SB 5991
In CommitteeSenate
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
This bill amends the Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act to allow electric utilities to use electricity from natural gas power plants equipped with carbon capture and storage technologies as part of their compliance with the state’s 2030 and 2045 clean energy goals. It establishes strict requirements for carbon capture performance and regulatory compliance, and formally includes such technologies in the state’s clean electricity framework.
- Adds a new definition of 'carbon capture and utilization, mineralization, or sequestration technology' to the Clean Energy Transformation Act, allowing such technologies to be used with natural gas systems.
- Amends RCW 19.405.040 to permit electricity from natural gas systems equipped with carbon capture technology to count toward the 2030 greenhouse gas neutrality and 2045 100% clean electricity standards.
- Requires carbon capture systems to capture at least 75% of the baseline carbon dioxide emissions of the natural gas system and to comply with all applicable environmental laws.
- Clarifies that electricity from carbon-capture-enabled natural gas is treated as a compliance resource alongside renewables and other nonemitting sources, but only if it meets strict capture thresholds and regulatory requirements.
- Updates reporting and compliance procedures to include evaluation of carbon capture projects in clean energy implementation plans and allows utilities to petition for declaratory orders on project eligibility.
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 technologies as part of their compliance path to meet the state's clean energy standards in 2030 and 2045.
- Natural gas power plant operators — Natural gas power plant operators may need to retrofit or build new facilities with carbon capture technology to remain eligible for inclusion in utility compliance plans under the Clean Energy Transformation Act.
- Electric utility customers — Residents and businesses who receive electricity from utilities may see changes in utility resource planning and rate structures, as utilities incorporate carbon capture-enabled natural gas into their clean energy strategies.
- State agencies — State agencies—including the Department of Commerce, Department of Ecology, and Utilities and Transportation Commission—must update rules, review plans, and ensure compliance with the new eligibility of carbon capture technologies.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
By formally including carbon capture with natural gas in the clean energy framework and requiring 75% capture efficiency, the bill creates a pathway to reduce emissions from existing gas infrastructure while renewables scale up—potentially avoiding blackouts during low-renewable periods without immediately retiring fossil capacity. This could support faster overall decarbonization than a pure phaseout, especially in winter peak demand scenarios where hydro and wind are unreliable.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6), Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1)The bill’s 2% cost cap on incremental compliance costs (Sec. 6(3)(a)) provides ratepayer protection and predictability, helping to avoid sudden rate spikes during the transition. This structured cost containment may benefit households and small businesses by limiting exposure to large, unpredictable utility capital expenditures for carbon capture infrastructure.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 6(3)(a)The bill explicitly allows carbon capture-enabled natural gas to help meet reliability needs during extreme cold and low-hydro conditions, reducing blackout risk in winter. This is a pragmatic bridge solution that acknowledges Washington’s grid vulnerability during climate-driven extremes, especially as electrification increases winter demand.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 6(3)(a)The bill may stimulate new clean-tech manufacturing and installation jobs in carbon capture systems, especially for companies developing or deploying CCS technologies. While not as broad as solar/wind job creation, it opens a niche sector aligned with Washington’s clean energy leadership goals and could support high-wage technical employment in regions with existing energy infrastructure.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6), Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1)By enabling a more reliable transition to clean electricity—especially during winter peaks—the bill may help stabilize heating costs and reduce outages in winter, benefiting households in cold, rural, or poorly insulated homes. The 2% cost cap also helps prevent unaffordable rate spikes that could strain household budgets during high-demand seasons.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 6(3)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill permits natural gas generation with carbon capture to count toward clean energy targets, but carbon capture at 75% efficiency still emits 25% of baseline CO₂—meaning this policy perpetuates fossil fuel dependence and may delay full decarbonization. While the bill requires compliance with environmental laws, it does not require verification of actual emissions reductions at the plant level, only design capacity, raising concerns about real-world performance and potential leakage from storage sites.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3(7)(a), Sec. 4(7)(a)The bill includes reliability as a factor in compliance planning, but by allowing carbon-capture-enabled natural gas as a compliance resource, it may encourage continued reliance on fossil fuel infrastructure during extreme weather events—potentially increasing exposure to fuel supply disruptions and price volatility, especially in winter when demand peaks and hydro/wind are low. This could increase blackout risk if gas supply chains fail or capture systems malfunction during cold snaps.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1)The bill may create jobs in carbon capture engineering, construction, and operations, but these are highly specialized and likely to be concentrated in technical roles rather than broad-based employment. Moreover, by locking in natural gas infrastructure, the bill may divert investment from higher-employment clean technologies like wind, solar, and storage, which have higher per-megawatt employment multipliers in Washington.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1)The bill does not specify direct fiscal impact, but utilities may incur significant retrofit or new-build costs for carbon capture systems, which could be passed through to rates. While the 2% cost cap in Sec. 6 may limit rate increases, utilities could still recover substantial costs over time, potentially raising electricity bills for households and businesses—especially low- and middle-income customers who spend a higher share of income on energy.
FinancialRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1)Local governments may face increased regulatory burdens as they coordinate with state agencies on permitting, environmental review, and enforcement of carbon capture requirements, especially for projects located within their jurisdictions. While the bill does not explicitly shift costs to localities, local governments may bear indirect costs for infrastructure upgrades or emergency response related to carbon transport or storage.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 4(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Electric utilities gain flexibility in compliance planning and may recover costs for carbon capture retrofits through regulated rates, but face new capital expenditure obligations and regulatory scrutiny over project eligibility.
Natural gas plant operators may see new revenue opportunities by retrofitting or building CCS-equipped facilities, but must invest in expensive technology and face ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements. Smaller operators may struggle with capital costs.
Residents and businesses may benefit from improved grid reliability in winter and rate predictability under the 2% cost cap, but could face higher bills if utilities pass through significant capital costs. Low-income households are most vulnerable to rate increases.
State agencies gain authority to regulate and verify carbon capture performance, but must expand staffing and technical capacity to monitor compliance, especially for long-term storage verification and leakage prevention.