas service to over 500,000 customers (ie. PSE) would have to file an electrification plan along with the gas decarbonization plan. It might include demand-side management strategies or transportation electrification plans, but it would have to include programs to advance electrification for customers, programs targeted to low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; and outreach plans for engaging with them in every phase of the plan, including through incentives offered to multifamily buildings occupied in full or in part by low-income households. It would have to include budgets; targeted numbers of installations; projected fuel savings; projected cost-effectiveness calculations, including the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and projected reductions in those; and other information deemed relevant by the UTC. It would have to meet the same cost target as the gas decarbonization plan would. It would have to provide documentation and data to show the plan was consistent with maintaining the reliability of the grid; and incentives to facilitate electrification, which might include programs for both new and existing buildings. (Products eligible for incentives would have to be Energy Star certified, if certification for that type of appliance existed.)

The bill would require these companies (ie. PSE) to calculate their reporting to the State about emissions from gas by including methane leaked from its transportation and delivery in distribution and service pipelines from the city gate to customer end use; emissions resulting from the combustion of gas by customers not otherwise subject to federal greenhouse gas emissions reporting (and excluding all transport customers); and emissions of methane resulting from leakage in the delivery of gas to other gas companies. They’d have to show their emissions baseline and projected cumulative emissions for the applicable emissions reduction period separately, and would have to show that the total reductions were projected to make progress toward achieving the reduction targets identified in the applicable decarbonization plan.

The UTC might approve, modify, or reject a proposed plan. It would take into account whether a gas decarbonization or electrification plan achieved reductions for each emissions reduction period; whether a plan demonstrated progress toward meeting its targets through maximizing the use of alternative energy resources; whether its investments prioritized serving low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities; whether it resulted in a reasonable cost to customers; and whether it maintained system reliability. The commission would have to require a large gas company to achieve the maximum level of greenhouse gas emissions reductions practicable using alternative energy resources at or below the applicable cost target. (It might approve, or amend and approve, a gas or electric plan with greater costs if it found that the plan was in the public interest, costs to customers were reasonable, it included mitigation of rate increases for low-income customers, and its benefits including consideration of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions exceeded its costs.

Any combination utility with an electrification plan approved by the Commission would be required to get 40% of the total capacity and energy it needed to meet the requirements of the Clean Energy Transformation Act (aka the cap and invest bill) through power purchase agreements through which it bought energy, capacity, and environmental attributes from “resources” owned and operated by entities that were not affiliated with the utility, and that gave the utility rights to dispatch, operate, and control the resources in the same ways as the utility’s managing its own. [I think this subsection is supposed to read “renewable resources.] (The rest of the needed capacity and energy would have to come from resources owned and operated by the combination utility or an affiliate. Once the UTC approved a power purchase agreement included in an approved electrification plan, the utility would be allowed to set its rates to recover the operating expense of the purchases of “renewable resources” under the agreement as well as earning a return on those expenses at a rate no less than the authorized cost of its debt and no greater than its authorized rate of return.

The bill would require the UTC to start adopting depreciation schedules for any gas plant a combination utility had in service as part of considering a multiyear rate plan filed by a combination utility. The incremental depreciation for each year of the plan would be 1% of the utility’s gas revenue requirement for the preceding year. If the utility’s rate base for gas operations was less than or equal to 20% of the rate base for its electrical operations, and the utility chose to request the change, the Commission would merge the rate bases supporting gas and electric service in the next multiyear plan and adopt rates supporting recovery of the merged rate base. [I think this last provision means that if PSE’s gas business got small enough it could spread the costs of maintaining the gas system’s infrastructure over all its customers, not just the ones who were still using gas, and including the customers for electricity in the areas where it’s never sold gas.]

The bill would require a large gas company, with over 500,000 customers, to include community workforce agreements or project labor agreements, the payment of area prevailing wages, and apprenticeship utilization requirements in contracts with competitive bidding for projects costing over $1 million. It would encourage any entities providing retail electric service in the state to work with a large gas company providing service within their areas to identify opportunities for electrification and the provision of energy peaking service by the large gas company; to account for the costs of greenhouse gas emissions, set total energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals; develop and implement electrification programs in collaboration with large gas companies providing service in their area; and to include an electrification plan or transportation electrification program as part of a clean energy plan.