SB5688 – Creating programs selling carbon offsets and other ecosystem services based on state and local government lands. (NTIB?)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Nguyen, Hunt, Liias, Rolfes, and Saldaña – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 10th, and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Still in Ways and Means at the fiscal cutoff. (May be NTIB.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB1789 is a different version of this bill, also requested by DNR. They have the same provisions for DNR’s activities. This bill also requires Ecology to create a program to help agencies and local governments develop carbon offset programs. That bill has a much more expansive findings section, and different definitions of “ecosystems services” and “ecosystem service marketplace” though it’s not clear to me that the differences have any practical significance.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to create a program to help agencies and local government develop carbon offset programs for lands they manage, including funding or technical assistance to assess projects’ technical feasibility, investment requirements, development and operational costs, expected returns, administrative and legal hurdles, risks, and pitfalls.

It would authorize the Department of Natural Resources to enter into contracts for up to 125 years based on providing ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and storage, air and water filtration, climate stabilization, disturbance mitigation, pollination, pest and disease control, waste decomposition and detoxification, and nutrient from land it manages. DNR could sell voluntary or compliance credits directly through established marketplaces, or contract with project developers or brokers to handle that, including paying them for determining projects’ feasibility; negotiating payments with an ecosystem service marketplace; and marketing and selling credits on one.

The Board of Natural Resources would develop rules for these contracts and set minumum payments covering periods of at least three months for them; it might also choose to set an actual price based on current markets. DNR would be required to report to the Board about each signed contract, including its term and projected revenues. (The bill says the Board could delegate its authority to approve “any credit sales that the Board is required by law to approve” to the Commissioner of Public Lands, but what sales those would be isn’t clear to me.)

Revenues from the sale of credits would be distributed to the Forest Development Account, the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account, counties, and school districts in the same way that revenues from forests and aquatic lands are currently distributed.