Gov. Inslee’s ‘Clean Buildings’ Proposal Stalled in House Committee

Posted

A bill aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from homes and commercial buildings in Washington state stalled ahead of a Monday deadline for lawmakers to pass bills out of fiscal committees.

The “Healthy Homes and Clean Buildings” bill was requested by Gov. Jay Inslee to help the state meet 2030 greenhouse gas limits set in state law. It was scheduled for a vote in the House Appropriations Committee Monday, but that vote ultimately didn’t happen.

Lawmakers are still considering other major pieces of climate-related legislation, including cap-and-trade and low-carbon fuel standard proposals requested by Inslee. The 105-day legislative session is scheduled to adjourn April 25.

According to the governor’s office, buildings are the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state and result in one-fifth of the state’s emissions.

Washington’s 2021 Energy Strategy includes that buildings require a “10-year market transformation approach that combines transitioning from fossil gas to electrification, with deep levels of efficiency for new and existing buildings, and smart building demand management.”

“Obviously the governor is disappointed that this did not progress,” spokesperson Tara Lee wrote in an email Monday. “But, he is undaunted and still very committed to this policy.

“The governor believes that cleaner, healthier buildings are essential to meeting our state’s climate goals. We recognize that this is all part of the legislative process and that it doesn’t always go the way we hope. But, we will pursue this again.”

The original proposal would have required fossil fuel-free space and water heating in new construction under the 2027 state energy code and set a course for eliminating fossil fuels from existing buildings. Among other details, it would have also created a “heat pump and electrification program” with an aim to create a workforce and expertise while supporting low-income energy users in the transition from gas to electricity.

The clean-energy nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute earlier this month called the bill “the most comprehensive legislation to date in the United States aimed at getting fossil fuels out of buildings.”

“We know that confronting the climate crisis is going to be hard,” prime sponsor Rep. Alex Ramel of Bellingham said. “Those making money under the existing system are always going to resist. It’s just not enough to have cost-effective, large solutions to technical problems. We already have those, we’ve had those for some time. It takes courage and political will.”



The bill, which was sponsored by 26 democrats and supported by environmental organizations, received vocal pushback from multiple angles, including from the natural gas industry, labor unions, and the construction industry. Opponents argued the proposal would eliminate jobs for people who work on natural gas pipelines and restrict “energy choice,” among a slate of other critiques.

A scaled-back substitute bill made it out of the House Environment & Energy Committee along party lines. Now, even that less-ambitious version seems to be out-of-play for the current 105-day legislative session. Monday was the deadline for lawmakers to pass bills out of fiscal committees in the state Senate and House of Representatives.

Prime sponsor Ramel said that, while he’s not part of the Appropriations Committee, he partly credits a “campaign of misinformation” from groups opposing the bill and the remote nature of this session.

The bill can still be considered next session. And there are ways for bills and the ideas they contain to stay alive even during the current session: Some can be immune to the deadlines if they’re deemed “necessary to implement the budget,” or pieces could become part of other legislation or the budget.

Opponents Monday afternoon emphasized a desire to give more input in future iterations. The scaled-down version of the bill had retained its “central thrust” of electrification and elimination of natural gas, Dan Kirschner with the Northwest Gas Association said in a phone interview with McClatchy.

“What concerned us most is the message we got is, ‘You’re not a valued partner in our clean energy future but you’re an impediment to it,’” he said. “That wasn’t going to work for us.”

Caleb Heeringa with the Sierra Club pointed out that the issue was still a little new to many legislators, and it’s tough to get everything that needs to be done across the finish line in a busy session.

“We’re certainly hopeful,” he said. “There’s absolutely no way we can tackle the climate problem without addressing building emissions.”