No, I hadn't heard of it before either. It is an interesting story to say...well, something about it. I'll admit I'm rather partial to both sides of this. A strong push could have actually accomplished something and rather than seeing the glass as half full, should be supportive liberal groups have rather--HULK SMASH--so, ok.
I've also likely got a white dude perspective on this, but if various liberal/social groups state that they want x, y and z and some white dudes write up a bill that includes x and y but not z (even if said white dudes didn't expressly talk to them) why is that so bad? Yes, I get the seat at the table aspect, but, in the end it comes off as "I want these things, you are giving me some of them, but you didn't talk to me and aren't giving me everything so fuck you and your plan."
On the other hand: anyone who wants to push for any legislation that helps with climate change that preemptively concedes language/policy to imaginary "sensible Republicans" is pretty much a idiot that deserves their inevitable defeat. You want Republicans to be invested, you have to force them to it. You are better off with the liberal super fantastic bill that you can really get everyone who is currently supportive of your primary motive(s) behind.
Oh, and also, too: revenue neutral plans are only useful if you have plenty of revenue already, which isn't really true in most of the US, including Washington and if you don't then they're for shits. So: bad fucking idea.
I don't live in WA, but if I did I suspect I'd be pissed at everyone involved but vote for the bill.