Panel debates labor mandates, tribal consultation and timeline extensions in proposed TUA change for nuclear projects

House Finance Committee members heard a detailed briefing and extended testimony Jan. 27 on House Bill 2608, which would modify the targeted urban area (TUA) ten‑year local property tax exemption to add labor requirements for nuclear facility projects and allow cities to grant additional project‑completion time for NRC‑certified projects.

Christina King, staff to the committee, said the bill is largely identical to last year’s House Bill 1210 but with updated effective dates and a narrower title. Under the current TUA statute, eligible industrial or manufacturing facilities must create at least 25 family‑living‑wage jobs within a year of occupancy. HB 2608 would require NRC‑certified nuclear projects to submit executed community workforce or project labor agreements and statements of projected family‑wage jobs to the city, and it authorizes cities to extend completion deadlines by up to four additional years for projects requiring NRC certification.

Rep. Stephanie Barnard, the prime sponsor, characterized the bill as a narrowly tailored jobs bill that would let local governments offer an incentive while preserving safety and labor standards. “This is a jobs bill…1,500 family‑wage jobs for the state of Washington,” Barnard said, adding that the language was crafted to address concerns on both sides of the aisle and to make the statute workable for advanced nuclear manufacturers.

Supporters from local government and industry said the tweak is necessary to accommodate lengthy federal licensing (NRC) timelines. Josh Weese (Benton County) and Rael Candelaria (Framatome) said the extension would help projects that otherwise miss the current statutory deadlines; Richland’s deputy city manager Joe Schissel cited prior TUA use in Richland and described a pipeline of projects that could bring roughly 1,500 jobs and about $2.5 billion in private investment.

Construction industry groups — including the Associated General Contractors, Building Industry Association, and Associated Builders and Contractors — opposed the bill’s labor‑agreement requirement. Jerry Vanderwood (AGC) argued the PLA requirement “is not connected to nuclear safety” and would create barriers for small, minority and nonunion firms, reduce competition, and increase costs. Similar concerns were raised by other trade groups who said the bill’s PLA tie exceeds existing executive‑order thresholds and could exclude many local contractors.

Environmental and community groups — including 350 Washington and the Sierra Club — testified in opposition based on safety, proliferation and waste‑management concerns, and on the fiscal impact of local tax breaks. Those witnesses cited Hanford‑area risks and the potential use of high‑assay low‑enriched uranium (HALEU) in some projects.

Committee members asked about tribal consultation; Representative Santos said concerns had been raised by federally recognized tribes, and Barnard said the bill is not intended to apply to the SMR project at Hanford and that separate measures address more in‑depth tribal consultation.

No formal vote was taken during the hearing; the committee moved through questions and testimony and closed the hearing after several panels of pro and con witnesses.