Category Archives: Transportation 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.

HB2486

HB2486 – Extending the commute trip reduction tax credit program and increasing the benefits.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wylie (D; 49th District; Vancouver)
Current status – Referred to Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would extend the commute trip reduction business and occupation tax credit program for two years, until June 2026. It would drop the provision limiting the credit to 50% of what an employer spends on the program, and raise the allowable credit per employee from $60 to $100. It would reduce the maximum credit an employer could receive in a given year from $100,000 to $50,000, and raise the cap for the whole program from $2,750,000 to $4,300,000.

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%.)

HB2444

HB2444 – Defining the legal liabilities associated with the operation of autonomous vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would define the legal liability of manufacturers of autonomous vehicles. They’d be responsible for the safety of occupants, other users of the road, and property to the same extent that an attentive and unimpaired human driver in similar circumstances would be. Breaches of the system’s duty of care would include operating in a way that would be negligent if a person did it; failing to obey motor vehicle laws, rules, and regulations; failing to make defensive driving maneuvers without undue risk, and requesting a person to take control of the vehicle in circumstances in which it was unreasonable to do that expeditiously and without creating an additional hazard. Such failures would count as ordinary or gross negligence, and manufacturers’ could be financially liable for losses resulting from them. They’d still be liable if intervention by a third party had contributed to a system’s failure to control the vehicle.

The bill would establish strict liability for autonomous vehicles being tested, were running without human supervision, or claimed to be capable of doing that. Manufacturers would be liable for damages to people or property regardless of whether the automated system or a person was in control of the vehicle immediately before the accident, and regardless of any failures on the part of the test driver. Unless you’d deliberately engaged in a malicious act, you could get paid for damages simply by showing that the car had caused them. Drivers who’d taken over partial or complete control of a vehicle from the system would not be responsible for any loss arising from their negligent acts or omissions during the first 10 seconds after the transfer of control; they might be liable if they didn’t respond within 10 seconds to requests from the system about taking over or shifting control of the vehicle.

However, people who were responsible for supervising the operation of a system might be liable for losses rather than the manufacturer if the loss happened more than ten seconds after they took over control of a vehicle, the loss was caused by a readily apparent hazard that could have been avoided or mitigated through reasonable intervention without unduly endangering the them, other individuals, or property; they knew or should have known that the system wouldn’t deal with the hazard adequately without intervention; and they had a reasonable amount of time to perceive, react to, and avoid the hazard.

Systems would have to shut down and stop at the first available safe location if they couldn’t continue operation of the vehicle without undue risk and a person was unwilling or unable to intervene in the vehicle’s controls or provide adequate remote supervision. If a vehicle had urgent-egress or demand-stop features, occupants wouldn’t be liable for using or failing to use them when the vehicle was operating fully autonomously. Manufacturer would have to have automated vehicles display appropriate and effective visual warnings to motorists and vulnerable road users while they were being tested on the road.

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.)

HB2410

HB2410 – Providing the reduced B&O tax rate for producing alternative jet fuel to much smaller companies in distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ybarra (R; 13th District; Quincy) (Co-Sponsor Caldier – R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6240 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB2028

HB2028 – Prohibiting direct retail sales or leases of vehicles & some subscription services; limiting manufacturers’ ability to get dealers to install fast chargers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Santos (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Robertson and Sandlin – Rs; Reeves & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business January 17th. Passed out of committee January 31st, and referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5945 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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.

HB2232

HB2232 – Assessing petroleum products supply and pricing.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Mena, Berry, Bateman, Ramel, Ormsby, Reed, Fosse, Macri, Pollet, Peterson, Duerr – Ds) By request of the Governor.
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6052 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB2262

HB2262 – Creating and enforcing energy efficiency standards for replacement tires.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Slatter, Kloba, Ortiz-Self, Ramel, Peterson, Doglio, Thai, Ryu, Cortes, Pollet, Morgan, Simmons, and Macri, Ds.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment on January 24th.Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce establish and enforce energy efficiency standards for replacement tires for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. (The findings say that an analysis by the Department’s energy policy office estimates adoption of reasonable standards could result in a cumulative reduction of 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline and 1,500 gigawatt hours of electricity over the next ten years.) Commerce might implement any combination of a database of replacement tires in production, a system for rating the energy efficiency of replacement tires based on their rolling resistance coefficient, minimum energy efficiency standards for replacement tires, testing procedures aligned with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration regulations when the bill became effective, and requirements for reporting information needed to implement it. The bill would authorize Commerce to prohibit the sale of replacement tires that didn’t meet the minimum efficiency standards.

The rules couldn’t adversely affect tire safety or tire longevity, as demonstrated by independent testing of wet grip or traction and treadwear done by an analyst for the department or another State energy office and verified by the department. They’d have to provide exemptions for snow tires, spare use tires, tires manufactured specifically for use in vehicles with three or fewer wheels, or tires manufactured specifically for use in an off-road recreational or agricultural vehicle.

Commerce or another agency it designated would be authorized to inspect tires sold or offered for sale, and after a first warning violations of the rules would be subject to civil penalties ranging from $100 to $10,000 per occurrence.

