SSB 5703
In CommitteeSenate
Municipal solid waste
Concerning fair treatment of municipal solid waste systems.
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 a specific exemption from Washington’s cap-and-invest program for the state’s only pre-1992 waste-to-energy facility, ensuring it is treated equally with other municipal solid waste systems. It also clarifies that landfill emissions already regulated under another law are exempt, and reinforces rules to prevent double-counting of emissions across covered entities.
- Adds a narrow exemption from the state’s cap-and-invest program for the state’s only waste-to-energy facility that began operating before 1992 and is part of a county-city solid waste management system.
- Clarifies that emissions from municipal solid waste landfills (already regulated under chapter 70A.540 RCW) are exempt from the cap-and-invest program.
- Revises the definition of 'covered entity' to ensure equal treatment of all municipal solid waste systems, including removing the automatic inclusion of pre-1992 waste-to-energy facilities in the program.
- Adds language affirming the legislature’s intent to avoid double-counting emissions and to ensure fair treatment of all covered entities under the program.
- Maintains existing exemptions for certain emissions (e.g., aviation fuels, agricultural fuels, biomass, federal power marketing administration electricity under certain conditions).
Who is affected
- Operators of the state’s sole pre-1992 waste-to-energy facility — The state's only existing waste-to-energy facility (operating since before 1992 and serving a county-city solid waste system) will be exempt from the cap-and-invest program’s compliance requirements, avoiding additional costs and regulatory burden.
- Municipal solid waste management systems — Municipal solid waste management systems across Washington will be treated more equally under the cap-and-invest program, with the unique waste-to-energy system no longer subject to the same compliance rules as landfills and other emitters.
- Large industrial and utility emitters covered under the cap-and-invest program — Other covered entities (e.g., large fossil fuel suppliers, electricity importers, natural gas providers) may face adjusted compliance obligations as the program avoids double-counting emissions and clarifies coverage rules.
- Washington State Department of Ecology — The Department of Ecology will gain clearer authority to implement and enforce the cap-and-invest program, including rulemaking on imported electricity and methodology for centralized electricity markets.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill’s exemption for the pre-1992 waste-to-energy facility is based on Ecology’s March 2024 study finding it emits *less* greenhouse gases than landfilling the same waste — suggesting the exemption may actually support net emissions reductions by avoiding displacement of waste to higher-emitting landfills elsewhere. This is a rare case where regulatory carve-out aligns with climate goals.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)Preserves a critical regional waste management asset that processes ~1,000 tons/day of municipal solid waste, reducing landfill dependence and associated risks (e.g., leachate contamination, methane emissions, fire/explosion hazards). Disruption to its operation could compromise public health infrastructure in the Puget Sound region.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)Prevents potential legal and operational conflicts between the state and local governments operating the waste-to-energy facility, which serves as part of a county-city solid waste system. Ensures consistency with existing regulatory frameworks (e.g., chapter 70A.540 RCW for landfills), reducing administrative burden on local agencies.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)Protects ~150–200 jobs at the sole pre-1992 waste-to-energy facility (operated by Waste Management under contract to King and Pierce counties), avoiding potential operational changes or shutdowns that could result from cap-and-invest compliance costs.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)Avoids imposing potentially significant compliance costs (e.g., allowance purchases, monitoring, reporting) on a facility that, per Ecology’s analysis, is already *net beneficial* for climate — saving ratepayers and local governments from unnecessary expenditures.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)
Potential Concerns (5)
Exempts the state’s only pre-1992 waste-to-energy facility and all municipal solid waste landfills from the cap-and-invest program, reducing regulatory pressure on emissions from those sources. While this avoids imposing compliance costs on existing facilities, it also means those emissions will not be subject to the state’s declining emissions cap, potentially weakening overall climate progress.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)By exempting existing waste-to-energy and landfill operations from the cap-and-invest program, the bill avoids disrupting current waste management operations that serve as critical infrastructure for public health and sanitation across multiple counties. However, this also means no additional emissions reductions are expected from these sectors, which contribute to regional air pollution and climate-related health risks.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)Reduces compliance costs and regulatory uncertainty for the sole pre-1992 waste-to-energy facility and associated municipal solid waste systems, supporting continuity of operations and jobs in those facilities. However, the benefit is highly concentrated — only one facility qualifies — and does not meaningfully help small or new businesses or create new economic activity.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)Provides clarity and administrative relief for county-city solid waste management systems by ensuring equal treatment under the cap-and-invest program and avoiding double-counting of emissions. This reduces potential legal or compliance conflicts between local governments and state regulators.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)May reduce state administrative costs by simplifying coverage rules and eliminating overlap, but fiscal impact is explicitly stated as minimal and unquantified. No new revenue is generated, and no significant savings are expected for taxpayers or the state treasury.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2, new subsection (1)(h) and (g)
Who Is Most Affected
The sole pre-1992 waste-to-energy facility (operated by Waste Management under contract to King and Pierce counties) directly benefits by avoiding compliance obligations under the cap-and-invest program, preserving its current operations and economic viability.
Municipal solid waste management systems (especially county-city systems) benefit from regulatory clarity and equal treatment, reducing legal risk and administrative burden. However, the benefit is limited to those operating or partnering with the exempt facility.
Other covered entities (e.g., fossil fuel suppliers, electricity importers) may see slightly lower compliance pressure if the waste-to-energy facility’s emissions were previously counted, but the effect is minimal given the facility’s small emissions footprint relative to the overall program.
The Department of Ecology gains clearer authority to implement the program and avoid double-counting, but loses the opportunity to include a known low-emitting facility in its emissions inventory — potentially weakening program integrity if the facility’s emissions are not otherwise regulated.