Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.50

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.010

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that the present and predicted growth in energy demands in the state of Washington requires a procedure for the selection and use of sites for energy facilities and the identification of a state position with respect to each proposed site. The legislature recognizes that the selection of sites will have a significant impact upon the welfare of the population, the location and growth of industry and the use of the natural resources of the state.
It is the policy of the state of Washington to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by recognizing the need for clean energy in order to strengthen the state's economy, meet the state's greenhouse gas reduction obligations, and mitigate the significant near-term and long-term impacts from climate change while conducting a public process that is transparent and inclusive to all with particular attention to overburdened communities.
The legislature finds that the in-state manufacture of industrial products that enable a clean energy economy is critical to advancing the state's objectives in providing affordable electricity, promoting renewable energy, strengthening the state's economy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the legislature intends to provide the council with additional authority regarding the siting of clean energy product manufacturing facilities.
It is the policy of the state of Washington to recognize the pressing need for increased energy facilities, and to ensure through available and reasonable methods that the location and operation of all energy facilities and certain clean energy product manufacturing facilities will produce minimal adverse effects on the environment, ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life.
It is the intent to seek courses of action that will balance the increasing demands for energy facility location and operation in conjunction with the broad interests of the public. In addition, it is the intent of the legislature to streamline application review for energy facilities to meet the state's energy goals and to authorize applications for review of certain clean energy product manufacturing facilities to be considered under the provisions of this chapter.
Such action will be based on these premises:
(1) To assure Washington state citizens that, where applicable, operational safeguards are at least as stringent as the criteria established by the federal government and are technically sufficient for their welfare and protection.
(2) To preserve and protect the quality of the environment; to enhance the public's opportunity to enjoy the esthetic and recreational benefits of the air, water and land resources; to promote air cleanliness; to pursue beneficial changes in the environment; and to promote environmental justice for overburdened communities.
(3) To encourage the development and integration of clean energy sources.
(4) To provide abundant clean energy at reasonable cost.
(5) To avoid costs of complete site restoration and demolition of improvements and infrastructure at unfinished fission nuclear energy sites, and to use unfinished fission nuclear energy facilities for public uses, including economic development, under the regulatory and management control of local governments and port districts.
(6) To avoid costly duplication in the siting process and ensure that decisions are made timely and without unnecessary delay while also encouraging meaningful public comment and participation in energy facility decisions.
[ 2025 c 261 s 1; 2022 c 183 s 1; 2001 c 214 s 1; 1996 c 4 s 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 108 s 29; 1970 ex.s. c 45 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 183: "This act takes effect June 30, 2022." [ 2022 c 183 s 24.]
Severability—2001 c 214: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 2001 c 214 s 33.]
Effective date—2001 c 214: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 8, 2001]." [ 2001 c 214 s 34.]
Findings—2001 c 214: See note following RCW 39.35.010.
Severability—Effective date—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 108: See notes following RCW 43.21F.010.
Nuclear power facilities, joint operation: Chapter 54.44 RCW.
State energy office: Chapter 43.21F RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1979–2017 · leading case: Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash · cites it 4× “(4) Interests of the state as delineated in RCW 80.50.010. *1175 Id. In this case, Horizon requested preemption with EFSEC, addressing all four issues.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash · cites it 4× “(4) Interests of the state as delineated in RCW 80.50.010. Id. In this case, Horizon requested preemption with EFSEC, addressing all four issues.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash · cites it 7× “” RCW 80.50.010. ¶9 In order to promote this policy, the legislature created EFSEC, which evaluates proposals, conducts public hearings and adjudications, and makes a recommendation to the governor.”
Montana Power Co. v. Cremer (1979) mont “, Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.010 , et seq., and Or.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver (2015) washctapp “” RCW 80.50.010(5). The Port argues that if proprietary actions relating to energy facilities were not exempt, a governmental entity taking such actions would be required to prepare an EIS in addition to the EIS that the Council is required to prepare.”
Power v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n (1985) wash “[2] RCW 80.50.010; Laws of 1970, 1st Ex. Sess.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash · cites it 4× “" RCW 80.50.010. In order to promote this policy, the legislature created EFSEC, which evaluates proposals, conducts public hearings and adjudications, and makes a recommendation to the governor.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA (2017) wash · cites it 2× “" RCW 80.50.010. Similarly, the policy of EFSLA is not only to expedite and centralize the review process for energy facility projects, but to promote facilities that "will produce minimal adverse effects on the environment.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “EFSEC conducts administrative hearings on proposed energy facility sites and reports to the governor a recommendation on the disposition of applications for site approval and submission of a “draft certification agreement” when the EFSEC recommends approval.”
People's Organization for Washington Energy Resources v. Utilities & Transportation Commission (1985) “RCW 80.50.010; Laws of 1970, 1st Ex. Sess.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.010(2) — 1 case
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash “” RCW 80.50.010. ¶9 In order to promote this policy, the legislature created EFSEC, which evaluates proposals, conducts public hearings and adjudications, and makes a recommendation to the governor.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.010(3) — 2 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “(4) Interests of the state as delineated in RCW 80.50.010. *1175 Id. In this case, Horizon requested preemption with EFSEC, addressing all four issues.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “(4) Interests of the state as delineated in RCW 80.50.010. Id. In this case, Horizon requested preemption with EFSEC, addressing all four issues.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.010(5) — 5 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “(4) Interests of the state as delineated in RCW 80.50.010. *1175 Id. In this case, Horizon requested preemption with EFSEC, addressing all four issues.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “(4) Interests of the state as delineated in RCW 80.50.010. Id. In this case, Horizon requested preemption with EFSEC, addressing all four issues.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver (2015) washctapp “” RCW 80.50.010(5). The Port argues that if proprietary actions relating to energy facilities were not exempt, a governmental entity taking such actions would be required to prepare an EIS in addition to the EIS that the Council is required to prepare.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA (2017) wash “" RCW 80.50.010. Similarly, the policy of EFSLA is not only to expedite and centralize the review process for energy facility projects, but to promote facilities that "will produce minimal adverse effects on the environment.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “EFSEC conducts administrative hearings on proposed energy facility sites and reports to the governor a recommendation on the disposition of applications for site approval and submission of a “draft certification agreement” when the EFSEC recommends approval.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.