Category Archives: Utilities 2023

HB1768

HB1768 – Public utility tax exemption for electricity used by green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen businesses.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County) (Co-Sponsors Barnard – R; Chapman and Ramel – 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.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance Wednesday February 22nd. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House with one vote opposed on March 16th.

Changes in the House –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes in the substitute at the beginning of it. The amendment added high heat industrial processes using hydrogen as a fuel, rail, and off-road agricultural or industrial equipment to the uses eligible for the exemption.

Summary –
The bill would create an exemption from the public utility tax for electricity used by businesses producing, storing, or dispensing electrolytic or renewable hydrogen for uses included in the state energy strategy, such as high heat industry, decarbonization of transportation, storage or generation of electricity, or fuels with a carbon intensity less than one under the Clean Fuels Act’s rules.

Operations would have to start before July 2033 to qualify, and utilities would be required to pass the reduction in their tax on to the businesses.

HB1756

HB1756 – Allowing large solar or wind projects to pay a production tax dedicated to providing local benefits instead of state property taxes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Klicker, Rude, Schmidt – Rs; Duerr, Reed, Kloba, Doglio, Senn, Ryu, and Macri – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance at 8:00 on Tuesday February 7th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 16th.

House Substitute –
The changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would allow the owners of wind or solar projects over one megawatt AC to apply for an exemption from property taxes on projects and connected storage that began construction after July 1, 2023. They would pay a production excise tax on them instead. Solar projects could choose to be taxed at $80/month for each MW of capacity for ten years, or at $75/MW for fifteen years. Wind projects could choose to be taxed at $150/month for each MW for ten years or at $130/month for fifteen. Storage capacity would be taxed at $100/MW hour. (It’s not clear how long the storage tax is intended to apply.)

Revenue from the tax would go to a new Renewable Energy Local Benefit Account. Each county would receive 42.5% of the tax paid by a renewable energy system located in it. Each tribe would receive 15% of the tax paid by a system impacting its resources or rights, in proportion to the number of enrolled members of each affected tribe. Each school district would receive an appropriation from the remaining 42.5% of the tax paid by a system located in the same county, in proportion to the number of students it served.

SB5659

SB5659 – Allows gas utilities to develop a wide range of renewable energy projects, and creating a tax exemption for renewable gas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsor Liias – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 14th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The bill adds to the provisions of HB1619 in several ways.

Summary –
The bill would authorize gas companies to develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of natural gas delivered to in-state customers and from electricity generated from fossil fuels that’s used by retail electric customers in the state. They could seek to recover the cost of those investments in their rates through the UTC. Those investments might include residential and commercial rooftop solar, including battery storage and supplemental solar; community solar projects designed to offset carbon associated with the use of conventional natural gas; ground source heat pumps for district heating and targeted load reduction in new buildings used as a strategy for complying with the State’s cap and trade requirements; renewable gaseous fuels projects, including renewable natural gas and green electrolytic hydrogen, along with associated facility and pipeline infrastructure, upgrades, and improvements for industrial and heavy duty transportation; carbon capture and sequestration projects associated with natural gas projects and facilities; and research, development, and pilot efforts pertaining to nonemitting natural gas equipment and technologies. (Unlike HB1619, the bill would have the UTC consider purchases of energy derived from such projects outside the state and investments in them as being “in the state’s interest” if the carbon emissions from them were only booked and claimed in Washington. This bill also specifies that a gas company could claim investments in residential and commercial rooftop solar, including associated battery storage, and in community solar projects as reductions against its cap and invest carbon compliance obligations if it surrendered the renewable energy credits they produced.)

The bill would also create a ten year sales and use tax exemption for machinery and equipment used for generating renewable natural gas or connecting it to a pipeline. (The exemption would also apply to labor and services for installing that.) Renewable natural gas would be defined as what’s generated from “the decomposition of organic material in landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and anaerobic digesters.”

It would authorize gas companies to propose renewable natural gas programs for the UTC’s review. If approved, a company could supply renewable natural gas as part of the natural gas sold or delivered to their retail customers. The environmental attributes of that renewable natural gas would have to be retired using procedures established by the Commission, though it could also approve procedures for banking and transferring those. (The Commission could also approve the inclusion of other sources of gas if the gas was produced without consumption of fossil fuels. I think this probably includes green hydrogen.)

Unlike HB1619, the bill would provide exemptions from any state or local restrictions or limitations on the use of natural gas in buildings where the amount of gas consumed in the building was equal to an amount of renewable natural gas acquired by the utility serving the site; there was a real estate covenant on the building confirming that only renewable natural would be provided to it; and the utility had certified to the UTC that only renewable natural gas would be “provided to” the building. It would allow dual fuel heat pumps using both natural gas and electricity to be installed in any building for use as a peaking resource alternative under CETA when natural gas space and water heating supplements electric space and water heat pumps in a way that reduces the consumption of electricity when ambient temperatures fall below 40° F.

SB5620

SB5620 – Creating policy for recovering utilities’ costs providing distribution infrastructure for commercial customers installing electric vehicle supply equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Everett) (Co-sponsor Boenhke – R)
Current status – Referred to Senate Transportation.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the Utilities and Transportation Commission to create a policy by January 1, 2024 providing guidance to electrical companies on rate recovery for the costs of installing, maintaining, and operating distribution infrastructure for commercial customers installing electric vehicle supply equipment. It would have to treat this infrastructure and associated design, engineering, and construction as it treated other distribution infrastructure authorized for rate recovery. By July of that year, each company would have to file a proposed tariff for the recovery of those costs for the Commission’s review.

SB5570

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1619

HB1619 – Allows gas utilities to develop a wide range of renewable energy projects, and creates a tax exemption for renewable gas.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 17th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Duerr and Wylie – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 6th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill? (May be NTIB…)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
SB5659 adds some provisions to the ones in this bill.

