Climate Action This Week: 
  • Increasing Middle Housing
  • Transit-Oriented Development
  • Compostable Products
  • Surveying Puget Sound Marine
  • Shoreline Habitat
  • District Energy Systems
  • Closing a Loophole in CETA
  • Clean Energy Transition (the PSE bill)
  • Opposing Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology
  • Establishing Washington Climate Corps
  • Landlords’ Claims for Damages
  • Preventing Utility Shutdowns During Extreme Heat
If you're viewing this on a smartphone, make sure you're in your browser, and when calling or emailing, be sure to mention if you are in the representative or senator’s district. And, unfortunately, SurveyMonkey does not support copy and paste on mobile devices.

Question Title

* Your information

As always, you can do as many or as few actions as you like, and you can do a few and come back later for more. Just remember to scroll down and click “Done” when you stop.
We expect these first three actions to take 15-20 minutes.
(You may want to spend just 5-10 on this section now, coming back later for #2, the more complicated item.)
📜 1. Increasing middle housing in areas traditionally dedicated to single-family detached housing - HB 1110

For cities planning under the Growth Management Act, this bill will allow duplexes (and 4-plexes if affordable housing is included or the building is near a major transit stop) in cities of between 25,000 and 75,000; and will allow 4-plexes (and 6-plexes if affordable housing is included or the building is near a major transit stop) in cities of at least 75,000 or cities under 25,000 that are contiguous to cities of more than 275,000. Cities must carry out an anti-displacement analysis and may obtain an extension for areas at risk of displacement.

We are following the lead of Homes4WA and Futurewise on this bill.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1110 is given a floor vote, and vote yes in support.”

Then choose 1-3 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • Washington is facing a housing crisis, and one way to increase housing while preventing sprawl is by increasing density. This bill creates ‘gentle density’ by spreading growth that matches the size and character of current buildings across cities. This will both prevent sprawl and allow cities to leverage their existing infrastructure.
  • Increased density often raises concerns about the removal of neighborhood trees. However, middle housing is often the same size as single-family housing and can be added in its footprint without harming trees. By adding more housing on less land, middle housing leaves more land for trees and greenspace by avoiding sprawl. A recent Seattle tree survey highlighted that development was a minor factor in tree canopy loss: https://publicola.com/2023/03/02/development-not-a-major-factor-in-tree-loss-police-alternative-pilot-behind-schedule-deputy-mayor-says-harrell-not-interested-in-reelecti/  Moreover, cities are allowed to pass an ordinance to require the replacement of any trees lost due to construction and to protect larger trees that are already there.
  • Cities subject to the density requirements may choose to implement alternative density requirements for at least 75 percent of lots in the city that are primarily dedicated to single-family detached housing units. Further, any areas within the city for which the Department of Commerce has certified an extension due to the risk of displacement or lack of infrastructure capacity may be exempted from the zoning changes of this bill.
  • There are also specific exclusions for environmentally critical areas.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1110?

📜 2. Promoting Transit-Oriented Development - SB 5466

This action involves asking for some complex action to amend this bill. Feel free to skip this bill, do the other actions and come back to this one. 

This bill has been modified since it was first introduced. It now includes a statewide inclusionary zoning requirement near transit which is problematic. (Inclusionary zoning is the requirement that a certain percentage of units built must be affordable.) Too high a threshold can cause no housing to be built because it’s not financially feasible, while too low a threshold can cause insufficient affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning requirements are better calibrated to each local market, as areas where the real estate market is strong can support a higher percentage of affordable units. For more information, see this statement from Futurewise and this recent Sightline factsheet.

The bill is important and we hope it can be amended to achieve its objectives!

SB 5466 as amended establishes that cities planning under the GMA may not, with some exceptions, either prohibit multifamily residential housing on parcels where any other residential use is permissible “within a station area” (roughly within 0.5 mile of rail stops (as defined) or within 0.25 mile of a bus rapid transit stop); or require (with some exceptions) off-street parking within a station area.

The bill focuses on floor-area-ratio (FAR) which is a measure of a building’s total floor area divided by the lot site. More floors and wider buildings have higher FARs; narrow buildings and less floors lead to lower FARs.

The problematic blanket inclusionary zoning requirement specifies that at least 20% of all residential units “within a station area” should be affordable for households with an income at or below 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) for 50 years, except where a station area already meets the required floor-area-ratio (FAR) density. This would make developing any housing, affordable or not, unfeasible in many areas.

The bill also requires the Dept. of Commerce to establish a grant program to provide technical assistance and to finance affordable housing within station areas. To qualify for finance, all the units in a project must be affordable and must include, with some exceptions, 100 units of rental, shelter or permanent supportive housing or at least 30 units of owner-occupied housing.

We are following the lead of Futurewise on this bill.

