Note: The following e-newsletter was sent to Sen. Shelly Short’s subscribers Feb. 28, 2025. To subscribe to Sen. Short’s e-newsletters, click here.

Wood-burning stove. / Credit: CC0-by-Alex P

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

The state Department of Ecology gave us some good news last week. It is backing off on a proposal to double down on woodstove regulation and duplicate what the feds are already doing. This might remind you of that old Firesign Theater sketch about the Department of Redundancy Department, but it was no joke. If state regulators had their way, they would have been the ones to decide whether woodstoves sold in Washington state meet federal emissions standards.

This separate state testing program would have imposed enormous costs on manufacturers and consumers, and many makers of clean-burning modern stoves would have exited the Washington market due to the cost of compliance.

Ecology brought this proposal to the Legislature with the curious argument that they don’t trust the feds to enforce their own regulations. My side of the aisle was gearing up for war. For years environmental groups and the bureaucracy have been trying to crack down on woodstoves, and I am sure there are many who would like to see them banned altogether. Yet for many of us who live in rural areas, wood stoves are a part of life, an inexpensive and thoroughly reliable way to heat our homes. We must keep this option available.

Late last week, Ecology told us it is dropping its effort to pass Senate Bill 5174 and impose these new regulations. Ecology acknowledges that its timing was poor. A year when the Legislature faces a multi-billion shortfall is not a good time to launch a brand-new state program, especially when it aims to do exactly the same thing that the feds already are doing. This goes double when the argument is based on speculation. An internal report criticized federal testing programs two years ago, but woodstove manufacturers tell us the feds are now enforcing regulations aggressively. This outcome demonstrates that good sense sometimes prevails in Olympia, and let us savor this victory while we can. It would not be a surprise if Ecology tries to play this card again in a future legislative session.

Wolf bills die in deadline drama

House Democrats hold important measure hostage for the return of grizzlies, and legislative cutoff kills both bills

Last Friday, Feb. 21, was the first of the Legislature’s “cutoffs,” a deadline for policy committees to pass bills for further consideration in this year’s legislative session. These deadlines drive our sessions to adjournment, and they are the source of many of the dramas we see as lawmakers seek committee hearings and votes on their bills. Unfortunately, a bill of great importance to our area was a casualty of one of these deadline maneuvers.. My seatmate Andrew Engell was forced to kill his own bill, and kudos to him for not bowing to pressure.

This was House Bill 1311, requiring the state to downlist the gray wolf from “threatened” to “sensitive.” The state Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended the downlisting last year after federal officials lifted an endangered species listing in the eastern third of the state. Downlisting recognizes that wolf populations are thriving in Northeastern and North-Central Washington, and gives state officials more flexibility in dealing with problem packs that prey on livestock. Unfortunately, the state Fish and Wildlife Commission rejected the proposal.

The bill appeared poised to pass the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on deadline day, but before a vote could take place, committee leaders decided to tie it to a bill that could lead to the reintroduction of grizzlies in Washington state, a proposal widely opposed in our region. They insisted that Engell provide his vote as a quid-pro-quo. Engell told them no, and both bills died. Absolutely the right call, in my opinion, and we will have to keep working on wolf legislation next year.

Also dead for the session are a pair of bills introduced by myself and my other seatmate, Hunter Abell, providing local control of wolf management programs (SB 5354 and HB 1442). But a pair of bills I have introduced remain alive. The Senate has passed SB 5343, providing funding through the Northeastern Washington wolf-management account to for a local wildlife specialist to aid counties in our region in non-lethal wolf management. Meanwhile, another bill awaits a vote by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, SB 5171, providing compensation for livestock owners for indirect damages due to wolf predation.

Road Usage Charge will be major issue in session’s second half

Debates on budget, taxes and major policy issues are expected

With the Legislature’s first major cutoff behind us, we are starting to see what the biggest debates will be in the second half of our legislative session, leading to our scheduled adjournment April 27.

Budget and Taxes – Bills affecting state budgets are exempt from the cutoff and remain in play through the end of the session. This year, due to irresponsible spending by our colleagues in previous sessions, we face a shortfall of about $6.7 billion, and it gets bigger if we include their wish-list for new spending this year. Our majority colleagues are getting ready to push big new taxes. For our part, we’ll be demanding responsible budgeting, sustainable spending, and cuts to unnecessary and duplicative programs.
Major policy debates – Several pieces of legislation are advancing that are likely to provoke major debate. These include rent control, reform of the governor’s emergency powers, and unemployment insurance for striking workers. There is a proposal to make it harder for the people to collect signatures for initiatives and referendums and many more. In addition, a hugely controversial bill to gut last year’s parental rights initiative has already passed the Senate, and will soon be considered in the House.
Road Usage Charge – This proposal would have such a devastating impact on our area that it warrants a category all its own. We all understand that gas taxes won’t provide enough to maintain our roads once electric vehicles become commonplace. But proposals this session for a Road Usage Charge, 2.6 cents per mile, are a poor substitute. This idea disproportionately affects rural districts where we must drive long distances, raises concerns about implementation and collection, and forces us to trust promises that the gas tax would eventually go away. This proposal has been introduced in the House and Senate and will be a factor as we consider transportation budgets this year.

There are better ideas. I favor a proposal that sales taxes on vehicles be dedicated to transportation purposes, a more equitable solution for all sections of the state. Other solutions also have been discussed. So stay tuned: What happens next in this year’s session is of critical importance to the people of the 7^th Legislative District and the state as a whole.

Thanks for reading — it is an honor serving you!