A Summary of District Energy System Decarbonization Plans
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Report
- Case
- 2026 Decarb Legislative Report V12 31 25 Final 10883D3E F58F 4Ea6 Ae2D Ce48
Summary
A Summary of District Energy System Decarbonization Plans, a report to the Legislature dated March 2026 from the Washington State Department of Commerce Clean Buildings Program. The report states that it satisfies the requirement in section 4 of RCW 19.27A.260 and describes how House Bill 1390, enacted in 2023, requires owners of state campus district energy systems to submit decarbonization plans to Commerce by June 30, 2025. It reports that Commerce identified 32 state-owned campus district energy systems, that 27 submitted plans on time, and that two privately owned systems opted in. It summarizes common strategies such as heat pumps, heat-recovery chillers, geothermal systems and thermal energy storage, cites challenges including high capital costs and grid readiness, and offers possible next steps. It closes with Table G-1, listing projected energy use intensity by campus.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“A Summary of District Energy System Decarbonization Plans.”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2026-decarb-legislative-report-v12-31-25-final-10883d3e-f58f-4ea6-ae2d-ce48/
, SHA-256 3ce993894b84a14e95a67d64e879a066903b90bb35f8b2a926277a2865cf7341.Full text
A Summary of District Energy System
Decarbonization Plans
Alternative compliance pathway pursuant to section 4 of RCW 19.27A.260
March 2026
Report to the Legislature
CLEAN BUILDINGS PROGRAM Director Joe Nguyễn
v4
Acknowledgments
Washington State Department of Commerce
Jennifer Grove, Assistant Director, Energy Division
Emily Salzberg, Managing Director, Clean Buildings
Program
Annalyn Bergin, Compliance Lead, Clean Buildings
Program
Luke Howard, Technical Support Lead, Clean
Buildings Program
Callum Cleary, Technical Coordinator, Clean Buildings
Program
University of Colorado
Gregor Henze, PhD, PE
1011 Plum Street SE
P.O. Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
www.commerce.wa.gov
For people with disabilities, this report is available on
request in other formats. Please call 360-725-4000 with
your request.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 2
Table of contents
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................................4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................6
Decarbonization plans summary..........................................................................................................................8
Key challenges.................................................................................................................................................. 11
Possible next steps ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A: Submitted plans by campus and agency ......................................................................................... 14
Appendix B: Unsubmitted plans by campus and agency ..................................................................................... 15
Appendix C: Projected decarbonization cost ...................................................................................................... 16
Appendix D: Comparative summary of decarbonization plans ............................................................................ 17
Appendix E: Summary of ideas and strategies ................................................................................................... 20
Appendix F: Summary of waste heat and cooling partnership opportunities ........................................................ 24
Appendix G: Summary projected energy use intensity ........................................................................................ 25
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 3
Executive summary
Legislative Mandate
The Washington State Legislature established the Clean Buildings Act, outlined in RCW 19.27A.210-260, 1 to
improve the energy efficiency of large existing buildings and to put the state on a path to meet our greenhouse gas
(GHG) reduction limits as outlined in RCW 70A.45.020. 2 With the enactment of House Bill 1390 in 2023,
Washington became the first state in the nation to mandate comprehensive decarbonization plans for state owned
campus-scale district energy systems, including the buildings connected to these systems. These plans, spanning
over 15 years, must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) by June 30,
2025, and provide a coordinated roadmap for transitioning district energy systems from fossil fuel infrastructure to
modern, low-carbon energy networks.
This report satisfies the requirement in section 4 of RCW 19.27A.260:
(4) The Department of Commerce must provide a summary report on the decarbonization plans required in subsection (3)
of this section to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by December 1, 2025. 3
Overview
This report outlines Washington’s strategic approach to decarbonizing campus-scale district energy systems in
alignment with the Clean Buildings Act and the greenhouse gas reduction targets outlined in RCW 70A.45.020.
Examples of modernizing energy systems include, but are not limited to:
Replace old steam boilers with newer technologies like low-temperature heating networks
Use of high-efficiency electric heat pumps
Install heat-recovery chillers
Install geothermal systems
This approach represents a strategic shift from isolated, incremental building upgrades to implementing a broader,
coordinated energy transformation strategy across entire district energy systems, leading to greater energy
efficiency and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Washington’s strategic approach to
decarbonizing campus-scale district energy systems in large existing buildings puts the state on a path to meet its
greenhouse gas reduction limits, leverage future energy networks, share heating and cooling resources, and utilize
waste heat.
Commerce identified 32 state-owned campus district energy systems that met the definition outline in RCW
19.27A.260. Of those 32 state-owned systems, 27 submitted decarbonization plans on time. Alongside these
submittals, two privately owned campus district energy systems opted in to submitted for review. The submitted
plans help the state better understand cost estimates for decarbonizing at the district scale. These plans identify
capital investment needs in the billions of dollars across multiple budget cycles. The estimated costs range widely,
depending on the size, complexity and condition of existing identified systems and infrastructure. While there is an
expectation of long-term savings and associated benefits in energy and operations, institutions are facing
significant hurdles, including high upfront costs to modernize, aging infrastructure and limitations within existing
energy grid capacity. To move forward effectively and keep costs manageable, support from state investment,
federal incentives and collaboration with utilities will be crucial.
1 Washington Legislature, "RCW 19.27A.210-260 State energy performance standard,"
2 Washington Legislature, "RCW 70A.45.020 Greenhouse gas emissions reductions—Reporting requirements,"
3 Washington State Legislature, "Revised Code of Washington 19.27A.260, subsection 4,"
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 4
Common strategies emerging across plans include:
Electrification through air-source technologies to reduce reliance on fossil fuels
Installation of ground-source heat pumps and heat-recovery chillers to improve energy efficiency
Integration of geothermal and ambient-loop systems to enable thermal exchange between buildings and the
ground
Deployment of thermal energy storage to manage peak electrical demand and enhance grid flexibility
Hybrid and phased implementation aligned with capital renewal cycles for cost-effective transitions
Industrial symbiosis and waste-heat partnerships with utilities and nearby facilities to maximize energy recovery
The decarbonization strategy presents an opportunity to invest in the required workforce for implementation.