✏️ Please click here to contact both of your Representatives using the “Comment on this bill” form, select both of your Representatives and select “Support” or “Neutral” in the position button. 
📑 The first three sentences of your comment should be (or feel free to write your own): “SB 5466 as originally drafted is a good attempt to address our housing crisis and lack of affordable housing. However, it needs further work in order to be effective; the recent striker amendment imposing “one size fits all” inclusionary zoning risks resulting in no new housing or no new affordable housing. Please do what you can to rescue this important bill.”   

Then, choose from the following talking points or feel free to write your own:
  • Please amend the blanket requirement that 20% of all residential units “within a station area” should be affordable for households with an income at or below 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) for 50 years. We need inclusionary zoning such as Seattle’s, but statewide inclusionary zoning is problematic; it needs to be calibrated to the local market. Too high a threshold can cause no housing to be built; too low a threshold can cause insufficient affordable housing. For more information, see this statement: https://www.futurewise.org/blog/2023/futurewise-statement-on-inclusionary-zoning and this factsheet: https://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-WA-TOD-bill-SB-5466-and-inclusionary-zoning.pdf
  • Passing the bill in its current form may lead to complacency without alleviating our housing crisis.
  • To incentivize apartment developments that offer affordable housing, the bill establishes a competitive grant program. However, the recent amendment requiring all units in the project to be affordable may go too far and disincentivize development.
  • The overall outcome should be more total housing and more affordable housing. We should be serving the housing needs of community members at all income levels.
  • No state has ever adopted a uniform, statewide mandatory inclusionary zoning policy, and we shouldn’t here either. Our state’s housing markets are too diverse for that to work.
  • The SB 5466 striker has no option to pay a fee in-lieu instead of building affordable units on site. In-lieu fees are common with inclusionary zoning. Lack of an in-lieu fee option is especially problematic for low unit count developments. For example, there’s no mathematical way for a four-unit project to set aside 20 percent of units as affordable.
  • In addition to the affordability benefits of upzoning itself, SB 5466 in its original form supported affordable housing in these ways: a) 50 percent floor-area-ratio (FAR) bonus for affordable developments, b) Matching grant program for affordable developments, c) Cities still allowed to impose affordability requirements on private development as they see fit. These were good provisions.
  • Removing parking requirements around public transit sites helps to reduce costs, increase the number of units that can be built, and encourage the use of public transit. Please RESIST any further amendments that would remove the parking requirement prohibition.
  • Transit-oriented development focuses on increasing housing density around public transit infrastructure. Given the major investments in public transit that Washington made last year through the transportation package, this is the ideal time to build new housing around these new transit investments. This would reduce transportation GHG emissions as well as lowering residential emissions through higher residential density.

Question Title

* Did you contact both of your Representatives about SB 5466?

📜 3. Evaluating Compostable Product usage in Washington - HB 1033

This bill will establish an advisory committee to make policy recommendations to the legislature on standards for managing compostable products at composting and other organic materials management facilities.

We are following the lead of Zero Waste Washington on this bill.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1033 is placed on second reading, pulled to the floor for a vote, and vote yes in support.”

Then choose 1-3 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • It’s often not obvious where compostable “to-go” foodware should go when we’re done with it, and, to make it even more confusing, our compost facilities all have different rules.
  • We need to get more food waste to compost facilities rather than the landfill. Landfills are a huge source of methane when organic material like food waste and yard debris decomposes. Greenhouse gas emissions decrease when food waste is composted rather than landfilled.
  • As we ramp up important composting efforts, this bill will reduce consumer confusion and help ensure that compost is not contaminated with non-compostable plastics. It will address the food serviceware provided with “to go” orders so that the finished compost is clean and marketable.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1033?

All done? Don’t forget to scroll to the bottom and click the orange “DONE” button to submit your actions!
We think these next four actions will take about 10-15 minutes
📜 4. Surveying Puget Sound Marine Shoreline Habitat - SB 5104

This bill would require the Department of Ecology to do a survey of Puget Sound’s shoreline, to be updated every two years, to ensure that we have the essential data to make informed decisions regarding shoreline management and restoration.

We’re following the lead of Washington Conservation Action on this bill.

✏️ Please click here to contact both of your Representatives using the “Comment on this bill” form, select both of your Representatives and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that SB 5104 is placed on second reading, pulled to the floor for a vote, and vote yes in support.”

Then choose 1-3 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • The ongoing survey established by SB 5104 will ensure that we have the data we need to make informed decisions about management and restoration of Puget Sound shorelines.
  • Information gathered through shoreline surveys will help in efforts to recover and protect threatened and endangered species like salmon and the southern resident orcas.
  • Shoreline surveys are necessary for recovering Washington’s salmon population. Salmon are a keystone species that are critical to our marine food webs and our communities.
  • With the climate crisis threatening Washington’s shoreline habitats, the need for established shoreline survey and protection has never been so urgent. Strong data will help us make the right decisions to protect wildlife and communities for future generations.

