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 1971 increases access to hormone therapy, which can be used to support transgenderism. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest supporter of abortion and so-called gender-affirming care, notes: “If HB 1971 is enacted, Washington will be the first in the nation to pass legislation increasing access to hormone therapy medication. For countless Washingtonians — whether it’s managing menopause, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), hyperandrogenism, gender-affirming care, or other essential health needs — this legislation is a game-changer.”
By mandating that health plans cover a 12-month supply of prescription hormone therapy at one time, rather than a 1-month supply, the bill removes important safeguards in prescription management. One major concern is patient safety. Hormone therapy requires careful monitoring, and a full-year supply could lead to misuse, incorrect dosage adjustments, or unmonitored side effects. Regular medical check-ups ensure that dosages remain appropriate and that patients do not experience adverse reactions. This bill could reduce those necessary interactions between patients and their doctors. Additionally, the financial burden on health insurers could lead to increased premiums for everyone. Requiring insurers to reimburse large, up-front supplies of medication forces them to take on higher financial risks, which they may offset by raising costs for all enrollees. Instead of helping patients, this bill could make healthcare less affordable overall.
While ensuring access to necessary medications is important, HB 1971 overlooks the complexities of responsible prescription management. Rather than improving healthcare, it could lead to unintended consequences, such as medication misuse, higher healthcare costs, and pharmacy supply challenges. Ensuring that patients receive the care they need should involve ongoing medical oversight, not just a one-time, large-quantity dispensation.
-
Transportation
Allowing certain private employer transportation services to use certain public transportation facilities.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1980 allows private employer transportation services to use designated transit-only lanes, and thus prioritizing sustainability and reducing traffic congestion. Employers who offer transportation for their employees help take cars off the road, easing congestion for all commuters. Rep. Janice Zahn, the main sponsor, highlights this point on her website: “This bill allows King County Metro and cities to issue permits for employer shuttles to use bus-only transit lanes—including on the upcoming RapidRide K Line. By optimizing existing transit infrastructure, we improve commuting options and reduce congestion.”
There are millions of commuters in these areas, and many workers rely on employer-provided transportation to get to and from work efficiently. When employer-run shuttles share transit lanes, fewer single-occupancy vehicles clog the roads. This means shorter commute times for everyone, including public transit riders. HB 1980 ensures that private employer shuttles meet strict criteria, including annual certification from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). These regulations check that the shared use of transit lanes remains safe, reliable, and efficient. This bill does not interfere with public transportation operations but instead complements them.
Finally, HB 1980 aligns with Washington’s long-term transportation goals by making better use of existing infrastructure rather than requiring costly new projects. It’s a fiscally responsible way to enhance mobility. Counties with large populations, such as King County, must embrace flexible, innovative transportation solutions. Employer-provided transit is already reducing congestion, and this bill ensures it can operate more effectively.
-
Energy
Authorizing utility companies to securitize certain costs related to disasters or emergencies to lower costs to customers.
Bill Summary
The proposed bill authorizes electrical, gas, and water companies in Washington State to utilize securitization financing for costs related to disasters or emergencies, aiming to lower customer costs. It establishes a framework for companies to petition the utilities and transportation commission for financing orders that designate specific expenditures as bondable, which can then be financed through rate recovery bonds. The bill introduces new definitions for “rate recovery assets,” “rate recovery bonds,” and “financing orders,” while ensuring that securitized debt is not classified as public debt. The commission’s authority over rates and services is preserved, and it is mandated to evaluate the reasonableness of expenditures and the benefits of securitization for customers.
Significant amendments include the removal of previous requirements for companies to seek determinations on bondable conservation investments and the introduction of new terms clarifying the nature of rate recovery assets. The bill emphasizes that rate recovery charges are irrevocable until all costs are paid, preventing changes by the commission or state agencies. It also establishes a process for transferring rate recovery assets, ensuring protection against claims and outlining the rights of secured parties. Additionally, costs for energy or water conservation measures can be classified as bondable if they meet specific criteria, and the bill includes provisions to maintain the rights of companies under approved contracts even in bankruptcy situations. The act is designed to take effect immediately, highlighting its significance for public safety and state governance.
-
Safety
Improving public safety funding by providing resources to local governments and state and local criminal justice agencies, and authorizing a local option tax.
Bill Summary
HB 2015 is another tax increase, and it is an unnecessary tax increase disguised as a public safety measure that burdens local communities without real accountability. By authorizing a new 0.1% sales and use tax, this bill raises the cost of everyday goods and services, disproportionately impacting low-income residents. While it claims to fund law enforcement, the bill ties grant eligibility to compliance with politically driven policies, limiting how local agencies can use the funds. This means some communities might be forced to adopt policies that do not align with their specific safety needs just to receive financial support. As we have noted before: The crime problem is not rooted in a lack of funding, but it includes a lack of proper punishment for crime, an undermining of police use, and far too many “soft-on-crime” judges.
Additionally, the bill mandates spending on retention bonuses and recruitment but does not guarantee that these efforts will actually improve public safety. Instead of focusing on proven crime reduction strategies, HB 2015 creates bureaucratic hurdles that could lead to inefficiencies and misallocated resources. The requirement that agencies impose the new tax to qualify for grants effectively forces local governments into raising taxes rather than giving them flexibility in budget decisions. Public safety should be prioritized through responsible spending and policy reforms, not by coercing cities into tax increases. Furthermore, the bill lacks sufficient oversight to ensure the tax revenue is spent effectively.
-
Taxes
Creating a business and occupation tax deduction and increasing the rate for persons conducting payment card processing activities.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2020 introduces a new 3% business and occupation (B&O) tax rate specifically for businesses involved in payment card processing activities, while also allowing them to deduct certain fees, such as interchange and network fees, from that taxable income. Although it claims to bring clarity and fairness to the tax treatment of payment processors, the bill raises serious concerns about the precedent it sets and the potential downstream impacts on consumers and small businesses.
At its core, HB 2020 raises taxes on a narrow sector of the financial services industry—payment processors—by creating a higher tax rate than the standard B&O rate applied to most other service businesses. The state’s typical B&O tax rate for services is 1.5%–1.75%, but this bill more than doubles that for these businesses. While some argue this merely aligns taxation with revenue sources and avoids taxing pass-through fees, the real burden may still fall on the businesses that rely on these processors—and by extension, on consumers who will likely see fees and prices increase to offset higher taxes.
The bill carves out some deductions for specific transaction-related fees, but the details are complex and narrowly tailored. Additionally, this bill may ultimately consolidate market power in the hands of a few large payment processors who can absorb the increased costs, while pushing out smaller processors and innovators who cannot compete under such an uneven tax framework. That’s bad news for competition, bad news for small businesses, and bad news for consumers.