Category Archives: Utilities 2021

HB1537

HB1573 – Terminates some tax exemptions for particular uses of fossil fuels.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-sponsors Harris-Talley, Berry, and Macri – D’s)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Finance. Had a hearing March 23rd.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
As of January 1st, 2022, the bill would eliminate the current blanket state and local use tax exemptions for natural gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied natural gas used as a transportation fuel. It would continue to exempt their use by a transit agency, if it had been doing that before 2025. It would continue to exempt renewable natural gas used as a transportation fuel, and compressed or liquefied versions of that. It would exempt users from the tax if they offset that consumption with renewable gas credits purchased from a distribution business in the state.

It removes the current exemption from the tax to fund the pollution liability insurance program for natural gas, petroleum coke, and liquid fuel or fuel gas used in petroleum processing .

It removes the current exemption for propane or natural gas used to heat chicken houses.

HB1513

HB1513 – Modifying SB5373 on issuing up to $4.943 billion in bonds, backed by a tax on fossil fuels, to be used for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and natural climate solutions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; parts of Whatcom, Skagit, & San Juan County) (Co-sponsor Shewmake – D)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
SB5373 is a similar bill in the Senate.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill maintains the general structure of SB5373, but modifies it in a number of ways. The Senate bill has Ecology make recommendations to the Legislature if it decides the tax isn’t high enough to produce specified reductions; this bill would raise the rate until it was predicted to achieve them. Its definition of “greenhouse gases” would include any Ecology designated. It would not exempt fossil fuel burned in the state to generate electricity, and would require refineries to report their fossil fuel use. It adds some details about collaborating with the Department of Licensing to administer the tax on motor fuels, and reporting by companies on how the costs of the tax are being passed on to consumers. It no longer includes a four year trial period in which emissions from any energy-intensive trade exposed industries that weren’t exempted by new Ecology rules would be taxed, though it keeps the Senate bill’s requirement for a 2026 report to the Governor and the Legislature with recommendations on taxing those emissions. It specifies that the tax doesn’t apply to electricity or to any fuels that aren’t fossil fuels, such as green hydrogen, not just biofuels. It drops specified funding for the sustainable farms and fields grants program, and for riparian easements. It would provide environmental justice oversight through the Environmental Justice Council that would be created by this session’s SB5141, rather than through SB5373’s Environmental and Economic Justice Panel, and define its responsibilities differently. It would create a new Climate Oversight Board. It no longer requires high priority to be given to funding projects that directly benefit the economically distressed areas defined in RCW 43.168.020, would not require 25% of the investments to benefit rural areas, and would drop the Senate bill’s section on required consultation with tribes. It makes a number of small changes about agency roles and other things.

It’s not clear to me whether it would increase Ecology’s current authorization to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if the tax were invalidated.

Summary –
The bill places a carbon tax of $25/metric ton on the life cycle CO2 equivalent emissions associated with the sale or use of fossil fuels burned in the state. It’s to begin in 2023, increase by 5% a year and be adjusted for inflation. Every two years the Department of Commerce, in consultation with Ecology, would have to reevaluate the tax rate needed to ensure the state achieved a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. In January 2030, if Ecology determined that the emissions covered by the bill weren’t falling at a sufficient rate to produce their share of the reductions needed to meet the state’s targets, the rate would increase by $10/tonne, with an added annual increase of $2/tonne each year until Ecology estimated it would be sufficient to achieve the needed reductions. At that point, the added $2 annual increase would no longer apply. All the revenue is to be used to fund projects and activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate the environmental impacts of those emissions and of climate change. The bill would stop the Department of Ecology from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but would authorize it to use the full extent of its authority to regulate them under the Act to help achieve the state’s targets for reductions if the tax were invalidated.

