The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) process, governed primarily by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 80.50, establishes a unified and comprehensive state-level review for the siting of energy facilities. This process aims to balance the need for energy development with environmental protection and public interest. Key to EFSEC’s authority is its role in issuing a binding Energy Facility Site Certificate, which preempts local government permitting for the certificated facility. This means that once EFSEC approves a site certificate, local ordinances and zoning requirements related to the facility’s siting are generally superseded. This consolidation of authority is intended to streamline the permitting process for energy projects while ensuring thorough environmental and public review. Other state agencies, such as the Department of Ecology for water quality permits (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – NPDES) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife for fish and wildlife impacts, still have roles, but their permits are typically coordinated through or conditioned by the EFSEC certificate. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulates the rates and services of utilities, but EFSEC holds the primary authority over site certification for the facilities themselves.

The Washington State Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 19.405, mandates that electric utilities in Washington achieve a 100% clean electricity supply by 2045. This includes eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from electricity sold to Washington customers. Utilities must submit biennial progress reports to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) detailing their strategies for meeting these targets. These strategies can include investments in renewable energy sources, energy efficiency programs, demand response, and grid modernization. The Act also establishes a framework for greenhouse gas reduction targets, setting interim goals for 2030 and 2035. Utilities are required to demonstrate how their resource plans align with these mandates, considering reliability, affordability, and environmental impact. The UTC oversees the implementation and enforcement of CETA, ensuring that utility actions are consistent with the Act’s objectives and that consumers are protected. The concept of “clean electricity” under CETA encompasses renewable resources like solar and wind, as well as eligible clean sources that do not emit greenhouse gases.

The Washington State Legislature, through the Energy Independence Act (EIA), established renewable energy goals and mandates for utilities. A key component of the EIA is the requirement for utilities to procure a certain percentage of their electricity from qualifying renewable energy sources. The Act also allows for the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to demonstrate compliance. RECs represent the environmental attributes of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated from a renewable source. Utilities can either generate their own renewable energy, purchase renewable energy directly, or purchase RECs from other sources. The specific percentage requirements and eligible technologies are detailed in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provisions that implement the EIA. The question probes the understanding of how utilities demonstrate compliance with Washington’s renewable energy mandates, specifically focusing on the mechanism of RECs as a tradable commodity representing the environmental benefits of renewable generation. The core concept is the fungibility of RECs in meeting regulatory obligations, allowing for market-based solutions to achieve policy goals. This reflects a common approach in energy regulation where tradable permits or credits are used to incentivize emission reductions or renewable energy adoption. The efficacy of such systems often hinges on robust tracking and verification mechanisms to ensure the integrity of the credits.

Washington State’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) process is a comprehensive, one-stop permitting system for energy facilities. The core principle is to consolidate all state and local permitting authority for designated energy projects under a single council. This process aims to streamline approvals while ensuring environmental protection, public participation, and consideration of energy needs. When a proposal for a large energy facility, such as a new thermal power plant or a major transmission line, is submitted in Washington, it triggers the EFSEC review. The Council then conducts a thorough site certification process, which involves detailed studies, public hearings, and coordination with various state agencies and local governments. The goal is to reach a decision on whether to issue a site certification agreement, which then preempts most other state and local permits. This agreement specifies conditions for construction and operation to mitigate environmental and social impacts. The EFSEC process is governed by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 70.60. The question asks about the primary mechanism by which EFSEC ensures compliance with its site certification agreements. This is achieved through the establishment of specific conditions within the agreement itself, which are legally binding. These conditions are monitored and enforced by EFSEC, often in collaboration with relevant state agencies. While other mechanisms like environmental impact statements and public comment periods are crucial parts of the process, the site certification agreement with its embedded conditions is the direct enforcement tool for operational compliance post-approval.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities plan for future development and ensure that development is consistent with comprehensive plans. This includes provisions for energy facilities and infrastructure. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.020 outlines the state-wide goals, including Goal 12: “Ensure the availability of energy resources and the siting of energy facilities.” This goal requires that local governments consider the need for and siting of energy facilities within their comprehensive plans and development regulations. When a proposed renewable energy project, such as a wind farm, is located in an unincorporated area of a county, the county’s comprehensive plan and its implementing development regulations, including zoning ordinances and critical areas ordinances, govern its siting and development. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, also requires environmental review for such projects, and the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) process under RCW 80.50 may be involved for certain types of energy facilities, though smaller renewable projects might be primarily regulated at the local level. However, the core question revolves around the primary legal framework for land use and siting decisions for a project in an unincorporated area. The GMA’s requirement for comprehensive plans to address energy facility siting, coupled with the county’s authority to implement these plans through development regulations, makes the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances the foundational legal instruments. The Public Utility District (PUD) has a role in providing energy services but does not dictate land use decisions in this context. While SEPA mandates environmental review, it does not supersede the GMA’s land use planning authority. EFSEC’s involvement is contingent on the type and scale of the facility, and not all renewable energy projects fall under its direct jurisdiction for initial siting approval in the same manner as larger thermal power plants. Therefore, the county’s comprehensive plan and its zoning ordinances are the primary determinants of whether and how such a project can be sited.