Transitioning to clean and efficient building systems will require a workforce of trained professionals, such as
engineers, skilled tradespeople and facility managers proficient in building automation, electrification and district
energy operations. Connecting these infrastructure projects with statewide training and apprenticeship programs
will ensure Washington’s decarbonization initiative delivers on projected economic and employment benefits.
Despite challenges such as high capital costs, electrical grid readiness and complex operational phases, the
submitted decarbonization plans demonstrate that a clean energy transition across the state is possible and
beneficial. These plans establish Washington as a national leader in district-level decarbonization. They combine
energy efficiency, workforce development and climate action within a clear set of policies that integrate building
performance standards, district level decarbonization and decarbonizing our electricity supply into a focused
strategy.
Possible next steps
Drawing on the analysis of the decarbonization plans, Commerce offers the following possible next steps to
continue to advance this work and meet the state's goals around building decarbonization:
Consider developing a range of criteria for prioritizing investments. A range of criteria is important to accurately
evaluate priorities. These might include a focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, energy use intensity (EUI)
reductions, shovel readiness, grid readiness and opportunities for financial leverage, including federal tax credits
for ground source heat pumps.
Explore evaluating areas for grid readiness. Grid readiness is key to ensuring district energy systems are viable
and reliable. An evaluation of available grid capacity in the areas where these district energy systems are located
would be valuable. This will enhance understanding of areas that will need infrastructure investments including
substations and transformers.
Consider creating long-term plans. Long-term planning is needed to map out how to proceed including
sequencing of phased projects.
Explore expanding investments in workforce development. Workforce readiness is critical to support initiatives
to accelerate decarbonization, foster economic growth and position Washington as a leader in clean energy
innovation.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 5
Introduction
Background
The Washington State Legislature enacted the Clean Buildings Act (Chapter 285, Laws of 2019), becoming the first
in the nation to establish a statewide performance standard for buildings. Commonly referred to as the Clean
Buildings law. The Legislature enacted this law to enhance the energy performance of existing large buildings and
to meet Washington's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, as outlined in RCW 70A.45.020. This statute
applies to:
Tier 1 covered commercial buildings that are larger than 50,000 square feet
Tier 2 covered buildings that are larger than 20,000 square feet and multifamily residential buildings 4
The Clean Buildings Performance Standard (CBPS) requires Tier 1 and Tier 2 covered building owners to
benchmark their buildings' energy use and develop and implement an energy management plan, as well as an
operations and maintenance program. 5 Tier 1 buildings are required to meet one of two energy performance
metrics:
1) Meeting the energy use intensity target set by the state
2) Meeting the investment criteria by conducting an ASHRAE level 2 energy audit, and implementation of all cost-
effective energy efficiency measures identified by a life cycle cost analysis5
The dates for Tier 1 compliance reporting, based on building size, start in June 2026 and continue through 2028.
The Tier 2 reporting deadline is July 1, 2027. Building owners must submit documentation to the Department of
Commerce according to the reporting schedule in WAC 194-50-080 and every five years thereafter.
On May 4, 2023, House Bill (HB) 1390 (Chapter 291, Laws of 2023) was signed into law, amending the Clean
Buildings law to add a new section on compliance for buildings connected to district energy systems. 6 The
amendment requires owners of campus district energy systems to submit a decarbonization plan to Commerce by
June 30, 2025, and resubmit every five years thereafter, including a progress report on the implementation of the
plan. The bill acknowledges that decarbonizing buildings is essential to meet the state's climate goals and
highlights the benefits of upgrading existing district energy systems while considering the timeline for
implementing these upgrades. The bill allows plans to be implemented over a 15-year timeline and provides
Commerce with the authority to approve plans beyond this timeline where necessary.
District energy systems typically use a central plant to produce and distribute heating, cooling or both through a
system of underground pipes to multiple buildings within a campus. This approach can eliminate the need for
individual heating and cooling sources at each building.
Upgrading existing fossil fuel-fired district energy systems to decarbonized technologies has great potential to
improve energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This approach can often achieve greater energy
efficiency and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than a building-by-building incremental approach.
4 In 2022, the law was expanded to include buildings Tier 2 covered buildings
5 The administrative rules for the Clean Buildings law consist of American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE)5 Standard 100-2018, Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings, with state amendments Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 194-
50,
6 Washington State Legislature, "HB 1390 Campus District Energy Systems — Decarbonization Plans,"
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 6
Washington’s public campuses and facilities create a significant workforce and economic development
opportunity. The transition to clean energy and high-efficiency building systems will require skilled tradespeople,
engineers, technicians, and energy managers trained in ever-advancing, state-of-the-art technologies such as high-
efficiency heat pumps, thermal storage, building automation, and thermal energy networks. These projects
generate local, long-term employment opportunities through design, construction, commissioning and ongoing
maintenance of advanced energy systems. To realize these benefits, Washington will need targeted training
programs and apprenticeships focused on electrification, energy modeling and system integration to keep the
workforce in stride with advancements in technology.
Decarbonization of state-owned district energy systems and the buildings connected to them (such as campuses)
will require significant investment and multiple budget cycles to complete. The first step is planning, so
Washington can prioritize investments, strategically invest in the highest-impact projects and put these public
institutions on a path to a decarbonized future. Having these plans will assist institutions, utilities, the private
sector, and the state in gaining a better understanding of the scope of this work and in assembling a roadmap to
make progress towards decarbonization requirements incrementally and meet Washington's greenhouse gas
emissions limits as outlined in statute.
Complying with the district energy system decarbonization requirements of the standard (Normative Annex W) is
mandatory for state campus district energy systems consisting of five buildings or more with a minimum
aggregate of 100,000 square feet. It is optional for campus district energy systems consisting of three buildings or
more, with a minimum aggregate area of 100,000 square feet, allowing private entities and smaller state campuses
to opt into this compliance pathway. Compliance with the CBPS through Normative Annex W will enable campuses
to delay meeting the energy use intensity target (EUIt) for the campus until the district energy systems
decarbonization plan is fully implemented. 7
Legislative mandate
This report fulfills the requirement in section 4 of RCW 19.27A.260:
(4) The Department of Commerce must provide a summary report on the decarbonization plans required in subsection (3)
of this section to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by December 1, 2025. 8
Rulemaking for decarbonizing district energy systems
In December 2023, Commerce initiated the rulemaking process by filing the CR-101. The rulemaking was to amend
WAC 194-50 by adding a new chapter that codifies the general compliance and reporting requirements for
participating campus district energy systems.
