Committee weighs bill to tighten Climate Commitment Act fuel supplier loopholes
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
HB 2,215 would lower the emissions reporting/coverage threshold for fuel suppliers that began operating after Jan. 1, 2023, from 25,000 to 500 metric tons, exempt lubricants, and require Ecology to publish expanded roster information; supporters say it closes 'paper distributor' loopholes while industry warns of downstream costs and asks for stronger upstream enforcement tools.
Members of the Environment, Energy and Technology Committee heard extended testimony on House Bill 2,215, which aims to address what sponsors and advocates describe as a loophole in Washington’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA) that allows newly formed ‘‘paper’’ fuel distributors to avoid coverage by remaining below the statutory emissions threshold.
Representative Joe Fitzgibbon, the bill sponsor, said the measure differentiates between suppliers that began operating before Jan. 1, 2023, and those that began after that date. For suppliers that entered the market after 2023, the bill lowers the compliance threshold to 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent beginning in 2027 and requires those newer suppliers to report emissions to Ecology. Fitzgibbon also said the bill clarifies that emissions from lubricants are exempt from coverage under the CCA.
Advocates from Climate Solutions and Washington Conservation Action urged support, arguing that paper distributors can undercut compliant suppliers and that loosening coverage would undercut the state’s pollution reduction goals. Leah Missick of Climate Solutions told the committee the loophole could represent nearly 1,000,000 metric tons of emissions annually if left unaddressed.
Industry witnesses, including the Pacific Propane Gas Association and the Washington Oil Marketers Association, asked that the 25,000 metric ton threshold be kept for long‑standing suppliers (noting the bill maintains that threshold for suppliers operating before 2023) or that Ecology pursue upstream enforcement tools such as clearer definitions of affiliated entities and an importer‑of‑record requirement. Ecology staff supported measures to close the loophole but flagged implementation challenges, additional staffing needs and recommended keeping certain Clean Air Act reporting thresholds at current levels for clarity.
Committee members pressed staff and witnesses on enforcement feasibility and whether the change will lead to a ‘‘whack‑a‑mole’’ problem of new avoidance strategies. Ecology said a 500‑metric‑ton threshold for new entrants would likely be low enough to discourage simple evasion, but industry witnesses said some small operators, particularly those serving agriculture, currently operate below that level and could be disproportionately affected.
The hearing record includes written submissions and dozens of pro and con signatories; the committee closed the public hearing after a mix of testimony from environmental advocates, industry representatives and Ecology staff.