Bills: HB441 , HB445 , HB477 , HB441 , HB445

Committee: House Health

Keywords: speech-language pathology, licensure, clinical supervision, educational qualifications, healthcare assistant, hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD, THC, delta-8, delta-9, delta-10, consumable hemp products, psychoactive cannabinoids, cannabinoid regulation, hemp licensing, ABC Board, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, retail hemp sales, wholesale hemp distribution, hemp tax

Bills: SB199 , HB142 , SB86 , HB152 , HB297 , SB1 , SB1

Committee: House Ways and Means Education

Keywords: parental leave, state employees, local education agencies, adoption, work-life balance, family support, portable benefits, portable benefit account, independent contractor, gig worker, 1099 worker, freelancer, app-based worker, rideshare, delivery driver, worker benefits, health insurance, retirement benefits, life insurance, income replacement insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• Criminal penalties are not meant to punish innocent individuals, but rather to reinforce compliance with
• needs to serve as... lacks the strength it needs to serve as an effective deterrent against non-compliance

Bills: HB105 , HB296 , HB15 , HB264 , HB34 , HB304 , HB146 , HB26 , HB15 , HB34 , HB26

Committee: House Public Safety and Homeland Security

Keywords: law enforcement, retirement benefits, Alabama Peace Officers, agency-issued badge, agency-issued pistol, resisting arrest, custody, public safety, Alabama law, traffic infractions, traffic ticket, disposition, criminal contempt, vessel registration, boating fees, state funds, regulatory changes, water safety, compliance, false information

Transcript Highlights:

• While indirect emissions and co-benefits are important, she said they are not relevant to CCA compliance
• There's actually a compliance obligation and an emissions reduction requirement to get those allowances
• There's actually a compliance obligation and an emissions reduction requirement to get those allowances
• If you have a compliance obligation as an emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry, your primary compliance
• But emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry, your primary compliance pathway is electrification.

Summary: The committee heard several bills and took testimony on each. SB 6013 would update ski lift terminology in State Parks law to include aerial tramways, tows, and conveyors; the sponsor and Washington State Parks said it is a simple technical update and a companion to a House bill previously passed by the committee. SB 6291 would extend from two to four years the time a non-certified on-site wastewater inspector may work under supervision before becoming certified; the sponsor and local public health witnesses said the change would help retain staff because the certification exam is difficult, offered only twice a year, and often results in turnover if the deadline is missed. The committee also heard ESB 6246, which would change policy for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities under the Climate Commitment Act. The bill would require Ecology to produce a new report on post-2034 allowance reductions and leakage risk, and would require EITEs to submit periodic assessments of technically and economically feasible emissions-reduction options, reviewed by a licensed engineer. Supporters said the bill is a necessary first step to plan for decarbonization while keeping industry in Washington; environmental groups urged stronger third-party verification and clearer reporting, while industry groups supported the general framework but asked for changes on leakage analysis, confidentiality, and penalties. Ecology supported the overall direction but raised concerns about implementation language and resource needs. Finally, SSB 5982 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to include port districts that distribute electricity and certain large self-generating or affected market customers, while preserving some exemptions for pre-existing cogeneration and certain PUDs. Supporters said the bill closes loopholes so all new generation is subject to clean electricity standards, especially as ports and data centers explore behind-the-meter or fossil generation. Opponents from industrial and business groups argued the bill could sweep in facilities that were not intended to be covered and could create additional costs during a period of tight power supply. Ecology and Commerce testified that the bill would clarify CETA but noted possible effects on no-cost allowance allocations under the Climate Commitment Act. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The emissions and fuel use reductions in the scoping plan primarily come from zero-emission cars, trucks
• Low-carbon fuel standards fund zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles,... ...fuel
• standards fund zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles, and fund the fuels that we
• that companies can adapt to their own needs, and keep compliance costs low. ...complementary compliance
• phase out these avoided-emissions credits because now it’s a regulated source of emissions, and we think

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• The emissions and fuel use reductions in the scoping plan primarily come from zero-emission cars, trucks
• Low-carbon fuel standards fund zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles,... ...fund
• zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles, and fund the fuels that we need to continue
• So a lot of great things happening on the zero-emission side.
• phase out these avoided emissions credits because now it's a regulated source of emissions, and we think