Commerce held four workshops from January to March 2024, with an average attendance of 105 participants at
each workshop. The workshops focused on the proposed components of the decarbonization plans, compliance
reporting and the alternate compliance pathway of the CBPS. Each rulemaking workshop was followed by a two-
week comment period. Commerce received 20 written comments from universities, energy consultants, local
governments and healthcare institutions in addition to dozens of emails and meetings with stakeholders.
7 Normative Annex W is a provision within the Washington State Clean Buildings Performance Standard (CBPS) that outlines an alternative
compliance pathway for campuses with district energy systems. It allows eligible campuses to defer meeting the energy use intensity target
(EUIt) requirement until their approved district energy systems decarbonization plan is fully implemented, provided they meet specific
planning and reporting criteria.
8 Washington State Legislature, "Revised Code of Washington 19.27A.260, subsection 4,"
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 7
The CR-102 was filed on May 1, 2024, and the public hearing occurred on June 4, 2024. The CR-103 was filed on
July 30, 2024, to finalize the rules for the decarbonization plans of participating campus district energy systems.
Decarbonization plans summary
Plan requirements
Decarbonization plans are mandatory for large state-owned campus district energy systems and optional for non-
state-owned campus district energy systems. The rules instructed the designated representative of the campus
district energy system to register or opt-in to the decarbonization plan process using the District Energy Systems
Registration and Opt-in form. 9
The statute defines a state campus district energy system as a district energy system that provides heating,
cooling or heating and cooling to a campus through a distributed system providing steam, hot water or cool water
to five or more buildings with more than 100,000 square feet of combined conditioned 10 space, where the system
and all buildings connected to the system are owned by:
• The state of Washington; or
• A public-private partnership including one public building owner and one private entity
The statute defines a campus district energy system as a district energy system that provides heating, cooling, or
heating and cooling to a campus through a distributed system providing steam, hot water, or cool water to three (3)
or more buildings with more than 100,000 square feet of combined conditioned space, where the system and all
buildings connected to the system are owned by:
• A single entity;
• A public-private partnership in which a private entity owns the systems providing heating, cooling, or heating
and cooling to buildings owned by one public entity; or
• Two private entities in which one private entity owns the buildings connected to the system and another
private entity owns the system providing heating, cooling, or heating and cooling to the buildings.
A decarbonization plan can span 15 years, and Commerce has the authority to approve plans beyond this timeline.
Submitting decarbonization plans provides building owners with an alternative compliance pathway and flexible
timeline to comply with the CBPS. These plans must include:
• Mechanisms to replace fossil fuels in the heating plants, including a schedule for replacement
• An evaluation of possible options to partner with nearby sources and uses of waste heat and cooling
• Examination of opportunities to add buildings or other facilities to the system once it is decarbonized, an
incentivization strategy to encourage growth of a decarbonized system and requirements for facilities joining
the system
• An evaluation, prioritization and scheduled plan of reducing energy use through conservation efforts both at
the central plant and in the buildings connected to the district energy system that results in meeting the
campus energy use intensity (EUI) target
• An energy management plan with an operations and maintenance program
9 Washington State Department of Commerce, "District Energy Systems Registration and Opt-in form,"
10 Conditioned space refers to areas within a building that are actively heated, cooled, or ventilated to maintain comfortable indoor
temperatures for occupants. In other words, it's the interior space served by HVAC systems (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning).
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 8
Decarbonization plan submissions
In response to the legislation and the Clean Buildings Performance Standard compliance pathways, public entities
owning these systems have developed district energy system decarbonization plans. As of Oct. 1, 2025, 32 state
campus district energy systems have been registered, while five privately owned campus district energy systems
opted in. Three privately owned campuses later opted out after determining their plans were not feasible to pursue.
Not all agencies or organizations that registered or opted in submitted a plan. Seven campuses belonging to the
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) were unable to submit their plans on time. For a list of the
campuses unable to submit their plans, see Appendix B. DSHS informed Commerce that it intends to develop a
decarbonization plan pending its funding request.
A total of 27 plans were submitted. See Appendix A for a list of all the agencies, organizations and campuses that
submitted a decarbonization plan. The following lists the campus activity types and the number of plans submitted
for each:
Airport: 1
College/University: 16
Hospital: 1
Nursing Home: 2
Office: 1
Prison/Incarceration: 6
Refer to Table D-1 located in Appendix D for a table that summarizes building use types, individual building count
for each plan, estimated capital ranges and a technical summary of all the decarbonization plans.
• All district energy system decarbonization plans are available in an online folder (link provided in the digital
version of this report). Here is a link to a folder containing all district energy system decarbonization plans.
This report synthesizes the submitted plans, highlighting shared challenges, innovative strategies, budget
implications and partnership opportunities. Each submitted plan aims to eliminate or significantly reduce reliance
on fossil fuels, modernize energy infrastructure, comply with the building energy efficiency requirements of the
CBPS and align with Washington's climate goals. While each institution faces unique challenges, their plans
highlight common themes such as transitioning away from fossil fuel energy sources, investing in electrified
heating and cooling systems with energy-efficient technology like heat pumps, and leveraging geothermal and heat
recovery technologies. Furthermore, each decarbonization plan aims to align projects with long-term capital and
master planning initiatives.
Projected cost
The submitted plans outlined capital investment needs totaling billions of dollars over several budget cycles.
Estimated costs vary widely depending on system scale, age and infrastructure complexity. Most institutions
provided rough order-of-magnitude costs, recognizing these as early planning-level estimates subject to refinement
through design. Major cost drivers include electrical capacity upgrades, conversion from steam to low-temperature
hydronic networks, heat pump installations, geothermal installations, and distribution system modernization. While
several campuses anticipate long-term operational savings, the upfront costs are substantial and exceed what can
be met through standard maintenance budgets.
