Representative Beth D'Oleo introduced House Bill 17-21 and argued the measure would open Washington to direct sales by manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), correcting what she called an uneven market created when the state granted Tesla an exception in 2014.

"Washington denies consumers the choice to buy vehicles directly from American EV automakers," Representative Beth D'Oleo said, adding that single-company exceptions “created an uneven playing field, reduced competition, and limited consumer choice.” She described Colorado's visible Rivian fleet and said Washington should retain the economic benefits of EV investment.

Staff briefing and key provisions
- Megan Mulvihill, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s major changes for ZEVs and for the franchise system. Key ZEV-specific provisions in the bill as described by staff:
- A qualified ZEV manufacturer may provide direct retail sales if it establishes at least two in‑state service centers and provides a mobile service for vehicle owners within the state.
- ZEV manufacturers may offer online direct sales provided delivery occurs through a designated service center, delivery center, or partnership dealership.
- Direct-sale ZEVs must include a warranty covering repairs and maintenance at a designated service center.
- Subject to funding, the Department of Commerce must establish a ZEV technician training and charging-infrastructure grant program. Grant funding may be used for publicly available ZEV charging infrastructure and employee training.
- A traditional auto dealer that partners with a manufacturer as a service or delivery partner is eligible for a one-time grant to help cover costs of servicing ZEVs; dealers that achieve 50% ZEV sales by 7/1/2030 may receive an additional award.
- Department of Licensing reporting requirements: beginning 7/1/2026 annual review of access and impacts, and a report due 7/1/2034 including a recommendation on whether to retain, modify or repeal an authorization for direct sales.
- Dealership-size market-area adjustments: in some counties the radius expands from 8 to 10 miles for new or relocated sites when population thresholds are met.
- Prohibitions on specific manufacturer practices such as subscription charges for built-in vehicle features that would otherwise function without ongoing support.

Support and testimony in favor
- Rivian representatives and other new‑entrant advocates testified in support. Arguments in favor included increased consumer choice, faster EV adoption, more in‑state investment and technician training, and equity and emissions benefits. Supporters emphasized that the bill would allow manufacturers to partner with local dealers for service and delivery and that grants and training could help onboard the dealer network for EV maintenance.
- Hannah Steinweg (Rivian) said Washington’s exception for Tesla “limits competition, hurts consumer choice and access.”
- Christopher Kaufman (Rivian general manager) described consumer frustration when test drives or showroom visits are restricted.
- Port of Seattle, IBEW (electrician union), Washington Building and Construction trades and climate organizations expressed support, noting potential emissions reductions and jobs from faster EV adoption.

Opposition and concerns
- Franchise dealer groups, legacy automakers and dealer owners testified in opposition. Their primary concerns: the franchise dealer model provides widespread same‑day service and parts access across rural and underserved communities; direct-sales carve-outs could disadvantage dealers who invest in community service networks; a bifurcated system would create inconsistent rules and grant advantages to select manufacturers.
- Susan Daga, general counsel for the Washington State Auto Dealers Association, noted franchise dealers employ “over 20,000 workers, accounting for nearly $2,000,000,000 in annual payroll” and provide service in many communities.
- Joel Olsen, a dealer in Walla Walla, cautioned that companies typically do not set up service centers in smaller towns, potentially reducing access to repairs and warranty service outside metro areas.
- Several major manufacturers and industry groups (Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Honda and others) opposed the bill for creating special regulatory treatment rather than a single set of rules for all manufacturers.

Points of clarification from staff and sponsors
- Staff, Megan Mulvihill, clarified that the proposed Commerce grant program is “subject to funding” and the bill does not specify a dedicated funding source.
- The sponsor, Representative D'Oleo, said she was open to amendments and expressed willingness to work on equity and access language, including potential ties to existing state EV rebate and charging programs.

Why the discussion matters
- The bill would change how new ZEV manufacturers enter and operate in the Washington market. Proponents argue it will expand consumer choice and speed EV adoption; opponents say it risks weakening local service networks and creating uneven regulatory treatment.

Where it stands
- The bill drew extensive public testimony both pro and con and will be considered further following the committee’s executive actions. No final floor action was recorded during the public‑testimony segment of this meeting.

Speakers (selected)
- Megan Mulvihill, staff to the committee (staff briefing). First referenced 00:11:02.
- Representative Beth D'Oleo, prime sponsor (remarks and Q&A). First referenced 00:18:32.
- Hannah Steinweg, Rivian (support). First referenced 00:40:12.
- Christopher Kaufman, Rivian (general manager) (support). First referenced 00:40:53.
- Susan Daga, general counsel, Washington State Auto Dealers Association (opposition). First referenced 00:41:43.
- Joel Olsen, owner/operator, Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Walla Walla (opposition). First referenced 00:41:56.
- Kurt Augustine, Alliance for Automotive Innovation (opposition). First referenced 00:42:36.

Notes and limitations
- Descriptions of grant programs, reporting requirements and fee allowances are taken from the staff briefing as read into the record by committee staff and the sponsor; funding for the Commerce grants was repeatedly described as “subject to funding” and no specific funding source was identified in the briefing.

Ending
- The committee heard broad testimony for and against HB17-21 and acknowledged ongoing policy tradeoffs around consumer choice, rural service access, equity and climate objectives. Sponsors offered to work with stakeholders on amendments to address concerns.