Concerning inspections of licensed marijuana processors' equipment and facilities.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when HB 1920 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on HB 1920.
You're tracking HB 1920
We'll email you the moment it moves.
HB 1920 — Concerning inspections of licensed marijuana processors' equipment and facilities.
Last action — By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed House
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed House” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removedPlain-language change summary
The updated version of Bill HB 1920 allows inspections of marijuana processing facilities to be conducted not only by local fire code officials but also by the director of fire protection or accredited commercial electrical inspectors if the local official does not respond within thirty days of a request. Additionally, the new version removes a requirement that electrical safety standards must be adhered to, streamlining oversight for marijuana processors. This change aims to expedite the inspection process and ensure compliance with safety regulations while still holding processors accountable for their operations.
H-1760.1SUBSTITUTEH-1383.2HOUSE HOUSE BILL 1920State of Washington65th Legislature2017 Regular SessionBy House Commerce & Gaming (originally sponsored by Representatives Condotta, Sawyer, Blake, Young, and Appleton)READAppletonRead FIRSTfirst TIMEtime 02/16/17.AN02/02/17. ACT Relating to inspections of licensed marijuana processors' equipment and facilities;
Referred to Committee on Commerce & Gaming.AN ACT Relating to inspections of licensed marijuana processors' equipment and facilities;
Cooking oil, butter, and other nonexplosive home cooking substances may be used to make marijuana extracts for noncommercial personal use.(2) Except for the use of butane, the state liquor and cannabis board may not enforce this section until it has adopted the rules required by RCW 69.51A.270.(3)(a) Any inspection of or approval of a marijuana processor's professional closed loop systems, equipment, extraction operation, or facilities to ensure compliance with applicable fire, safety, or building code requirements that must be performed by a local fire code official pursuant to state liquor and cannabis board rule may, instead, be performed by the director of fire protection or designee, or by an accredited commercial electrical inspector, if the marijuana processor requests that the local fire code official perform the inspection or approval described in (a) of this subsection and thirty calendar days after the date of the request the local fire code official has not performed the inspection or approval.approval.(b) If an inspection or approval described in (a) of this subsection is performed by the director of fire protection or designee, or by an accredited commercial electrical inspector, the county, city, or town in which the licensee is located shall reimburse the director of fire protection or designee, or the accredited commercial electrical inspector, as appropriate, for the costs of performing the inspection or approval within thirty calendar days of receiving a request for reimbursement.(c) Nothing in this subsection (3) requires a local fire code official, the director of fire protection or designee, or an accredited commercial electrical inspector to approve of a marijuana processor's professional closed loop systems, equipment, extraction operation, or facilities if the systems, equipment, operation, or facilities is not in compliance with applicable fire, safety, or building code requirements.(d) For purposes of this subsection (3), "director of fire protection" means the director of fire protection described in RCW 43.43.938.--- END ---
In addition to the requirements of this chapter, all electrical wiring and equipment must conform to chapter 19.28 RCW requirements for electrical safety to life and property including, but not limited to, electrical contractor licensing, electrician certification, and electrical permitting and inspection.(b) If an inspection or approval described in (a) of this subsection is performed by the director of fire protection or designee, the county, city, or town in which the licensee is located shall reimburse the director of fire protection or designee, as appropriate, for the costs of performing the inspection or approval within thirty calendar days of receiving a request for reimbursement.(c) Nothing in this subsection (3) requires a local fire code official or the director of fire protection or designee to approve of a marijuana processor's professional closed loop systems, equipment, extraction operation, or facilities if the systems, equipment, operation, or facilities is not in compliance with applicable fire, safety, or building code requirements.(d) For purposes of this subsection (3), "director of fire protection" means the director of fire protection described in RCW 43.43.938.--- END ---
View plain text versions (2)
- Bill View text Current html
- Substitute Substitute Bill html
Action History
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
Referred to Appropriations.
-
Referred to Appropriations.
-
COG - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
COG - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
First reading, referred to Commerce & Gaming (Not Officially read and referred until adoption of Introduction report).
Sponsors
- Condotta · Primary
- Appleton · Cosponsor
- Blake · Cosponsor
- Sawyer · Cosponsor
- Young · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 4 co-sponsors · 146 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Condotta
Co-sponsors (4)
- Appleton
- Blake
- Sawyer
- Young
Not signed on (146)
146 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 146 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors HB 1920?
- HB 1920 is sponsored by Condotta, Appleton, Blake, Sawyer, and Young.
- What is the current status of HB 1920?
- This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed House” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track HB 1920?
- Track HB 1920 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 1920
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 1920
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →