Bills: HF2634, HF2241, HF2649, HF2520, HF2610

Keywords: North Star Promise, scholarship, higher education, Minnesota Office of Higher Education, in-demand jobs, workforce development, career training, job market, high-demand occupations, high-demand industries, college aid, state financial aid, FAFSA, student eligibility, program of study, degree program, certificate program, community college, university, labor market data

Bills: HF2634, HF2241, HF2649, HF2520, HF2610

Keywords: North Star Promise, scholarship, higher education, Minnesota Office of Higher Education, in-demand jobs, workforce development, career training, job market, high-demand occupations, high-demand industries, college aid, state financial aid, FAFSA, student eligibility, program of study, degree program, certificate program, community college, university, labor market data

Transcript Highlights:

• These account for 80% of California's climate emissions.
• That's been a longstanding position: it should reduce your emissions compliance obligation. Okay.
• , to help with compliance.
• Those emissions aren't currently accounted for at the rack.
• We want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These account for 80% of California's climate emissions.
• That's been a longstanding position that it should reduce your emissions compliance obligation.
• , to help with compliance.
• We want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
• emissions intensive trade exposed sectors here. Right.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• These account for 80% of California's climate emissions.
• That's been a longstanding position that it should reduce your emissions compliance obligation.
• , to help with compliance.
• Those emissions aren't currently accounted for at the rack.
• We want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• These account for 80% of California's climate emissions.
• That's been a longstanding position: it should reduce your emissions compliance obligation. Okay.
• , to help with compliance.
• Those emissions aren't currently accounted for at the rack.
• We want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• of a waste-to-energy facility until the beginning of the second compliance period, and that second compliance
• compliance period of the program, allowances equal to 97 percent of its emissions in the third compliance
• However, we do want to meet those emission reductions.
• from the facility, so it wouldn't count toward a compliance obligation.
• from the facility, so it wouldn't count toward a compliance obligation.

Summary: The Environment and Energy Committee heard testimony on three bills. HB 2426 would allow the Pollution Control Hearings Board, with unanimous agreement of the parties, to use alternative board compositions for appeals, including a single member or other qualified environmental adjudicators, so long as one member is a Washington-licensed attorney and the panel has environmental law expertise. The bill sponsor and supporters from business and conservation groups said it was a narrow, consensus-based change intended to improve efficiency and predictability. ELUHO’s director supported the concept but flagged technical issues in the bill language about attorney and Growth Management Hearings Board member qualifications. HB 2416 would provide no-cost allowances under the Climate Commitment Act to Spokane’s waste-to-energy facility, which is not currently covered until the second compliance period. Supporters, including Spokane officials, labor, and local partners, said the facility protects a sole-source aquifer, provides waste disposal and electricity for about 13,000 homes, and faces large compliance costs that could raise rates and threaten jobs. Opponents from environmental groups and Ecology argued the bill would give the facility preferential treatment, subsidize most of its emissions through 2050, and fail to ensure real emissions reductions; AWB raised concern about market impacts if new allowances are added. No vote was taken. HB 2373 would require electric utilities to offer monthly bill discount programs with tiered income levels, expanded outreach and enrollment, and updated reporting on low-income energy assistance. The sponsor said the bill is meant to make assistance more consistent and accessible statewide, while utilities and rural co-ops warned it could create unfunded mandates and significant rate increases for non-low-income customers, especially in smaller systems. Supporters from community action agencies, Commerce, and some utilities said monthly assistance is needed because energy burdens are rising and current programs are patchwork, though several urged pairing the bill with state funding or amendments. The committee heard extensive testimony but took no final action on any of the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not an emissions standard.
• So what that means is that compliance with the law is measured in units of energy and not emissions.
• It's not an emission standard.
• So what that means is the compliance with the law is measured in units of energy and not emissions.
• I don't have to add new compliance categories.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not an emissions standard.
• So what that means is that compliance with the law is measured in units of energy and not emissions.
• And the two compliance categories in CETA are renewable resources... ...and the two compliance categories
• I don't have to add new compliance categories.
• life cycle to determine the overall emissions picture.