The question concerns the application of Washington State’s Renewable Energy Cost-Reimbursement Program, specifically as it relates to a residential solar installation and the calculation of the reimbursement amount. The program, as outlined in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 80.80.060, provides a reimbursement for a portion of the installed cost of qualifying renewable energy systems. For solar electric systems, the reimbursement is set at a specific rate per watt of installed capacity, up to a maximum system size and a maximum reimbursement amount. In this scenario, Ms. Anya Sharma installed a 7-kilowatt (kW) solar electric system. The program’s statutory rate for solar electric systems is \( \$1.00 \) per watt. Therefore, the gross reimbursement amount would be calculated by multiplying the system’s capacity in watts by the rate per watt. First, convert the system’s capacity from kilowatts to watts: \( 7 \text{ kW} \times 1000 \text{ watts/kW} = 7000 \text{ watts} \) Next, calculate the gross reimbursement: \( 7000 \text{ watts} \times \$1.00/\text{watt} = \$7000 \) However, the program also specifies a maximum reimbursement amount per system. For residential solar electric systems, this maximum is \( \$5,000 \). Since the calculated gross reimbursement of \( \$7000 \) exceeds the statutory maximum of \( \$5,000 \), Ms. Sharma will receive the maximum allowable reimbursement. This program aims to incentivize the adoption of renewable energy by offsetting a portion of the initial investment. The rate and maximum reimbursement are designed to make renewable energy systems more accessible to homeowners in Washington State, thereby supporting the state’s clean energy goals. The program’s structure, including the per-watt rate and the cap, reflects a balance between providing a meaningful incentive and managing the program’s fiscal impact. Understanding these parameters is crucial for both consumers and installers when planning renewable energy projects in Washington.

The question revolves around the application of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) in Washington State, specifically concerning qualifying cogeneration facilities (QFs). PURPA mandates that electric utilities purchase power from QFs at an “avoided cost” rate. Avoided cost is defined as the incremental cost to an electric utility of electric energy or capacity or both which, but for the purchase from such facility or aggregation, the utility would have generated itself or acquired from another source. In Washington, the avoided cost calculation is a complex process overseen by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). It considers various factors including the utility’s fuel costs, capital costs, operation and maintenance expenses, and the value of reliability and capacity. The WUTC’s rules, particularly those found in Chapter 480-04 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), outline the methodologies for determining avoided costs, which are periodically updated. The core principle is that the utility should not be worse off by purchasing power from a QF than if it had generated the power itself. Therefore, a QF’s ability to secure a favorable power purchase agreement (PPA) hinges on demonstrating that its generation offers economic benefits to the utility, as reflected in the avoided cost calculation. The Public Utility District No. 1 of Clark County’s (Clark PUD) situation, as described, highlights the practical challenges of negotiating PPAs under these regulations, where the utility’s evolving resource portfolio and market conditions influence the determination of what constitutes a truly “avoided” cost. The question tests the understanding that the avoided cost is not a fixed number but a dynamic calculation influenced by the utility’s specific circumstances and regulatory oversight.