HB1584

HB1584 – Planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Pasco) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Lekanoff, Slatter, Fey, Ryu, Riccelli, Berry, Donaghy, and Timmons – Ds; Dye, Ybarra, Couture, Schmidt, and Sandlin – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 10th; amended to restore natural gas to the list of cleaner energy sources to be developed as part of the state’s clean energy strategy, and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules. Returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 7th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor to add renewable gas and green hydrogen to the list of clean energy sources to be considered in the strategy, and passed by the House March 1st.

Substitute –
This adds a finding recognizing that long term storage of spent nuclear fuel is an unsolved problem and saying the State should actively advocate for resolving it. It also drops the characterization of the energy technologies it says the State should develop as “cleaner” and drops natural gas from the list.

Summary –
The bill would amend the State’s current statement of the principles guiding the development and implementation of its energy strategy to include “advanced nuclear reactor technology” in the list of cleaner energy technologies to be developed to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

SB5562

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB1509

HB1509 – Fair access to community solar. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsor Doglio – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 26th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow community solar projects to have an AC capacity of up to 5,000 kilowatts in investor owned utilities’ territories; those in public utilities’ territories would be limited to 200 kilowatts, unless the utility approved more. It would have the Utility and Transportation Commission adopt rules for a new community solar program by April 30th, 2024. Half of those projects would have to have low-income subscribers and low-income service provider subscribers. The program would combine community solar project managers, the people or company that managed the operation of a project and contact with the interconnected utility, along with community solar subscription managers that marketed projects, provided other community solar-related services, and enrolled customers or allocated subscriptions. They would have to register and file various information with the UTC, which could approve, deny or revoke registrations; they’d have to provide a performance bond to cover advances and deposits from subscribers. Investor owned utilities would be allowed to recover their costs in developing and implementing the program through their rates. Program managers would receive the renewable energy certificates generated by a project and could retire them, sell them, or retire them on behalf of subscribers.

The UTC would create consumer protection guidelines, require investor-owned utilities to file the legal documents for implementing programs, and maintain a publicly available queue of precertified projects in a way that protected commercially sensitive or competitive information. Project and subscription managers would have to file various information about projects with the Commission; collect information on financial benefits realized by low-income and low-income service provider subscribers; administer the project in a transparent way that allowed fair and nondiscriminatory opportunities for participation; and provide each subscriber with a disclosure form containing all the material terms and conditions of participation in the project. Disclosures would include the term of participation; provisions about the disposition or transfer of the subscriber’s interest, including any potential costs associated with a transfer; all charges including any penalties for cancellation; the billing and payment procedures; the projected percentage of the customer’s usage that will be allocated to the project and a description of the methodology used to develop that; an explanation of the subscriber’s relationship to renewable energy credits and of the responsibilities of the community solar project manager or community solar subscription manager, the utility, and the Commission; contact information for questions and complaints; and any other terms and conditions of the services provided by the subscription manager. They wouldn’t be allowed to use credit checks or sign-up fees to screen potential subscribers, or charge exit fees to customers who wanted to stop their subscription.

Managers could enter eligible customers in a utility’s net crediting program. Subscribers would get credits on their bills for their share of the project’s production minus a fee for the subscription manager, which would have to be a fixed percentage of the bill’s credits, valued at the total rate per kilowatt hour they paid the utility for power, including all charges for generation,transmission, distribution, taxes, and fees. A fee for the subscription manager, which would have to be a fixed percentage of the bill’s credits, would be deducted from that, but the low-income and low-income service providers would be exempt from program fees. If a project were undersubscribed the managers could roll the unsubscribed credits forward and allocate them to subscribers for up to two years; at that point, they’d have to get paid for that unsubscribed power at the utility’s wholesale cost. The utility could charge up to 2% of the subscription fee to the project manager or subscription manager as a a net crediting fee. The credits could offset any costs on the customer’s next bill except for the utility’s standard basic charge. Any unused bill credits could be rolled forward and used during the life of the project.

The bill retains the current provisions under which the WSU Energy Office pre-certifies projects; projects have two years after pre-certification to start producing power; and utilities choosing to participate in the program provide a one-time initial incentive payment of up to $20,000 to the project developer to cover the start-up costs attributable to its low income subscribers, plus some amount less than the installed cost of the project to provide direct benefits to those subscribers. (Utilities recover these payments through other customers’ rates.) The bill would have utilities provide virtual net metering for all new community solar projects, crediting customers’ bills for their shares of the power a project produced at the same rate they were paying for the power they used, rather than only for projects under 100 kWs of AC capacity.

HB1427

HB1427 – Expanding utility net-metering programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 45th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Ramel, Street, Berry, Duerr, Hackney, Reed, Fosse, Cortes, Lekanoff, and Peterson – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 24th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules. Returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made in the substitute at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would make public utility customers’ systems for generating power of up to 200 kilowatts AC on their own property eligible for net metering, doubling the current limit, and would make it available for private utility customers’ systems of up to 2 megawatts on their own property. (Utilities could also offer it for other systems if they chose to.) It would require offering it until June 2035, rather than June 2029, or until the total capacity of the included systems reached 12% of a utility’s peak demand in 1996, rather than 4%.

The bill would require utilities to enter into contracts covering the terms of their arrangements with customer-generators for at least 25 years, and to develop a standard rate or tariff schedule for them that’s expressed as a percentage of the utility’s retail rate. (I think this is intended to mean that these customers would get the current arrangements for net metering credits for at least the rough estimated life time of a solar system, but I’m not sure what this additional provision about a standard rate for them is intended to do, given the next to the last sentence of the next paragraph. My understanding is that a contract could include provisions for new rates after the requirement for admitting more customers to the program ended, including one rate for electricity used by the customer and a different rate for credited generation …)

Until the point at which they were no longer required to offer net metering, the rates and reimbursement for these customers would be determined by the provisions of the current net-metering law, which deducts any kilowatt hours the customer provided to the grid over the year from the ones the customer is billed for, effectively paying for that power at the current retail rate. (If the system produces more than the customer uses, though, the extra credits go to the utility; the bill would now require the utility to use those to reduce low-income customers’ bills.) A consumer-owned utility could develop a standard rate or tariff schedule to take effect after the point at which they were no longer required to offer net metering to new applicants, and private utilities could develop a rate to take effect after that through a UTC proceeding. These could include time-of-use net metering rates, and if they did, they’d be encouraged to include incentives for energy storage plans.

