Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Government & Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commerce-backed bill would shield sensitive energy-infrastructure records from public disclosure
Summary
Department of Commerce-backed legislation to exempt certain critical energy infrastructure information from the Public Records Act prompted debate over scope and definitions, with utilities supporting the bill and open-government advocates urging narrower language.
Engrossed Substitute House Bill 16 10 would exempt from public-records disclosure certain critical energy infrastructure information (CEII) in the possession of any state agency. The Department of Commerce and utilities told the committee the change is necessary to enable secure information-sharing about vulnerabilities and emergency response plans without fear that those sensitive details could be publicly released.
Elizabeth King, director of Commerce’s Energy Resilience and Emergency Management Office, said the bill narrows the exemption to information that identifies specific assets or vulnerabilities whose disclosure could enable attackers. “This bill directly addresses concerns from energy providers across the state who have said they are concerned about sharing this type of sensitive information with the state because of the public disclosure requirements,” King said.
Utility and public-utility-district witnesses described incidents in which the lack of statutory clarity impeded timely information-sharing; Cowlitz PUD told the committee its substations were attacked in November 2022 and said better safeguards could have improved coordination. Nicholas Garcia of the Public Utilities Districts Association and Deborah Hafner Ratliff of Cowlitz PUD supported the bill as enabling cooperation while maintaining public access to non-sensitive information such as the existence of substations and charging locations.
Opponents, including the Washington Coalition for Open Government, warned the bill’s current language is overly broad and could shield too much information. The coalition urged narrowing the exemption to explicitly protect only records that reveal vulnerabilities rather than broad categories of records held by any state agency.
Committee members asked for clarifying definitions (for example, whether EV charging infrastructure would be covered); Commerce said public EV charging locations would likely remain public. Sponsors and stakeholders signaled willingness to consider narrower language; no formal action was taken at the hearing.
