Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Energy Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to Expand CETA Coverage to Ports and Market Customers Draws Mixed Reaction
Summary
HB 22-45 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to port districts and some single-customer consumer-owned utilities and tighten rules on affected market customers (e.g., data centers); state agencies and utilities urged careful rulemaking and fiscal analysis while climate groups supported closing loopholes.
House Bill 22-45 would expand which electricity suppliers and high-demand customers must meet Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act requirements. Committee staff described the bill as adding port districts that distribute electricity and consumer-owned utilities with a single customer to the definition of entities subject to CETA, and it would broaden the definition of affected market customers so certain nonresidential users are covered.
Supporters from climate and energy-policy organizations told the committee the measure closes loopholes that could allow large data centers or boutique utilities to avoid the state’s 100% clean electricity goal. Leah Missick of Climate Solutions said the change ensures coverage is “applied fairly,” and Zach Baker of the Northwest Energy Coalition said HB 22-45 helps realize the governor’s data-center work group recommendations to keep large energy users within CETA.
State agencies and some utilities and port representatives urged revisions. Joel Creswell of the Department of Ecology said expanding the definition could increase allocations of no-cost allowances under the Climate Commitment Act and recommended pairing the bill with policy to constrain allowance increases. Nicholas Garcia of the Washington Public Utility District Association asked for grandfathering language for longstanding single-customer PUDs to avoid disproportionate administrative burden. Port and industry witnesses requested tailored reporting requirements or exemptions for narrow port energy projects and cautioned that the measure could impose larger compliance costs on small or specialized entities.
The committee heard a mix of technical questions about fiscal impacts and compliance costs and closed the hearing on HB 22-45 before moving on to other bills.
