Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste To Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances substitute to regulate Spokane waste‑to‑energy facility outside Climate Commitment Act
Summary
A proposed substitute to House Bill 2,416 that would remove Washington’s single Spokane waste‑to‑energy plant from the Climate Commitment Act and impose phased greenhouse‑gas limits and new reporting and enforcement requirements was reported out of the Environment and Energy Committee 12–9.
The Environment and Energy Committee on Friday reported out a substitute to House Bill 2,416 that would remove Washington’s only waste‑to‑energy facility from the Climate Commitment Act and place it under a separate regulatory scheme with phased greenhouse‑gas limits.
Megan McFadden, staff to the committee, said the substitute “removes the no cost allowances to waste to energy facilities, and instead it exempts the emissions from waste to energy facilities used by county and city solid waste management programs from CCA compliance obligations.” The substitute also would require the facility owner to meet phased emission reductions measured against a 2014–2016 baseline: 20% by 2030–2039, 70% by 2040–2049 and 95% by 2050 and each year thereafter, McFadden said. She added the owner must file a report to Ecology and the Department of Commerce by Dec. 1, 2030, and implement an Ecology‑approved plan.
The substitute allows meeting the standards through “any combination of carbon capture and sequestration, waste reduction, recycling and reuse, energy conservation, industrial symbiosis, or other strategies,” McFadden said, and gives Ecology rule‑making and enforcement authority, including penalties that can be appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board.
Vice Chair Hall, who moved the substitute, described the Spokane plant as “unique” and said the substitute would create a different approach to hold the facility “accountable to reducing greenhouse gas emissions over time.” Ranking Member Dai said the bill “disincentivizes” the plant, warned it could add cost to ratepayers and urged additional work on the policy.
After discussion, committee staff called a roll call. The committee recorded 12 ayes and 9 nays; by that vote the proposed substitute was reported out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation.
The committee did not adopt amendments to the substitute. Next steps will depend on subsequent floor scheduling and any further amendments filed by sponsors or other members.
