HB 2288
In CommitteeHouse
Env. programs/fee accounts
Concerning dedicated accounts for fees collected for the implementation of environmental programs.
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 creates and modifies dedicated state accounts to ensure fees collected for environmental programs — especially air pollution control and laboratory accreditation — are used only for their intended purposes. It establishes a new laboratory accreditation account and expands the air pollution control account to include additional fee sources, while also creating a separate air operating permit account.
- Creates the laboratory accreditation account in the state treasury, requiring all fees collected under RCW 43.21A.230 (for lab accreditation) to be deposited there and used only for related activities.
- Amends the air pollution control account to include additional fee sources — including fees from RCW 70A.540.130 (air quality program fees) — and specifies that those funds may only be used for air pollution control activities under chapters 70A.25, 70A.540, and 70A.60 RCW.
- Requires the Department of Ecology to distribute portions of air pollution control account funds to local authorities based on local air quality problems, program costs, and other available funding.
- Creates the air operating permit account to hold fees from air permit programs (e.g., for operating permits), restricting those funds to permit-related activities only.
- Clarifies that fees collected under RCW 70A.540.130 (air quality program fees) may only be used to implement chapter 70A.540 RCW (air pollution control).
Who is affected
- Local air quality authorities — Local air quality regulatory agencies (like county or city pollution control authorities) will receive funding allocations from the state based on local air quality needs, program costs, and existing funding levels.
- Businesses subject to air pollution regulations — Businesses and facilities that operate air pollution-emitting equipment (e.g., factories, power plants, large commercial operations) will continue to pay fees for air permits and regulatory oversight.
- Washington State Department of Ecology — The Washington State Department of Ecology will manage and allocate fees collected under environmental laws, with new rules about how those funds can be used.
- Environmental testing laboratories — Testing labs that analyze environmental samples (e.g., air or water quality samples) will pay accreditation fees, and those fees will now be deposited into a dedicated account for lab accreditation activities.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandates that local authorities receive funding allocations based on local air quality problems and program costs, which could improve environmental justice outcomes in heavily burdened communities (e.g., Puget Sound South, Spokane Valley) by directing resources to areas with the greatest health risks.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(2)(a)-(b)Creates a dedicated laboratory accreditation account, ensuring fees paid by testing labs are used solely for accreditation oversight—reducing risk of fee diversion into general fund and improving reliability of environmental data quality, which directly supports public health decisions (e.g., air toxics monitoring, drinking water safety).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1, 43.21A.230; Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(1)Explicitly restricts air pollution control account funds to only implementing relevant environmental statutes, preventing past instances where fee revenue was diverted to unrelated state priorities—thus strengthening accountability and programmatic integrity for air quality initiatives.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(1)Creates a separate air operating permit account, ensuring permit-related fees are used only for permit processing and compliance activities—potentially improving permitting efficiency and reducing delays for businesses seeking regulatory approval.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(3)Clarifies that air quality program fees (RCW 70A.540.130) may only be used to implement Chapter 70A.540 RCW, preventing past budget shortfalls where fee revenue was siphoned to balance unrelated portions of the state budget—helping maintain consistent funding for air toxics monitoring and community exposure assessments.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2, 70A.540.130(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Local air quality authorities may face constraints in budget flexibility, as the bill restricts fee revenue to strictly designated uses, potentially limiting their ability to shift funds to urgent local priorities (e.g., emergency response, infrastructure upgrades) if programmatic needs evolve faster than fee allocations.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2, 70A.540.130(2); Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(1)The formula for distributing air pollution control funds to local authorities includes “amount of funding available from other sources” as a factor, which may disadvantage local agencies in low-income or fiscally strained jurisdictions that lack access to alternative funding (e.g., federal grants, local levies), reinforcing existing inequities in environmental enforcement capacity.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(2)(c)Businesses subject to air permitting fees (e.g., manufacturers, power plants) will continue paying fees, but the bill does not cap or reduce those fees—only restricts where the revenue is deposited—so there is no direct cost relief, and administrative complexity may increase if businesses must track multiple fee streams for different accounts.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(1)By strictly tying fee revenue to specific program activities, the bill may reduce the Department of Ecology’s ability to respond flexibly to emerging environmental threats (e.g., wildfire smoke events, chemical spills) if those activities fall outside the narrowly defined permitted uses of the accounts.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2, 70A.540.130(2); Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(1)Environmental testing laboratories must continue paying accreditation fees, and the bill does not alter fee amounts—only where the money goes—so net fiscal impact on labs is neutral, though accountability and transparency of fee use may improve.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1, 43.21A.230; Sec. 3, 70A.15.1010(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Local air quality authorities (e.g., Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Spokane Regional Air Quality Authority) stand to gain more predictable and needs-based funding, but may face challenges if their local jurisdiction has high pollution burdens but limited administrative capacity to access or manage new allocations.
Large industrial emitters (e.g., refineries, power plants) will continue paying the same fees, but may benefit from more transparent and efficient permitting processes under the new air operating permit account—though no direct cost reduction is provided.
The Department of Ecology gains clearer statutory authority over fee use, which may improve program accountability, but loses flexibility to redirect funds during emergencies or budget shortfalls—shifting administrative burden toward compliance tracking.
Environmental testing labs benefit from fee revenue being ring-fenced for accreditation activities, potentially increasing trust in lab certification processes—but they still pay the same fees with no reduction in cost.