Not all decarbonization plans provided consistent budget details at the same level or structure. Some, like
University of Washington (UW) Tacoma and the Capitol Campus, provide detailed, phased cost estimates aligned
with state biennia — two-year budget periods — and capital planning standards. These estimates are predictable
and contained within the Washington biennial budget development cycle.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 9
In contrast, the Department of Corrections (DOC) plans to use life-cycle cost analyses, a method that evaluates
overall costs over a facility's life span. These analyses compare broad scenarios — such as ground-source heat
pumps, air-source heat pumps, decentralized systems and business as usual — without specific timelines or
phasing details. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the decarbonization project's whole lifespan,
rather than an incremental, detailed breakdown for a two-year budget cycle. Plans from Evergreen State College
and Veterans Home fall in between, offering total project cost ranges and qualitative phasing, but lacking year-by-
year breakdowns.
See Appendix C for a chart showing the projected low and high costs per biennium from 2025 to 2031, as well as
the total projected low and high costs from all plans submitted for 2025 and beyond.
Innovative ideas and strategies
The decarbonization plans reflect a deliberate shift from a conventional building-by-building equipment
replacement strategy toward a more strategic, system-level innovative solution. Institutions recognize that
compliance with the legislation is not solely a regulatory requirement, but also an opportunity to modernize energy
infrastructure, reduce long-term operating costs, strengthen campus resilience and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. As a result, the submitted plans emphasize forward-looking solutions, such as geothermal exchange,
heat recovery chillers, hybrid systems, and partnerships for waste heat utilization.
The diverse range of approaches reflects the mission of each institution, addressing unique conditions and
parameters ranging from an international airport to the specialized needs of hospitals and colleges. This variety
provides Washington with a portfolio of strategies that can be adapted, scaled and replicated, positioning the state
as a national leader in institutional decarbonization.
Common strategies emerging across plans include:
Electrify through air-source and ground-source heat pumps and heat-recovery chillers
Install geothermal and ambient-loop systems to exchange heat between buildings and the ground
Use thermal energy storage to manage peak electrical demand
Implement hybrid and phased implementation aligned with capital renewal cycles
Pursue industrial symbiosis and waste-heat partnerships with utilities and nearby facilities
Reference Appendix E for a summary of innovative ideas, strategies and their advantages.
Waste heat and cooling partnership opportunities
Overall, the decarbonization plans submitted demonstrate a substantial shift toward low-temperature, 4th- and 5th-
generation district-energy systems. Not all campuses have waste heat and cooling partnership opportunities due to
location. Geothermal and sewer heat recovery systems are the most common strategies for sustainable heating
and cooling. District energy expansion and thermal energy networks are emerging as a collaborative model
between state agencies and utilities. For a deeper understanding of waste heat and cooling partnership
opportunities, review Appendix F.
Projected energy use intensity
Not all plans included the projected energy use intensity (EUI) due to concerns about the data. All plans with a
projected EUI showed a reduction, some more significant than others. Appendix G summarizes the projected EUI of
the campus relative to the current weather normalized EUI (WNEUI). Weather-normalized energy use intensity (EUI)
is a building’s energy use per square foot adjusted for typical weather conditions. Energy savings are represented
in kBtu/sf/year and do not reflect total energy saved. Further evaluation of total energy reductions and
disaggregation of energy saved by fuel type would help better define the cost-benefit of each project.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 10
Key challenges
Each institution has developed ambitious pathways for achieving decarbonization; however, these plans reveal a
consistent set of barriers that could slow progress or inflate costs if left unaddressed. From outdated
infrastructure and operational risks to disruptions in business operations, high upfront capital needs, and grid
limitations, campuses across the state face challenges that are both technical and financial in nature. These
obstacles highlight the need for strategic phasing, strong state and federal funding support and early collaboration
with utilities and industry partners.
Aging and incompatible infrastructure
Many Washington campuses operate legacy steam or high-temperature hot water distribution systems that were
designed and installed around fossil-fuel boilers decades ago. These systems run at temperatures far above what
modern air-to-water or ground-source heat pumps can efficiently supply. For example, Highline College reported
that its distribution requires 180°F water, making it incompatible with most electrified equipment unless the entire
piping network is replaced. Eastern Washington University (EWU) faces a similar challenge, as its century-old
steam plant accounts for 95% of its direct emissions. Clark College still operates aging boilers and chillers that are
nearing the end of their life, with significant deferred maintenance needs. Replacing central plants, piping and
building-level connections adds tens of millions of dollars beyond equipment costs.
High capital costs and funding gaps
Across all district energy systems evaluated as part of the plans, the cost of implementation can be high, as can be
the benefit. Even smaller colleges anticipate rough order-of-magnitude costs of $50 million to $150 million. Larger
campuses, such as Eastern Washington University ($330 million to $370 million) and Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport (SEA) ($300 million to $800 million), report costs that align with major infrastructure programs. The Capitol
campus explored different options for decarbonization, and all require an upfront investment of $138 million to
$222 million. The UW Seattle anticipates multi-phase investments exceeding $400 million as it transitions its 120-
year-old district energy system. Leaders consistently note that these amounts exceed available capital budgets and
will require state appropriations, federal incentives (e.g., Inflation Reduction Act tax credits) and innovative
financing tools. Without external funding, payback periods can stretch from 50 to 100 years.
Electrical infrastructure and grid readiness
Decarbonization requires a significant shift from natural gas to electricity, straining existing utility infrastructure in
some locations of the grid. Eastern Washington University anticipates building a new substation in later phases.
The Capitol campus strategies increase demand on the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) substation and medium-voltage
campus grid. The Seattle-Tacoma Airport must coordinate with PSE and the Bonneville Power Administration to
ensure sufficient capacity for geothermal systems and thermal storage. University of Washington campuses
expect grid reinforcements to support the simultaneous electrification of dozens of buildings. These grid
investments incur additional costs, require lengthy lead times and involve complex coordination with multiple
stakeholders. If the electrical infrastructure is not addressed proactively, it could become a critical bottleneck or
barrier to progress.
Operational and phasing complexity
Campuses are 24/7 environments that house classrooms, labs, residences, hospitals, and critical operations.
