HB 1417
In CommitteeHouse
Cigarette carbon tax
Establishing an embodied carbon tax on cigarettes.
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 adds a new embodied carbon tax of $0.0015 per cigarette to Washington’s existing cigarette taxes, aiming to internalize environmental costs associated with cigarette production and disposal. The tax rate will increase every five years starting in 2030, adjusted for inflation and a fixed 25% bump.
- Imposes a new $0.0015 per cigarette tax starting October 1, 2025 — roughly $0.03 per pack of 20 cigarettes.
- Starting October 1, 2030, the tax rate increases by 25% plus inflation (based on the consumer price index) every five years, rounded to the nearest cent.
- Requires the Department of Revenue to publish the adjusted rate on its website.
- All tax revenue is deposited into the state General Fund.
Who is affected
- Cigarette retailers and distributors — Purchasers of cigarettes in Washington State will pay an additional $0.0015 per cigarette starting October 1, 2025, which adds about $0.03 to the price of a pack of 20 cigarettes initially, with future increases tied to inflation and a 25% step-up every five years.
- Retailers and distributors — Must collect and remit the new tax to the state, and may need to update pricing and point-of-sale systems to reflect the added cost.
- State of Washington (General Fund) — Will receive additional state revenue that goes into the general fund, which may support state services like health programs, education, or infrastructure.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (4)
Revenue deposited into the General Fund can support public health initiatives — including smoking cessation programs, mental health services, and substance use treatment — which disproportionately benefit low-income and vulnerable populations who face higher smoking rates and fewer resources to quit.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)The tax internalizes environmental costs of cigarette production and waste (e.g., plastic filters, packaging, carbon emissions), potentially encouraging manufacturers to adopt more sustainable practices and reducing cigarette litter in waterways and public spaces — benefiting communities and ecosystems.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(2)By raising cigarette prices, the tax may modestly reduce smoking initiation and consumption — especially among youth and price-sensitive populations — leading to long-term reductions in smoking-related illnesses and associated public healthcare costs.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)Local governments may benefit indirectly from reduced cigarette litter cleanup costs and improved public space maintenance, though the bill does not allocate specific funds for this purpose.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)
Potential Concerns (4)
The tax adds $0.03 per pack at inception, disproportionately burdening low-income smokers — who are more likely to smoke and spend a higher share of income on tobacco — by raising the cost of a habit with limited substitutes and high addiction potential.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2The 25% + inflation step-up every five years creates a compounding price increase that may outpace wage growth and inflation for low- and middle-income households, especially if smoking cessation support is not expanded in tandem.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)The bill does not include explicit funding for smoking cessation, harm reduction, or enforcement, limiting its public health impact despite the environmental rationale — the tax is levied on *production/disposal* emissions, not health externalities, and may not meaningfully reduce smoking rates or cigarette litter.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(3)Small retailers (e.g., corner stores, gas stations) must absorb administrative costs to track, collect, and remit the tax — a modest burden for most, but potentially burdensome for micro-businesses without accounting infrastructure.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income smokers — especially those earning under $30K/year — face the highest relative burden, as tobacco consumption constitutes a larger share of household budgets and quitting support may not be expanded alongside the tax. This group is most likely to experience financial strain without offsetting benefits.
Small retailers (e.g., convenience stores, gas stations) must comply with collection and reporting requirements. While the cost is modest, it adds administrative overhead for micro-businesses with limited resources.
State and local governments benefit from new General Fund revenue that can be directed toward public health, environmental cleanup, or social services — especially valuable in times of budget pressure or crisis.
Tobacco manufacturers may face pressure to redesign products (e.g., biodegradable filters, reduced packaging) to lower embodied carbon, potentially increasing production costs but also driving innovation in sustainable materials.
Environmental and public health advocates may view the tax as a step toward internalizing externalities, but could be disappointed that it does not directly target health harms or fund cessation at scale.