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), its role in reducing transportation emissions, and whether its costs at the pump are justified by its climate, air quality, and investment benefits. The co-chairs and several members framed the discussion around affordability and asked whether the program’s benefits, including cleaner fuels, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and public health gains, outweigh any added fuel costs. Members also raised concerns about how the program is understood by the public and whether its benefits are being communicated clearly. CARB and CEC officials explained how LCFS works as a market-based program that sets declining carbon-intensity targets, generates credits for lower-carbon fuels, and requires deficit holders to buy credits or otherwise comply. They said the program has driven billions in annual private investment, expanded alternative fuels, supported EV charging and hydrogen stations, and helped reduce emissions and local pollution. They also argued that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of gasoline prices, that the recent amendments added only about seven cents per gallon, and that crude oil, refining, and distribution costs account for most pump price variation. Committee members pressed witnesses on credit banking, market effects, the recent rule updates, additionality, and whether the program’s benefits are concentrated in-state or out-of-state. CARB said banking helps keep the program cost-effective and provides investment certainty, while the Energy Commission said LCFS-related costs are relatively stable and separate from the broader gasoline market. The panel also discussed how the 2025 amendments were shaped by the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate goals and by uncertainty over federal actions. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• close to 100% compliance.
• We also have multi-year compliance periods.
• It doesn't double the cost of compliance. It doesn't triple the cost of compliance.
• Than because we remove something as a compliance option or limit something as a compliance option, do
• And so we looked at their emissions intensity, that is, how much compliance they would face, and how

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s cap-and-trade program, its role in meeting state climate targets, and how to balance emissions reductions with affordability. Committee members and CARB officials discussed the state’s 2030 and 2045 greenhouse gas goals, the need to defend California climate policy amid federal rollbacks, and the importance of making the program durable, cost-effective, and understandable to the public. CARB also outlined its broader climate portfolio, including updates to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, methane rules, landfill regulations, implementation of recent climate bills, and work on community air protection and other sector-specific strategies. CARB’s presentation emphasized that cap-and-trade covers about 80% of California emissions, has had near-full compliance, and has generated more than $31 billion for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, along with billions more in utility bill credits and free allowances intended to protect jobs and limit leakage. Officials described the program’s core design features—banking, trading, multi-year compliance periods, offsets, free allocation, and a price containment reserve—as essential to keeping costs down while still driving emissions reductions. Members pressed CARB on the cost impacts of proposed changes to align the program with the state’s stronger 2030 target, the treatment of offsets, leakage risks for industries like cement, and the need for more technical analysis and stakeholder input before legislative action. The second panel, including the Legislative Analyst’s Office, an IMAC chair, and a Stanford scholar, offered a more analytical discussion of affordability. They said cap-and-trade likely has limited direct impact on electricity and natural gas bills because of utility allocations and climate credits, but it does add roughly 25 to 26 cents per gallon of gasoline. They identified several policy levers for the Legislature: setting the cap, adjusting allowance allocation, using auction revenues for rebates or bill relief, and deciding how much authority to delegate to CARB. Witnesses also argued that carbon pricing remains one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but that the program’s political sustainability will depend on making benefits more visible, targeting relief to households facing high bills, and using revenues to help lower the cost of electrification and grid investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• , purchase emissions allowances, or purchase another category of compliance instrument called offset
• They can purchase emissions allowances or they can purchase another category of compliance instrument
• That would be emissions leakage because those emissions would still be happening.
• And third, an EITE with covered emissions that Them for compliance.
• emissions.

Summary: The committee held a work session covering PFAS regulation and impacts, no-cost allowance allocation for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs), and regional resource adequacy and data center load growth. Senator Victoria Hunt was welcomed as a new member. The Department of Ecology reviewed Washington’s Safer Products for Washington PFAS work, including completed restrictions on PFAS in outdoor furniture, carpets, rugs, stain/water-resistant treatments, and newer rules adopted in November restricting PFAS in most apparel, cleaning products, and automotive washes, with reporting requirements for some other products such as cookware and firefighting gear. Ecology also described Cycle 2 PFAS reviews now underway, including artificial turf and paints, and answered questions about compliance, online sales, sell-through periods, and how Washington’s approach differs from broader bans in states like Maine and Minnesota. The Department of Ecology also presented on PFAS in biosolids, describing a 2024 sampling study, limitations in testing methods, and a 2025 statutory amendment requiring additional sampling between 2027 and 2028 and a report to the legislature in 2029. The Department of Health then updated the committee on PFAS in drinking water, reporting that most Group A public water systems have completed sampling, that 317 sources and 188 systems are expected to exceed new contaminant levels, and that treatment costs for public systems are estimated at about $970 million, leaving a large funding gap; members also asked about private wells, health effects, bathing exposure, and home filters. The Board of Health’s new state action levels are being aligned with federal MCLs, and the department said it expects to continue monitoring and notification under state rules. Ecology also briefed the committee on no-cost allowance allocations to EITEs under the Climate Commitment Act, explaining the leakage-mitigation rationale, the current allocation schedule through 2034, and a forthcoming report on policy options for 2035-2050; members asked about industry barriers, competitiveness, and whether facilities might leave the state. Finally, E3 presented a regional resource adequacy study showing rising load, retirements outpacing additions, limited winter reliability value from wind, solar, and batteries, and a projected shortfall beginning in 2026 that could grow to about 9,000 MW by 2030 if planned projects are not built. The presentation emphasized winter cold-weather events, hydro variability, the importance of permitting and transmission, and longer-term options including nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen, carbon capture, and long-duration storage. EPRI then introduced its DC Flex initiative, which is studying how data centers can provide flexible load through workload shifting, cooling optimization, and on-site backup or bridging resources to reduce grid stress and protect ratepayers.

Transcript Highlights:

• While indirect emissions and co-benefits are important, they're not relevant to CCA compliance, which
• It directs Ecology to recommend a clear compliance path and requires EITEs to report on their emissions
• There's actually a compliance obligation and an emissions reduction requirement to get those allowances
• So if you have a compliance obligation as an emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry, your primary
• But emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry, your primary compliance pathway is electrification.

Bills: SB6013 , SB6291

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Keywords: ski areas, winter sports, terminology, recreation, economic development, SB6291, on-site wastewater treatment, onsite wastewater treatment, septic system, sewage treatment, wastewater inspection, environmental health, local board of health, public health, professional engineer, land surveyor, certificate of competency, inspection standards, design review, supervised practice

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions by 2050.
• , they can purchase emissions allowances, or they can purchase another category of compliance instrument
• That would be emissions leakage because those emissions would still be happening.
• And third, an EITE with covered emissions that Them for compliance.
• They can use them for compliance.

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on PFAS, no-cost allowance allocation for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs), and regional resource adequacy. Department of Ecology staff outlined Washington’s Safer Products for Washington PFAS program, including completed restrictions on intentionally added PFAS in outdoor furniture, carpets, stain/water-resistant treatments, and newer rules adopted in November restricting PFAS in most apparel, cleaners, and automotive washes, with reporting required for some remaining products such as cookware and firefighting gear. Ecology also reviewed a 2024 biosolids PFAS sampling study showing PFOS and PFOA levels in Washington biosolids were comparable to other states, and the Department of Health reported that PFAS monitoring of Group A public water systems is nearly complete, with 317 sources and 188 systems expected to exceed contaminant levels under the new federal-aligned state standards. Members asked about consumer sales, compliance, private wells, health impacts, and the cost of treatment, which DOH estimated at roughly $970 million for public water system treatment alone, with a remaining funding gap after state and federal support. Ecology then presented its analysis of no-cost allowance allocation to EITEs under the Climate Commitment Act. Staff explained that EITEs receive allowances to reduce emissions leakage and protect competitiveness, with allocations based on 2015–2019 production and emissions data and phased reductions from 100% in the first compliance period to 94% in 2031–2034. Ecology said it is preparing a report due by the end of 2025 on policy options for 2035–2050, after extensive engagement with industry, labor, environmental, utility, port, and tribal stakeholders. Senators asked about leakage, comparisons with California and Quebec, whether specific industries such as Boeing or semiconductor manufacturers are included, and whether EITEs are banking or selling allowances; Ecology said the report will address benchmarking, leakage mitigation, decarbonization barriers, and economic and environmental justice impacts. E3 then presented a regional resource adequacy study for the Pacific Northwest, warning that electricity demand is rising faster than in years past, retirements are outpacing replacements, and the region could face supply shortfalls beginning in 2026, especially during extended winter cold events. The study found that wind, solar, and batteries provide limited reliability value in the Northwest’s winter-peaking, hydro-dependent system, while firm gas and emerging technologies such as geothermal, nuclear, hydrogen, carbon capture, and long-duration storage may play larger roles. E3 estimated a near-term gap of about 9,000 megawatts by 2030, with roughly 3,000 megawatts of advanced-development resources and a remaining gap of about 6,000 megawatts if planned projects do not materialize. Members asked about Energy Northwest, hydro, data centers, battery storage, transmission, and whether neighboring states’ coal use affects Washington; E3 emphasized the need to accelerate permitting, interconnection, and project development. Finally, EPRI briefed the committee on its DC Flex initiative, which is studying how data centers can operate more flexibly to reduce strain on the grid and protect ratepayers. The presentation described work streams on flexible data center design, utility programs and tariffs, operational forecasting and interconnection, and on-site energy supply options, along with demonstrations in the U.S. and abroad. The speaker said the goal is to make data centers more responsive to grid conditions without compromising uptime, and noted that the initiative has a public forum and website for broader participation.

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.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

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.

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

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.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

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.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

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.

Committee: House Environment & Energy

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

Committee: House Environment & Energy

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

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.