Summary: The committee held an interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), then on hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility (EPR). On the CCUS topic, industry and nonprofit presenters described point-source capture, direct air capture, mineralization, and geologic sequestration, emphasizing Washington’s basalt formations and state trust lands as strong candidates for storage. They argued that CCUS can help hard-to-abate industrial sectors, support jobs and investment, and provide a pathway for compliance, while also noting the need for clearer permitting, subsurface rights, pipeline authority, and storage infrastructure. Ecology and Commerce staff explained current state policy touchpoints, including Cap-and-Invest offsets and exemptions for permanently stored CO2, the public comment process underway to define “thousand-year” permanence, and how CCUS might fit within the Clean Energy Transformation Act without counting emitting generation as non-emitting. Some presenters supported more state action and primacy over federal permitting, while others warned about costs, energy use, uncertain capture performance, and the need to ensure real net greenhouse gas reductions and long-term liability protections. Members asked about public meetings, whether mineralized carbon would qualify as exempt under the Climate Commitment Act, the timeline for Ecology guidance, aquifer and water-quality concerns, energy intensity of capture systems, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Responses said Ecology’s guidance process is already underway, public meetings will be virtual, mineralized carbon would likely qualify if it meets the permanence standard, and EPA rules require storage in deep saline formations below drinking water aquifers. Industry speakers said capture energy use varies by source and concentration, and one presenter noted that some states use trust funds funded by injectors to address long-term liability. The second half of the session shifted to hazardous waste and EPR. Ecology staff reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste management in Washington. They highlighted that E-Cycle and PaintCare are producer-funded, that the battery stewardship program will begin in 2027, and that the mercury lamp program is in transition after its prior stewardship organization exited, prompting enforcement notices and a pending replacement plan. Ecology recommended best practices for future EPR programs, including clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong agency enforcement and plan approval authority. Local government speakers from King County and Douglas County described rising collection costs, equity and access barriers, rural travel distances, and the need for stable funding and flexible local implementation. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and supports EPR as a way to shift costs from ratepayers to producers, while Douglas County emphasized that rural residents will participate when services are accessible and that future systems should account for geography and local infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• rules that second compliance period is slated to begin January 1, 2027.
• compliance period of the program, allowances equal to 97 percent of its emissions in the third compliance
• However, we do want to meet those emission reductions.
• I wouldn't say it's an automatic out from being a reportable emission.
• We have proposed an alternative approach that allows for compliance under compliance flexibility under

Bills: HB2426, HB2373, HB2416

Keywords: pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, electric utility, energy assistance, low-income households, monthly bill assistance, energy equity, waste management, energy, climate action, environmental regulations, fair treatment, renewable energy, sustainability, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• “And so when we look at compliance dates, whether it be for complying with a particular emission standard
• and to monitor compliance.
• One is just the emission reductions.
• One is just the emission reductions.
• We will be encouraging compliance.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Look at compliance dates, whether it be for complying with a particular emission standard or even a fee
• and to monitor compliance.
• So, what strategies could projects implement to limit the co-pollutant emissions?
• We believe that **CCUS** is a critical tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Poet has long championed E15 for its ability to reduce emissions.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• equal or exceed 25,000 metric tons becomes a covered entity in the second program compliance period.
• period after determining the facility's baseline greenhouse gas emissions for years 2021 to 2025.
• The facility must receive 93% of its baseline emissions for emissions year 2027, and that percentage
• is reduced by an additional 7% each following emissions year through the end of the second compliance
• Second is amendment labeled G, offered by Senator Banke, which increases the greenhouse gas emissions