HB2189

HB2189 – Exempting regular hybrids, which can’t be charged with an external electrical power source, from the additional $75 registration fee they and plugin vehicles currently pay.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Transportatiom.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would exempt regular hybrids, which can’t be charged with an external electrical power source, from the additional $75 vehicle transportation electrification registration fee that they and plugin vehicles are currently charged.

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.

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.

HB2050

HB2050 – Requires posting stickers on fuel pumps showing the effects of State and Federal taxes and the Climate Commitment Act on fuel prices.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Goehner (R; 12th District; Chelan County) (Co-Sponsor Barkis, R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to produce a sticker for display on fuel pumps showing the Federal and State fuel tax rates in cents per gallon. The Department would also calculate companies’ cost per gallon of complying with the Climate Commitment Act using the average cost of allowances in a given year, and would produce another sticker showing that in cents per gallon. The climate commitment stickers would be updated at least every three years, and the fuel tax stickers would be updated whenever there was a change in those tax rates.

Stickers would be mailed to fuel pump owners who requested them, as well as being displayed and updated on pumps in the course of government fuel pump inspections.

HB2040

HB1981 – Creating a rebate program to compensate vehicle owners for increases in fuel costs due to the Climate Commitment Act.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Connors (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Dye, R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would provide a rebate to compensate vehicle owners for increases in fuel costs due to the Climate Commitment Act. It would take any revenue from the Act between July 1, 2022 and June 30th 2024 that hadn’t been appropriated for other purposes by the Legislature in the 2022 and 2023 sessions and divide that by an estimate of the number of people expected to renew their vehicle licenses between July 1 2024 and June 30 2025 to calculate the amount of the rebate. The Department of Licensing would send each owner a check in the summer of 2024, accompanied by an explanation of the source of the funds. (Rebates would go to the owners of trucks, light vehicles, and a variety of other small vehicles like motorcycles. You’d get one rebate even if you owned more than one vehicle; you’d get the same rebate regardless of how much fuel you’d bought; and as I read the bill, owners of electric cars would also get rebates.)

Although the bill would only authorize the rebates in fiscal 2025, the findings declare the Legislature’s intention to continue the program if the Climate Commitment Act is not repealed by initiative in the November 2024 election. (Since the checks would arrive in the summer before that election, accompanied by an explanation of the source of the funds, they would presumably also remind people of the effect of the Climate Commitment Act on fuel prices.)

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.

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.

HB1904

HB1904 – Using cap and invest revenue to pay for hybrid electric ferries.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walsh (R; 19th District; Southwest Washington)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

The bill’s opening says says the Legislature finds “that all costs associated with building hybrid electric ferries and their associated infrastructure must be paid for using Climate Commitment Act revenues.”

However, the bill’s actual provisions simply say that some unspecified amount of revenue from the Act must be used by the Department of Transportation to design, purchase, and construct hybrid electric ferry vessels and install associated and necessary infrastructure for their operation. (“Ferries” are already on the list of projects that transportation appropriations from the Act’s revenues may be used for; the bill would change that item to read “All aspects of ferry vessel construction and supporting electrification infrastructure”, which actually still seems to allow using those funds for conventional ferries as well.)

HB1887

HB1887 – Loosening the cap & invest program’s requirements, expanding its biofuels exemption, providing refunds for exempted fuel purchases, & temporarily lowering license fees.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Olympic Peninsula)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5783 is a companion bill in the Senate.

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.

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 –

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.

HB1368

HB1368 – Requiring and funding purchases of zero-emission school buses after September 2035.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Senn (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors Fey, Berry, Doglio, Peterson, Chapman, Fosse, Slatter, Gregerson, Callan, Lekanoff, Ramel, Stonier, Street, Santos, Fitzgibbon, and Berg – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education. Redirected to the House Committee on Environment & Energy; had a hearing there February 7th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Appropriations, and died there. Reintroduced in 2024, and had another hearing in House Appropriations on January 11th. Replaced by another substitute 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.
SB5431 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Substitutes –
The 2023 substitute changed the requirement to purchasing 70% zero-emission buses by 2030 and all zero-emission buses by 2033, as well as specifying environmental justice priorities and making some other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. The folder with materials for the 2024 executive session has the next substitute and there’s a staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require purchasing zero-emission school buses after September 1, 2035. It would create a grant program using any specifically appropriated funding to support school districts, charter schools, and state-tribal education compact schools purchasing them, and to support purchasing and installing charging stations and associated infrastructure and equipment. To be eligible for grants, buses powered by fossil fuels would have be at the end of their depreciation schedule and eligible for replacement under the current state law about reimbursing districts for the cost of student transportation vehicles. Grants for buses would not be allowed to exceed the purchase price minus any salvage value of the bus being replaced.

There would be a competitive application process, prioritizing grants that provided the greatest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the amount of state support, and considering expected improvements in health equity for communities of color and low-income communities; and the age of applicants’ fleets. OSPI would also be allowed to consider other factors such as air quality improvements in areas with high traffic congestion. (At the time of an award, a grantee would have to have enough charging infrastructure in place to operate the replacement bus; or have secured enough funding in addition to the grant to purchase and install that.) OSPI would also publish an annual list of Federal grant opportunities pertinent to replacing nonzero emission school buses.