Committee considers HB 1329 to clarify short‑term power purchases under Clean Energy Transformation Act

The House Environment & Energy Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1329, a narrowly scoped amendment to the Clean Energy Transformation Act that would change how short‑term, unspecified wholesale power purchases are treated under the state’s coal‑elimination standard.

The bill, introduced by Vice Chair Victoria Hunt (Rep., 5th Legislative District), would increase the contract duration that may be excluded from the definition of a “coal fired resource” from 30 days to 90 days, and allow terms up to six months when necessary to meet utilities’ seasonal resource adequacy requirements. It also clarifies that long‑term contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) would be treated as excluded unless BPA knows at the time of contracting that a portion of the electricity comes from a coal‑fired unit.

Supporters told the committee the changes are technical and intended to make CETA implementable while preserving the law’s coal‑elimination intent. Matt Sterling, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s mechanics: “For the purposes of the coal elimination standard, a coal fired resource does not include any electric generation facility that is included as part of a limited duration wholesale power purchase of up to 1 month if the source of the power includes electricity that is unspecified,” and HB 1329 would extend that duration and add the resource adequacy exception.

Bill Clark, representing Grant County Public Utility District, said the bill “is not about Bonneville buying coal. This is about ensuring that the state's existing no‑coal standard can actually be implemented.” Logan Barr, state relations manager for Tacoma Public Utilities and Tacoma Power, said the bill “provides us with clarity, ensuring that utilities can procure unspecified power under specific limited circumstances when included in long term BPA contracts, when contracts are 90 days or less, or when purchased to comply with the resource adequacy program.”

Mary Winke, executive director of the Public Generating Pool, told the committee unspecified contracts are a standard industry product used for hedging and managing reliability; she also said the portion of BPA energy that comes from unidentified purchases is “very small,” and that the bill is intended to avoid unintended consequences that would raise costs or reliability risks for utility customers.

Some stakeholders signaled implementation concerns. Glenn Blackman, director of the Energy Policy Office at the Department of Commerce, said the bill contains a resource adequacy phrasing — that a contract be “necessary” for participation in the resource adequacy program — that may be hard to apply after the fact and suggested alternate wording for enforceability. Blackman also warned that a blanket exemption for BPA in one section could conflict with a more narrowly tailored BPA exemption elsewhere in the bill.

Climate Solutions’ Leah Missick said the organization is “extremely invested in the success” of CETA and flagged a concern that the BPA exemption could create a larger loophole allowing coal‑derived electricity into the state if BPA’s future contracts included coal. Charlie Thompson of the Northwest Energy Coalition said the bill addresses a narrow implementation issue and does not change the requirement to phase out specified coal purchases.

There were several committee questions about the amount of unspecified energy BPA currently uses. Witnesses repeatedly said the share is very small but gave differing approximations; Mary Winke characterized it as “a very small amount” and suggested the committee consult BPA’s publicly available data for precise figures.

The committee closed the hearing after questions and stakeholder discussion; no vote or committee action was recorded at this hearing. Sponsors and stakeholders said they expect continued technical work with the Department of Commerce, BPA and utilities before any final language is adopted.