The question pertains to the regulatory framework governing wholesale electricity markets in Washington State, specifically concerning the integration of renewable energy resources and the associated transmission planning requirements. Washington State, like many other states, operates within a deregulated or partially deregulated wholesale electricity market, often influenced by regional transmission organizations or independent system operators. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WTC) plays a crucial role in overseeing utilities’ compliance with state and federal regulations, including those related to resource adequacy, grid reliability, and the procurement of clean energy. When a new large-scale renewable energy project, such as a wind farm in Eastern Washington, seeks to connect to the transmission grid to serve load in Western Washington, it triggers a series of regulatory and planning processes. These processes are designed to ensure that the transmission system can reliably accommodate the new generation while maintaining overall grid stability and meeting demand. Federal regulations, particularly those from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), often set the overarching rules for interstate wholesale electricity markets and transmission access. State-level regulations, enforced by bodies like the WTC, then implement and supplement these federal mandates, often addressing specific state policy goals, such as renewable portfolio standards or clean energy targets. The interconnection of a new generating facility to the transmission system typically involves a detailed interconnection study process. This process assesses the potential impacts of the new facility on the grid, including its ability to deliver power, potential congestion, and necessary upgrades to the transmission infrastructure. The costs associated with these necessary upgrades are then allocated according to established cost allocation principles, which can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the upgrade. For projects intended to meet Washington’s clean energy goals, the state’s energy siting and permitting processes, as well as its procurement policies for renewable energy credits (RECs), are also highly relevant. The WTC’s role is to ensure that utilities under its jurisdiction undertake these processes in a manner that is just and reasonable, and that aligns with the state’s energy objectives. Therefore, the most appropriate regulatory body to oversee the interconnection process for a project serving Washington load, and to ensure compliance with state clean energy mandates, is the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, in coordination with federal authorities and regional grid operators.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities plan for future development to ensure the conservation of open space, the management of natural resources, and the protection of the environment. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.170 requires that comprehensive plans include measures to protect critical areas. Critical areas are defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) and include geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and salmonid habitat areas. Under the GMA, local governments must adopt development regulations to protect these critical areas. These regulations must be consistent with the goals and purposes of the GMA and the state’s minimum guidelines for critical areas protection, which are provided by state agencies like the Department of Ecology. The effectiveness of these regulations is subject to review by the Growth Management Hearings Board. Therefore, a county’s comprehensive plan, when addressing energy facility siting, must integrate critical area protection requirements as mandated by the GMA to ensure environmental sustainability and compliance with state law. This includes considering the potential impacts of energy infrastructure on identified critical areas and implementing appropriate mitigation or avoidance strategies.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that cities and counties plan for future development and provide for a variety of housing, employment, and recreational opportunities. Within this framework, energy facilities are considered critical infrastructure. The GMA requires that comprehensive plans designate and protect critical areas, which can include energy infrastructure corridors. Furthermore, RCW 36.70A.070 outlines the requirements for the content of comprehensive plans, including provisions for energy facilities. Specifically, counties and cities must adopt development regulations that implement their comprehensive plans. The State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), established under RCW 80.50, plays a crucial role in permitting large energy facilities in Washington. While EFSEC has primary siting authority for certain large energy projects, local governments retain authority over land use and zoning decisions that affect energy facilities within their jurisdictions, as long as these decisions are consistent with the GMA and the state’s energy policy. The interplay between state and local authority is complex; local regulations must not unduly burden or prohibit energy facilities that are in the state’s interest, but they can impose reasonable land use controls. The question asks about the primary mechanism for local governments to influence the siting and operation of energy facilities within their boundaries. This is achieved through their land use planning and zoning ordinances, which are mandated by the GMA to implement the comprehensive plan. These local regulations, when properly enacted and consistent with state law, dictate where facilities can be located, their operational parameters, and other land use impacts.

The question pertains to the regulatory framework governing utility-scale solar energy projects in Washington State, specifically concerning siting and permitting. Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) is the primary body responsible for the siting of energy facilities, including large solar farms, under RCW Chapter 80.50. This statute outlines a comprehensive process for evaluating the environmental, economic, and social impacts of proposed energy facilities. The process involves pre-application consultations, public hearings, and a detailed site certification agreement. While local governments play a role in land use planning and zoning, EFSEC’s jurisdiction preempts local authority for the siting of facilities it approves, ensuring a consistent statewide approach. The Public Utility District Act (RCW Chapter 54) grants public utility districts broad powers to develop, own, and operate electric facilities, including renewable energy projects, but the siting of such large-scale facilities is primarily governed by the EFSEC process. The Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), enacted in 2019, sets ambitious clean energy goals for the state and mandates a transition to 100% clean electricity by 2045, encouraging renewable energy development, but it does not establish the specific siting and permitting procedures for individual facilities. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for actions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and EFSEC’s process incorporates SEPA requirements, but SEPA itself is not the sole or primary siting authority for these types of projects. Therefore, the most direct and overarching regulatory body responsible for the siting and permitting of a utility-scale solar farm in Washington State is EFSEC.