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

The bill exempts fuel brought into the state in a primary fuel supply tank and burned, fuels that the State’s prohibited from taxing by Federal law or by laws about Indians’ property, fuel exported from the state, coal burned at the Transalta plant, agricultural and aircraft fuels, any fuels that aren’t fossil fuels, and fuel bought in the state but burned outside it by ships and interstate motor carriers. During a five year transition period, it exempts fuels used for transporting logs and agricultural products, and for extracting timber. Fuels that have already paid a carbon tax or charge on their lifecycle emissions to another jurisdiction are eligible for a credit of up to that amount against the tax owed in Washington. By July 30th 2026, the Department of Ecology is to make recommendations to the Legislature on applying the tax to emissions from energy intensive trade exposed industries.

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

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

The backers of SB5373 estimate $16 billion will be raised by the tax over the first ten years, after the payment of 3.5% in debt service. Thus, funds will be available from the bonds when they are issued, and then from the portion of the ongoing revenue stream that isn’t needed for repayment of the principal, debt service and administrative expenses. 75% of that money available for investments is to be spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (75% of this money is to be spent on programs, projects, and activities to reduce or mitigate the impact of transportation emissions, including:
1. Deploying clean alternative fuel vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure;
2. Supporting clean alternative fuel car sharing programs for underserved communities and low to moderate-income workers not readily served by transit, or in corridors with emissions that exceed federal or state standards;
3. Providing financing to facilitate the purchase of battery and fuel cell electric vehicles by lower-income residents;
4. Providing grants to transit authorities for cost-effective capital projects that reduce the carbon intensity of the transportation system including electrifying fleets, modifying
or replacing capital facilities to facilitate fleet electrification or hydrogen refueling, upgrading transmission and distribution systems, and constructing charging and fueling stations;
5. Providing support to small trucking firms in converting vehicles to cleaner alternative fuels, acquiring and accessing fueling infrastructure, and mitigating the costs of transitioning to cleaner vehicles;
6. Electrifying and decarbonizing the passenger ferry fleet; and
7. Converting state, county, city, and public transit agency fleets to battery or fuel cell electric vehicles.

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

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

It can also be spent on forest investments to:
1. Increase resilience to wildfire in the face of increased seasonal temperatures and drought; or
2. Improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change.

At least 35% of the investments under the bill must provide direct benefits to vulnerable populations in highly impacted communities; at least 25% of them must benefit rural areas, and at least 10% of them must benefit tribes. The bill would have the Environmental Justice Council that would be created by this session’s SB5141 “prepare recommendations for and provide oversight of the impacts of the … tax … and associated programs …affecting low- income populations, vulnerable populations, and highly impacted communities.” It would define environmental justice progress indicators for the act including:
1. The elimination of materials emitting carbon dioxide, black carbon, methane, nitrogen oxides, and fluorinated gases imported into or extracted in the state;
2. The elimination of the emissions outside the state attributable to consumption in the state;
3. Air quality, water quality, and land and buildings free from toxins associated with fossil fuels;
4. The elimination of environmental health disparities that disproportionately impact households that are Black, indigenous, people of color’s, or are in areas that are highly impacted communities; and
5. The reduction of economic inequality and elimination of poverty and the prevalence of livelihoods and high-road employment opportunities accessible to all.
It would also “define and provide instruction on meaningful consultation with vulnerable populations and low-income populations” and provide opportunities for vulnerable populations to consult on the implementation of the act.

The bill would create a Climate Oversight Board appointed by the Governor and responsible for ongoing review of the implementation of the tax and funding to ensure the fairest, most equitable, most efficient, and timely achievement of bill’s objectives. Members would come from a specified list of stakeholders, would serve four yer terms, and would select a chair from the Board. It’s responsibilities would include reviewing plans for implementing the funding programs including the criteria for allocations and project awards, as well as information about projects and funding decisions. It would review progress reports by agencies and compliance with consultation requirements; and would provide recommendations for standards for measuring emissions reductions from investments. It’s authorized to act jointly with the Environmental Justice Council in carrying out these responsibilities, and to contract with the Washington Academy of Sciences to provide evaluations. It’s to report to the Legislature every two years.