Phasing projects while maintaining uninterrupted service is a delicate balancing act. Highline College aligns its plan
with building demolition and redevelopment schedules in 2029 and 2033 to minimize rework. Cascadia College and
the UW Bothell Campus emphasize phasing over multiple biennia to integrate with capital renewal cycles.
Hospitals and airports face even stricter requirements: UWMC Northwest Hospital must maintain patient safety,
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 11
and the Seattle-Tacoma Airport cannot disrupt critical systems during peak travel. Major construction will disrupt
legislative and administrative operations at the Capitol campus.
Compliance deadlines and administrative burden
The legislation and the CBPS create a structured compliance timeline: plans are due in 2025, EMP and O&M are
required by 2026, decarbonization plan reporting updates are scheduled for 2030 and 2035, and complete
decarbonization is expected by 2040. While this offers a 15-year runway, many campuses highlight the
administrative workload associated with benchmarking, reporting, and aligning with evolving codes and standards.
Institutions like Edmonds College and UW Tacoma emphasize the need to establish new metering and monitoring
systems to comply. Leaders worry that delays in the near term, from 2025 to 2030, will leave campuses scrambling
to meet the 2040 deadline as aging infrastructure forces emergency replacements.
Workforce, supply chain and technology readiness
Several plans highlight workforce limitations in the availability of skilled tradespeople, engineers, and
commissioning agents familiar with large-scale electrification. State procurement cycles and global supply chain
disruptions add risk to schedules and costs. Technology readiness is another concern: while heat recovery chillers
and ground-source systems are proven, applying them at an airport or hospital scale requires design innovations
that are not yet widely deployed in the U.S.
Possible next steps
Consider developing a range of criteria to prioritize investments
The legislature plays a vital role in ensuring that Washington invests in projects with the most significant potential
impact. The legislature will need to determine what and how they want to prioritize investments in these district
energy system decarbonization projects, as well as what outcomes are of most value. State agencies, such as
Commerce, will need to continue informing policy decisions by providing as complete and reliable information as
possible.
When making these policy decisions, a range of metrics could be considered to prioritize these investments.
Possible next steps for the Legislature might include exploring a variety of prioritization criteria, such as
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, energy use intensity (EUI) reductions, cost and return on investment,
shovel readiness, grid readiness, and opportunities for financial leverage, including currently available federal tax
credits. Considering these options may help ensure that state resources are allocated to projects that yield the
most positive outcomes and long-term value.
Explore evaluating areas of grid readiness
Grid readiness is essential for the successful decarbonization of district energy systems as they shift to electric-
powered technologies. Electrification increases demand on the power grid. A possible next step could be an
evaluation of grid capacity in the relevant areas where these district energy systems are located. This would help
clarify the infrastructure investments required, such as substations and transformers.
Consider creating long-term plans for campus projects
Once the state has established criteria on what should be prioritized, the state can then compile a long-term plan to
fund these decarbonization projects by the biennial budget cycle, including identifying funding leverage
opportunities and creative financing strategies.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 12
For example, the state could explore the viability of expanding the state’s green bank to provide low-interest
financing for these projects. Evaluating existing funding and financing sources could better maximize
Washington's investments further.
Explore expanding investments in workforce development and pathways
Washington could consider expanding investment in workforce development initiatives, such as specialized
training programs, partnerships with technical colleges and industry apprenticeships, to equip workers with the
skills needed for HVAC electrification, energy modeling and advanced system integration. Taking these steps may
help accelerate decarbonization, foster economic growth and position Washington as a leader in clean energy
innovation while ensuring a just and equitable transition for all impacted workers.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 13
Appendix A: Submitted plans by campus and agency
List of campuses and agencies that submitted decarbonization plans:
1) Clark College — Main Campus
2) Department of Corrections
• Airway Heights Corrections Center
• Clallam Bay Corrections Center
• Monroe Correctional Complex
• Washington Corrections Center
• Washington State Penitentiary
3) Department of Enterprise Services- Capitol Campus
4) Department of Veteran's Affairs
• Washington Soldier's Home, Orting, WA
• Washington Veterans Home, Port Orchard, WA
5) Edmonds College — Main campus
6) Port of Seattle — Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
7) Seattle Colleges District
• Seattle Central Main Campus
• North Seattle College Campus
8) Seattle Pacific University — Main Campus
9) Skagit Valley College — Mount Vernon Campus
10) Highline Community College — Highline College
11) Tacoma Community College — Tacoma Campus
12) Evergreen State College — Olympia
13) University of Washington
• Montlake Campus
• Tacoma Campus
• UW Medical Center – Northwest
• Bothell Campus and Cascadia College
14) Washington State University — Pullman and Vancouver Campus
15) Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families — Green Hill Campus
16) Western Washington University — Main Campus
17) Eastern Washington University — Main Campus
18) Central Washington University — Main Campus
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 14
Appendix B: Unsubmitted plans by campus and agency
List of campuses and agencies that did not submit decarbonization plans before this report was written:
1) Washington State Department of Social Health Services
• Eastern State Hospital
• Fircrest School
• Lakeland Village
• Maple Lane
• Rainier School
• SCC McNeil Island
• Western State Hospital
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 15
Appendix C: Projected decarbonization cost
Figure C-1: Projected high and low decarbonization cost per biennium from 2025 to 2031
This bar graph illustrates the projected low and high costs per biennium from 2025 to 2031, as well as the total
projected low and high costs from all plans submitted for 2025 and beyond. “N” represents the number of
submitted plans that included the information.
Figure C-2: Projected decarbonization cost from 2025 and beyond
This bar graph illustrates the projected total costs for 2025 to 2031 and beyond. “N” represents the number of
submitted plans that included the information.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 16
Appendix D: Comparative summary of decarbonization plans
This table summarizes building use types, individual building count, estimated capital ranges and a technical
summary of all the decarbonization plans provided by institutions across Washington. Values are preliminary,
based on submitted plans and reasonable rough order of magnitude estimates where plans did not provide firm
numbers.
Table D-1: Summary of building types, counts, capital ranges and technical details from
institutional decarbonization plans
Organization/Campus Building Use Building Combined Estimated Technical Summary
Type Count Capital Range in
millions 2025-2031
The carbon emissions reduction path over
time displays carbon reductions, costs, and
College/ project phasing in a single diagram. Phase
Clark College 34 $19
University out existing natural gas boilers in favor of
utilizing four-pipe HRC to serve its H/C
needs.
