HB1812 – Including clean energy projects in the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting and monitoring, shifting the UTC’s current responsibilities in that process to the Council, and making administrative changes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & Southwest Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Wylie & Berry – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – House concurred in the Senate amendments; the sections of the bill about consulting with rural stakeholders and reviewing inequities in the siting of renewable energy projects were vetoed by the Governor.
Next step would be – Signed into law except for Sections 19-22.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in Environment and Energy January 25th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. (The substitute would retain hearings in the process rather than converting them to meetings; would allow any facility in the process to apply for expedited permitting, rather than only energy facilities; broadens the definition of clean energy manufacturing facilities to include any form of transportation without exhaust other than water rather thanto the original’s specified list; makes storage facilities include ones for electricity from any source; and makes other small changes summarized by staff at the beginning of it. ) Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing February 7th; amended to make the bill null and void if funding weren’t appropriated for it, and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor on the floor, amended, and passed by the House February 13th. The striker removed the option for tribes to appoint two members to the Council, removed clean fuel from the definition of clean manufacturing facilities, and made a few other small changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it. The amendment would create a joint select committee on alternative energy facility siting, with specified membership, to review inequities in where large alternative energy projects have been and are forecast to be sited, and to review forms of economic development assistance, mitigation payments, and viewshed impairment payments that counties not hosting their per capita share of alternative energy resources should provide to counties that host more than their per capita share. The amendment would require the Department of Ecology to consult with stakeholders from rural communities, agriculture, and forestry on the benefits and impacts of anticipated changes in the state’s energy system, including the siting of facilities, using the environmental justice community engagement plan, with input from the Environmental Justice Council. It specifies topics to be included in the process, and what’s to be included in a report on rural clean energy and resilience to the committee and other government bodies.
In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 17th. Replaced by a striker making a number of minor changes that are summarized at the end of it; passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means, had a hearing there February 26th, and passed out of committee the 28th. Passed by the Senate March 3rd.
Summary –
Original bill –
The bill would add projects for producing renewable natural gas, renewable and electrolytic hydrogen, biofuel for other uses than transportation, and energy storage facilities to the Energy Facilities Site Council’s permitting process. It would also add manufacturing facilities for clean fuel and vehicles (or their components), for equipment for charging and fueling them, for equipment for the production of alternative energy and for energy storage. It would shift the Utilities and Transportation Commission’s role and responsibilities in the current process to the Council, removing the UTC from the process completely.
The bill would replace a representative of the Department of Natural Resources on the Council with a representative of the Commissioner of Public Lands. It would authorize the governing bodies or executive officials of up to two tribes with ancestral lands in the area where an energy facility is proposed to each appoint a member of the Council , sitting and voting when it considered the proposed site. It would add ongoing regulatory oversight of energy facilities in accordance with its environmental and ecological guidelines to the Council’s powers. It would allow it to enter into contracts to carry out the other provisions of the Act for siting energy facilities in addition to studies of sites proposed by applicants, and authorize it to conduct some meetings on the proposed location and operational conditions of facilities rather than legal hearings. It clarifies that certification from the Council is required for the reconstruction of facilities over a certain size as well as for their construction. It would allow applicants to chose to apply for certification from the Council for the construction, reconstruction, or modification of electrical transmission facilities with a nominal voltage of at least 115,000 volts that are located in more than one jurisdiction with land use plans or zoning ordinances, even if they are not outside a current corridor. It would require notifying the county and city legislative authorities where the proposed facility would be located and tribal governments
affected by the proposed facility when an application for siting one was received. It would require the Council to work with local governments where a project was proposed and with tribal governments affected by a proposed facility to provide for meaningful participation and input during siting review and compliance monitoring. It would require the chair and designated staff to offer to conduct government-to-government meetings to address tribal issues of concern, and would require the Council’s reporting to the Governor to include a summary of any government-to-government meetings, including the issues and proposed resolutions.
It would remove the current language prohibiting a city, county, or regional planning authority from changing land use plans or zoning ordinances so as to affect the site of a proposed site after a hearing by the Council had determined the project was in compliance with those. It would require the Council’s director to notify an applicant before making a threshold determination that a facility proposed in a site application would have a probable significant, adverse environmental impact and to provide an opportunity to amend the application. It would require someone who wished to testify at the public hearing required before the Council issued its recommendation to the Governor to already have raised their issue in writing with specificity during the application review process before the hearing. If the environmental impact of a proposed facility were not significant or would be mitigated to a nonsignificant level, the bill would allow the Council to limit that hearing to whether any land use plans or zoning ordinances with which the proposed site has been determined to be inconsistent should be preempted. If the Council granted expedited processing to a project it would have to hold a public meeting to take comments on the application before issuing a recommendation to the Governor.
With the exception of transmission projects, the bill would require the Council to review a preapplicant’s draft materials on request and provide comments on additional studies or stakeholder and tribal input that should be included in the formal application. It would change the provisions allowing the Council to conduct a preliminary study of a site upon request of any potential applicant, making the appointment of an independent consultant to study the project an option for the Council rather than a requirement, and removing the specifications about what might be included. It would no longer allow such a study to be used in place of the “detailed statement” about projects required for other State agencies and local governments by the State Environmental Policy Act.
The bill would exempt the Director of the Council, the Director’s personal secretary, and two designated staff members from the Civil Service Law.