Essential information on each bill is below. For more details, click on the bill number – e.g., “SB 5000.” The new page will show the progress of the bill, videos of debate, and the link to send a comment to your legislator about the bill.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1462 aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) by promoting the transition to environmentally sustainable alternatives and enhancing the use of reclaimed HFCs. It establishes a regulatory framework that includes phased limitations on high global warming potential substances, with specific prohibitions on the sale and distribution of newly produced bulk HFCs exceeding certain global warming potential thresholds starting in 2030 and 2033. The Department of Ecology is tasked with implementing these regulations, which may include adopting lower limits or earlier deadlines if sufficient reclaimed refrigerant is available.
Additionally, the bill also outlines the creation of a refrigerant transition task force to study barriers and opportunities for transitioning to climate-friendly refrigerants and to provide recommendations by 2027. It emphasizes the importance of stakeholder collaboration and education to ensure compliance with the new regulations. The bill includes provisions for temporary exemptions under certain conditions and establishes penalties for violations.
This legislation risks creating an artificial shortage of critical refrigerants before viable, affordable alternatives are available at scale. While the intent to reduce emissions is commendable, the phased prohibitions and timeline may place undue financial and operational burdens on businesses—especially those operating large refrigeration systems like agricultural producers and cold storage facilities. With retrofitting costs reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars per system and uncertainty around reclaimed refrigerant supply, the bill could lead to increased costs for consumers and disruptions in essential services without clear, immediate environmental gains. Please oppose this bill.
-
Taxes
Allowing all counties to impose a real estate excise tax for the purpose of developing affordable housing, subject to the will of the voters.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1480 a real estate tax hike bill, would allow counties to impose an additional 0.5% real estate excise tax (REET) on property sales to fund government-run affordable housing programs. This tax would be split between buyers and sellers, making homeownership and real estate transactions more expensive across the state and piling on yet another tax at a time when housing affordability is already a crisis, adding to the cost of buying or selling a home.
While the tax requires voter approval before a county can impose it, the burden will fall disproportionately on homeowners and buyers—many of whom may not be able to afford these added costs. The funds collected would be placed in a county-controlled housing account, distributed through government grants and loans with no clear measures of success or taxpayer accountability. Instead of adding new taxes on home sales, Washington should focus on reducing regulations and expanding private-sector housing solutions to increase affordability without burdening homeowners.
-
Safety
Concerning exceptional sentences for offenses which result in the pregnancy of a victim of rape.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1484 takes a firm stand against sexual assault by ensuring that judges have the power to impose harsher sentences on rapists who cause pregnancy, regardless of the victim’s age. Right now, the law only considers this an aggravating factor when the victim is a minor, but that leaves adult survivors without the same level of justice. HB 1484 closes this loophole and strengthens protections for all victims.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1491 aims to enhance community and transit-oriented housing development in Washington. It emphasizes creating vibrant urban environments that prioritize affordable housing and improve public health through better transportation options. Key amendments include specific income thresholds set for rental and owner-occupied housing. The bill also mandates that cities allow multifamily residential housing in station areas. Additionally, the legislation establishes a grant program to assist cities in developing infrastructure for transit-oriented development (TOD) and outlines regulations that prevent cities from requiring off-street parking for residential or mixed-use developments in station areas. It introduces categorical exemptions for certain project actions within designated urban growth areas, provided they meet specific criteria, and mandates that cities require applicants to record covenants ensuring affordable units remain available for a minimum of 99 years.
This bill restricts local control by mandating zoning changes rather than allowing cities and counties to tailor housing policies to their unique needs and imposes state-directed density requirements in station areas, limiting municipalities’ ability to address infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character. The legislation requires higher-density housing development without guaranteeing corresponding funding for roads, schools, emergency services, and utilities which will lead to traffic congestion, overburdened transit systems, and increased demand for public safety services. While it requires cities to implement higher density zoning, it does not provide sufficient state funding for infrastructure upgrades. Property tax exemptions in TOD areas will reduce local revenue, impacting essential services such as police, fire, and schools. Encouraging TOD can also lead to increased property values and rent hikes, potentially displacing lower-income residents in transit-rich areas.
Eliminating off-street parking minimums in TOD areas may disproportionately affect residents who rely on personal vehicles, particularly those with disabilities, families with children, and workers who require a car for employment. Insufficient parking could negatively impact small businesses in TOD areas, increasing congestion and reducing accessibility for customers. Furthermore, urban, suburban, and rural areas have different housing needs and transit availability, but the bill applies the same requirements without considering regional differences. Some areas may lack sufficient transit services to justify TOD mandates, leading to poorly planned developments that do not meet local demand. Lastly, the requirement for state approval of local zoning modifications adds another layer of bureaucracy while the periodic compliance reports and ongoing affordability monitoring will increase administrative burdens on local governments.
Bill Summary
HB 1497 imposes rigid container coloring and labeling requirements statewide by 2028—rules that could cost cities millions just to comply. For example, the City of Kirkland estimates a $4 million price tag simply to replace bins that are still functional. This isn’t just expensive—it’s wasteful and ironically counter to sustainability goals. The bill also mandates non-elective organic waste collection for virtually all customers starting in 2030, regardless of need or practicality. This one-size-fits-all requirement ignores regional differences in infrastructure, climate, and existing practices. Even businesses that manage their own organic waste effectively could face bureaucratic headaches and steep fines—up to $1,000 per day—if they fall out of compliance.
Labeling rules and rigid bin color standards may sound minor, but they pose a logistical nightmare for cities and waste haulers operating across multiple jurisdictions. Instead of promoting flexibility or innovation, the bill locks communities into a state-mandated model that may not work for their residents. Moreover, this bill continues to expand the authority and scope of the Department of Ecology. It funds additional programs and grants while containing a vague “null and void” clause dependent on future appropriations—raising questions about whether this legislation is even financially viable. This bill is not smart environmental policy—it’s harsh government overreach, and a costly and hard “Green Fist” into local communities.