Proposed district energy systems will
Washington State Department replace the current high-temperature, high-
Prison/
of Corrections – Airway 18 $230 to $260 pressure network with a centralized low-
Incarceration
Heights Corrections Center temperature hot and chilled water plant
using a modern 4-pipe distribution system.
Proposed district energy systems will
Washington State Department incorporate heat recovery chillers (HRC),
Prison/
of Corrections – Clallam Bay 8 $67 to $100 geothermal heat sourcing, and the existing
Incarceration
Corrections Center propane condensing boilers to meet peak
and backup load demands.
The proposed district system involves a
centralized HW/CHW plant utilizing a new 4-
Washington State Department
Prison/ pipe distribution system, including HRC
of Corrections – Monroe 48 $277 to $290
Incarceration coupled with geothermal heat sourcing and
Correctional Complex
NG condensing boilers for peak loads and
backup.
Replacing the existing low-pressure steam
Washington State Department
Prison/ system with 4th-generation four pipe low-
of Corrections – Washington 21 $215 to $241
Incarceration temp district energy systems with a heat
Corrections Center
recovery chiller.
Replacing the existing low-pressure steam
Washington State Department
Prison/ system with 4th-generation 4-pipe low-temp
of Corrections – Washington 16 $281 to $241
Incarceration district energy systems with a heat recovery
State Penitentiary
chiller.
Conversion to 5th generation design on East
Campus, 4-pipe hydronic heat pump plant
Washington State Department
Office, Lodging with heat recovery chillers providing hot and
of Enterprise Services – 11 $130 to $200
and Library chilled water to the historic buildings, with
Capitol Campus
limited mechanical space located on West
Campus.
Replacing the existing low-pressure steam
Department of Veterans
Mixed-Use 21 $16 to $25 system with a low-temperature open-loop
Affairs/Soldiers Home, Orting
ground source heat pump loop.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 17
Organization/Campus Building Use Building Combined Estimated Technical Summary
Type Count Capital Range in
millions 2025-2031
Department of Veteran’s Replacing the existing low-pressure steam
Affairs/Veteran’s Home, Port Mixed-Use 10 $21 to $32 system with a low-temperature open-loop
Orchard ground source heat pump loop.
The plan proposes to remove natural gas-
College/ fired units and replace them with all-electric
Edmonds College NA $11
University equivalents, decarbonizing at the individual
building level.
Proposes transitioning from steam to a next-
generation district energy system that
Port of Seattle – Seattle- replaces the existing equipment with high-
Airport 4 No data reported
Tacoma International Airport efficiency water source heat pumps, heat
recovery chillers, closed-loop geothermal
and thermal energy storage.
Replacement of existing purchased steam
Seattle Colleges – Seattle College/
5 $26 to $34 and natural gas boilers with a closed-loop
Central College University
air-to-air and water-to-water heat pump.
Seattle Colleges – North College/ Replace existing natural gas boilers with
6 $20 to $40
Seattle College University CO2 heat pumps.
College/ Proposed is a heat pump-based loop,
Seattle Pacific University 8 $83 to $101
University utilizing nearby ship canal water.
Replace the existing natural gas steam
College/
Skagit Valley College 11 $56 to $141 system with a heat pump-based steam
University
system.
Proposed solution to remove a large number
College/ of buildings from district energy systems
Highline College 32 $106 to $139
University and use AWHP at the individual building
level
College/ Replacing natural boilers with heat pumps
Tacoma Community College 24 $10
University locally
Replace the existing district heating and
cooling system with decentralized air-to-
College/
Evergreen State College 55 $9 to $14 water heat pumps, thereby rolling back the
University
existing district energy system and avoiding
modernization through electrification.
Replacement of large steam system and
natural gas boilers with a low-temperature
University of Washington College/
239 $1,000 to $1,600 hot water system with recovered heat from
Seattle University
sewer, Lake Washington and campus waste
heat.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 18
Organization/Campus Building Use Building Combined Estimated Technical Summary
Type Count Capital Range in
millions 2025-2031
University of Washington College/ Replace natural gas boilers with air source
23 $6
Tacoma University heat pumps.
UW Medical Center – College/ Replace natural gas boilers with air source
6 $9
Northwest University heat pumps.
University of Washington College/ Replace natural gas boilers with air source
16 $22
Bothell and Cascadia College University heat pumps.
Two campuses with different plans. Create a
Washington State University decentralized, open-loop nodal ground
College/
Pullman and Washington State 528 $139 source heat pump system, utilizing building-
University
University Vancouver level heat pumps where a district system is
not feasible.
College/
DCYF Green Hill School 17 No data reported No data reported
University
Replacing the existing low-pressure steam
system. Several options are presented,
Western Washington College/ including a 4th-generation 4-pipe low-
54 $51
University University temperature district energy system with heat
recovery and geothermal. Depending on
which route they choose.
Nodal geothermal network design with 4th
College/ generation district heating and cooling, with
Eastern Washington University 45 $330 to $370
University a careful building mechanical and electrical
distribution system upgrade plan.
Proposed a nodal open-loop geothermal
College/
Central Washington University 55 $118 to 172 system with a 4-pipe distribution system
University
upgrade.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 19
Appendix E: Summary of ideas and strategies
Heat recovery chillers and heat pumps
Heat recovery chillers (HRCs) are cooling systems that capture waste heat generated during the cooling process
and utilize it for heating purposes. Typically, traditional chillers release excess heat into the air through cooling
towers. In contrast, HRCs redirect this heat into a hot-water loop for heating spaces or providing domestic hot
water. This ability to cool and heat simultaneously makes HRCs very efficient, especially in large buildings like
campuses or hospitals, where some areas require cooling while others require heating. HRCs are crucial for
modern district energy systems that prioritize the use of less fossil fuel and lower operating costs.
Heat pumps work by moving thermal energy, rather than creating it through the burning of fuel. They use a
refrigeration cycle to transfer thermal energy from sources such as air, water, or the ground to another location for
heating or cooling. Because heat pumps run on electricity and do not burn fuel, they are key to plans for electrifying
buildings and reducing carbon emissions. A key innovative element is shifting the district energy system from high-
temperature to low-temperature water, which improves compatibility with heat pumps.