The bill would have the WSU Energy Program convene a work group with representatives of a range of stakeholders on the future of net metering in the state. The group would consider its implications for the solar industry workforce, the rate of deployment of consumer-owned solar and storage, and future electric load growth, the reductions in utility income associated with different levels of net metering, and equitable distribution of the benefits of consumer-owned solar and storage. It would provide an inventory of other states’ deviation from net metering laws and the impact that had on solar installations, solar installers, utilities, utility customers, rural land, tribal land, and customer-generator payback periods. It would consider whether it’s reasonable for utilities to count consumer-owned clean energy systems in their territory toward their Clean Energy Transformation Act compliance targets. The Energy Program would study the magnitude of any cost shifts among ratepayers associated with retail rate net metering in Washington state, under scenarios assuming total net metered generation capacity of six percent, 12 percent, and 24 percent of 1996 peak power. The work group report would make recommendations on what alternatives to net metering should be considered by the Legislature and when it would be reasonable to implement those, taking the findings of the cost shift study into account, and the Energy Program would report to the Legislature on this work by December 2026.

The bill would require contractors installing solar systems to have written contracts with customers complying with a detailed list of requirements.

The bill declares the Legislature’s intent to update and implement a new net metering policy by 2035, and its position that any rate or tariff offered by a utility under a future net metering policy must compensate customer-generators at a rate that’s different than the retail rate; be expressed as a percentage of the retail rate; be communicated to customers with three year’s notice from when it’s first publicly proposed to when it would go into effect; and allow for inclusion of time-of-use net metering rate structures for distributed storage.

HB1416

HB1416 – Applying emissions reduction requirements of the Clean Energy Act to nonresidential customers in public utility areas that produce their own power or buy it on the market.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsor Ramel – D) (By request of the Department of Commerce)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Passed the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 30th; passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules, and passed the House February 9th.

Summary –
The bill would expand the definition of “market customers” in the Clean Energy Transformation Act (aka the cap and invest bill) to include those customers of the public utilities. These are nonresidential customers that buy electricity from other sources than the utility with which they’re directly interconnected or generate it to meet all of their own needs. I think this change would require them to be “greenhouse gas neutral” by 2030 (getting no more than 20% of their power from natural gas and offsetting those emissions through several options), and to get 100% of it from non-emitting sources by 2045. They would also be required to pursue all cost-effective, reliable, and feasible conservation and efficiency resources, and demand response in the process; to achieve the targets at the lowest reasonable cost, considering risk; to consider acquisition of existing renewable resources; and to rely on renewable resources and energy storage when that was consistent with the other requirements. They’d be required to meet the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

HB1216

HB1216 – Consolidating and streamlining the siting of clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; NW Seattle & Vashon Island)(Co-Sponsors Doglio, Berry, Reed, Simmons, Macri, Fosse, & Pollet – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology March 15th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st; amended twice and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to add not degrading local air quality to the requirements for qualifying an EITE project as a clean energy project, to change the emissions reductions requirement to “aligning with” the cap and invest program’s cap trajectory, and to remove the change in Ways and Means that allowed some projects to get expedited review by the Site Evaluation Council. Passed by the Senate April 8th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5380 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker makes some projects and facilities upgrades by energy-intensive trader exposed industries eligible and ineligible for treatment as clean energy projects under the bill, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of it. The changes made by the first amendment in Ways and Means are summarized by staff at the end of it. The second amendment limits EITE’s clean energy projects to those that reduce emissions faster than the rate of decline of the free allowances EITEs are receiving under CETA, and specifies that various land use and permitting decisions for clean energy projects will be handled through the expedited judicial review process for energy facility site evaluation council certifications rather than going to the Pollution Control Hearings Board.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 19th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing there on February 21st. Replaced by a second substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the House March 3rd.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker makes certain projects and upgrades by energy-intensive trade exposed facilities eligible and ineligible for treatment as clean energy projects under the bill’s provisions, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of it.

Changes in the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute on the first couple of pages of it; the amendment would require consultation with rural stakeholders and two reports on a variety of potential impacts and benefits of anticipated changes in the state’s energy system, including the siting of facilities through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and recommendations on ways to “more equitably distribute costs and benefits to rural communities.” The striker merely directs counties to not prohibit the installation of evaluation equipment needed in planning wind and solar projects rather than specifying various limits on county’s requirements for permitting those, and makes other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. The floor amendment allows the projects and upgrades by energy intensive trade exposed industries included as clean energy manufacturing projects in the striker to count if they “assist” in meeting cap and invest obligations, rather then meeting them.

2nd Substitute –
The changes made by this are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and the changes made by the amendment are summarized at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would create an Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Ecology, with participation by a long list of agencies. The chairs would assign staff in each agency to lead the Council’s work and provide ongoing updates to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature. The Council would identify actions to improve siting and permitting of projects for wind and solar energy, transmission, green electrolytic and renewable hydrogen, alternative jet fuels, battery and pumped storage of clean energy, and the manufacturing of clean energy products. Its work would include a through review of the recommendations of the 2022 Low Carbon Energy Facility Siting Improvement Study, creating implementation plans and timelines, and making recommendations for needed funding or policy changes. The Council would also track Federal efforts to improve clean energy project siting and permitting, including potential Federal funding; identify agency actions to improve coordination across state, local, and federal processes or to pursue supportive funding; conduct outreach to parties with interests in clean energy siting and permitting for ongoing input on how to improve agency processes and actions; and establish work groups as needed to focus on specific energy types or specific geographies for project siting. It might create advisory committees to inform this work; it would support the creation and annual updating by the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs of a list of contacts at tribes and tribal preferences regarding outreach about clean energy project siting and permitting. It would provide an annual report to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature summarizing progress on efficient, effective, and responsible siting and permitting of clean energy projects; areas of additional work; resource needs; and any needed policy changes.

