LEGISLATIVE PREVIEW: Four things to watch in Olympia

1. Will a green agenda salt the field?

Gov. Jay Inslee has been an outspoken supporter of climate change legislation, saying it can improve the state's competitiveness and benefit future generations.

In December he unveiled a carbon emissions tax for major polluters that would generate an estimated $1 billion in new revenue the first year. He's also pushing for cleaner fuel standards and wants lawmakers to adopt incentives for energy efficiency and electrical vehicles.

None of these proposals sits well with Republicans, who control the Senate and are within three votes of controlling the House. Consequently, the productiveness of the entire 2015 session may come down to how well Inslee and Republicans resolve their differences on the green agenda.

"If the governor continues to push for a carbon tax - or any other tax - it's going to be a long session," said Senate Majority Coalition Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville. "My goal is to look for areas where we have agreement and pursue those. If we look for ways to antagonize each other, we aren't going to get anywhere."

Given the narrow 51-47 Democratic majority in the House, Rep. Joe Schmick, R-Colfax, thinks Inslee may be vulnerable to the same type of coup that took place in the Senate in 2012.

"I wouldn't be surprised if we see a coalition form, at least on certain issues," Schmick said. "If the governor insists on spending most of the time talking about climate change, it's going to make for an interesting session."

2. Modern technology facilitates citizen participation

For the first time, the Legislature will accept distance testimony on bills, rather than require people to drive all the way to Olympia.

Chris Cargill, eastern Washington director for the Washington Policy Center, said live video testimony will initially be possible from Spokane, and efforts are underway to expand it to the Tri-Cities, Vancouver and Bellingham.

"The Senate is moving forward on a trial basis," he said. "It will only be for some committees, not across the board. The House hasn't shown a willingness (to accept video testimony) at this time, but we're hoping they'll watch the Senate and decide to move forward in the future."

Some questions still need to be resolved, Cargill said, such as how to allocate the limited time for testimony between people in Spokane and people in Olympia, and whether to staff the remote site.

Overall, however, the move has the potential to save eastern Washington residents a six- or seven-hour drive to Olympia.

3. What voters want, voters get?

At a time when lawmakers are already under orders to increase school funding to meet the requirements of the McCleary court decision, voters made their job even harder by approving Initiative 1351 in November.

The measure mandates decreases in K-12 class sizes and increases in staff support. It could cost the state an estimated $4.7 billion over five years; local districts face upward of $6 billion in increased expenditures.

How the Legislature handles the issue may be an early test of bipartisanship.

"We can't afford it, so we have two options," Schmick said. "Either we get a two-thirds vote to suspend it, or we put a tax package together to pay for it and send that to voters."

Rep. Susan Fagan, R-Pullman, noted that some prominent Democrats opposed the measure for budgetary reasons, including House Appropriations Committee Chairman Ross Hunter, D-Bellevue.

Nevertheless, there's a question whether the measure can be set aside, she said, even if lawmakers secure the required two-thirds majority.

"Because it made class size part of the definition of basic education, maybe we can't set it aside," Fagan said. "I want to believe that we can, but we're still talking with attorneys about it."

4. Will the medical school fight leave Washington State University bleeding?

If Washington State University can't convince lawmakers the state needs a second four-year medical school, its long history of educating future doctors may be in doubt.

WSU has been teaching first-year medical students for 43 years as part of the five-state WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) regional medical program. However, its participation in the program - which is run by the University of Washington - came to an abrupt end last fall, after the Board of Regents decided to pursue accreditation for a new, four-year medical school on the Spokane campus.

The university is now asking lawmakers for $2.5 million to help begin the accreditation process.

More importantly, it needs them to repeal a 1917 law that designates UW as the only publicly funded medical school in the state. Absent that legislative fix, medical education on the Spokane campus could go on life support as the flow of students trickles to a stop.

One of the biggest hurdles in convincing lawmakers to fund a second public medical school will be the lack of residency programs in rural communities.

Interns typically must complete a four-year residency program after medical school in order to practice unsupervised. The residency increases the likelihood that a doctor will remain in a community after completing the program. However, of the 1,500 residency slots in Washington, only about 100 are located in the more rural parts of the state.

Consequently, a second medical school alone won't address the rural doctor shortage unless there are also more rural residency slots.

"I don't want to pay for educating these kids unless the residency slots are available to keep them here," Schmick said. "I can't say we don't need a new medical school, but that has to move hand-in-hand with the residencies."

Fagan said there's been a lot of focus on the rivalry between UW and WSU, but the real issue is how to address the shortage of doctors in the most cost-effective way possible.

"I think everyone understands the need for more rural doctors and health-care workers," she said. "Both university presidents want to do the right thing, and the right thing is to address that need."