Question Title

* Did you contact both of your Representatives about SB 5104?

📜 5. Concerning District Energy Systems - HB 1390

This bill requires owners of district energy systems serving state-owned facilities to develop a decarbonization plan by June 2024 and provide their final plan to the Department of Commerce for approval by June 2025, and then every five years. HB 1390 establishes an alternative compliance pathway to meet the state energy performance standard for an owner of a state campus district energy system if the owner: (1) is implementing an approved decarbonization plan; (2) meets benchmarking, energy management, and operations and maintenance planning requirements; and (3) gets a request approved by Commerce once every five years. The bill also provides owners of non-state owned campus district energy systems the option to pursue the alternative compliance pathway.

350 WA CAT recommends this action.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1390 is placed on second reading, pulled to the floor for a vote, and vote yes in support.”

Then choose 1-3 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • Upgrading existing district energy systems has great potential to increase efficiency, oftentimes more so than a building-by-building approach.
  • Upgrading and constructing district energy systems will employ skilled labor, including trades that have historically been employed in the fossil fuel sector. This work will be an important part of a just transition to a clean energy economy.
  • District energy policy could be used in coordination with any future statewide building performance standards policies to reduce commercial and large state-owned building emissions.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1390?

📜 6. Applying the affected market customer provisions of the Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act to nonresidential customers of consumer-owned utilities - HB 1416

In 2019, the WA state legislature passed the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) which requires our electric utilities to eliminate carbon emissions from their energy resources by certain deadlines. This bill will close a loophole by extending CETA’s provisions to certain non-residential customers. The Department of Commerce requested this legislation because they've seen interest from companies looking for power from somewhere other than their local utilities.

350 WA CAT recommends this action.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1416 is placed on second reading, pulled to the floor for a vote, and vote yes in support.”

Then choose 1-2 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • This bill will prevent companies from side-stepping the provisions of the Clean Energy Transformation Act by turning to consumer-owned utilities instead of investor-owned utilities.
  • This bill will close a loophole and prevent non-residential customers from avoiding CETA’s greenhouse gas neutral standard and the 100 percent clean electricity standard.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1416?

📜 7. Supporting Washington's clean energy economy and transitioning to a clean, affordable, and reliable energy future - HB 1589

Our work to improve HB 1589 has had some effect and the more egregious concerns have been addressed. That said, it has been a contentious bill, and if it makes it out of Rules to the Senate floor, there is still some risk of a late amendment that could weaken the consumer and ratepayer protections and UTC authority we fought so hard for.

We are following the lead of the Northwest Energy Coalition on this bill. 

NWEC describes the current version of the bill as follows: “HB 1589 is enabling legislation that allows Puget Sound Energy to facilitate achievement of the state’s clean energy policies (especially State Building Code Council codes and the Climate Commitment Act) in a way that preserves the financial viability of the company, mitigates risks to its customers, and is implemented through a robust public process with oversight by the Utilities and Transportation Commission. Contrary to rumors, the bill does not ban gas or enact new GHG reduction requirements on gas utilities. It simply enables PSE to reduce its gas system emissions consistent with the state's greenhouse gas reduction requirements.”

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1589 is passed without adverse amendments.”

Then, choose from the following talking points or feel free to draft your own. For those of you who are in Senator BIllig’s (3rd), Senator Hasegawa’s (11th) or Senator Cleveland’s (49th) district we suggest that you include the last bullet point: 
  • We appreciate the strengthened ratepayer protections and UTC authority in the bill.
  • We urge you to retain the improved version of the bill by voting no on any new amendment that would weaken ratepayer protections and/or UTC authority.
  • This bill helps move our state off of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
  • Contrary to rumors, the bill does not ban existing gas or enact new GHG reduction requirements on gas utilities. It simply helps PSE to reduce its gas system emissions consistent with the state's GHG reduction requirements.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1589?

All done? Don’t forget to scroll to the bottom and click the orange “DONE” button to submit your actions!
We expect these last four actions to take 10-15 minutes
📜 8. Planning for advanced nuclear reactor technology in Washington - HB 1584

HB 1584 will amend a guiding principle for the development of the State Energy Strategy to include the consideration of the development of advanced nuclear reactor technology in Washington as a cleaner energy source. We oppose this bill. For further information, see 350 Seattle’s false solutions statement.

350 WA CAT recommends this action.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “OPPOSE” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please oppose HB 1584 and do what you can to keep it from moving to the floor for a vote.”