The Council would also advise Commerce on contracting with an independent third party to evaluate state agency siting and permitting processes and related Federal and state requirements; identify successful models for siting and permitting projects in other states; develop recommendations for improving these processes, including potential policy changes and funding; and report on the evaluation and recommendations by July 1, 2024. The Council would develop a consolidated clean energy application similar to the joint aquatic resources permit application for at least the state permits for clean energy projects, and would explore developing a consolidated permit for them. Ecology would lead these efforts, with updates on them to the Governor and Legislature due by July 1, 2024. It would engage with Federal agencies and local governments to explore including various applications or permits in consolidated versions. It would be authorized to design a single application for multiple clean energy project types, separate applications for individual clean energy technologies, or an application for related resources. A consolidated permit process would have to identify criteria or conditions that had to be met for projects to use it, and Ecology would be authorized to analyze those conditions as part of a nonproject review.

The bill would create a way for applicants to apply to Commerce for designation as a clean energy project of statewide significance, and would have Ecology implement and assist with a fully coordinated permitting process for those as an alternative to applying for expedited permitting through the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Applications for the designation would have to include an explanation of how the project is expected to contribute to the state’s achievement of its greenhouse gas emission limits, and is consistent with the State Energy Strategy. They’d also need an explanation of any contribution it’s expected to make to other state requirements for clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions; an explanation of how it’s expected to contribute to the state’s economic development goals; a plan for meaningful engagement with tribes having interests on or near the site; a description of potential community benefits and impacts from the project, a plan for meaningful community engagement in its development, and an explanation of how the applicant might use a legal document specifying the benefits the developer agrees to fund or furnish in exchange for community support of a project. Commerce would approve or deny a one-time application for a project, assessing whether it provided the explanations above, had sufficient need for coordinated state assistance, had been reviewed through a nonproject environmental review process, or a least-conflict siting process for pumped solar that the bill establishes, and was consistent with the recommendations of those; and considering its anticipated positive or adverse impacts on environmental and public health. The department would have to consider information in an application demonstrating meaningful tribal outreach and engagement “favorably” in deciding whether to approve it.

Designated clean energy project of statewide significance would be assigned a Commerce staff navigator to assist with the initial project assessment and with the coordinated permitting process, if the project proponent chose to use that. The navigator would also convene appropriate partners from state and local government, private entities, nongovernmental organizations, and others to support successful completion of the project; and work with each of those to expedite their actions in moving the project forward.

Ecology would manage the coordinated permitting process. (The proponent of a designated project who chose to use this would have to reimburse the department for the costs of supporting its permitting.) It would conduct an initial assessment of the amount of coordination each project needed, considering its complexity, size, and the experience of those involved. It would address the expected type of environmental review; the anticipated state and local permits, approvals, forms and requirements; information needs and issues of concern of each participating agency; time required for the SEPA review and permit decisions by each participating agency given the greatest possible efficiencies achievable through any concurrent studies and with any consolidated applications, hearings, and comment periods. This would have to be provided to the proponent and the public within sixty days. Ecology would also ensure the proponent had been informed of all information needed to apply for permits; facilitate communication between proponents and staff to promote timely permit decisions and adherence to agreed schedules; verify completion of administrative review and permit procedures among agencies; assist in resolving any conflict or inconsistency among permit requirements and conditions; consult with potentially affected tribes and potentially affected overburdened communities according to the bill’s requirements; and coordinate with jurisdictions to assist with fulfilling their local permitting requirements. The Department would convene a work plan meeting for the project with the other parties relevant to its permitting, reviewing permitting processes and estimating timelines, with full attention to achieving the maximum efficiencies possible. It would create and maintain a shared coordinated permitting process schedule; parties would have to notify Ecology of the reasons for any delays and offer potential solutions or an amended timeline.

The bill requires early, meaningful, and individual consultation by Ecology with any affected tribe on a variety of potential project impacts on rights or resources, independent of and in addition to, any public participation process required by state law or a state agency. The department would also be required to identify overburdened communities that might be affected by a designated project participating in the process, and to verify that they’d been meaningfully engaged in a timely manner by participating agencies, and that their comments had been considered in determining potential impacts.

Counties and cities with designated clean energy projects of statewide significance in their jurisdictions would be required to enter into an agreement with Ecology and the project proponents for expediting the completion of projects. They’d have to expedite processing of permits for the project’s design and construction; environmental review; and requests for needed street, right-of-way, or easement vacations. They’d have to make local officials or planning staff available to serve on the navigator’s team to move the project forward; develop and follow a plan for consultation with potentially affected tribes; and carry out any other actions Ecology identified as needed for the coordinated permitting process. Local governments would not be allowed to require these applicants for these electrical energy projects to demonstrate their necessity or utility, other than as part of the public information required by Federal agencies as part of some applications.

The bill would have the WSU Energy Program conduct a least-conflict pumped storage siting process for the state, including ample opportunities for self-identified stakeholders to participate, to identify areas where there’s the least amount of conflict about sites. (It might include considering the colocation of pumped storage with wind or solar energy generation.) The project would develop a public map and associated GIS data layers by June 30th, 2025, highlighting those areas; it would not include any information tribes identified as sensitive, though that would be used to inform the project.