SB5415

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1446

HB1446 – Excuses utilities from the penalties for failing to meet required conservation targets if events beyond their reasonable control prevent that.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 9th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of committee, February 15th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 3rd.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 17th, and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed unanimously by the House April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the end of it. (It now specifies the situations in which a utility would be allowed to do this.)

Original bill-
Under the bill, a utility would be considered to be in compliance with its requirements for acquiring cost effective conservation (and excused from paying a penalty for failing to meet them) if events beyond its reasonable control that couldn’t have been reasonably anticipated or ameliorated prevent it from meeting them. (These events include natural disasters, public health disasters, severe economic recession, unanticipated loss of significant retail electric load, strikes, lockouts, and actions of a governmental authority that adversely affect the acquisition of cost-effective conservation…)

SB5373

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1393

HB1393 – Delays implementing manufacturers’ photovoltaic module takeback and recycling requirements for two years.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsors Ramel, Lekanoff, & Duerr – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 5th; passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules. Passed the House February 26th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules March 17th, and paased by the Senate March 29th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
To keep selling or distributing photovoltaic modules in the state, manufacturers must currently have a takeback and recycling program for them approved by July 1, 2023, and begin annual reporting on that program by April 1, 2024. The bill would change those dates to July 1, 2025 and April 1, 2026.

SB5363

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

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

SB5295

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1327

HB1327 – Requires retail bills to compare actual electricity costs to the costs if power came exclusively from least-cost resources, and to imply the difference is due to wind and solar subsidies. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 4th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB 5363 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB1287

HB1287 – Creates a tool for forecasting and mapping EV charging infrastructure needs; requires addressing those in utilities’ integrated resource planning, and in building code updates.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-sponsor Hackney – D)
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there on February 16th. Replaced by a second substitute and voted out of Transportation February 18th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House March 3rd. House concurred in the Senate amendments April 14th.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; had a hearing March 18th; amended and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Transportation; had a hearing March 29th, amended by the chair (reportedly without a role call vote), passed out of committee April 1st and referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor (who vetoed Hobbs’s amendment and signed the resulting bill.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate floor amendment –
The amendment would add areas zoned R-3 to those that would have increased code requirements for EV charging capability. (R-3 zoning allows single family, duplexes, triplexes, and row houses.)

Senate Transportation amendment –
Chairman Hobbs’ amendment would delay making the 2030 phaseout a goal until the point when 75% of the cars and light trucks on the road were paying a road usage charge.

Senate committee amendment –
This added the goal for a 2030 phaseout of internal combustion cars and light trucks from the sponsor’s SB5256 (which died in committee) to the bill.

House Floor Amendments –
Representative Barkis’s amendments specified that money from the electric vehicle account could fund this bill’s activities; required Commerce to identify gas stations, convenience stores, and small retailers colocated with charging infrastructure; and to consider recommending such sites for future installations. Representative Ramel’s amendment removed green hydrogen from the bill and made a number of other changes which are summarized at the end of it.

Substitute –
The substitute makes a number of small changes, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of the new version. The second substitute made some administrative changes and technical adjustments, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Commerce to create a publicly available mapping and forecasting tool to provide locations and essential information for the charging and refueling infrastructure to support forecasted levels of electric vehicle use across the state. It’s to be developed in consultation with several other agencies and stakeholders, and to enable the coordinated, effective, efficient, and timely deployment of the charging and refueling infrastructure needed for transportation electrification consistent with the State’s emissions reductions targets. Utilities’ integrated resource plans would be required to account for how they expect to meet the State’s forecasted needs for this infrastructure and the associated energy impacts. The bill would require the Building Code Council to increase the current code requirements for providing charging infrastructure as needed to support the anticipated levels of use resulting from the ZEV standards, and needed to meet the State’s targets.

The tool’s to prioritize on-road transportation initially, and include the most recent data charging and refueling infrastructure feasible. It must incorporate DOT’s traffic and traveler information for passenger and freight vehicles, such as volumes and travel patterns. If it’s feasible, it must provide the data needed to support agency programs that directly or indirectly support transportation electrification efforts; and evolve over time to support future programs.

