Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.50

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.100

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) The council shall report to the governor its recommendations as to the approval or rejection of an application for certification within twelve months of receipt by the council of an application deemed complete by the director, or such later time as is mutually agreed by the council and the applicant.
(b) The council shall review and consider comments received during the application process in making its recommendation.
(c) In the case of an application filed prior to December 31, 2025, for certification of an energy facility proposed for construction, modification, or expansion for the purpose of providing generating facilities that meet the requirements of RCW 80.80.040 and are located in a county with a coal-fired electric generation facility subject to RCW 80.80.040(3)(c), the council shall expedite the processing of the application pursuant to RCW 80.50.075 and shall report its recommendations to the governor within one hundred eighty days of receipt by the council of such an application, or a later time as is mutually agreed by the council and the applicant.
(2) If the council recommends approval of an application for certification, it shall also submit a draft certification agreement with the report. The council shall include conditions in the draft certification agreement to implement the provisions of this chapter including, but not limited to, conditions to protect state, local governmental, or community interests, or overburdened communities as defined in RCW 70A.02.010 affected by the construction or operation of the facility, and conditions designed to recognize the purpose of laws or ordinances, or rules or regulations promulgated thereunder, that are preempted or superseded pursuant to RCW 80.50.110 as now or hereafter amended.
(3)(a) Within 60 days of receipt of the council's report the governor shall take one of the following actions:
(i) Approve the application and execute the draft certification agreement; or
(ii) Reject the application; or
(iii) Direct the council to reconsider certain aspects of the draft certification agreement.
(b) The council shall reconsider such aspects of the draft certification agreement by reviewing the existing record of the application or, as necessary, by reopening the adjudicative proceeding for the purposes of receiving additional evidence. Such reconsideration shall be conducted expeditiously. The council shall resubmit the draft certification to the governor incorporating any amendments deemed necessary upon reconsideration. Within 60 days of receipt of such draft certification agreement, the governor shall either approve the application and execute the certification agreement or reject the application. The certification agreement shall be binding upon execution by the governor and the applicant.
(4) The rejection of an application for certification by the governor shall be final as to that application but shall not preclude submission of a subsequent application for the same site on the basis of changed conditions or new information.
[ 2022 c 183 s 10; 2011 c 180 s 109; 1989 c 175 s 174; 1977 ex.s. c 371 s 8; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 108 s 36; 1970 ex.s. c 45 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 183: See note following RCW 80.50.010.
Findings—Purpose—2011 c 180: See note following RCW 80.80.010.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Severability—Effective date—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 108: See notes following RCW 43.21F.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2005–2015 · leading case: Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash · cites it 5× “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶ 8 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash · cites it 5× “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶9 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver (2015) washctapp · cites it 4× “RCW 80.50.100(1). If the Council recommends approval, it has authority to impose conditions on certification to implement the provisions of EFSLA.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash “RCW 80.50.100. ¶12 An executed SCA acts essentially as a contract between the State and applicant, setting forth the conditions that must be satisfied for implementation of the project.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp · cites it 5× “¶13 “A final decision pursuant to RCW 80.50.100 on an application for certification shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to provisions of chapter 34.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash “RCW 80.50.100. An executed SCA acts essentially as a contract between the State and applicant, setting forth the conditions that must be satisfied for implementation of the project.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.100(1) — 4 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶ 8 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶9 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver (2015) washctapp “RCW 80.50.100(1). If the Council recommends approval, it has authority to impose conditions on certification to implement the provisions of EFSLA.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “¶13 “A final decision pursuant to RCW 80.50.100 on an application for certification shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to provisions of chapter 34.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.100(2) — 3 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶ 8 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶9 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver (2015) washctapp “RCW 80.50.100(1). If the Council recommends approval, it has authority to impose conditions on certification to implement the provisions of EFSLA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.100(2)(a) — 3 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶ 8 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶9 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “¶13 “A final decision pursuant to RCW 80.50.100 on an application for certification shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to provisions of chapter 34.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.100(2)(c) — 2 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶ 8 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “RCW 80.50.100(1). ¶9 At the time it processed the application in this case, EFSEC had promulgated regulations governing how it would implement its preemption authority over local jurisdictions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.100(3) — 2 cases
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver (2015) washctapp “RCW 80.50.100(1). If the Council recommends approval, it has authority to impose conditions on certification to implement the provisions of EFSLA.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “¶13 “A final decision pursuant to RCW 80.50.100 on an application for certification shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to provisions of chapter 34.”
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.