Ecology would be required to develop nonproject environmental impact statements, in consultation with various stakeholders, on the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen projects, and of solar projects in the Columbia Basin. These would include related mitigation measures. Proponents of such projects would have to incorporate these impact analyses in a coordinated project-level review process, and the lead agency conducting a project-level environmental review of one of those would have to adopt that nonproject impact statement to identify and mitigate project-level probable significant impacts, “where appropriate.” However, the agency would also have to review and update that analysis, if that were needed, and would have to address any probable significant impacts that were not analyzed in the nonproject statement and identify any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures specific to the project for those impacts.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 16, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5380

SB5380 – Consolidating and streamlining the siting of clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 24th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1216 is a companion bill in the House.

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

Summary –
The bill would create an Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Ecology, with participation by a long list of agencies. The chairs would assign staff in each agency to lead the Council’s work and provide ongoing updates to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature. The Council would identify actions to improve siting and permitting of projects for wind and solar energy, transmission, green electrolytic and renewable hydrogen, alternative jet fuels, battery and pumped storage of clean energy, and the manufacturing of clean energy products. Its work would include a through review of the recommendations of the 2022 Low Carbon Energy Facility Siting Improvement Study, creating implementation plans and timelines, and making recommendations for needed funding or policy changes. The Council would also track Federal efforts to improve clean energy project siting and permitting, including potential Federal funding; identify agency actions to improve coordination across state, local, and federal processes or to pursue supportive funding; conduct outreach to parties with interests in clean energy siting and permitting for ongoing input on how to improve agency processes and actions; and establish work groups as needed to focus on specific energy types or specific geographies for project siting. It might create advisory committees to inform this work; it would support the creation and annual updating by the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs of a list of contacts at tribes and tribal preferences regarding outreach about clean energy project siting and permitting. It would provide an annual report to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature summarizing progress on efficient, effective, and responsible siting and permitting of clean energy projects; areas of additional work; resource needs; and any needed policy changes.

The Council would also advise Commerce on contracting with an independent third party to evaluate state agency siting and permitting processes and related Federal and state requirements; identify successful models for siting and permitting projects in other states; develop recommendations for improving these processes, including potential policy changes and funding; and report on the evaluation and recommendations by July 1, 2024. The Council would develop a consolidated clean energy application similar to the joint aquatic resources permit application for at least the state permits for clean energy projects, and would explore developing a consolidated permit for them. Ecology would lead these efforts, with updates on them to the Governor and Legislature due by July 1, 2024. It would engage with Federal agencies and local governments to explore including various applications or permits in consolidated versions. It would be authorized to design a single application for multiple clean energy project types, separate applications for individual clean energy technologies, or an application for related resources. A consolidated permit process would have to identify criteria or conditions that had to be met for projects to use it, and Ecology would be authorized to analyze those conditions as part of a nonproject review.

The bill would create a way for applicants to apply to Commerce for designation as a clean energy project of statewide significance, and would have Ecology implement and assist with a fully coordinated permitting process for those as an alternative to applying for expedited permitting through the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Applications for the designation would have to include an explanation of how the project is expected to contribute to the state’s achievement of its greenhouse gas emission limits, and is consistent with the State Energy Strategy. They’d also need an explanation of any contribution it’s expected to make to other state requirements for clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions; an explanation of how it’s expected to contribute to the state’s economic development goals; a plan for meaningful engagement with tribes having interests on or near the site; a description of potential community benefits and impacts from the project, a plan for meaningful community engagement in its development, and an explanation of how the applicant might use a legal document specifying the benefits the developer agrees to fund or furnish in exchange for community support of a project. Commerce would approve or deny a one-time application for a project, assessing whether it provided the explanations above, had sufficient need for coordinated state assistance, had been reviewed through a nonproject environmental review process, or a least-conflict siting process for pumped solar that the bill establishes, and was consistent with the recommendations of those; and considering its anticipated positive or adverse impacts on environmental and public health. The department would have to consider information in an application demonstrating meaningful tribal outreach and engagement “favorably” in deciding whether to approve it.

Designated clean energy project of statewide significance would be assigned a Commerce staff navigator to assist with the initial project assessment and with the coordinated permitting process, if the project proponent chose to use that. The navigator would also convene appropriate partners from state and local government, private entities, nongovernmental organizations, and others to support successful completion of the project; and work with each of those to expedite their actions in moving the project forward.

Ecology would manage the coordinated permitting process. (The proponent of a designated project who chose to use this would have to reimburse the department for the costs of supporting its permitting.) It would conduct an initial assessment of the amount of coordination each project needed, considering its complexity, size, and the experience of those involved. It would address the expected type of environmental review; the anticipated state and local permits, approvals, forms and requirements; information needs and issues of concern of each participating agency; time required for the SEPA review and permit decisions by each participating agency given the greatest possible efficiencies achievable through any concurrent studies and with any consolidated applications, hearings, and comment periods. This would have to be provided to the proponent and the public within sixty days. Ecology would also ensure the proponent had been informed of all information needed to apply for permits; facilitate communication between proponents and staff to promote timely permit decisions and adherence to agreed schedules; verify completion of administrative review and permit procedures among agencies; assist in resolving any conflict or inconsistency among permit requirements and conditions; consult with potentially affected tribes and potentially affected overburdened communities according to the bill’s requirements; and coordinate with jurisdictions to assist with fulfilling their local permitting requirements. The Department would convene a work plan meeting for the project with the other parties relevant to its permitting, reviewing permitting processes and estimating timelines, with full attention to achieving the maximum efficiencies possible. It would create and maintain a shared coordinated permitting process schedule; parties would have to notify Ecology of the reasons for any delays and offer potential solutions or an amended timeline.

The bill requires early, meaningful, and individual consultation by Ecology with any affected tribe on a variety of potential project impacts on rights or resources, independent of and in addition to, any public participation process required by state law or a state agency. The department would also be required to identify overburdened communities that might be affected by a designated project participating in the process, and to verify that they’d been meaningfully engaged in a timely manner by participating agencies, and that their comments had been considered in determining potential impacts.