To the extent feasible, the tool must include:
1. The amount, type, location, and installation year for charging infrastructure and refueling infrastructure that’s expected to be necessary to support usage in the state;
2. EV adoption, usage, technological profiles, and any other characteristics needed to model future usage affecting needs for that infrastructure;
3. The estimated energy and capacity demand for it;
4. Boundaries of political subdivisions (including those for retail electricity suppliers; public transportation agencies, and tribal governments);
5. Existing publicly or privately owned Level 2 and DC fast chargers, and refueling infrastructure, identifying refueling that supplies renewable hydrogen, if possible.
6. A public interface allowing any user to determine the forecasted charging and refueling infrastructure needs within a provided geographic boundary;
7. The ability to download all data tracked by the tool, or use it within a separate mapping and forecasting tool.
8. Integrate scenarios including varying levels of public transportation and active transportation usage; of vehicle miles traveled; and of adoption of autonomous and shared mobility services.
9. Incorporate infrastructure located at or near the border in neighboring state and provincial jurisdictions when appropriate.

The tool must integrate population, health, environmental, and socioeconomic data on a census tract basis to support highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations disproportionately burdened by transportation-related emissions and to ensure economic and mobility benefits flow to communities that have historically received less investment in infrastructure. (The department must consult with other agencies to ensure the tool properly integrates best practices for cumulative impact analyses and is developed in coordination with their efforts to identify disproportionately impacted communities.)

To the extent it’s appropriate, the tool must integrate related analyses, such as the department’s state energy strategy, the Joint Transportation Committee’s public fleet electrification study, the West Coast Collaborative’s alternative fuel infrastructure corridor coalition report, and other related assessments.

SB5206

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

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

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

SB5174

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5168 – 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB5093 – 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1130

HB1130 – Mandates 50% reductions in utility bills and 50% improvements in reliability. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County) (Co-sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 22nd.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
This bill would mandate reducing gas and electric bills, including taxes and fees, by 2031 – to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50 percent below 2020 levels. It would mandate reducing cumulative power outages and energy supply disruptions to the lower of 50% below 1990 levels or 50% below 2020 levels. It specifies that “to the the extent practicable” the rules developed under the recent 100% Clean Electricity Act” have to incorporate the objective of reaching those targets.

The public counsel unit of the office of the Attorney General would be required to report to the Legislature by December 1, 2022 on the actions necessary to achieve these improvements using existing statutory authority; and to recommend any additional statutory authority necessary to achieve them. The report would have to be be based on an analysis of the cumulative cost impact of power outages in the state since 1990 and of the impact of a range of percentage reductions in the number and duration of outages since then and extending to 2050; as well as of the cumulative cost savings and economic and employment impact of the additional cash flow in the economy resulting from the proposed reductions in utility bills. (To the extent that it was practical, the report would state the bill costs and reliability experience of residents in Indian country and of other historically disadvantaged communities separately, as well as any particular benefits that those communities may experience from improved reliability and lower bill costs.)

The bill declares that it’s the intent of the Legislature to supply the public counsel unit with financial resources to develop the plan by providing at least as much as has been appropriated by the state since 2013 to fund agency review and third-party consulting on the removal of dams on the lower Snake river and the evaluation of Washington’s potential for high-speed rail. It specifies that the research Commerce does on energy assistance for low-income households must include collecting data on delinquent utility accounts, vehicle charging costs, and trends in those, and provide its aggregated data on the issue differentiated by city, county, and legislative district in order to increase political accountability.

