Long hearing on HB 2515: data‑center guardrails, curtailment and tariffs draw fierce debate
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
HB 2515 would require utilities to adopt tariffs for large data‑center loads, set transparency and curtailment rules, and impose labor and tax provisions; proponents said the bill protects ratepayers and salmon and improves reliability, while industry and some utilities warned it could undermine competitiveness and endanger critical infrastructure.
The committee took extended testimony on House Bill 2515, a wide‑ranging measure to regulate "emerging large energy use facilities" (primarily data centers). Staff outlined multiple components: (1) utilities with data centers must adopt tariffs or policies approved by the UTC or governing body; (2) data centers must publish tri‑annual sustainability reports and provide annual reporting on energy and water; (3) new siting, interconnection and curtailment provisions; (4) labor and procurement standards for construction; and (5) a limited sales‑and‑use tax exemption narrowly targeted to certain eastern counties for qualifying facilities.
Supporters including tribes, environmental groups and consumer advocates emphasized affordability, grid reliability and salmon protection. Corinne Sams (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation) and others urged curtailment language to protect migrating salmon, citing historical energy emergencies that caused fish losses. Zach Baker of the Northwest Energy Coalition and Climate Solutions' James Hovey argued guardrails are needed now to avoid passing costs to ratepayers and to ensure data centers pay for grid impacts and CCA compliance costs.
Industry witnesses, utilities and construction groups raised technical concerns. Microsoft and other data‑center operators warned the bill's disclosure and curtailment language could create operational, competitiveness and reliability risks; Lauren McDonald said curtailment provisions are broader than normal emergency contract rights and that backup generation tradeoffs create emissions and permitting issues. Labor groups supported provisions on project labor agreements and apprenticeship utilization, while contractor associations opposed mandatory PLAs and CWAs as burdensome for private projects.
Questions from committee members highlighted tradeoffs: how curtailment would work during emergencies, the effect on critical services, the competitiveness of Washington compared with other states, and how CCA/CETA compliance is coordinated. Multiple witnesses urged adoption of a striking amendment to remove or refine Section 6 (new clean‑energy sourcing requirements) and to clarify curtailment definitions and emergency exceptions.
Ending: The bill drew one of the largest and most diverse public panels of the evening. Stakeholders reported active negotiations on a striker amendment; the committee did not vote on the bill that night and indicated amendments were due to staff by the weekend.