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2515, which addresses emerging large energy use facilities, especially data centers. Staff explained that the bill requires utilities to adopt tariffs or policies for data centers, adds reporting and sustainability requirements, sets renewable energy targets, and creates a sales tax exemption for certain eligible data center equipment in eastern Washington. The House sponsor said the bill is intended to protect ratepayers, grid reliability, water resources, and Washington’s climate goals as data center growth accelerates. Tribal representatives and several environmental and labor witnesses urged restoring provisions removed from the House version, especially authority to curtail data center load during energy emergencies and to refuse service if reliability or affordability would be harmed; they also asked for stronger water reporting and protections for salmon. Utility, business, and data center industry witnesses supported the bill’s general framework but raised concerns about implementation, costs, and some of the added requirements, while some opposed the tax exemption and the loss of earlier protections. No final action on 2515 was taken during the hearing portion shown. The committee then heard and acted on several bills in executive session. It passed Substitute House Bill 1302, which allows municipal utilities to waive connection charges for industrial symbiosis projects. It also passed House Bill 2338 on community-scaled weatherization projects after rejecting an amendment, and House Bill 2367 on eliminating preferential treatment for a coal-fired plant after rejecting an amendment. Substitute House Bill 2496 on tribal consultation by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council was amended and then passed, while amendments to change public meeting and tribal summary provisions were rejected. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2225 on AI companion chatbots, House Bill 2426 on PCHB efficiency and appeals, House Bill 2606 on the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, Engrossed House Bill 2575 on reducing reporting obligations, and Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2215 on Climate Commitment Act compliance for fuels were also advanced, with some amendments adopted and others rejected. The committee then reopened public hearing on House Bill 2416, which would treat a Spokane waste-to-energy facility differently under the Climate Commitment Act by allocating no-cost allowances in the second compliance period and requiring a decarbonization and waste-reduction plan. Spokane city officials, labor, environmental groups, and Ecology generally supported the bill as a balanced approach that protects ratepayers while allowing the facility to decarbonize, though Avista raised a concern about language implying a utility compliance obligation. After that, the committee resumed testimony on House Bill 1170, which requires large AI providers to offer provenance tools and disclosures for AI-generated or altered images, video, and audio. Supporters said the bill would help workers and consumers identify synthetic media and prevent impersonation and misinformation, while industry and civil liberties witnesses argued the bill is technically difficult, uses new definitions, and may be unworkable or premature compared with California’s evolving approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• of covered entities based on greenhouse gas emissions.
• obligations for those greenhouse gas emissions.
• There's a lot of thresholds for reporting and compliance.
• Compliance under the CCA is expensive and highly technical. It requires emissions tracking.
• based on actual emissions or roles.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. House Bill 2272 would update state park inspection language for ski lifts and related equipment to better match current equipment and federal standards; the sponsor and State Parks said it was a simple modernization bill, and there was no opposition. House Bill 2245 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to port districts that distribute electricity, utilities with a single customer, and certain affected market customers such as data centers; supporters said it closes loopholes and applies clean-energy rules more fairly, while ports, business groups, and some utilities warned of unintended consequences, added reporting burdens, and impacts on cogeneration and rural economic development. Ecology and Commerce supported the goal but raised concerns about allowance allocation, fiscal impacts, and possible double counting, and WAPUDA asked that existing single-customer PUDs be grandfathered. House Bill 2215 would lower Climate Commitment Act thresholds for gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and propane suppliers and extend coverage to some purchasers; supporters said it would prevent entities from gaming the system and cover significant emissions now below the threshold, while Ecology, fuel distributors, propane suppliers, grocers, and business groups warned of compliance costs, supply-chain impacts, possible linkage issues, and the need to preserve existing reporting authority for natural gas. Ecology estimated about 50 additional covered entities could be brought in, and several opponents argued the bill would sweep in small family-owned businesses not intended to be regulated. House Bill 2090 would direct Commerce to develop a nuclear strategic framework for inclusion in the state energy strategy, contingent on outside funding. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill is only a planning measure to ensure Washington considers advanced nuclear as a firm, low-carbon, small-footprint resource amid rising demand, grid constraints, and land-use concerns; supporters included Energy Northwest, local governments, labor/environmental Democrats, and pro-nuclear groups. Opponents, including the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, tribal representatives from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and several environmental advocates, said the bill gives nuclear special treatment, relies on private funding that could bias the study, and risks advancing projects at Hanford without early, meaningful tribal consultation. Tribes requested explicit consultation, independent and publicly funded analysis, and attention to treaty rights and historic nuclear impacts. Testimony also sharply divided over cost, waste, and land use, with supporters emphasizing reliability and footprint and opponents citing high costs, unresolved waste disposal, and the immaturity of small modular reactors. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• equal or exceed 25,000 metric tons becomes a covered entity in the second program compliance period.
• period after determining the facility's baseline greenhouse gas emissions for years 2021 to 2025.
• The facility must receive 93% of its baseline emissions for emissions year 2027, and that percentage
• is reduced by an additional 7% each following emissions year through the end of the second compliance
• Second is amendment labeled G, offered by Senator Banke, which increases the greenhouse gas emissions

