HB2537 — The committee resumes the hearing on House Bill 2537 after completing action on House Bill 2245.
HB2537 — House Bill 2537 is discussed as a long-term decarbonization policy for EITE industries. The testimony explains that the bill directs Ecology to conduct policy analysis to inform legislative decisions for EITE policy covering 2035 through 2050, and Ecology supports the bill’s analysis and planning requirements while suggesting they be streamlined and adjusted over time.
HB2537 — House Bill 2537 was discussed in a hearing where Diana Carlin testified in opposition, and the chair later closed the hearing on the bill with a brief closing reference to it.
Davina Duerr — The speaker addresses the presiding chairing member twice during the same segment of the meeting, with both references appearing to be transcription errors for the chair or vice chair rather than distinct substantive mentions.
Suzanne Schmidt — Likely refers to Representative Mary Dye, the ranking member.
Suzanne Schmidt — Representative Mary Dye is addressed as ranking member.
Beth Delio — Beth Delio delivers sponsor testimony for the 22nd Legislative District, introducing herself and discussing the difficulty of decarbonizing Washington’s energy-intensive, trade-exposed facilities. She then concludes her opening remarks by inviting testimony and questions from others.
Kate White Tudor — Kate White Tudor is introduced as one of the first panelists and then testifies in strong support of the bill on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She explains that NRDC works to promote industrial decarbonization across multiple sectors and materials, citing examples of innovation in areas such as cement.
David Mendoza — David Mendoza was introduced as one of the first panelists and then testified in support of the bill on behalf of The Nature Conservancy. He explained that the bill would provide clarity for EITEs, reporting requirements, and decarbonization planning, and emphasized that EITEs are an important part of Washington’s economy while the bill helps clarify emissions-reduction expectations and identify barriers to reducing emissions.
Peter Godluski — Named as part of the next panel.
Peter Godluski — Testified on behalf of the Association of Washington Business and said Washington's export-heavy economy makes leakage a real risk.
Jessica Spiegel — Jessica Spiegel is introduced as part of the next panel and then appears as a witness, identifying herself as representing WISPA. She testifies in support of HB 2537 and raises concerns that if facilities close, emissions could shift elsewhere.
Brandon Housekeeper — Brandon Housekeeper is introduced as part of the upcoming panel, then called up by the chair with the rest of the panel, and later testifies on behalf of the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers in opposition to or with concerns about HB 2537.
Ed Orcutt — During this brief exchange, the chair acknowledges the ranking member and a question is introduced, but the transcript appears to contain name errors: 'Ranking member, Dye' likely refers to the ranking member being addressed, and 'Chair Dolio' appears to be a misspelling of Chair Delio. The moment centers on the chair recognizing the member and the transcript’s misidentification of the participants.
Ed Orcutt — The transcript appears to refer to Representative Dye, likely a mis-transcription of a legislator's name; the speaker says Representative Dye has a question.
Mike Steele — The transcript appears to render the member's name as 'Representative Stevie'; this likely refers to Representative Mike Steele asking about cement quality and durability.
Caitlin Crenn — Named as part of the next panel.
Leah Messick — Named as part of the next panel.
Peter — The member addressed Peter, asking him to provide data on business closures and emissions reductions.
Winder — The member addressed 'Winder' and asked about facility-level decarbonization planning costs.
HB2537 — The discussion about HB 2537 focuses on clarifying the bill’s scope and implementation requirements. Speakers discuss what responsibilities will be codified, including reporting and planning obligations, and then clarify that the bill does not require design engineering, permitting, or financing.
HB2537 — HB 2537 is discussed in a continuous hearing segment with multiple speakers expressing support and explaining that the bill is intended to implement legislative intent by giving Ecology clearer direction, including recommending a compliance path, requiring reporting and planning, and conditioning ongoing no-cost allowances on alignment with emissions limits. Speakers emphasize that the bill is a first step and does not immediately change CCA compliance, though it may help address costs. The chair then suspends the hearing on HB 2537 and announces a recess.
HB2537 — McCabe said the association is testifying in opposition to the bill in its current form.
HB2537 — The bill is the subject of Steve Taylor's testimony.
HB2296 — The chair says the committee will not be taking action on this bill at this time.
Jacob Lipson — Provides the staff report on House Bill 2537 and explains the bill background.
HB2537 — House Bill 2537 is introduced in a staff report and then explained as making targeted changes to EITE policy under the Climate Commitment Act. The discussion covers how the bill would revise required reporting to include annual reductions, leakage-risk adjustments, and auction/consignment recommendations, and how EITE facilities would need to meet additional biennial reporting and compliance steps to continue receiving no-cost allowances and avoid penalties. The speaker also notes that the bill does not fundamentally change the allowance trajectory, but instead adds decarbonization planning requirements that support the state’s broader decarbonization mandates.
HB2537 — House Bill 2537 is discussed as a bill that raises concerns about EITE allowance allocation under the CCA. The speaker argues that its language shifts the balance away from leakage protections and toward higher compliance costs for EITs, and that it would make no-cost allowances contingent on new planning and reporting requirements.
HB2537 — The chair says the committee will start with the public hearing on this bill.
HB2537 — HB 2537 was discussed in a continuous block of testimony. The speaker criticized the bill for emphasizing reporting and planning without addressing underlying barriers such as electricity, permitting, and economic constraints. The discussion then continued with testimony from Jessica Spiegel and WISPA about the bill’s effects on industrial decarbonization and facility retention.
Brandon — Brandon is referenced as someone who can help answer questions and provide more complete information about clients.
Unnamed speaker / permitter — Says they worked as a permitter for 15 years and explains that permitting follows project decisions and requires economics and materials to be assembled.
Brendan Housekeeper — A speaker addresses Brendan and asks whether requiring plans will lead to more tailored policy.
Chris Stearns — The chair says Vice Chair Hall will call up the next panel; the transcript appears to misidentify the vice chair, likely referring to a committee vice chair rather than a listed member.
Chris Stearns — Vice Chair Hall is called on, but the transcript likely misidentifies the speaker; the motion is made to report the proposed substitute for House Bill 2245.
Chris Stearns — Vice Chair Hall votes aye; the transcript likely mislabels the speaker as Hall.
Chris Stearns — Representative Stearns is excused.
Chris Stearns — The chair is addressed, corrected from garbled transcription.
Caitlin Cran — Introduces herself as representing Washington Conservation Action and testifies in support of HB 2537.
Leo Missic — Introduces himself with Climate Solutions and speaks in support of addressing EITE compliance.
Leah — The chair addresses Leah directly before the question period.
Jacob — The question is directed to Jacob, though no full identification is provided.
HB2245 — The committee announces it will take up executive action on HB 2245 after recess, then staff presents the bill and notes that a proposed substitute is available, summarizing the original bill.
Megan McFadden — Committee staff member provides the staff report and is asked to speak to the proposed substitute.
HB2245 — The proposed substitute for House Bill 2245 is being described.
HB2245 — The proposed substitute language for House Bill 2245 continues to be described.
HB2245 — The committee is being called back to order to take action on House Bill 2245.
HB2245 — A motion is made to report the proposed substitute for House Bill 2245 out of committee with a due pass recommendation.
HB2245 — The motion before the committee is restated for House Bill 2245.
HB2245 — The speaker states opposition to the bill coming out of committee.