HB 2285
In CommitteeHouse
Carbon capture
Concerning the use of carbon capture and utilization, mineralization, or sequestration technologies under the Washington clean energy transformation act.
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
HB 2285 amends Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act to allow electricity from natural gas power plants equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to count toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 clean energy goals. The bill defines eligibility criteria for such technology, updates regulatory definitions, and requires utilities to consider CCS as part of their resource planning—while maintaining strict emissions-capture thresholds and compliance rules.
- Allows electricity from natural gas power plants equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to count toward Washington’s clean energy goals—specifically, the 2030 greenhouse gas neutrality and 2045 100% clean electricity targets—under the Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act.
- Defines new eligibility criteria for carbon capture technology: it must capture at least 75% of the plant’s baseline carbon dioxide emissions and comply with all state and federal regulations.
- Amends the definition of 'nonemitting electric generation' to explicitly include electricity from natural gas systems using carbon capture and storage, and amends the definition of 'natural gas' to exclude such systems when operating with approved technology.
- Requires utilities to consider carbon capture and storage as part of their clean energy planning, and sets new compliance rules for how much such generation can count toward targets—up to 20% of the 2030 goal via alternative compliance options.
- Establishes a new process for utilities to petition the Utilities and Transportation Commission for a declaratory order confirming whether a proposed carbon capture project meets legal requirements before including it in official plans.
Who is affected
- Electric utilities — Electric utilities (both investor-owned and consumer-owned) must now include electricity from natural gas plants equipped with carbon capture and storage in their compliance plans to meet state clean energy targets, and must follow new rules about how much carbon dioxide must be captured.
- Natural gas power plant operators — Natural gas power plants that install carbon capture technology may now count some of their electricity toward Washington’s clean energy goals, potentially reducing their compliance penalties and opening new revenue streams.
- Electric utility customers — Residents and businesses who pay electricity bills may see changes in how utility costs are calculated and how clean energy investments are approved, with potential impacts on rates depending on how utilities meet new standards.
- State agencies — State agencies like the Department of Commerce, Department of Ecology, and Utilities and Transportation Commission must update rules and review plans to incorporate carbon capture technologies into clean energy policy.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Penalties collected ($100/MWh for noncompliant generation) are deposited into the Low-Income Weatherization and Structural Rehabilitation Assistance Account, directly funding energy efficiency upgrades for low-income households—reducing their energy burden and improving home safety (e.g., mold, heating hazards).
FinancialLean peopleRef: RCW 19.405.040(1)(b)(ii)(A) and RCW 19.405.090(8)By allowing gas with CCS to count toward clean energy goals, the bill may help avoid reliability risks during extreme cold events when wind and hydro are low—enhancing grid resilience for all residents, especially vulnerable populations during winter outages. However, this benefit is modest because existing gas peakers already serve this role, and CCS adds unproven complexity.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: RCW 19.405.040(1)(f) and RCW 19.405.050(1)The bill requires a biennial report assessing impacts on middle-income families, small businesses, and manufacturers—potentially leading to future policy adjustments that mitigate cost burdens. However, this is a reporting requirement, not a binding protection, and has not historically prevented regressive outcomes in similar programs.
Public SafetyRef: RCW 19.405.080(5)The declaratory order process gives utilities clarity on project eligibility before committing to CCS, potentially reducing costly legal disputes and enabling faster deployment. However, this primarily benefits utility planning processes—not local governments or communities—and does not require community input or environmental justice assessments.
Local GovernmentRef: RCW 19.405.160The bill includes energy transformation projects (e.g., weatherization, EV charging) as alternative compliance options, which could create local jobs in construction and installation. However, these are capped by the 2% cost limit and must avoid increasing fossil fuel use—limiting scale and prioritizing cost-effectiveness over job quality or equity.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: RCW 19.405.040(1)(b)(iii) and RCW 19.405.060(3)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill allows electricity from natural gas plants with carbon capture to count toward clean energy targets, but the 75% capture threshold may not reduce net emissions significantly—studies (e.g., IPCC, MIT 2022) show CCS often captures 70–90% of *combustion* CO₂, but does not address fugitive methane emissions from gas supply chains, which have 84× the warming power of CO₂ over 20 years. This could result in *net higher* emissions compared to renewables, undermining climate goals.
EnvironmentIndustryRef: RCW 19.405.040(1)(b)(ii)(B) and RCW 19.405.050(7)(a)(ii)The bill caps compliance costs at a 2% annual revenue increase for utilities, but this cost is passed through to ratepayers. Since low- and middle-income households spend a larger share of income on energy (10–15% vs. 3–5% for high-income), the policy imposes a regressive cost burden on everyday Washingtonians, especially during early deployment when CCS is expensive and unproven at scale.
FinancialIndustryRef: RCW 19.405.060(3)(a) and (4)(a)The bill permits up to 20% of the 2030 compliance obligation to be met via alternative compliance payments (e.g., paying $100/MWh instead of deploying clean resources), which could delay infrastructure transitions and increase reliance on fossil infrastructure. This risks locking in fossil dependence and increasing exposure to extreme-weather-related outages (e.g., 2021 winter storm Uri), especially if CCS plants fail during cold snaps due to gas supply constraints or capture system downtime.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: RCW 19.405.040(1)(b)(iii) and RCW 19.405.050(7)(a)(ii)The baseline calculation for capture rates uses historical emissions data, which rewards plants with *higher* historical emissions (e.g., older, less efficient units), potentially incentivizing continued operation of dirtier plants. This undermines the goal of *net* emissions reduction and may delay retirement of high-emission facilities in favor of retrofitting them with unproven CCS.
EnvironmentLean industryRef: RCW 19.405.050(7)(a)(ii) and Sec. 2 (definition of 'baseline carbon dioxide production')The bill creates a new petition process for declaratory orders on CCS projects, but this adds regulatory complexity and front-loaded legal/administrative costs for utilities and developers. These costs are recoverable through rates, effectively socializing private project risk—benefiting large developers and investors while imposing costs on ratepayers regardless of project success.
Business & EmploymentLean industryRef: RCW 19.405.160 and Sec. 8
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income households face higher energy burdens due to rate increases tied to CCS infrastructure costs, but may benefit from weatherization funds. However, the 2% cost cap is regressive—low-income households spend more of income on energy, so even small absolute increases are proportionally larger burdens.
Utilities gain regulatory certainty and can include CCS in compliance plans, potentially reducing penalty exposure. However, they bear upfront investment risk and must pass costs to ratepayers, with no guarantee of CCS performance or cost-effectiveness. Large investor-owned utilities benefit more than consumer-owned due to scale and rate recovery mechanisms.
Natural gas plant operators with existing infrastructure can retrofit for CCS and count output toward clean energy targets, creating new revenue streams. However, CCS is expensive ($50–150/MWh), unproven at scale, and may not be cost-competitive with renewables—posing financial risk, especially for smaller operators.
State agencies (Commerce, Ecology, UTC) gain new planning responsibilities but lack explicit funding for implementation. They must balance reliability, affordability, and climate goals—increasing regulatory burden without new resources, potentially diverting attention from other priorities.
Renewable developers (solar, wind) face increased competition from gas-CCS, which may slow new renewable deployment due to the 2% cost cap and preference for existing fossil infrastructure. CCS also crowds out capital that could go to proven clean tech, delaying deeper decarbonization.