Bills: HB2338, HB2367, HB2426, HB2606

Keywords: weatherization, energy efficiency, community projects, sustainability, environment, coal-fired plant, preferential treatment, energy policy, electric generation, regulatory reform, pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, data protection, privacy, performance measures, reporting requirements, office of privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions.
• Compliance is to be documented every five years.
• So I've covered building-level compliance and will now cover the specifics of campus-level compliance
• It supports compliance with state climate laws and immediately reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
• Thank you. ...reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Summary: The committee first received a Commerce overview of capital budget grant programs, including behavioral health facilities, Building for the Arts, Building Communities Fund, early learning facilities, library capital improvements, and youth recreational facilities. Commerce described program eligibility, match requirements, funding cycles, and project examples such as an early learning center in Spokane, a rural library in Stevens County, and a youth clubhouse in Prosser. Members asked about behavioral health capital projects, including how many facilities have been opened and how capital planning aligns with operating funding; Commerce said it could provide more data later and noted it focuses on capital while HCA, DSHS, and DOH handle operating requests. Members also raised concerns about nonprofit financial stability, project licensure, siting, and the burden of non-state match, while Commerce emphasized shovel-ready projects, community match, and efforts to reduce application burden. The committee then heard an update on the Clean Buildings Performance Standard from Commerce. Staff reviewed Washington’s building emissions laws, compliance tiers, exemptions, incentives, and district energy system decarbonization planning under House Bills 1543, 1976, and 1390. Commerce reported nearly 5,000 inquiries in 2025, a fellowship program that has helped more than 250 buildings in 16 counties, and review of nearly 30 district energy plans. The presentation highlighted that over half of Tier 1 buildings are already meeting targets, that Tier 2 incentive applications suggest the 30-cent-per-square-foot incentive often covers compliance costs, and that district decarbonization plans face common challenges such as aging infrastructure, grid readiness, workforce, and inconsistent cost reporting. Members asked what additional legislative action might help, and Commerce said it was still learning from the new rulemaking and implementation changes. Western Washington University and Corex then presented on WWU’s campus heating conversion project and a possible off-campus thermal energy partnership with the Port of Bellingham. WWU described its aging steam system, high emissions, maintenance costs, and the $51 million in Climate Commitment Account funding it has received to transition toward an electric hot-water system using technologies such as geo-exchange, heat recovery chillers, and air-source heat pumps. Corex explained its existing district energy system at the Port of Bellingham, which uses industrial waste heat and is operating at very high efficiency, and said it is exploring a heat transmission line to WWU and possibly sewer-heat recovery. Testimony from WSU and UW supported the broader decarbonization effort but raised concerns about the scale of costs, deferred maintenance, and the need for predictable state funding. A contractor witness urged the state to think bigger about public-private partnerships and other financing tools rather than forcing campuses to compete for limited funds. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 2330, which would create a prioritization process for capital funding for state campus district energy system decarbonization projects. Staff said the bill would establish a Commerce committee to score and rank projects, issue a preliminary framework report by December 30 of this year, and provide biennial recommended project lists beginning in 2028, while also studying barriers to energy-as-a-service contracts and public-private partnerships. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to create a thoughtful, predictable process for deciding which projects to fund, emphasizing energy savings, emissions reductions, operating cost reductions, shovel-readiness, and the value of public-private partnerships. Testimony was mixed but generally supportive: WSU and UW backed the bill as a way to advance compliance and predictability, though WSU warned that compliance costs could be very large and that the university would likely seek state help if fines were imposed. A contractor witness supported the concept but argued the bill should help build a larger funding “pie” through partnerships and financing tools rather than simply dividing scarce resources. The committee then opened and heard testimony on House Bill 2338, which would authorize community-scaled weatherization projects. Commerce staff said the bill would allow weatherization funds and matching funds to be used for neighborhood-scale projects affecting multiple dwelling units, while still prioritizing low-income households; the fiscal note estimated about $273,000 in FY 2027 and about $237,000 per biennium ongoing for administration. Supporters from community action agencies and Spark Northwest said the bill would improve health, safety, affordability, and contractor participation by allowing weatherization to be done at a community scale, especially in mobile home parks and low-income neighborhoods. No votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Emissions exempt from coverage in the program include, in part, emissions from the combustion of aviation
• Emissions exempt from coverage in the program include, in part, emissions from the combustion of aviation
• The bill also exempts from covered emissions in the program emissions associated with lubricants, as
• program compliance.
• Second thing is we would like to see compliance focus on upstream compliance and enforcement and not

