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

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.110 (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) If any provision of this chapter is in conflict with any other provision, limitation, or restriction which is now in effect under any other law of this state, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, this chapter shall govern and control and such other law or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder shall be deemed superseded for the purposes of this chapter.
(2) The state hereby preempts the regulation and certification of the location, construction, and operational conditions of certification of the energy facilities included under RCW 80.50.060 as now or hereafter amended.
[1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 108 s 37; 1970 ex.s. c 45 s 11.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective date—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 108: See notes following RCW 43.21F.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 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× “¶ 78 Within its authority to promulgate the regulations for the GMA, CTED recognized that its regulations "should accommodate situations where the state has explicitly preempted all local land use regulations, as for example, in the siting of major energy facilities under RCW…”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “¶79 Within its authority to promulgate the regulations for the GMA, CTED recognized that its regulations “should accommodate situations where the state has explicitly preempted all local land use regulations, as for example, in *311 the siting of major energy facilities under…”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver, 357 P.3d 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “RCW 80.50.110 provides that EFSLA supersedes conflicting state laws and regulations and expressly preempts energy facility certification decisions by other governmental entities.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 310 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “The SCA acts “in lieu” of any other requirements imposed by other regulatory bodies. RCW 80.50.120(3). Further, the provisions of EFSLA can preempt any other rules or regulations promulgated within the state, including local land use rules.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA (Wash. 2017). · cites it 2× “RCW 80.50.110. This serves to reduce construction delay; site certification, once obtained, is the only license necessary to construct and operate the project.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (Wash. 2013). “RCW 80.50.110(1); Residents, 165 Wn.2d 275 .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.110(1) — 2 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 310 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2013). “The SCA acts “in lieu” of any other requirements imposed by other regulatory bodies. RCW 80.50.120(3). Further, the provisions of EFSLA can preempt any other rules or regulations promulgated within the state, including local land use rules.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (Wash. 2013). “RCW 80.50.110(1); Residents, 165 Wn.2d 275 .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.110(2) — 5 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 78 Within its authority to promulgate the regulations for the GMA, CTED recognized that its regulations "should accommodate situations where the state has explicitly preempted all local land use regulations, as for example, in the siting of major energy facilities under RCW…”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008). “¶79 Within its authority to promulgate the regulations for the GMA, CTED recognized that its regulations “should accommodate situations where the state has explicitly preempted all local land use regulations, as for example, in *311 the siting of major energy facilities under…”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver, 357 P.3d 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 80.50.110 provides that EFSLA supersedes conflicting state laws and regulations and expressly preempts energy facility certification decisions by other governmental entities.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 310 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2013). “The SCA acts “in lieu” of any other requirements imposed by other regulatory bodies. RCW 80.50.120(3). Further, the provisions of EFSLA can preempt any other rules or regulations promulgated within the state, including local land use rules.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA (Wash. 2017). “RCW 80.50.110. This serves to reduce construction delay; site certification, once obtained, is the only license necessary to construct and operate the project.”
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.