This bill adds a new section to chapter 43.21B RCW and amends RCW 43.21B.090 to allow, as a procedural option in permit appeals, the case to be heard by alternative Pollution Control Hearings Board compositions when all parties to the appeal consent and the hearings board gives unanimous approval. Permitted alternative compositions include an administrative appeals judge who meets the qualifications in RCW 43.21B.005; a board that includes a member of the land use board or the shorelines hearings board who meets the experience and training qualifications in RCW 43.21B.020; or a single member of the hearings board or a qualifying member of the land use or shorelines board. The statute directs that selection of an alternative composition should prioritize efficient use of administrative resources. This is a procedural change to adjudicative process and does not create a new crime or change penalties. The amendment to RCW 43.21B.090 restates that the hearings board’s principal office is at the state capitol but that hearings may be held elsewhere, clarifies that a majority of the hearings board constitutes a quorum except as provided in the new section, allows the board to act even if one position is vacant, and permits one or more members to hold hearings and take testimony when authorized by board rule or order. Affected entities include the Pollution Control Hearings Board, the Land Use Board, the Shorelines Hearings Board, administrative appeals judges, and parties to permit appeals. The bill passed the House on February 11, 2026 (96-0) and the Senate on March 6, 2026 (48-0). The provided text does not show an effective date or whether the Governor signed the bill, does not supply the new section’s RCW number, and does not include the full qualification details from RCW 43.21B.005 or RCW 43.21B.020 or any procedures for how unanimous board approval must be obtained or documented.

If enacted, permit appeals before the Pollution Control Hearings Board could be handled by smaller or different panels—including a single qualified judge or a member drawn from the land use or shorelines boards—when every party to the appeal agrees and the hearings board gives unanimous approval. In practice this is likely to make scheduling more flexible and use administrative resources more efficiently, which could shorten wait times and lower travel and staffing costs for both the state and parties in many cases, but the unanimous board approval and party consent requirement will limit how often that option is used. The groups most affected are the hearings board itself (its members and staff), parties to permit appeals, and the administrative appeals judges or members of the land use and shorelines boards who may be asked to hear cases; these actors may see changed workloads and potentially lower per-case costs, while the state may realize some savings from fewer full-board hearings. Key implementation details are missing here—such as the bill’s effective date, how unanimous approval is documented, and the specific qualifications referenced in other RCWs—so the scale and timing of those practical effects are uncertain.