Counties and cities with designated clean energy projects of statewide significance in their jurisdictions would be required to enter into an agreement with Ecology and the project proponents for expediting the completion of projects. They’d have to expedite processing of permits for the project’s design and construction; environmental review; and requests for needed street, right-of-way, or easement vacations. They’d have to make local officials or planning staff available to serve on the navigator’s team to move the project forward; develop and follow a plan for consultation with potentially affected tribes; and carry out any other actions Ecology identified as needed for the coordinated permitting process. Local governments would not be allowed to require these applicants for these electrical energy projects to demonstrate their necessity or utility, other than as part of the public information required by Federal agencies as part of some applications.

The bill would have the WSU Energy Program conduct a least-conflict pumped storage siting process for the state, including ample opportunities for self-identified stakeholders to participate, to identify areas where there’s the least amount of conflict about sites. (It might include considering the colocation of pumped storage with wind or solar energy generation.) The project would develop a public map and associated GIS data layers by June 30th, 2025, highlighting those areas; it would not include any information tribes identified as sensitive, though that would be used to inform the project.

Ecology would be required to develop nonproject environmental impact statements, in consultation with various stakeholders, on the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen projects, and of solar projects in the Columbia Basin. These would include related mitigation measures. Proponents of such projects would have to incorporate these impact analyses in a coordinated project-level review process, and the lead agency conducting a project-level environmental review of one of those would have to adopt that nonproject impact statement to identify and mitigate project-level probable significant impacts, “where appropriate.” However, the agency would also have to review and update that analysis, if that were needed, and would have to address any probable significant impacts that were not analyzed in the nonproject statement and identify any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures specific to the project for those impacts.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Other 2023, Out of initial committee – Senate 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 16, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5287

SB5287 – Requiring a study of the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Jeff Wilson (R; 19th District; Longview) (Co-Sponsor – Nguyen – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Environment March 14th. Amended to specify that the report should include options for reuse, repurposing, and recycling; passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 11th. Senate concurred in House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 20th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 27th.

Summary –
Subject to appropriations for this particular project, the bill would require the WSE Energy Program to conduct a study on the feasibility of recycling wind turbine blades installed in the state. It would include information and recommendations on:
(1) The cost, feasibility, and environmental impact of various disposal methods;
(2) The availability of recycling and processing facilities for them in Washington and other states;
(3) Potential incentives for the creation of blade recycling facilities in the state;
(4) Mechanisms for establishing recycling requirements, or recycled content standards, for blades;
(5) Considerations and options for designing a product stewardship program for them, and
(6) The feasibility of including all the blades installed, now and in the future, in a recycling program.

A report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature would be due by December 1st, 2023.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2022, Governor 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 11, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5146

SB5146 – Allowing power from new and recent hydropower infrastructure to be used to comply with the Clean Energy Act from 2030 through 2045. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Short (R; 7th District; Northeast Washington)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would remove certain restrictions on the hydropower that can be used from 2030 through 2044 to comply with the greenhouse gas neutral requirements of the Clean Energy Act. That would be changed to allow power from new diversions, impoundments, bypass reaches, and expansions of existing reservoirs constructed after May 17, 2019.

The current law allows the use of power from new diversions, impoundments, and bypass reaches if they’re needed for the operations of a pumped storage facility that doesn’t conflict with existing state or federal fish recovery plans; and that complies with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations. (I think that the bill’s removal of this provision might imply that you could use power from these regardless of the effect on fish recovery and compliance with other laws and regulations, but there may be other laws that would prevent that.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead Senate Bills 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 9, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1192

HB1192 – Improving electric power system transmission planning.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Doglio – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 19th. Replaced by a substitute matching the changes made in the Senate’s companion bill and passed out of committee February 13th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5165 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Substitute –
The substitute specifies that projects with nominal ratings of at least 500,000 volts AC or 300,000 volts DC have to seek Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification, and that projects that aren’t subject to the Council’s jurisdiction still have the option to use local government permitting processes. It clarifies that transmission assessment in an IRP has to include opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through improved operating practices and non-wires solutions, and that a clean energy action plan has to document a utility’s efforts to use existing capacity more effectively.

Summary –
The bill would require the assessment in each utility’s integrated resource plans of its future needs for regional generation and transmission capacity, and of the availability of those, to be based on forecasts over twenty years rather than ten. The assessments would have to take into account the state’s emissions reduction limits and the requirements of the Clean Energy Act; opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through energy efficiency, demand response, grid modernization, and other programs; and the electrification of transportation and other end uses historically met using fossil fuels. The assessment would have to identify the utility’s expected need to develop new or expanded bulk transmission facilities.

The bill would expand the current requirement for developing 10 year Clean Energy Action Plans to include all utilities, not just investor owned ones. Those plans would now also have to document existing and planned efforts by the utility to secure the additional transmission capacity it anticipated needing in its IRP. They would have to give reasonable consideration to energy resources that would use conditional firm transmission services, where their reserved service might be curtailed under specific limited conditions. Utilities would be encouraged to do statewide, multiutility, and interstate transmission planning. They’d be required to seek the support of a variety of industry and public interest organizations in improving the planning and development of transmission capacity.

The bill would add the construction, reconstruction, or enlargement of new or existing electrical transmission facilities of at least 500,000 volts; located in more than one county; and located in the Washington service area of more than one retail electric utility to the facilities required to apply for siting through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The bill would have the Director of the Council coordinate state agency participation in environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of transmission projects proposed or sited by a Federal agency .

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, House Bills 2023, In Rules - House of Origin - 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 9, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5165

SB5165 – Improving electric power system transmission planning.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center) (Co-Sponsor Mullet – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 13th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 5th. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1192 is a companion bill in the House.