HB1125

HB1125 – Incentivizing energy conservation and efficiency by landlords; expanding rate discounts. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 21st and 26th. Executive action scheduled but not taken January 29th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Senator Carlyle’s SB5295 includes nearly identical provisions for efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties, with the addition of required reporting on the results to the UTC and WSU’s energy program every two years,

Summary –
Authorizes the Utilities and Transportation Commission to allow private electric and gas utilities to invest in energy efficiency and conservation measures in rental properties that wouldn’t currently be cost-effective unless the owner paid part of the initial cost. They’re to be allowed a return on these investments over a period of time that reduces the customer’s energy burden and minimizes the impact on the customer’s bill, while incentivizing the company to make them. These investments are to be secured by the meter, and repaid over time through an “energy services charge” on the regular bills paid by tenants or the building owner. (If the owner pays the bill, there has to be a site-specific services agreement; if tenants pay it, the owner has to provide them with at least thirty days notice before work on the project begins, including a description of the work being done and the expected benefits of the conservation measures.)

Utilities must prioritize these investments to reduce the energy burden of low-income customers, vulnerable populations, and customers in highly impacted communities while meeting their comfort and productivity needs. The bill also expands the authority of private electric utilities to provide discounts for low income customers, allowing them to create discounts to reduce the energy burden of communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization; and to ensure that the benefits of the transition to clean energy are equitably distributed.

HB1114

HB1114 – Includes mitigation of urban heat island effects using tree planting and cool roof programs in utility energy conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Whitman County)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. Amended twice and voted out of committee February 12. Referred to Rules February 15th. Passed the House unanimously February 25th.

In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 16th. Referred to Rules March 17th, and passed the Senate unanimously on March 24th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
Estimating the energy savings associated with planting trees in urban areas is pretty complicated – trees of different ages, species and sizes in different locations would have different effects. Street trees often die in eight or ten years, and trees planted in subdivisions get removed by homeowners who are tired of raking leaves or want more sun. I think the bill’s language implies that the private utilities are supposed to estimate the energy savings in their planting programs (which would qualify for an extra 2% return on their investments), but all the bill says about that is that program performance is to be measured in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted.”

Summary –
As amended –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the first amendment at the end of it, and of the second amendment at the end of that. (The significant changes added provisions about environmental justice.)

Original bill –
The bill specifies that installed materials and equipment for cool roofs are included in the State’s utility energy efficiency programs, and now says that the use of tree planting for conservation by utilities is “highly” encouraged. (It specifies that utility tree planting programs should reduce the peak-load demand for electricity in residential and commercial business areas during the summer months; reduce winter demand for energy in residential areas by blocking cold winds from reaching homes, protect public health by removing harmful air pollutants; use the natural processes of trees to lower temperatures and absorb carbon dioxide; lower electric bills for ratepayers by limiting electricity consumption without reducing benefits; relieve financial and peak-load demand pressure on the utility; protect water quality and public health by reducing and cooling stormwater runoff and keeping pollutants out of waterways, with special attention given to those vital for salmon; ensure the trees are planted in locations that limit the amount of public funding needed to maintain infrastructure; and measure program performance in terms of “the estimated present value benefit per tree planted”.)

It “encourages” PUDs to assist their customers in the acquisition and installation of materials and equipment, for compensation or otherwise, for the conservation or more efficient use of energy, including through a cool roof program. The use of appropriate tree plantings for energy conservation is “highly” encouraged as part of these programs.

It now specifies that municipal utilities are authorized to fund tree planting as part of their energy conservation programs.

It adds tree planting programs and cool roof programs to the energy efficiency programs on which private utilities are authorized to earn a 2% incentive rate of return.

The bill also allows PUDs, private gas and electric companies, and municipal utilities to fund tree planting programs with the voluntary donations for urban forestry they’re already authorized to encourage their customers to make.

HB1084 – 2021

HB1084 – Reducing emissions from natural gas space and water heating in residential and commercial buildings. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; San Juans & Anacortes) (Co-sponsor Slatter – D) (By request of the Governor)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 22nd; substitute passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations; had a hearing February 17th. No action taken in the executive session on cutoff day.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5093 is a companion bill.

Summary –
Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the original and the changes made in the substitute at the beginning of the new version. (The big change is that it drops eliminating residential fossil fuel space and water heating.)

