Home | About Joshua | News & Media | Email Updates | The Ledger | Contact
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
As we approach an important milestone in the legislative calendar, I wanted to share a quick update from Olympia. Next week is policy cutoff, the deadline for committees to advance policy-related bills with no fiscal impact.
With that timeline in mind, I thought this was a good moment to provide an update on my work this session on the House Technology, Economic Development, and Veterans Committee, particularly around artificial intelligence (AI), an issue our committee has been spending significant time on.
AI is increasingly being used in health care, cybersecurity, agriculture, small business operations, education, and government. As lawmakers, we are now tasked with finding the right balance between establishing sensible protections and ensuring Washington remains a place where innovation and opportunity can continue to grow. Much of our committee work this session has focused on how to address these issues thoughtfully and practically.
The TED-V Committee has reviewed several AI-related bills, each taking a different approach. Some emphasize new regulatory requirements, while others focus on creating opportunities for businesses, communities, and researchers to put AI to work.
As we evaluate these proposals, my focus has been on supporting policies that provide reasonable oversight without creating barriers that slow innovation or limit opportunity for Washington businesses and communities.
Conversely, I believe some bills lean toward broad regulatory structures and enforcement-first approaches that risk overreach, layering sweeping requirements before we fully understand how these tools will be used in the real world.
Some of these bills include:
- House Bill 1170 requires large AI providers to label and watermark AI-generated images, audio, and video, and to offer tools that help the public identify AI-created content. Transparency is important, but this bill also introduces new technical requirements that could be costly to implement. In practical terms, it creates compliance hurdles that may be manageable for major companies but difficult for startups and smaller developers.
- House Bill 2157 establishes a new regulatory framework for what it defines as “high-risk” AI systems. It requires impact assessments, detailed documentation, and ongoing oversight before certain tools can be used. In practical terms, this adds layers of process and paperwork for businesses, including smaller employers, at a time when the technology itself is still rapidly evolving.
- House Bill 2503 requires developers of generative AI to publicly disclose detailed information about the data used to train their systems, including sources, content type, and internal processes. This goes well beyond current standards and raises concerns about intellectual property and competitiveness. In practical terms, it could discourage companies from building or expanding AI projects in Washington.
Taken together, these bills lean heavily toward restrictions, compliance requirements, and increased costs. While each raises valid policy questions, they do little to help communities actually use AI to solve real problems, and they risk pushing innovation, investment, and jobs out of Washington before they can ever take root.
There is another bipartisan approach. It’s known as the Spark Act (House Bill 1833). Instead of leading with new bureaucracy, it focuses on opportunity.
How? It creates an artificial intelligence grant program to help small businesses, nonprofits, research institutions, and local governments develop innovative AI projects right here in Washington state. It prioritizes ethical use, encourages thoughtful risk analysis, supports small businesses, and focuses on projects with statewide benefit.
In practical terms, it invests in the technological builders.
It helps fund AI applications that address real challenges, such as wildfire detection, cybersecurity, health care improvements, and other public needs. It also directs the state to pursue federal funding and private partnerships, allowing Washington to bring in outside dollars while supporting homegrown innovation.
I also want to acknowledge something many people are thinking about, surrounding the concern that new technology could replace jobs. History shows that while technology changes how we work, it also creates new opportunities and new careers. My focus is on policies that help grow Washington’s workforce and support job creation, not simply finding efficiencies that reduce employment. The Spark Act is designed to help communities, businesses, and workers participate in building what comes next.
From my perspective on the TED-V Committee, this approach matters. Rather than trying to lock rapidly changing technology into rigid rules, the Spark Act allows us to learn from real-world projects, support local innovators, and grow our economy, all while keeping ethical use front and center.
Washington has a long history of leading in technology. I believe we should continue that tradition by pairing thoughtful oversight with smart investment in our people, our communities, and our future.
As always, thank you for staying engaged. I’m honored to represent you, and I welcome your thoughts anytime.
Sincerely,
Joshua Penner
