Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The council shall conduct an informational public hearing in the county of the proposed site as soon as practicable but not later than sixty days after receipt of an application for site certification. However, the place of such public hearing shall be as close as practical to the proposed site.
(2) Subsequent to the informational public hearing, the council shall conduct a public hearing to determine whether or not the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances on the date of the application.
(3)(a) After the submission of an environmental checklist and prior to issuing a threshold determination that a facility is likely to cause a significant adverse environmental impact under chapter 43.21C RCW, the director must notify the project applicant and explain in writing the basis for its anticipated determination of significance. Prior to issuing the threshold determination of significance, the director must give the project applicant the option of withdrawing and revising its application and the associated environmental checklist to clarify or make changes to features of the proposal that are designed to mitigate the impacts that were the basis of the director's anticipated determination of significance. The director shall make the threshold determination based upon the changed or clarified proposal following the applicant's submittal. The director must provide an opportunity for public comment on a project for which a project applicant has withdrawn and revised the application and environmental checklist and subsequently received a threshold determination of nonsignificance or mitigated determination of nonsignificance.
(b) The notification required under (a) of this subsection is not an official determination by the director and is not subject to appeal under chapter 43.21C RCW.
(4) Prior to the issuance of a council recommendation to the governor under RCW 80.50.100 a public hearing, conducted as an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW, the administrative procedure act, shall be held.
(a) At such public hearing any person shall be entitled to be heard in support of or in opposition to the application for certification by raising one or more specific issues, provided that the person has raised the issue or issues in writing with specificity during the application review process or during the public comment period that will be held prior to the start of the adjudicative hearing.
(b) If the environmental impact of the proposed facility in an application for certification is not significant or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level under RCW 43.21C.031, the council may limit the topic of the public hearing conducted as an adjudicative proceeding under this section to whether any land use plans or zoning ordinances with which the proposed site is determined to be inconsistent under subsection (2) of this section should be preempted.
(5) After expedited processing is granted under RCW 80.50.075, the council must hold a public meeting to take comments on the proposed application prior to issuing a council recommendation to the governor.
(6) Additional public hearings shall be held as deemed appropriate by the council in the exercise of its functions under this chapter.
[ 2022 c 183 s 9. Prior: 2006 c 205 s 3; 2006 c 196 s 6; 2001 c 214 s 7; 1989 c 175 s 173; 1970 ex.s. c 45 s 9.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 183: See note following RCW 80.50.010.
Severability—Effective date—2001 c 214: See notes following RCW 80.50.010.
Findings—2001 c 214: See note following RCW 39.35.010.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2008–2017 · leading case: Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 4× “Former WAC 463-28-030(2). The applicant had to submit regular reports to EFSEC regarding the status of negotiations with the local government.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 4× “The applicant had to submit regular reports to EFSEC regarding the status of negotiations with the local government.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 310 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 5× “RCW 80.50.090. ¶11 After completing these steps, EFSEC submits a recommendation to the governor and, if recommending approval, submits a draft certification agreement.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “RCW 80.50.090. After completing these steps, EFSEC submits a recommendation to the governor and, if recommending approval, submits a draft certification agreement.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA (Wash. 2017). “ld. The governor then determines whether to approve the application and execute a site certification agreement, reject the application, or require EFSEC to reconsider aspects of the application.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.090(1) — 2 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 310 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 80.50.090. ¶11 After completing these steps, EFSEC submits a recommendation to the governor and, if recommending approval, submits a draft certification agreement.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (Wash. 2013). “RCW 80.50.090. After completing these steps, EFSEC submits a recommendation to the governor and, if recommending approval, submits a draft certification agreement.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.090(2) — 4 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008). “Former WAC 463-28-030(2). The applicant had to submit regular reports to EFSEC regarding the status of negotiations with the local government.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008). “The applicant had to submit regular reports to EFSEC regarding the status of negotiations with the local government.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 310 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 80.50.090. ¶11 After completing these steps, EFSEC submits a recommendation to the governor and, if recommending approval, submits a draft certification agreement.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (Wash. 2013). “RCW 80.50.090. After completing these steps, EFSEC submits a recommendation to the governor and, if recommending approval, submits a draft certification agreement.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.090(3) — 2 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008). “Former WAC 463-28-030(2). The applicant had to submit regular reports to EFSEC regarding the status of negotiations with the local government.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008). “The applicant had to submit regular reports to EFSEC regarding the status of negotiations with the local government.”
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.