HB 1730
In CommitteeHouse
Aircraft fuel tax proceeds
Directing the deposit of the proceeds from taxes on aircraft fuel to the aeronautics account.
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 redirects revenue from state taxes on aircraft fuel—including excise, sales, and spill-related taxes—into the aeronautics account, which funds aviation programs and infrastructure. Previously, those funds were split among several other accounts, including environmental and oil spill response funds.
- Requires all tax proceeds from aircraft fuel under the petroleum products tax (RCW 82.21.030) to be deposited into the aeronautics account instead of the model toxics control accounts.
- Requires tax proceeds from the oil spill response and administration taxes (RCW 82.23B.020) on aircraft fuel to be deposited into the aeronautics account, replacing prior deposits to the oil spill response and military active service accounts.
- Requires tax proceeds from the petroleum products possession tax (RCW 82.23A.020) on aircraft fuel to be deposited into the aeronautics account, replacing deposits to the pollution liability insurance program trust account.
- Clarifies that the aeronautics account (RCW 82.42.090) is the exclusive destination for all aircraft fuel–related taxes, including excise, sales, and use taxes on aircraft fuel (though consumer sales/use taxes still go to the general fund).
- Maintains existing tax rates and collection procedures for aircraft fuel, but changes where the money goes.
Who is affected
- Aircraft fuel suppliers and distributors — Aircraft fuel suppliers and distributors must now have tax proceeds from aircraft fuel directed to the aeronautics account instead of general or other special accounts.
- Aeronautics and aviation stakeholders (e.g., airports, aviation authorities) — State aviation programs and airport infrastructure projects may receive increased dedicated funding from aircraft fuel taxes.
- Environmental and emergency response agencies (e.g., Department of Ecology, Office of the Oil Spill Coordinator) — State agencies managing oil spill response and pollution liability programs may see reduced revenue from fuel taxes previously allocated to their accounts.
- General public — General taxpayers and consumers may see no direct change, but state funding priorities for transportation and environmental programs could shift.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Creates a dedicated, predictable revenue stream for the aeronautics account, supporting airport safety, navigation systems, and regional airport infrastructure—benefiting pilots, airlines, and passengers through improved aviation safety and reliability.
TransportationRef: Sec. 1(d), Sec. 2(c), Sec. 3(b), Sec. 4(2)Clarifies that consumer sales and use taxes on aircraft fuel remain in the general fund—preserving existing revenue for general state services and avoiding double-counting or misallocation of consumer-level taxes.
TransportationRef: Sec. 4(1), Sec. 4(3)Aligns oil spill administration tax revenue with aviation use—potentially improving accountability and transparency by linking spill-readiness funding to the sector most likely to trigger large-scale aviation fuel incidents (e.g., seaplane operations, cargo hubs).
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(b), Sec. 2(c), Sec. 2(i), Sec. 2(j)Streamlines tax deposit procedures for aircraft fuel—reducing administrative complexity for fuel suppliers and distributors by consolidating reporting into a single account rather than juggling multiple special accounts.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(d), Sec. 2(c), Sec. 3(b)Provides statutory clarity that all aircraft fuel–related taxes (excise, sales, spill, possession) flow into the aeronautics account—reducing ambiguity and potential legal challenges over fund allocation.
TransportationRef: Sec. 4(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Reduces dedicated funding for oil spill response and pollution liability programs, potentially weakening the state’s capacity to respond to environmental emergencies involving aircraft fuel spills—especially at airports or along aviation supply routes—where rapid response is critical.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(d), Sec. 2(c), Sec. 3(b)Diverts revenue from the Model Toxics Control accounts (60% operating, 25% capital, 15% stormwater) and the Pollution Liability Insurance Program Trust Account, which support environmental cleanup, stormwater management, and liability coverage for small businesses handling hazardous substances—reducing resources for broader environmental protection and compliance assistance.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(b)(i)-(iii), Sec. 2(b), Sec. 3(a)Reduces funding to the Military Department Active State Service Account ($200K/year from oil spill admin tax), which supports state military readiness and emergency response coordination—potentially weakening local emergency preparedness in joint civil-military operations.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(a), Sec. 2(b), Sec. 2(i), Sec. 2(j)While aviation infrastructure may benefit, the bill does not adjust the $50M biennium cap for motor vehicle fund transportation stormwater projects—meaning local governments relying on that funding may see no offsetting gain from redirected aircraft fuel revenues.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(c), Sec. 1(d)Aircraft fuel suppliers and distributors face no change in tax rates or collection procedures, but must now remit taxes to a single account—administratively neutral, though small distributors may lack visibility into how the aeronautics account allocates funds.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(b), Sec. 1(d), Sec. 2(c), Sec. 3(b)
Who Is Most Affected
State aviation authorities (e.g., Washington Airport System, PACE) stand to gain significantly from dedicated, growing aviation infrastructure funding—supporting runway upgrades, navigation modernization, and safety programs.
Environmental agencies like Ecology and the Oil Spill Coordinator Office will see reduced revenue for spill response and pollution liability programs—potentially stretching resources thinner during high-risk incidents involving aircraft fuel.
Aircraft fuel suppliers and distributors face no rate change but must adapt to new deposit routing—administrative burden is minimal, but they lose influence over how funds are allocated across accounts.
General taxpayers and travelers benefit indirectly from improved airport safety and efficiency, but may bear indirect costs if environmental protection programs are underfunded—especially near major airports or waterways.
Local governments with airports (e.g., Seattle, Spokane, Bellingham) may benefit from enhanced federal matching eligibility due to stronger state aviation funding, but could lose out if state environmental oversight weakens.