SB5415 – Expanding and revising expedited review of projects by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; scheduled for a hearing on a proposed substitute Tuesday, February 9th at 10:30 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The proposed substitute just fixes a typo and eliminates a short section duplicated in the original.

Summary –
Currently, proposed energy facilities and alternative energy resource facilities may both apply to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for an expedited review, and the Council may grant that if it finds that the environmental impact of the proposed facility is not significant or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level under the State Environmental Policy Act’s standard, and the project is found to be consistent and in compliance with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances after a hearing.

The bill would make this option available to electricity storage projects; biofuel facilities that can refine more than 1,500 barrels a day and are not at existing industrial facilities; renewable natural gas and renewable hydrogen projects; facilities that manufacture products, equipment, or components used for renewable energy generation and electricity storage; and facilities that produce zero emission vehicles or charging or fueling infrastructure for them.

It changes the membership of the Council. It no longer offers the Departments of Agriculture; Health, Military, and Transportation the option of adding a member for a particular case, but it now requires notifying them of projects applying for expedited review, as well as the county government where the project would be located, and tribes potentially affected by it. (It adds some language requiring meaningful input and participation by a county and those tribes in the process.)  The bill drops the requirement for adding a member from a port district and a member from the government of a county in which a proposed project would be located; and it makes adding a member representing a city in which a project would be located an option for the city government rather than requiring that. It adds a member designated by the board of directors of the Washington State Association of Counties, and two members selected by tribes within the state.

The bill makes a number of changes in administrative procedure. It combines the current initial informational public hearing and the following hearing on the proposed site is consistent with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances. It would allow the Council to vote to waive the current requirement for an adjudicative public hearing on a proposal if it determined there were no genuine issues of fact about matters material to its recommendation about siting after holding a hearing to take public comment on the question and tribal consultation, and if it decided the project was consistent with local land use rules. The bill adds time limits for various steps, and a provision for judicial review of rules and regulations adopted by the Council. (It also adds a quorum rule, and makes the chair of the Council “the appointing authority” rather than the UTC; I think this refers to appointing administrative staff, but I’m not sure.)

The bill would no longer allow a preliminary study of a site by the Council to be used as the “detailed statement” about environmental impacts that State law requires for all major projects. It allows the costs of a preliminary study to be considered part of the required application fee for a later formal application for site certification. It removes a section specifying that the provisions for conducting preliminary studies do not prevent a city or county from requiring any information it deems appropriate in making a decision about approving a particular location.

If money were appropriated for it, the Council would have the WSU Energy Office develop a least-conflict priority clean energy project siting program, engaging the relevant stakeholders and developing a map highlighting priority areas where there would be the least potential conflict over siting projects. (The Council might create different maps for different kinds of projects, or kinds of potential conflicts, and would have to update the analysis at least once every six years.) The program would also compile the latest information on opportunities for dual-use and colocation of clean energy projects with other land use values.

If money were appropriated for it, the Council would develop a list of potential high priority impacts of projects seeking expedited review, and a list of mitigation measures for their significant likely environmental impacts, including impacts to air quality, land and aquatic habitats, and wildlife. A measure on the list would have to be based on best available science and have a high likelihood of mitigating the identified impact; the Council would need to consider including mitigation banks, and siting and design best practices for projects. Applicants could draw on the list to propose mitigation measures for a project’s impacts, but they’d still have to evaluate their applicability to their particular project or facility and develop individualized mitigation evaluations and requirements for it if measures on the list weren’t applicable.

The bill adds “ongoing regulatory oversight” of energy facilities subject to this chapter to the specification of the Council’s powers, broadens its authority to enter into contracts to include anything involved in carrying out the provisions for siting energy facilities, and allows it to conduct hearings on the operational conditions of facilities as well as their locations.