SHB 2183
In CommitteeHouse
Heat response plans
Requiring counties to develop and implement heat response plans.
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 requires every county in Washington to create and adopt a detailed extreme heat response plan by July 1, 2027, focusing on protecting high-risk residents and integrating heat planning into emergency and public health systems. It also expands the authority of local boards of health to develop such plans as part of their public health duties.
- Counties must adopt an extreme heat response plan by July 1, 2027, developed by the local board of health in cooperation with city health and emergency departments.
- Plans must include both immediate response and long-term adaptation strategies, including cooling solutions beyond cooling centers (e.g., heat pumps, passive cooling).
- Plans must prioritize high-risk populations, such as people 65+, outdoor workers, children under 6, pregnant individuals, medically vulnerable people, and households earning ≤80% of area median income.
- Counties must partner with federally recognized tribes and urban Indian health organizations in planning and response efforts.
- Plans must include outreach, community engagement, early warning systems, and data collection on heat-related illness and deaths.
- Plans must be integrated into existing emergency frameworks, and counties must review/revise them during their regular comprehensive plan updates.
Who is affected
- County governments and local boards of health — Counties must develop and adopt heat response plans by July 1, 2027, and update them with their comprehensive plan reviews; local health boards gain new authority to create and enforce such plans.
- City public health and emergency management departments — Cities within each county must collaborate with county health departments on plan development, especially regarding outreach, early warning systems, and emergency coordination.
- High-risk populations — High-risk individuals—including older adults, outdoor workers, young children, pregnant people, those with medical conditions, and low-income households—will benefit from targeted protections and cooling strategies in county plans.
- Federally recognized Indian tribes and urban Indian health organizations — Tribal and urban Indian health organizations must be engaged in planning and response efforts, ensuring culturally appropriate and inclusive heat response strategies.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Imposes new planning and coordination responsibilities on counties and local health boards, potentially straining limited local resources—especially in rural or underfunded counties—without guaranteed state funding to offset implementation costs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (4); Sec. 2(7)While promoting cooling solutions like heat pumps, the bill does not mandate funding or enforceability for private residential retrofits, meaning low-income households may not access these benefits without additional state investment.
HousingRef: Sec. 1(2)(f), (h)The bill encourages but does not require employer or utility participation in cooling assistance programs—meaning low-wage outdoor workers may benefit only if counties successfully partner with third parties, not because of enforceable obligations.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(2)(f)Community outreach and early warning systems rely on county staffing and infrastructure—rural counties may lack capacity to implement robust systems, potentially limiting effectiveness for isolated or non-English-speaking populations.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d), (e)Requires coordination with healthcare providers for heat-related emergencies, but does not allocate new funding or staffing to clinics or emergency departments—potentially increasing strain on already overburdened systems without additional support.
HealthcareRef: Sec. 1(2)(g)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates counties to develop and implement extreme heat response plans—including cooling strategies, outreach, early warning systems, and data collection—which improve community resilience to heat-related illness and death, especially during increasingly frequent and severe heat waves.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), (f), (j); Sec. 2(7)Explicitly prioritizes high-risk populations—including older adults, young children, pregnant individuals, medically vulnerable people, outdoor workers, and low-income households—ensuring targeted protections and equitable access to cooling resources during heat events.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), (d), (e)Requires collaboration with federally recognized tribes and urban Indian health organizations, promoting culturally appropriate, community-led heat response strategies and expanding access to cooling solutions like heat pumps and passive cooling for underserved communities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c), (f)Encourages government-assisted subsidies and incentives for heat pumps, portable cooling units, and passive cooling retrofits—measures that, if implemented, could reduce heat stress in homes and improve housing habitability during extreme heat.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(f), (h)Mandates data collection on heat-related illness and mortality, improving public health surveillance and enabling evidence-based adjustments to emergency response—critical for long-term resilience and equity in public health planning.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(j); Sec. 2(7)
Who Is Most Affected
Counties face new planning mandates and coordination responsibilities without guaranteed state funding—rural and fiscally strained counties may struggle to meet deadlines or implement robust plans.
Cities must collaborate on plan development and implementation, adding administrative burden—but also gain access to county-level data and coordination that can improve local emergency response.
High-risk groups (older adults, children, low-income households, outdoor workers) stand to benefit significantly from targeted protections and cooling access—if counties have capacity to reach them effectively.
Tribal and urban Indian health organizations gain formal inclusion in planning, supporting culturally grounded responses—but success depends on whether counties engage them meaningfully, not just performatively.
Low-income households may benefit from cooling subsidies and outreach, but without explicit funding mandates, many will not receive direct assistance—making outcomes highly variable by county.