HB 1084
In CommitteeHouse
Unleaded aircraft fuel/tax
Establishing tax exemptions for unleaded aircraft fuel.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill exempts unleaded aircraft fuel—specifically 100-octane lead-free fuel—from several state taxes to encourage its use and availability, supporting federal efforts to eliminate lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft. It also sets a review and sunset process to assess whether the policy is achieving its environmental goals.
- Exempts unleaded aircraft fuel (defined as 100-octane fuel without tetraethyllead) from the state aviation fuel excise tax.
- Exempts unleaded aircraft fuel from the state business-and-occupation (B&O) tax on retail sales.
- Exempts unleaded aircraft fuel from the state hazardous substance tax.
- Exempts unleaded aircraft fuel from the state petroleum products tax.
- Requires the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to evaluate progress toward reducing lead emissions and increase fuel availability by January 1, 2031, and consider extending the exemptions if goals are met.
- Sets an expiration date of January 1, 2032 for most tax exemptions, with one section expiring earlier on July 1, 2031.
Who is affected
- Pilots and aircraft operators — Aircraft operators and pilots using piston-engine planes (especially those currently using leaded 100LL fuel) may benefit from lower fuel costs and increased access to unleaded alternatives.
- Aircraft fuel distributors and retailers — Aircraft fuel distributors and retailers who sell unleaded aircraft fuel may see increased demand and reduced tax liability on those sales.
- Airports — Airports across Washington may benefit from improved air quality and increased availability of cleaner fuel options for general aviation.
- State and local governments — State and local governments lose potential tax revenue from excise and business-and-occupation taxes on unleaded aircraft fuel sales, though this is offset by public health and environmental benefits.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Exempting unleaded aircraft fuel from state taxes is intended to accelerate adoption of lead-free fuel, directly reducing airborne lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft—a known neurotoxin—particularly benefiting children and vulnerable populations near airports and flight paths. Lead exposure is linked to cognitive deficits, behavioral issues, and cardiovascular harm; eliminating this source aligns with public health goals and federal EPA findings.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1, 3(11), 4, 5, 6(6), 7(8), 8, 9(3)-(5)By incentivizing the transition from 100LL (leaded) to 100-octane unleaded fuel, the bill supports Washington’s compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and contributes to state climate and air quality goals. Lead is a persistent environmental pollutant; reducing emissions improves soil and air quality around airports and flight corridors, benefiting ecosystems and communities downwind.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, 9(3)-(5)Reducing lead emissions from aircraft engines lowers population-level lead exposure, decreasing the incidence of lead-related illnesses (e.g., neurodevelopmental delays in children, hypertension in adults) and associated healthcare costs. This is especially beneficial for communities near general aviation airports, including low-income and minority populations who may live closer to flight paths.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2, 3(11), 4, 5, 6(6), 7(8), 8The tax exemptions may increase availability and affordability of unleaded fuel at smaller airports and general aviation facilities, supporting continued operation of Washington’s network of public-use airports—many in rural or underserved areas—thereby preserving essential air access for medical transport, emergency services, and economic mobility.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2, 3(11), 4, 5, 6(6), 7(8), 8
Potential Concerns (3)
The bill reduces state tax revenue by exempting unleaded aircraft fuel from multiple taxes (aviation fuel excise, B&O, hazardous substance, and petroleum products taxes), with an estimated annual revenue loss of up to $2.5 million once fully implemented. This reduction in revenue could constrain public investment in transportation infrastructure, public health programs, or other services that benefit the broader population.
FinancialLean industryRef: Sec. 2, 3(11), 4, 5, 6(6), 7(8), 8While the bill frames benefits broadly, the tax exemptions primarily benefit aircraft fuel distributors and retailers who sell unleaded fuel—entities that are typically small- to mid-sized, but the structure of the exemptions (e.g., no volume or income caps, and broad applicability to all sales of qualifying fuel) means larger fuel distributors with greater infrastructure and market reach will capture the majority of the financial benefit due to economies of scale and existing supply chains.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2, 3(11), 4, 5, 6(6), 7(8), 8The sunset review mechanism—requiring JLARC to assess progress toward environmental goals and consider extension—places administrative and fiscal burden on state agencies and local governments (e.g., Department of Ecology, Department of Revenue, airports) to collect and report data, but provides no dedicated funding for this effort, potentially diverting resources from other public priorities.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 9(5)
Who Is Most Affected
Pilots and aircraft operators using piston-engine planes—especially in general aviation—will benefit from lower fuel costs and improved fuel availability. However, the magnitude of benefit depends on fuel consumption volume; private pilots and small flight schools may see modest savings, while commercial operators (e.g., air taxis, charter services) may realize larger absolute savings. Low-income recreational pilots may benefit proportionally more, but the policy does not include income-based eligibility, limiting equity impact.
Fuel distributors and retailers who supply unleaded fuel will benefit from reduced tax liability and potentially higher demand. Larger regional or national fuel suppliers with existing infrastructure are better positioned to scale up quickly and capture most of the financial gain; small, local FBOs (fixed-base operators) may benefit modestly but face barriers in sourcing and storing new fuel types. The exemptions apply per gallon sold, so volume drives benefit—favoring larger players.
Airports—especially public-use and general aviation airports—may benefit from improved local air quality and continued viability of aviation services. However, airports do not directly purchase fuel in most cases (FBOs do), so they gain indirectly. Smaller community airports reliant on general aviation traffic may benefit most from sustained fuel availability, while major commercial airports (served by jet fuel, not avgas) see minimal direct impact.
State and local governments lose up to $2.5 million annually in tax revenue, which could affect funding for transportation, public health, or environmental programs. While the long-term public health savings from reduced lead exposure may offset some costs, the immediate fiscal impact is a net revenue loss. This burden falls broadly on taxpayers, but the revenue loss is regressive in effect since it reduces funds for services used disproportionately by lower-income residents.
Communities near general aviation airports—particularly in urban fringe or lower-income neighborhoods—stand to benefit most from reduced lead emissions, as they face disproportionate exposure to aircraft emissions. Children in these areas are especially vulnerable to neurotoxic effects. However, if fuel availability increases only at wealthier airports, benefits may be unevenly distributed. The policy’s success depends on equitable infrastructure investment.