Skip to main content

SHB 1656

In Committee

House

Wildfire costs/securitizing

Authorizing electrical companies to securitize certain wildfire-related costs to lower costs to customers.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: February 12, 2025
Last Action: January 12, 2026
Status: H Rules X
Companion Bill:

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill allows Washington utilities to use securitization—issuing bonds paid back by customer charges—to recover certain wildfire- and emergency-related costs and approved conservation investments. The goal is to lower overall recovery costs for customers by reducing borrowing expenses. It creates strong legal protections for these bonds and assets to attract investors and ensure stability.

  • Allows electrical, gas, and water utilities to seek approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to use securitization—issuing bonds backed by future ratepayer payments—to recover certain wildfire- or emergency-related costs and approved conservation investments.
  • Defines new terms like 'rate recovery bonds', 'rate recovery assets', and 'bondable rate recovery expenditures', which include costs from federal or state disaster/emergency declarations (e.g., wildfires), as well as certain conservation measures, if approved by the Commission.
  • Establishes strong legal protections for rate recovery bonds and assets: they are irrevocable, cannot be impaired by the state or Commission until bonds are paid in full, and are treated as true sales when transferred to financing subsidiaries.
  • Requires the Commission to find that securitization will provide the lowest reasonable and prudent cost to customers compared to other recovery methods, and that bonds are likely to receive investment-grade credit ratings.
  • Creates a priority system for security interests in rate recovery assets, ensures bondholders have priority over other creditors in case of default, and limits recovery to only the rate recovery assets—not the utility’s general assets.

Who is affected

  • Utility customersCustomers of electrical, gas, or water utilities may see changes in how wildfire-related or conservation-related costs are recovered through their utility bills—potentially lowering overall costs if securitization reduces borrowing expenses.
  • Utility companiesElectric, gas, and water utilities can recover certain emergency-related or conservation costs through securitization (issuing bonds backed by future ratepayer payments), which may reduce their borrowing costs and improve financial stability.
  • Bondholders and financing partiesInvestors and financial institutions may gain new opportunities to invest in or service rate recovery bonds, with protections and priority rights established by law.
  • Utilities and Transportation CommissionThe Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission gains explicit authority to review and approve securitization plans, ensuring costs are reasonable and prudently incurred, and that customer impacts are evaluated.
Effective: March 11, 2025Fiscal impact: The bill does not require direct state spending, but may reduce utility borrowing costs, potentially lowering customer rates over time. The state may incur minimal administrative costs related to Commission oversight.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 7:10 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Potential Benefits (5)
  • If securitization reduces borrowing costs (e.g., by accessing lower-rate municipal bond markets or attracting institutional investors), customers *could* see lower overall rates compared to traditional rate recovery—especially for large, high-cost wildfire-related expenses that would otherwise be recovered over many years with higher-interest utility debt.

    FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(ii), Sec. 1
  • By enabling faster recovery of wildfire-related costs, the bill may improve utility financial stability and reduce the risk of underinvestment in infrastructure—potentially lowering future wildfire risk through more reliable grid hardening and vegetation management programs.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(i), Sec. 4(5)(a)
  • The bill explicitly includes approved conservation investments (e.g., energy efficiency, water-saving programs) as bondable expenditures, which may accelerate adoption of efficiency measures that reduce emissions and resource strain—benefiting climate and environmental goals.

    EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(ii), Sec. 5(4)
  • The bill creates a new market for rate recovery bonds, potentially generating fees for financial institutions, legal firms, and rating agencies in Washington—though most value-added activity (e.g., underwriting, structuring) will likely flow to out-of-state firms.

    Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(f), Sec. 6(2)(a)
  • The bill allows the Commission to impose conditions on securitization plans—including transparency requirements—which may improve accountability if the Commission rigorously enforces its “lowest reasonable and prudent cost” finding.

    Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(l), Sec. 4(2)(iii)
Potential Concerns (5)
  • Customers will bear ongoing, non-avoidable rate recovery charges until bonds are paid in full—even if they move out of the utility’s service territory or change customer class—because the charges are tied to service territory, not individual customers. This creates long-term, inescapable bill increases for residents who may no longer benefit from the underlying infrastructure improvements.

    FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(a), (3)(c), (5)(a)
  • The bill authorizes utilities to allocate rate recovery charges unevenly across customer classes—including the potential to exempt certain classes—without requiring cost-causation analysis, potentially shifting costs to low-income or residential customers while protecting commercial/industrial ratepayers who can absorb higher charges.

    FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(d), (5)(b)(iii)
  • The bill creates a legal barrier to regulatory oversight by making rate recovery bonds irrevocable and shielding them from Commission revaluation—even if future audits or investigations reveal imprudent spending, the Commission cannot adjust rates retroactively to protect customers.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(a), (5)(b)(iv)
  • The bill allows utilities to recover “lost revenue” and “carrying costs” as part of bondable expenditures—items that are not direct out-of-pocket costs—potentially inflating the amount recoverable and increasing customer bills beyond actual emergency-related or conservation-related expenses.

    FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(iii), Sec. 6(2)(a)(v)
  • The bill prohibits the Commission and local governments from considering rate recovery bonds as utility debt when setting other rates—effectively preventing rate design that internalizes the true cost of securitized debt, potentially distorting rate equity across utility services.

    Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(b)(v)

Who Is Most Affected

Low- and middle-income utility customersNegative Impact

Low- and middle-income ratepayers are most vulnerable to long-term, non-avoidable rate increases tied to service territory rather than ability to pay. While they may benefit from wildfire mitigation, they lack the flexibility to opt out or shift costs.

Electric, gas, and water utilitiesPositive Impact

Utilities gain faster cost recovery and potentially lower borrowing costs, improving balance sheets and reducing interest expenses. However, they remain subject to Commission oversight and must still demonstrate prudence.

Bondholders and financial intermediariesPositive Impact

Bondholders benefit from strong legal protections, priority repayment rights, and true-sale treatment—reducing perceived risk and potentially lowering required returns. However, they bear the risk of underperformance if actual expenditures exceed estimates.

Washington Utilities and Transportation CommissionMixed Impact

The Utilities and Transportation Commission gains explicit statutory authority but also assumes responsibility for rigorous, case-by-case review of securitization plans—increasing its workload without new funding.

Local governments and municipalitiesMixed Impact

Local governments may benefit from improved utility financial health (reducing risk of service disruptions) but lose flexibility to adjust rates in response to broader economic pressures or equity concerns.