• Clark College and Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) Airport are using heat recovery chillers (HRCs) to
provide heating and cooling simultaneously. This is particularly powerful for campuses with significant
simultaneous heating and cooling loads (e.g., labs, data centers or airports).
• Highline College also evaluates localized heat pump systems for specific buildings that do not connect
efficiently to a central system.
• Airway Heights Corrections Center’s (AHCC) plan evaluates multiple pathways — Ground Source Heat Pump
and Air Source Heat Pump hot-water systems, as well as decentralized options.
• Evergreen has chosen a decentralized approach, converting buildings individually with air-source heat
pumps. This modular strategy aligns upgrades with capital renewal cycles, minimizes upfront operational
disruption and allows future integration with geothermal systems if feasible.
• University of Washington Tacoma’s plan proposes to centralize to an all-electric heating plant using 14
rooftop air-source carbon dioxide heat pumps, with an 11,200 MBH (thousand British thermal units per hour)
peak capacity.
HRCs and heat pumps strategy advantages: results in higher efficiency, lower operational costs and reduced
emissions without needing entirely new distribution systems in some cases.
Geothermal and ground-source systems
Geothermal and ground-source systems use the relatively constant temperature of the earth to provide heating and
cooling for buildings. They work by circulating water or a refrigerant through underground pipes, either in wells or
horizontal loops, that absorb or release heat depending on the season. They enable campuses to share thermal
energy among multiple buildings, significantly reducing fossil fuel use.
• Eastern Washington University (EWU) proposes a nodal “GeoEco” strategy: multiple decentralized geothermal
plants serving clusters of buildings. This avoids the cost of replacing its whole distribution system at once
and allows phased deployment.
• SEA Airport evaluates large-scale closed-loop geothermal paired with thermal storage tanks, a unique
solution at an airport scale.
• The WA Soldiers Home identifies open-loop geothermal as its preferred option, recognizing abundant
groundwater resources and utilizing available Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 20
• The WA Veterans Home in Port Orchard proposes an open-loop geothermal heat pump plant with potential
for sewer effluent heat recovery. Conversion of selected buildings to hot-water systems is planned, with
steam retained for laundry until alternatives are developed. Phased, modular rollout is emphasized.
Geothermal and ground-source systems strategy advantage: long-term renewable heating source that reduces
reliance on fossil fuels and utility grid electricity.
Hybrid and phased approaches
Highline College blends centralized and localized systems. Some buildings will be converted to connect to a hybrid
district system, driven by a critical assessment of the aging and increasingly unreliable utilidor network, a tunnel for
steam pipe and other utilities.
• Cascadia College and the University of Washington Bothell’s plan develops a seven-phase roadmap: audit →
conservation → infrastructure replacement → building-level retrofits. This plan creates a manageable
funding cadence for the duration of the plan.
• Capitol campus will pursue a hybrid ambient temperature loop strategy with distributed heat pumps and a
central plant.
• Hybrid and Phased Approaches Strategy advantage: flexibility, reduces risk of stranded assets, aligns with
capital renewal schedules.
Industrial symbiosis and waste heat partnerships
Industrial Symbiosis refers to the collaboration between nearby organizations, such as campuses, industries,
utilities, or municipalities, to share energy, water, or material resources that would otherwise be wasted.
Waste Heat Partnerships are practical applications of industrial symbiosis. They involve agreements between
institutions and external entities, such as cities, ports, or utilities, to exchange thermal energy through connected
pipelines or district energy networks. By reusing this heat instead of venting it to the atmosphere, partners reduce
fuel use, lower emissions and improve regional energy efficiency.
Together, these models exemplify cross-sector collaboration that transforms waste streams into shared, low-
carbon energy resources.
• SEA Airport explores multiple industrial symbiosis ideas: sewer heat recovery with King County Wastewater,
glycol recovery from aircraft de-icing and even glycerol reuse from biodiesel production.
• University of Washington (UW) Seattle considers formal partnerships with nearby energy users to capture
waste heat and reduce duplication of infrastructure.
• WA Soldiers Home evaluates wastewater effluent recovery as a secondary heating source.
Industrial symbiosis and waste heat partnerships offer an advantage in shared infrastructure and lower lifecycle
costs through partnerships.
Thermal energy storage
Thermal energy storage (TES) systems store thermal energy for use at a later time, helping to balance energy
demand and supply. They improve energy efficiency, grid flexibility and resiliency by allowing campuses to shift
loads, reduce peak electrical demand and optimize the performance of heat pumps or chillers.
• SEA Airport integrates thermal storage tanks to shift energy use and flatten peaks of demand, an essential
strategy for airports with variable occupancy and flight schedules.
• UW Seattle and Cascadia/UW Bothell note thermal storage as an option for load balancing in future phases.
TES strategy advantage reduces grid stress, cuts peak demand charges and provides resilience.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 21
Electrification with carbon capture backup
Electrification with carbon capture and storage (CCS) backup enables campuses to achieve deep decarbonization
without compromising operational continuity or energy security.
Carbon Capture Backup refers to maintaining limited fossil-fuel backup systems for resilience or peak demand that
are equipped with carbon capture or offset mechanisms to minimize emissions when they operate. These systems
can capture carbon dioxide from combustion exhaust for reuse or safe storage, providing reliability during extreme
weather or grid outages while maintaining a low overall carbon footprint.
• EWU proposes maintaining its existing steam system as a backup with carbon capture technology, while
transitioning to geothermal for daily electricity loads. This is unusual among campuses and demonstrates a
creative way to preserve resilience without abandoning the decarbonization pathway.
An electrification strategy with carbon capture backup ensures resilience against extreme weather while pursuing
electrification.
Ambient temperature loop
An ambient temperature loop (ATL) is a type of low-temperature district energy system that distributes water at or
near the natural ambient ground temperature through a network of underground pipes connecting multiple
buildings.
