The Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee on Feb. 14 heard testimony on House Bill 1860, which would create a state Supply Chain Competitiveness Infrastructure Program to provide grants and loans to public and tribal ports for freight and port‑adjacent projects.

Rep. Reed, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the measure is intended to remove “barriers and bottlenecks to goods movement” that raise costs and deter investment. “The supply chain competitiveness improvement program allows investments to overcome this challenge by funding both port and port adjacent infrastructure,” she said.

The bill would require the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to set program priorities, collaborate with identified supply‑chain stakeholders to develop performance metrics, and publish an eligible project list tied to freight development plans that ports adopt as part of their harbor improvement plans. A project must be included in a freight development plan and align with six programmatic goals, the analysis states, including operations, efficiency, market access and mitigation for impacted communities. The bill also creates an account in the state treasury for the program.

Port representatives testified in strong support and described the types of projects they expect to propose. Chris Herman of the Washington Public Ports Association said the program is statewide and includes tribal port eligibility. “This legislation creates a new grant and loan program, within the state,” he said, adding that many projects involve port or near‑port infrastructure on city streets, county roads or the state highway system.

Sean Egan of the Northwest Seaport Alliance described the supply chain as the state’s economic “circulatory system” and urged investment to avoid the kinds of shortages seen during the pandemic. He gave examples ranging from an inland rail hub in Central or Eastern Washington to repairs at Terminal 7, which handles military hardware.

John Flanagan, state government relations for the Port of Seattle, said the program’s flexibility could support clean‑fuel and sustainable maritime fuel infrastructure in addition to traditional cargo handling. Other port officials described local needs: the Port of Benton’s inland rail project (a recent $9.5 million federal grant was mentioned as at-risk), Port of Bellingham’s $50 million modernization (including a $19 million BNSF reconnection), Port of Everett’s need to replace a seawall and create over‑dimensional cargo corridors, and Port Angeles’ century‑old pilings and terminal needs.

Committee members asked whether funding would be available in the current budget; witnesses and the sponsor said the bill primarily establishes the program and policy framework and that funding conversations with transportation budget writers would continue. “We’re not trying to create any sort of potential bow waves,” one port witness said, noting the bill does not require immediate state spending but creates a vehicle that can be funded in the future.

The committee took public testimony from city, port and tribal representatives and closed the hearing on HB 1860 without taking a committee vote that day. The bill will return to the committee process if and when a funding source or further committee action is proposed.

The record includes multiple project examples and local dollar figures offered by port representatives; those specifics will inform future prioritization if the program is funded.