Committee advances Climate Commitment Act changes requiring third‑party review and 2028 'leakage' report for EITEs

The committee voted to report engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6,246 out of committee with a 'do pass as amended' recommendation after adopting a striking amendment that changes reporting and verification requirements for energy‑intensive, trade‑exposed (EITE) facilities under the Climate Commitment Act.

Committee staff described the amendment's major changes: it requires the Department of Ecology to contract with an independent third party to complete a report on emissions and job 'leakage' from EITE facilities, due December 2028; it removes a requirement to report emissions on a subunit basis within facilities; and it requires licensed professional engineers who stamp certain assessments filed with Ecology every four years to be unaffiliated with the EITE facility. Staff said the amendment also clarifies that certain proprietary, market‑sensitive information in assessments may be exempt from public disclosure, with Ecology allowed to publish aggregated summaries.

"Among the changes made by the striking amendment, it requires the Department of Ecology to contract for an independent third‑party to complete a report on emissions and job leakage from EITE facilities. That would be due in December 2028," committee staff said.

Members probed practical details. Representative Ybarra asked whether third‑party reviewers would need facility data; staff confirmed assessments can be prepared internally but must be reviewed and stamped by an unaffiliated licensed professional engineer before submission to Ecology. Representative Fey asked about the bill's use of the word "must" regarding penalties; staff pointed to the Climate Commitment Act's general civil penalty authority and said the provision would require Ecology to assess penalties in accordance with existing statutory authority rather than specifying amounts.

Opponents urged caution on economic impacts. One member argued the state is already increasing energy costs through the Climate Commitment Act and that requiring facilities to develop additional plans imposes added costs and uncertainty on industry and agriculture; that member said their side would "likely oppose this bill." Supporters and the bill author argued the measure is intended to develop options and improve transparency, not to mandate immediate implementation of decarbonization projects.

Staff announced the recorded vote as 11 ayes, 7 nays, and 3 excused; the committee reported the bill out of committee with a 'do pass as amended' recommendation.

Next steps: the bill proceeds with the committee's recommendation; the transcript does not record subsequent committee assignments or dates.