Changes in the House –
The changes made by the committee striker in the House are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment would make the avoidance of burdens to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities as well as their reduction part of the analysis of cumulative impacts in utilities’ IRPs.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 18th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Passed out of committee February 24th, referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 2nd.

Substitute –
The substitute specifies that projects with nominal ratings of at least 500,000 volts AC or 300,000 volts DC have to seek Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification, and that projects that aren’t subject to the Council’s jurisdiction still have the option to use local government permitting processes. It clarifies that transmission assessment in an IRP has to include opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through improved operating practices and non-wires solutions, and that a clean energy action plan has to document a utility’s efforts to use existing capacity more effectively.

Summary –
The bill would require the assessment in each utility’s integrated resource plans of its future needs for regional generation and transmission capacity, and of the availability of those, to be based on forecasts over twenty years rather than ten. The assessments would have to take into account the state’s emissions reduction limits and the requirements of the Clean Energy Act; opportunities to make more effective use of existing transmission capacity through energy efficiency, demand response, grid modernization, and other programs; and the electrification of transportation and other end uses historically met using fossil fuels. The assessment would have to identify the utility’s expected need to develop new or expanded bulk transmission facilities.

The bill would expand the current requirement for developing 10 year Clean Energy Action Plans to include all utilities, not just investor owned ones. Those plans would now also have to document existing and planned efforts by the utility to secure the additional transmission capacity it anticipated needing in its IRP. They would have to give reasonable consideration to energy resources that would use conditional firm transmission services, where their reserved service might be curtailed under specific limited conditions. Utilities would be encouraged to do statewide, multiutility, and interstate transmission planning. They’d be required to seek the support of a variety of industry and public interest organizations in improving the planning and development of transmission capacity.

The bill would add the construction, reconstruction, or enlargement of new or existing electrical transmission facilities of at least 500,000 volts; located in more than one county; and located in the Washington service area of more than one retail electric utility to the facilities required to apply for siting through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The bill would have the Director of the Council coordinate state agency participation in environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of transmission projects proposed or sited by a Federal agency.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 8, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5167

SB5167 – Prohibits solar and wind projects on commercial agricultural lands from getting expedited review through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Kennewick)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit solar and wind facilities sited on agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance from being eligible for expedited review before the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. (Currently, a project can get expedited processing if the Council finds its environmental impact is not significant or will be mitigated to a non-significant level, and finds it’s consistent and in compliance with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances.) The bill’s findings maintain that process undermines opportunities for local review of solar and wind facilities

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead Senate Bills 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 8, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1032

HB1032 – Requires utility planning for wildfire risks and identification of best management practices.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dent (R; 13th District; Kittitas County) (Co-Sponsors Graham – R; Chapman, Ryu, Reed, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 14th and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5039 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 15th. Replaced by a second substitute, and passed out of Appropriations February 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 4th.

Substitutes –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. The 2nd substitute would drop DNR’s role in reviewing private utilities’ plans, assigning that responsibility to the UTC, and authorizing private utilities to seek to recover the costs and investments of their plans in rate proceedings there.

Summary –
Requires each electric utility to create a wildfire management plan by October 31, 2024 and update it every three years. An independent consultant selected by the State Energy Office after consultation with stakeholders and the public would develop the format for the plans and a list of recommended actions to be included in them, including best practice guidance for those actions. Each utility’s plan would include a review of its specific circumstances and incorporate the appropriate identified actions from the list; abutting utilities could develop collaborative plans. Private utilities’ plans would be reviewed by the Utilities and Transportation Commission and public utilities’ would be reviewed by their governing boards, in consultation with various other agencies. Reviewers would provide feedback to the utilities, but as I read the bill, it doesn’t quite require their approval of the plans. (They’re to “confirm” whether it contains the appropriate recommended actions.) The bill also disclaims any State responsibility for subsequent problems.)

The consultant’s list is to include actions related to:
(a) Vegetation management along transmission and distribution lines and near associated equipment;
(b) Infrastructure inspection and maintenance repair activities, schedules, and recordkeeping;
(c) Modifications or upgrades to facilities and construction of new facilities to incorporate cost-effective measures to minimize fire risk;
(d) Preventative programs, including adoption of new technologies to harden utility infrastructure;
(e) Operational procedures;
(f) Identification of appropriate widths for vegetation management and rights-of-way, including the consideration of fire-resistant vegetation alternatives;
(g) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electric system along with associated communication plans for impacted parties and the public, including highly impacted communities, vulnerable populations, and persons reliant on electricity to maintain necessary life functions; and
(h) Public and interested parties’ engagement and communication plans addressing wildfire safety and risk mitigation.

Each electric utility’s protocols have to include plans for mitigating the public safety impacts of deenergizing portions of the system, considering the impacts on critical first responders, local and tribal governments, health and communication infrastructure, and those populations at increased risk. Decisions about whether or not to shut down parts of the system are reserved to the utilities.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 8, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5168

SB5168 – Eliminating the Energy Independence Act’s requirements for renewable power. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Boehnke (R; 8th District; Kennewick)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 14th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The Energy Independence Act (passed by the voters in 2006 as I-937) requires utilities in the state with more than 25,000 customers to obtain fifteen percent of their electricity from new renewable resources such as solar and wind in each year after 2020 (or to purchase certain qualifying renewable energy credits covering that obligation.) The bill would eliminate these requirements.

Its findings maintain that “This will not create a gap in Washington’s energy laws because the requirements of the Clean Energy Transformation Act continue to set the policy direction for the state.” The Clean Energy Act’s actual requirements provide for the elimination of coal power by 2025; the limit on power from natural gas that’s offset through various options to 20% of portfolios by 2035, and the prohibition on power from other than renewable or non-emitting sources by 2045.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead Senate Bills 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 8, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1173

HB1173 – Requires Ecology to create light mitigation standards for wind projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Connors (R; 8th District; Tri-Cities) (Co-Sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 28th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by another striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the Senate April 7th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The extensive changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it. The changes made by the second striker on the floor are summarized by staff at the end of that. The floor amendment limits the requirements to projects with at least five turbines, no longer requires there to be more than one FAA approved technology for a county to adopt a wind energy ordinance, and removes practicability from the criteria for selecting light-mitigating technology.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 16th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor and passed by the House February 27th.

