HB 1844
In CommitteeHouse
Alternative jet fuels
Advancing the production and use of alternative jet fuels in Washington.
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 aims to accelerate Washington’s development and use of cleaner jet fuel by creating grant funding, tax exemptions, and environmental review processes. It requires state agencies to coordinate research, assess environmental impacts, and support infrastructure for alternative jet fuels—including those made from biomethane—that emit at least 50% less greenhouse gases than conventional jet fuel.
- Establishes a competitive grant program administered by the Office of Financial Management to fund research, development, and construction of alternative jet fuel infrastructure (e.g., rail spurs, blending facilities, fuel loading racks), with funds restricted to public-benefit use and non-restrictive access.
- Requires the Department of Ecology to conduct nonproject environmental impact statements for clean energy projects—including alternative jet fuel production pathways—to identify environmental risks and mitigation strategies, and to recommend clean energy preferred zones.
- Creates property tax and leasehold tax exemptions for new or expanded facilities that produce or blend alternative jet fuel with at least 50% lower carbon dioxide equivalent emissions than conventional jet fuel, valid for 10 years after operational completion.
- Requires the Department of Ecology to report by January 1, 2026, on biomethane availability as a feedstock for alternative jet fuel, including the impact of pipeline restrictions and incentives for capturing fugitive methane.
- Expands the definition of ‘alternative jet fuel’ and related terms (e.g., green electrolytic hydrogen, green hydrogen carriers) for tax and regulatory purposes, and updates eligibility for existing clean energy tax incentives to include alternative jet fuel infrastructure.
- Sets a sunset date of December 31, 2043 for the tax exemptions, and requires a legislative review by December 1, 2032 to determine whether to extend the tax preferences based on production growth, emissions outcomes, and racial equity impacts.
Who is affected
- Alternative jet fuel producers and infrastructure developers — Manufacturers and developers of alternative jet fuel facilities (e.g., blending plants, production infrastructure) can receive tax exemptions and grant funding to support construction and operation of facilities that meet emissions standards.
- State agencies — State agencies (e.g., Department of Ecology, Office of Financial Management) gain new responsibilities to coordinate research, conduct environmental reviews, and manage grant programs for clean energy and alternative fuels.
- County assessors and local taxing districts — Local governments and counties must process and verify property and leasehold tax exemption claims for qualifying facilities and may choose to extend exemptions to local taxes.
- Federally recognized tribes — Federally recognized tribes are required to be consulted on environmental reviews and collaborative planning, and may be impacted by siting of clean energy and fuel infrastructure near tribal lands.
- Aviation industry stakeholders — Airport operators and airlines may benefit from increased domestic production and availability of lower-carbon jet fuel, potentially reducing supply chain risks and emissions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The competitive grant program funds public-benefit infrastructure (e.g., rail spurs, blending facilities) with non-restrictive access requirements—potentially lowering barriers for smaller fuel producers and regional airports to access cleaner fuel supply chains, supporting local jobs and reducing aviation emissions.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5) (grant program for public-benefit infrastructure)Requiring consultation with fire marshals on fire and safety standards for novel fuels (e.g., green hydrogen, biomethane-derived jet fuel) improves emergency preparedness and reduces risks to first responders and communities near fuel production or handling sites.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(e) (fire safety standards consultation)The nonproject environmental impact statements must explicitly consider tribal cultural resources, overburdened communities, and environmental justice—creating a stronger foundation for equitable siting and reducing disproportionate impacts on frontline communities.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(v) and (vi) (tribal consultation and overburdened communities in EIS)Mandating assessment of feedstock supply and deployment barriers in hard-to-decarbonize sectors helps ensure that alternative jet fuel development is grounded in realistic resource availability—reducing the risk of wasted public investment and supporting long-term, stable job creation in rural and industrial communities.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b) and (d) (assessment of feedstock adequacy and hard-to-decarbonize sectors)The 2032 legislative review must assess not only emissions reductions but also measurable economic growth—ensuring that tax expenditures are tied to verifiable public benefits and preventing permanent, unreviewed corporate subsidies.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 7(4)(c) (legislative review tied to economic growth and emissions)
Potential Concerns (5)
The 10-year property and leasehold tax exemptions for qualifying alternative jet fuel facilities reduce state and local tax revenue, with the benefit heavily concentrated in large-scale industrial facilities that meet the 50% emissions threshold—most of which are likely to be owned or operated by large energy or aerospace firms, not small businesses or everyday residents.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 5 (property tax exemption) and Sec. 6 (leasehold tax exemption)Local taxing districts may choose to extend the tax exemptions, but this creates fiscal uncertainty for counties and cities—especially those with limited resources to verify compliance—potentially straining local budgets if large facilities qualify and reduce assessed value without offsetting revenue.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 5(5) and Sec. 6(5) (local opt-in for exemptions)The bill prohibits the Department of Ecology from adopting rules restricting pipeline flow or geographic origin of biomethane feedstock before the 2026 report, and bars shortening crediting periods below 20 years—potentially enabling methane capture from distant or high-emission sources (e.g., dairy operations with fugitive emissions) that may not meaningfully improve net emissions over the full lifecycle.
EnvironmentLean industryRef: Sec. 3(3) and (4) (biomethane reporting restrictions)While intended to support siting, the “clean energy preferred zones” framework could inadvertently concentrate large-scale infrastructure near vulnerable communities (e.g., agricultural or tribal lands) if not carefully mitigated—especially since the nonproject EIS must identify environmental justice concerns but does not prohibit siting in overburdened areas.
EnvironmentLean industryRef: Sec. 2(7) (clean energy preferred zones)The racial equity analysis is narrowly scoped to one county (King County, home to SEA-TAC Airport), excluding other major airport hubs like Spokane or Yakima—limiting the bill’s equity impact and potentially overlooking disproportionate air quality burdens in other communities of color near airports.
Rights & LibertiesIndustryRef: Sec. 7(5) (racial equity analysis limited to one county)
Who Is Most Affected
Large energy and aerospace firms (e.g., Boeing suppliers, fuel producers) are the primary beneficiaries of the tax exemptions and grant access—especially those with capital to build $2M+ facilities and meet carbon intensity thresholds. They gain long-term cost savings and market certainty.
Counties with large airports (e.g., King, Snohomish) may see short-term revenue losses from exemptions but could benefit from job growth and regional emissions reductions—though smaller rural counties may lack the infrastructure to qualify and face disproportionate costs if facilities are sited nearby.
Federally recognized tribes gain formal consultation rights and environmental justice considerations in siting—but may face indirect impacts if facilities are sited near tribal lands without adequate mitigation or benefit-sharing agreements.
Aviation industry stakeholders (airlines, airports) benefit from supply chain diversification and emissions compliance—potentially reducing fuel costs and regulatory risk, but may pass savings to consumers rather than investing in local workforce or community benefits.
Low- and middle-income communities near airports or industrial zones may benefit from reduced air pollution if the 50% emissions standard is enforced rigorously—but could be harmed if infrastructure expands near existing overburdened areas without enforceable mitigation.