SB 5898
In CommitteeSenate
Aircraft fuel tax proceeds
Directing the deposit of the proceeds from taxes on aircraft fuel to the aeronautics account.
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 redirects all tax revenue collected specifically on aircraft fuel—including excise, oil spill response, and petroleum possession taxes—into Washington’s aeronautics account, ensuring those funds are used exclusively for aviation programs. Previously, some of this revenue went to general transportation, environmental, or stormwater programs.
- Requires all tax revenue from aircraft fuel under the petroleum products tax (RCW 82.21.030) to be deposited into the aeronautics account instead of the model toxics control accounts or motor vehicle fund.
- Requires tax revenue from aircraft fuel under the oil spill response tax (RCW 82.23B.020) to be deposited into the aeronautics account, replacing prior deposits to the military department or oil spill prevention accounts.
- Requires tax revenue from aircraft fuel under the petroleum products possession tax (RCW 82.23A.020) to be deposited into the aeronautics account, replacing deposits to the pollution liability insurance program trust account.
- Confirms that all aircraft fuel tax proceeds—including excise, sales, and use taxes—must go to the aeronautics account, except consumer sales/use taxes, which still go to the state general fund.
- Clarifies that the aeronautics account may only be spent on aviation-related purposes after legislative appropriation.
Who is affected
- Aircraft fuel businesses — Aircraft fuel suppliers and distributors must now remit taxes collected on aircraft fuel to the aeronautics account instead of general transportation or environmental funds.
- Aviation industry and airport operators — State aviation programs and infrastructure projects (e.g., airports, air traffic control support) gain dedicated funding from aircraft fuel tax proceeds.
- Transportation and environmental programs — General state transportation and environmental programs (e.g., stormwater management, oil spill response) lose some funding previously derived from aircraft fuel taxes.
- General public — State residents who fly or use air services may see changes in airport funding and potential service improvements or cost shifts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Aviation infrastructure (e.g., airports, navigation aids, air traffic control support) gains dedicated, ring-fenced funding from aircraft fuel taxes, improving long-term planning and capital investment capacity. This could enhance safety, reduce delays, and support regional economic activity tied to air travel.
TransportationRef: Sec. 4(1), Sec. 4(2)State aviation programs (e.g., Paine Field, regional airports, drone integration initiatives) benefit from consolidated funding, reducing the risk of cross-program budget competition and improving accountability for aviation outcomes. This may support job retention in aviation-related sectors across the state.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(d), Sec. 2(c), Sec. 3(b)The bill supports aviation-related businesses (e.g., FBOs, maintenance providers, cargo operators) by ensuring stable funding for airport improvements and services. While not a direct subsidy, improved infrastructure can lower operating costs and increase service capacity, especially for smaller regional airports.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 4(1)Dedicated aviation funding may improve emergency response capabilities at airports (e.g., fire/rescue, hazardous materials training), enhancing safety for passengers, crew, and surrounding communities — particularly important in wildfire-prone regions or near military installations.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 4(1)The bill clarifies and consolidates the flow of aircraft fuel tax revenue into a single account, reducing accounting complexity and potential misallocation. This improves transparency and ensures users of aviation infrastructure directly fund it, aligning with user-fee principles.
FinancialRef: Sec. 4(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Local governments that rely on state transportation or environmental grants (e.g., for stormwater infrastructure or oil spill preparedness) may receive less funding, as aircraft fuel tax revenue previously allocated to model toxics control stormwater and oil spill accounts is now redirected to aviation. This could strain local budgets, especially in communities with aging infrastructure or high spill risk near waterways.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(d), Sec. 2(c), Sec. 3(b), Sec. 4(2)Oil spill response capacity may be reduced if the oil spill response account balance falls below thresholds triggering tax suspension (per Sec. 2(9)(b)), because aircraft fuel tax revenue no longer contributes to that account. This could delay emergency response during marine or bulk terminal incidents, particularly on Puget Sound.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(c), Sec. 2(b), Sec. 4(1)Aircraft fuel businesses face no new compliance burden, but the redirection could complicate accounting and reporting if they previously allocated taxes across multiple accounts. However, the bill explicitly preserves existing collection mechanisms and does not change tax rates or liability, so operational impact is minimal.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(e), Sec. 2(9)(a), Sec. 3(4)Consumer sales and use taxes on aircraft fuel remain in the general fund, so individual flyers pay the same tax rate — but they no longer contribute to aviation-specific infrastructure via those taxes. This creates a modest disconnect between user fees and user benefits, though the excise and other specific fuel taxes (now in the aeronautics account) remain in place.
FinancialRef: Sec. 4(3)Stormwater and oil spill prevention programs lose dedicated revenue from aircraft fuel, potentially limiting their ability to address non-point source pollution or respond to spills. This could increase long-term environmental risks near airports and marine terminals, especially in sensitive ecosystems like Puget Sound.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 1(c), Sec. 2(b), Sec. 3(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Aircraft fuel suppliers and distributors face no change in tax rates or liability, but must adjust accounting and reporting to deposit taxes exclusively into the aeronautics account. Compliance costs are minimal due to existing collection infrastructure.
State and local airport operators (e.g., Paine Field, Spokane International, regional airports) gain dedicated, predictable funding for capital improvements, safety upgrades, and modernization — potentially accelerating projects like runway repairs, terminal expansions, or EV charging infrastructure.
Local governments relying on state grants for stormwater management (e.g., King County, Pierce County) or oil spill response planning (e.g., Port of Seattle, Tacoma Waterfront) may see reduced funding, potentially delaying infrastructure projects or emergency preparedness programs.
General public who fly or use air cargo may benefit from improved airport facilities and safety, but also bear the cost of reduced funding for environmental programs that protect water quality and respond to spills — especially relevant for communities near marine terminals.