Bills: HB2426, HB2606

Keywords: pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, data protection, privacy, performance measures, reporting requirements, office of privacy, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions that occurred before 2026.
• But they're not counted under the compliance cap for the CCA.
• those emissions.
• But they're not counted under the compliance cap for the CCA. So the emissions are known, but not.
• The emissions are known, but the company is not required to purchase allowances to cover those emissions

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three main bills. House Bill 2284 on reducing litter would remove a scheduled increase in plastic bag thickness, preserve the existing penalty on thicker bags, and create a litter solutions task force to use existing data and recommend further actions. Supporters from business, retail, agriculture, food industry, and the Department of Ecology said the bill takes a data-driven approach and could help reduce litter without imposing a full bag ban, while Ecology noted it already has a statewide litter study underway and raised cost and membership concerns. Opponents and other commenters generally favored the bill’s direction but emphasized the need for more study and careful implementation. No vote was taken. House Bill 1652 would require certain ocean-going vessels in Washington waters to use fuel with no more than 0.1% sulfur, with recordkeeping, Ecology oversight, penalties, and a substitute clarifying vessel coverage and exemptions. The prime sponsor and environmental and public health advocates said the bill would reduce air and water pollution from scrubbers and protect the Salish Sea, orcas, salmon, and nearby communities. Ports, shipping interests, and industry groups raised concerns that the bill could effectively discourage scrubbers, create burdens for irregular callers and cargo traffic, and affect port competitiveness, while some said the bill should be narrowed or further stakeholdered. The hearing also included discussion of a proposed substitute and possible impacts on vessels and port operations. House Bill 2367 would end special coal-related exemptions by limiting the cap-and-invest exemption to pre-2026 emissions, removing limits on additional greenhouse gas regulation for the coal plant, and repealing coal sales and use tax exemptions. Supporters said the bill would align state law with the planned closure of the Centralia coal plant, reinforce Washington’s climate policies, and remove outdated carve-outs. Business and petroleum representatives warned that if the plant were brought back into the cap-and-invest program, the allowance market could be affected and Ecology might need flexibility to adjust the program. The committee heard extensive testimony on all three bills but took no recorded votes or final action in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• from covered entities and a program to track, verify, and enforce compliance.
• emissions that occurred before 2026.
• But they're not counted under the compliance cap for the CCA, so the emissions are known, but the company
• is not required to purchase allowances to cover those emissions.
• So the emissions are known, but the company is not required to purchase allowances to cover those emissions

Bills: HB2421, HB1652, HB2367, HB2284

Keywords: 6PPD, tires, environmental impact, public health, chemical regulation, HB1652, Salish Sea Protection and Marine Clean Fuels Act, marine fuel, low-sulfur fuel, sulfur emissions, ocean-going vessels, shipping, maritime pollution, air quality, particulate matter, Department of Ecology, port visit, regulated waters, fuel switching, vessel emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• However, ...to make tax filing and compliance easier for all Californians.
• This bill also brings California closer to compliance with federal aviation revenue use requirements
• Defensible space compliance is not an assessment function.
• Senate Bill 1424 will allow zero-emission vehicle Senate Bill 1424 will allow zero-emission vehicle fueling
• This targeted sales and use tax for zero-emission vehicle fueling equipment.

Keywords: 988, house, all