This bill creates a new campus energy upgrades committee in the Department of Commerce to develop a scoring and ranking process for capital decarbonization projects for state campus district energy systems (as referenced in RCW 19.27A.260). The committee must adopt project scoring criteria, provide submission guidelines and templates, hold meetings under the Open Public Meetings Act with public comment, and produce a preliminary report by December 30, 2026, and recurring prioritized project reports by November 15 of each even-numbered year beginning in 2028 (with an option to submit supplemental lists in odd-numbered years). The committee’s membership, staggered twoand three-year terms, chair selection, reimbursement rules, and a rule to retain the ranked position of top 35% projects not yet funded are specified, and the law expresses legislative intent that appropriations for these decarbonization projects be additive to routine capital funding. The bill also amends existing budget law and related RCWs to change procedural requirements for budget submissions and documents. Agencies must submit budget requests to the director at least three months before OFM deadlines; the governor’s budget message and budget document must include expanded explanatory material and schedules (including multi‑biennial capital plans and long‑range facilities plans), and beginning with the 2021-2023 biennium operating budget documents must show a positive ending general fund balance. Capital appropriations for state campus district energy systems must identify consistency with the committee’s recommendations. The bill requires prior legislative concurrence before changing the format used to present agency or program information in budget documents, and directs a joint legislative/OFM committee to define “capital project.” New sections are added to chapter 19.27A RCW and multiple existing RCW sections are amended or referenced. This is primarily the creation of a new administrative body and a set of procedural changes to how projects are prioritized and how budget documents and capital requests are prepared and presented; it does not create new crimes or change criminal penalties in the extracted text. Some details are missing from the provided excerpts: the statutory text defining “state campus district energy systems” is not included here, the amendment to RCW 43.88.030 is incomplete, and portions of the budget timing and term definitions are cut off, so a few implementation specifics could not be confirmed from these extracts.

The bill creates a Department of Commerce–hosted campus energy upgrades committee that will score and rank state campus district energy decarbonization projects and deliver a preliminary report by December 30, 2026 and recurring prioritized lists (even-numbered years, with optional odd-year supplements). Agencies that own or operate campus district energy systems will need to supply discrete project elements, greenhouse gas and energy savings estimates, cost estimates, and schedules as part of those submissions, and capital requests for such systems must identify how they are consistent with the committee’s recommendations. The committee’s public meetings, required scoring process, and its analysis of barriers to energy-as-a-service and public‑private partnerships are likely to steer which projects the governor and Legislature consider for funding and could open the door to alternative financing approaches. These changes most directly affect state agencies with campus district energy systems, the Department of Commerce (staffing and administration), OFM (earlier budget submission timing and review), the Legislature and budget committees (receiving prioritized lists), utilities, organized labor, and the state treasurer (who all have seats or roles on the committee). Affected agencies should expect added planning and reporting work and possible upfront costs to prepare compliant, scored project submissions, but projects that rank highly may have better chances for future capital funding (top 35% projects generally keep their ranked position if not funded). Important details remain unclear from the extracted facts—such as the full statutory definition of “state campus district energy systems,” how strictly appropriations must follow the committee’s lists, and the incomplete amendment language referenced—so some implementation and funding outcomes are uncertain.