• Ambient temperature loop (ATL) is the Capitol Campus’ preferred strategy. The ATL is a fifth-generation
district energy system designed to transport water through a campus-wide piping network at ambient
temperatures (60°F to 80°F), rather than at the high steam or hot-water temperatures characteristic of
traditional systems.
• Each building connects to the loop via electric heat pumps, which “lift” the temperature up for heating or
“reject” heat back into the loop for cooling.
ATL Strategy advantage: lowest lifecycle cost, flexible phasing, scalable and adaptable because it can integrate
future technologies like sewer heat recovery or large-scale thermal storage.
4-Pipe hot/chilled water network
A 4-pipe hot/chilled water network is an advanced district energy system that uses four separate pipes—two for
heating water (supply and return) and two for chilled water (supply and return).
This setup enables buildings to receive heating and cooling simultaneously, depending on their individual needs.
• Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) proposes that its 4th-generation district energy system would convert
steam to a 4-pipe hot/chilled water network, expanding service to 88% of campus space.
• WSP expands the network to serve 41 buildings. A 4-pipe layout future-proofs the system, allowing new
buildings to connect easily without waiting for seasonal changeovers.
• A 4-pipe layout future-proofs the system: new buildings can connect easily without waiting for seasonal
changeovers.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 22
4-Pipe Hot/Chilled water network strategy advantage: It is not just an equipment replacement — it’s a
modernization of campus infrastructure that allows WSP to operate like a 21st-century energy district: flexible,
efficient and resilient, while aligning with state decarbonization goals.
Utility and funding integration
• Cascadia/UW Bothell and UWMC Northwest Hospital actively partner with utilities (Seattle City Light, Tacoma
Power, Puget Sound Energy) to align decarbonization with grid planning and incentive programs.
• WA Soldiers Home specifically notes the Inflation Reduction Act geothermal tax credits as part of its
financial case.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 23
Appendix F: Summary of waste heat and cooling partnership
opportunities
Campuses with established waste-heat and cooling partnerships
Primary research and urban campuses such as the University of Washington (Seattle, Tacoma, and
Bothell/Cascadia), Western Washington University, Washington State University Pullman, and the Capitol Campus
— lead with detailed strategies for heat-recovery chillers (HRCs), geothermal exchange, ambient-temperature loops
(ATL), and district energy modernization.
These projects capture waste heat from cooling and laboratory operations, reuse energy through low-temperature
water loops and create capacity for future regional or utility partnerships. Facilities such as the UW Medical Center,
Clallam Bay Corrections Center, Airway Heights and SEA-Tac Airport are similarly advancing geothermal or sewer-
heat recovery and district-scale energy sharing. These investments position them to meet or exceed CBPS targets
while demonstrating inter-agency collaboration and long-term operational savings.
Campuses are still in early or feasibility phases
Several smaller colleges, including Highline College, Skagit Valley College, North Seattle College, Seattle Central
College, Edmonds College and Clark College, recognize potential for district-energy upgrades or heat-recovery
integration, but have not yet defined partnerships.
Their plans generally refer to future collaboration with local utilities but lack confirmed waste-heat sources or
commitments to a thermal-energy network. The Evergreen State College similarly outlines building-level heat-pump
upgrades that could connect to future geothermal systems but have no active waste-heat recovery or cooling-
partnership program.
Facilities without current waste-heat or cooling opportunities
The Veterans Home in Port Orchard, the Soldiers Home in Orting, and Tacoma Community College do not yet
feature waste-heat recovery or partnership components in their current phase of planning. These campuses are
focusing on foundational electrification, HVAC modernization, and energy-management improvements, with the
potential to add heat-recovery systems as the infrastructure matures. Similarly, a few correctional complexes (e.g.,
the Washington Corrections Center and the Washington State Penitentiary) reference geothermal or sewer-heat
studies conceptually but report no operational partnerships currently.
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 24
Appendix G: Summary projected energy use intensity
The projected energy use intensity (EUI) values submitted by institutions vary widely, depending on building type,
system design, and decarbonization strategy. Most plans estimate post-project EUIs that reflect significant
reductions from current baselines, particularly for campuses transitioning to centralized or high-efficiency systems.
However, some projections remain preliminary or based on modeled assumptions rather than measured data. This
summary provides a comparative snapshot of estimated EUIs across institutions, highlighting both the range of
expected performance and the variability in data quality and methodology.
Table G-1: Projected energy use intensity (EUI) and weather normalized energy use intensity
(WNEUI) estimates by institution
Campus Name EUI Target WNEUI Projected EUI EUI Reduction
Washington Corrections
101 217.7 84 134
Center
Washington Soldiers
93.5 164.6 52.3 112
Home – Orting
Washington Veterans
92 183.6 87.5 96
Home – Port Orchard
Monroe Correctional
101 172.1 78 94
Complex
Airway Heights
106 190.2 106 84
Corrections Center
Seattle-Tacoma
N/A 94.3 17.2 77
International Airport
Washington State
106 143 76 67
Penitentiary
UWMC Northwest
Hospital and Medical 215 271.2 204.7 67
Center
Central Washington
112 116 52 64
University
Eastern Washington
112 120 60 60
University
Capitol Campus 58 101.8 47.6 54
University of Washington
145 138 86.46 52
Seattle
The Evergreen State
126.5 100 53 47
College
Washington State
135 147 112 35
University — Pullman
Clallam Bay Corrections
101 101.5 71 31
Center
Edmonds Community
110.7 79.1 53 26
College Main campus
Clark College Main
96 82 58 24
Campus
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 25
Campus Name EUI Target WNEUI Projected EUI EUI Reduction
Skagit Valley CC Mount
90.7 97.4 77.9 20
Vernon Campus
University of Washington
Bothell and Cascadia 110.4 54.6 42.3 12
College
Highline College 112.2 79.8 70 10
Tacoma Community
110.7 82.4 75 7
College
North Seattle College 112.2 45.8 39.17 7
University of Washington
107.6 58 54 4
Tacoma
A SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM DECARBONIZATION PLANS 26
File and source
- File
- 2026_decarb-legislative-report-v12-31-25-final-10883d3e-f58f-4ea6-ae2d-ce48.pdf
- Size
- 573,498 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3ce993894b84a14e95a67d64e879a066903b90bb35f8b2a926277a2865cf7341
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov