Mary Dye — Representative Dye is addressed in the opening of Fitzgibbon's remarks.
Mary Dye — Fitzgibbon references Representative Dye's question about the bill's thresholds and effects.
Mary Dye — Representative Dye's question is referenced again in the discussion of thresholds.
Mary Dye — Called on for questions after the witness testimony.
Mary Dye — Asked where the emissions estimate came from and how the data was compiled.
Mary Dye — Asked whether the fiscal note would show how many additional distributors would fall under the new rule.
Mary Dye — The question was directed to Representative Dye.
Mary Dye — Marcus Mosley addresses Ranking Member Dye in his opening remarks.
Mary Dye — Kevin Jones addresses Ranking Member Dye.
Austin Scharf — A Department of Commerce witness begins testimony and says the bill is not in the governor's budget.
HB2245 — HB 2245 is discussed as a bill aimed at closing loopholes in clean electricity law related to affected market customers and port districts. Ecology indicates support for the bill’s goals, while also suggesting it should be paired with a complementary policy change and noting a fiscal impact not included in the governor’s budget. The discussion continues with appreciation for the sponsors’ work, questions about possible exemptions and reporting requirements, and a final note that the bill would help implement a data center work group recommendation.
Carly Michaels — Carly Michaels of the Washington Public Ports Association is introduced and then testifies in support, explaining her role as environmental policy director and asking for distinct, narrow planning and reporting requirements for port districts.
Patrick Boss — Patrick Boss, representing the Port of Quincy and Port of Warden, testifies that long transmission delays are forcing rural ports to consider generating their own power and that proposed requirements would place smaller port projects under utility-style rules better suited to large utilities, potentially hindering recruitment and development efforts.
Corey Shaw — Corey Shaw is introduced as the next witness and then begins his testimony. He identifies himself as the executive director of the Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association and raises concerns about reporting requirements and exemptions for incidental power generation.
Brandon Housekeeper — Brandon Housekeeper is announced as an upcoming witness and then reiterated as the next witness, with the transcript using the shortened name 'Housekeeper' in the second mention.
Peter Godluski — Peter Godluski of the Washington Association of Business is introduced and called as the next witness, then testifies in light opposition, echoing concerns about impacts on ports and cogeneration.
Pat Boss — Pat Boss is introduced as the next witness who will discuss the constraints facing ports.
Brandon Huskeeper — Testifies in opposition to HB 2245 on behalf of the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers and warns of unintended consequences.
Leah Missick — Leah Missick of Climate Solutions was introduced as the next panel witness and then testified in support of HB 2245, stating that the bill closes a loophole in CETA.
Leah Missick — Testified in support of the bill on behalf of Climate Solutions and emphasized the importance of the Climate Commitment Act in meeting climate targets.
Leah Missick — Congratulated on her birthday during testimony.
Leah Missick — Explained that the estimate came from public Department of Ecology reporting data for 2023.
Zachariah Baker — Zachariah Baker is introduced as a remote witness with the Northwest Energy Coalition, then identifies himself as the regional and state policy director for the organization and states his strong support for House Bill 2245.
Julian Santos — Julian Santos of Washington Conservation Action was introduced as a remote witness and then testified in support of HB 2245, identifying himself as the Climate and Clean Energy Senior Manager for the organization.
Julian Santos — Testified in support of HB 2215 on behalf of Washington Conservation Action and praised the bill's transparency and consistency provisions.
HB2090 — The committee opens the hearing on House Bill 2090 and receives an explanation that the bill directs the Department of Commerce to develop a nuclear strategic framework and incorporate it into the state energy strategy update. Sponsors emphasize that HB 2090 is not a mandate to build nuclear plants, but rather a planning and information-gathering measure meant to ensure Washington has complete, rigorous, and transparent analysis to support clean energy planning. The discussion frames the bill as providing a foundation for evaluating clean firm energy options, including advanced nuclear and SMRs, and includes questions and responses about land-use footprint and the size of an SMR deployment. The hearing on HB 2090 is then suspended so the committee can move on to another bill.
HB2090 — The hearing on House Bill 2090 is reopened, and multiple witnesses/tribal representatives testify in opposition. They state that the tribe has signed in against the bill, argue that it is premature and overly optimistic about advanced nuclear energy development, and ask the committee not to pass it. The testimony also notes tribal concerns and requests for changes to the bill’s approach to nuclear development.
HB2090 — McKinney supports the bill as an update to the state's energy strategy.
HB2090 — Opposed by the witness; described as conflicting with ethics and public service requirements.
HB2090 — Criticized for allegedly conflicting with ethics rules and state energy strategy implementation principles.
HB2090 — Criticized for directing a nuclear power strategic framework and expedited review preferences.
HB2090 — Opposed as favoring nuclear industry interests and bypassing public-interest review.
HB2090 — Witness urges the committee not to advance the bill.
HB2090 — The witness opposes the bill and argues it is not the answer for Washington's energy strategy.
HB2090 — The witness urges support for the bill.
HB2090 — The witness testifies in support of the bill.
HB2090 — The witness says the bill would raise Washington's profile and signal support for clean energy and nuclear development.
HB2090 — The witness says the organization supports the bill.
HB2090 — First clear mention in this section; Madison Schroeder testified in support of the bill.
HB2090 — Madison Schroeder argued the bill offers a practical path for clean energy goals and grid reliability.
HB2090 — The witness said the bill identifies nuclear energy's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet climate goals.
HB2090 — The witness continued describing the bill as a way to support emissions reduction, reliability, and long-term investment in nuclear energy.
HB2090 — The witness argued passage of the bill would allow Washington to consider nuclear energy for reliability and protection of people and the environment.
HB2090 — Kevin Jones states his opposition to House Bill 2090.
HB2090 — Kevin Jones argues the bill seeks to complete a report too quickly to credibly assess advanced nuclear's economic and reliability impacts.
HB2090 — Kevin Jones argues the bill cannot support a credible assessment of cost and societal risk.
HB2090 — The witness supports the bill because she wants strong action on carbon emissions for future generations.
HB2090 — The witness reiterates support for House Bill 2090, and the chair closes the hearing on the bill.
Jacob Lipson — Introduced as committee staff to give the staff report on HB 2090.
Stephanie Barnard — Speaks in support of HB 2090 and says it is a planning bill, not a mandate to build nuclear plants.