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

It removes gas companies from the requirements about supplying service to all reasonably entitled applicants, requires them to charge new customers the full costs of any pipeline extensions to provide them with service, and prohibits companies from expanding their service areas. (They can currently provide a rebate of up to $4,300 to subsidize a line extension to serve a new customer..) It requires each company to develop comprehensive transition plans approved by the UTC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of natural gas, evaluating cost and life-cycle emissions associated with alternative pipeline fuels and electric alternatives, and identifying specific actions to achieve their share of the reductions needed to reach the state’s targets at the lowest reasonable cost for customers. They must evaluate and compare multiple strategies to identify the lowest reasonable cost combination of strategies to achieve the reductions, including evaluating measures to reduce buildings’ thermal loads; converting existing customers to high-efficiency electric equipment; permanently decommissioning portions of their distribution systems; incorporating renewable natural gas, hydrogen, or other low-carbon fuels in their systems; and expanding voluntary renewable natural gas programs. (Their cost analysis must include at least resource costs, market-volatility risks, demand-side resource uncertainties, the risks imposed on ratepayers, resource effect on system operations, public policies regarding resource preference adopted by the state or the federal government, and the need for security of energy supply. It’s to include the cost of risks associated with environmental effects, including the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions calculated according to the estimates of the Federal Interagency Working Group using a 2.5% discount rate, which is currently about $78/tonne.)

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

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

HB1046

HB1046 – Requires private utilities to buy power from community solar projects, credit participants’ bills, and make 40% of that power available for use by low-income consumers and service providers. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bateman (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-sponsor Duerr – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Executive session scheduled but no action taken February 4th and 5th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
Community Solar Washington has a flyer about the bill.

Comments –
All three of the private utilities testified in opposition to the bill, starting at one hour into the hearing. They argued that it doesn’t place any limits on the size or location of projects or require utility approval of them, that utilities would have to buy power from projects that didn’t have enough subscribers, that any extra costs that might involve as well as startup costs and undefined operating expenses would be shifted to ratepayers, that any net metering unfairly lets solar owners avoid paying the share of the system’s fixed costs that’s included in charges for the kWhs they would be paying for except for the net metering credits they’re receiving, and that it’s unfair that the bill’s requirements only apply to private utilities. They prefer the compromises embodied in the community solar bill that passed last session, but was vetoed because of pandemic fiscal concerns, HB2248.

Summary –

Requires private utilities to buy power on contracts for at least 20 years from community solar projects certified by the Utility and Transportation Commission, to make 40% of that power “available for use” by low-income consumers and service providers, and to credit participants’ bills with their share of the revenue from a project’s power production at the retail rate.

The UTC is to create rules for how projects can qualify for the program. These must at least minimize the shifting of costs from the program to ratepayers that don’t own or participate in a project; incentivize customers to participate; protect participants from undue financial hardship; and protect the public interest.

A project must have at least one system in a utility’s Washington service area, and ownership of a project or participation in one is limited to customers in that area. Their annual returns are limited to their average annual consumption of electricity. (Any revenue above that is to be used by the utility in support of low-income customers or service providers.)

The UTC may set the rates at which a utility buys power from a project and credits participants’ bills for their shares of that production, as well as the rates at which it buys any unsubscribed power. These must allow a utility to recover all its prudent costs for starting up a project or modifying it, as well as any costs it incurs as a result of a power purchase agreement with a project. The associated renewable energy certificates may belong to the utility, or be retired on behalf of the project participant.

Details –
The bill simply amends the section on the previous rules about engaging in business and registering with the UTC for community solar companies (RCW 80.28.375) to apply to the new community solar project managers it creates. (The production credit program those rules applied to has reached the cap on its enrollment and costs well ahead of schedule.)

It no longer limits the size of projects, and allows customers to participate as direct owners of a project as well as through leases, loans, power purchase agreements, and other financial arrangements. (I think direct ownership would allow individuals to benefit from the 26% federal investment tax credit on the cost of their share of the project.)

SB5008

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

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

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

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

Summary –

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

SB5007

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

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

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