Then choose 1-2 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • Nuclear energy is not safe, clean, or renewable.
  • We need to use technologies that do not have catastrophic consequences when errors are made. Even “advanced” reactors that use coolants like liquid sodium or molten salts lack sufficient safety improvements to outweigh their considerable risks.
  • Nuclear energy is expensive. By one estimate, it costs approximately $160/MWh rather than the $40/MWh that solar and wind cost.
  • Nuclear power threatens the health and economic well-being of communities near reactors and radioactive waste, as well as those downwind and downriver. Indigenous people in the United States and worldwide have disproportionately borne the harms from uranium mining, fuel processing, and radioactive waste disposal.
  • Fusion and non-light-water reactors are a long way from commercial use. We need clean energy solutions today, not in a decade or two.
  • Nuclear energy is not clean energy. All fission reactors - even small modular reactors and non-light-water designs - generate radioactive waste, and there is still no place to safely put it. High-level radioactive wastes can be deadly to living things for hundreds of thousands of years.
  • The pursuit of “advanced” nuclear power will divert resources away from energy options that are safer, less expensive, renewable, and available right now.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1584?

📜 9. Developing opportunities for service and workforce programs to support climate-ready communities (Establishing Washington Climate Corps) - HB 1176

This bill would establish a Washington Climate Corps to provide climate-related service opportunities for young adults and veterans, with the objective of building low-carbon and climate-resilient communities and ecosystems and providing education, workforce development, and career pathways with a focus on overburdened communities. A clean energy technology advisory committee would evaluate clean energy technology workforce needs. Grants may be made to provide equitable access to the Corps, reduce the cost of programs and support new programs.

350 WA CAT recommends this action.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1176 is placed on second reading, pulled to the floor for a vote, and vote yes in support.”

Then choose 1-2 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • This bill will simultaneously help communities, especially those most vulnerable to the effects of pollution and climate change, to build clean energy and climate resilience, while providing needed workforce training and employment opportunities for veterans and young adults.
  • This bill will provide for coordination between employers, labor groups and educational institutions, help with planning for future workforce development where it is needed, and avoid job displacement.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1176?

📜 10. Addressing documentation and processes governing landlords' claims for damage to residential premises - HB 1074

This bill will prevent landlords from charging tenants for “wear resulting from ordinary use” when they terminate their leases. It will also require landlords to provide itemized lists of repair charges they are deducting from deposits so tenants know exactly what they are being charged for and can more easily contest charges. These debts often create housing insecurity and fall most heavily on low-income renters, people with disabilities, single parents, and people with housing vouchers, who are disproportionately people of color.

350 WA CAT recommends this action.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1074 is given a floor vote, and vote yes in support.”

Then choose 1-2 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • Deposits and moving fees often present significant barriers for low-income tenants trying to secure new housing. Without clear guidance governing when landlords may withhold a security deposit for damage to a unit, renters are often unable to contest improper charges and fall into debt to their landlords.
  • Debts to landlords can create further housing insecurity as they may prevent renters from entering into new tenant agreements. The burden of debt to a previous landlord falls most heavily on low-income renters, people with disabilities, single parents, and people with housing vouchers, who are disproportionately people of color.
  • This legislation defines ‘wear resulting from ordinary use’ and will prevent landlords from charging tenants for this expected wear. 
  • This bill will also require landlords to provide a checklist with repair estimates and invoices that they are deducting from deposits after tenants move out. This will make it easier for tenants to know exactly what they are being charged for and to contest charges.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1074?

📜 11. Preventing utility shutoffs for nonpayment during extreme heat - HB 1329

This bill would prevent utilities companies from cutting off electric power and water to buildings during extreme heat events. We support the bill but believe that it should be amended to strike a provision authorizing utilities to require that a payment plan is entered into before power or water is reconnected during a heat advisory.

We are following the lead of Front and Centered on this bill.

✏️ Please click here to contact your Senator using the “Comment on this bill” form, select your Senator and select “Support” in the position button.

📑 The first sentence of your comment should be: “Please make sure that HB 1329 is given a floor vote, and vote yes in support.”

Please include the first bullet point, then choose 1-2 of the following talking points, or write your own:
  • The bill provides that utilities must make a reasonable attempt to reconnect previously disconnected power or water on request when there is an extreme heat advisory. However, the provision authorizing utilities to require residents to enter into a payment plan before the reconnection is likely to defeat its purpose and result in unnecessary death or illness. Please delete this provision.
  • The goal of this bill is to reduce negative health impacts from extreme heat by preventing buildings from losing water or power that is needed to run cooling systems when areas are suffering from extreme heat. 
  • This bill is similar to previous legislation that prevents utilities from shutoffs during extreme cold temperatures.

Question Title

* Did you contact your Senator about HB 1329?

Question Title

* If you skipped HB 5466 Transit-Oriented Development, our second action, here’s your reminder to go back to it, if you wish.

Otherwise, that’s it!  Thank you so much for taking action with us today! Please let us know if you had any issues.

-- The 350 WA Civic Action Team

P.S. Not on the CAT email list? Sign up here!

T