Substitute –
The substitute now simply requires utility scale wind projects or large turbines with obstruction lights to have aircraft detection lighting systems (or the best available light mitigation if the FAA doesn’t allow those systems). It has Ecology enforce that as a regulation rather than making it a condition of permitting. The striker delays the date for compliance by a year, requires the best “practicable” alternative technology rather than the best “available” technology when detection lighting systems aren’t allowed, and authorizes Ecology to delay enforcing the requirement in various situations.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology to develop rules to reduce the light pollution from projects, in consultation with DOT and the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, and with input from counties and cities. The rules would apply to new and existing projects, and to any aviation obstructions associated with the facility, including meteorological towers of any height. They’d include service and maintenance requirements and safety standards; and they would require sensors to detect approaching aircraft and automatically activate the appropriate lights until they were no longer needed.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 7, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1123

HB1123– Authorizing tribes or counties to prohibit local siting of a solar or wind project by passing a resolution saying they would prefer a nuclear plant. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsor Klicker – R)
Current status – Still in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council from recommending the siting of a wind or solar project in a county or “affected tribal area” if the county commissioners or tribal council passed a resolution saying the community or the tribe would prefer the local siting of a nuclear energy facility. (It would also prohibit the Governor from approving an application for certification of a wind or solar energy facility if such a resolution had been passed.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead House Bills 2023, House Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 4, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1117

HB1117– Requiring the annual meeting of agencies, utilities and stakeholders to address the extent to which the state risks rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mosbrucker (R; 14th District; Goldendale) (Co-Sponsors Dye – R & Leavitt – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 17th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker includes some of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s energy analytics experts in the annual stakeholders’ meetings and requires the conveners to invite them to provide relevant analytics to inform the discussion in 2023 if regional energy analytics capability has been established by the lab.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 12th. Amended to make a couple of minor changes and passed out of committee February 14th. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously March 4th.

Summary –
The law currently requires the UTC and the Department of Commerce to jointly convene a meeting of utilities, grid operators, and other stakeholders at least once a year to discuss power system planning and the adequacy of electric energy resources. The convenors provide a summary of each meeting to the Governor and the Legislature.

The bill would specify that the meeting in 2023 “must specifically address” the extent to which residents are at risk of rolling blackouts and power supply inadequacy events, and the extent to which proposed laws and regulations for building and transportation electrification may require new policy for resource adequacy. Stakeholders would be surveyed for recommendations on policy options to prevent severe blackouts, and the meeting would seek to identify regulatory and statutory incentives to enhance and ensure continuing resource adequacy and reliability.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 4, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5129

SB5129 – Planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology in the state.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsors Hunt & Mullet – Ds; Fortunato, Holy, McCune, and Short – R’s)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 25th; passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th. Reintroduced in 2024 and placed on 2nd reading January 17th.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill’s findings declare that planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology aligns with the Legislature’s goals for a comprehensive energy strategy and that the strategy should include consideration of measures to promote its development. They say it can help the state meet its long-term electricity emission reduction goals, and that the state should examine the various ways the rapidly evolving technology will support our future energy infrastructure and economy.

The bill would add advanced nuclear reactor technology to the strategy’s list of more efficient and cleaner energy sources to use in reducing dependence on fossil fuel energy sources. It would add the management of spent nuclear fuel to the list of technologies that the Department of Commerce is to actively seek to maximize federal and other nonstate funding and support for.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead Senate Bills 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 3, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5039

SB5039 – Requires utility planning for wildfire risks and identification of best management practices.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 11th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Wednesday February 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1032 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
Requires each electric utility to create a wildfire management plan by October 31, 2024 and update it every three years. An independent consultant selected by the State Energy Office after consultation with stakeholders and the public would develop the format for the plans and a list of recommended actions to be included in them, including best practice guidance for those actions. Each utility’s plan would include a review of its specific circumstances and incorporate the appropriate identified actions from the list; abutting utilities could develop collaborative plans. Private utilities’ plans would be reviewed by the Utilities and Transportation Commission and public utilities’ would be reviewed by their governing boards, in consultation with various other agencies. Reviewers would provide feedback to the utilities, but as I read the bill, it doesn’t quite require their approval of the plans. (They’re to “confirm” whether it contains the appropriate recommended actions.) The bill also disclaims any State responsibility for subsequent problems.)

The consultant’s list is to include actions related to:
(a) Vegetation management along transmission and distribution lines and near associated equipment;
(b) Infrastructure inspection and maintenance repair activities, schedules, and record keeping;
(c) Modifications or upgrades to facilities and construction of new facilities to incorporate cost-effective measures to minimize fire risk;
(d) Preventative programs, including adoption of new technologies to harden utility infrastructure;
(e) Operational procedures;
(f) Identification of appropriate widths for vegetation management and rights-of-way, including the consideration of fire-resistant vegetation alternatives;
(g) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electric system along with associated communication plans for impacted parties and the public, including highly impacted communities, vulnerable populations, and persons reliant on electricity to maintain necessary life functions; and
(h) Public and interested parties’ engagement and communication plans addressing wildfire safety and risk mitigation.

Each electric utility’s protocols have to include plans for mitigating the public safety impacts of deenergizing portions of the system, considering the impacts on critical first responders, local and tribal governments, health and communication infrastructure, and those populations at increased risk. Decisions about whether or not to shut down parts of the system are reserved to the utilities.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Out of initial committee – Senate 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on December 14, 2022 by Thad Curtz.