The Washington State Legislature, through the Energy Independence Act (EIA) codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 19.285, mandates that electric utilities procure a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources. This percentage, known as the renewable energy standard (RES), increases over time. The Act also allows for the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) as a mechanism to demonstrate compliance. A REC is a tradable, non-commodity, certificate of origin that represents the environmental attributes of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated from a renewable energy resource. Utilities can generate RECs by producing renewable energy themselves or purchase them from third-party generators. The primary purpose of RECs is to incentivize the development and deployment of renewable energy by creating a market for the associated environmental benefits. The EIA specifies eligible renewable resource categories and also sets forth provisions for compliance, including banking of RECs and the establishment of a renewable energy account for alternative compliance payments. The definition of eligible resources under RCW 19.285.010 is crucial for determining what constitutes compliance.

The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has a statutory mandate to ensure that proposed energy facilities are consistent with the state’s comprehensive plan and that their construction and operation do not pose an unreasonable risk to the environment or public health and safety. This includes a thorough review of potential impacts, consideration of alternative sites and technologies, and public participation. The council’s authority is derived from Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 80.50. Specifically, RCW 80.50.070 outlines the criteria for site certification agreements, which are binding contracts between the applicant and the state. These agreements address environmental protection, economic development, and public interest considerations. The process involves extensive public hearings and consultations with various state and local agencies. The ultimate goal is to provide a streamlined yet comprehensive review process for energy facilities, balancing the need for energy development with environmental stewardship and community well-being.

The Washington State Legislature, through the Energy Independence Act (Initiative 937), established renewable energy standards and energy conservation goals for the state. Specifically, RCW 19.285.040 outlines the requirements for eligible renewable energy sources. For utilities serving over 25,000 customers, the act mandates a progressive increase in the percentage of electricity supplied from eligible renewable resources, reaching 15% by 2015 and 100% by 2045 for new retail sales of electricity. Eligible resources include hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. However, the definition of eligible renewable resources has been subject to interpretation and legislative amendment. The Act also addresses energy conservation, requiring utilities to acquire conservation resources to meet a specified percentage of their retail electricity sales. The question probes the understanding of how Washington’s renewable energy policy, as established by Initiative 937 and subsequent amendments, categorizes and includes or excludes specific energy generation technologies. The key is recognizing that while hydro is a foundational renewable resource in Washington, its inclusion as an “eligible renewable energy source” under the specific mandates of Initiative 937 for meeting the state’s renewable energy targets has nuances, particularly concerning its treatment relative to newer, non-hydro renewables and the specific legislative intent to foster the development of those newer technologies. While hydro is undeniably renewable, the Act’s focus and incentives were often directed towards expanding the portfolio beyond traditional large-scale hydro. The legislation’s evolution, including amendments and regulatory interpretations by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), has refined the definition and application of eligible renewable energy sources. The core concept being tested is the precise definition of “eligible renewable energy source” as it pertains to meeting the specific percentage mandates of RCW 19.285.040, and how the legislature has historically prioritized or differentiated between various renewable technologies within that framework.

The Washington State Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 19.405, mandates a transition to a 100% clean energy electricity supply for Washington by 2045. A key component of this transition involves utility-scale battery storage projects. Under CETA, utilities are required to develop integrated resource plans (IRPs) that demonstrate how they will meet their clean energy obligations. These IRPs must consider various resources, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and demand response. When evaluating battery storage projects, utilities must consider their contribution to grid reliability, their ability to integrate intermittent renewable resources, and their cost-effectiveness compared to other available resources. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) oversees the approval of these IRPs and the specific projects proposed within them. The law emphasizes a least-cost, best-resource approach, meaning that utilities must select the most economical and effective combination of resources to achieve the clean energy goals. This includes assessing the lifecycle costs of battery storage, such as capital expenditure, operational and maintenance costs, and potential revenue streams from grid services. Furthermore, CETA encourages the development of clean energy projects in historically underserved communities, which may influence the siting and approval of battery storage facilities. The framework established by CETA is designed to foster innovation and investment in clean energy technologies while ensuring that the transition is managed in a way that is affordable and reliable for Washington consumers. The specific performance standards and interconnection requirements for battery storage are often detailed in separate commission dockets and utility tariffs, but their inclusion and justification within the IRP is a critical step in their deployment under CETA.

The Washington State Legislature, through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), has established a comprehensive framework for the siting and permitting of energy facilities. The Public Shoreline Management Act (PSMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 90.58, governs the use of shorelines in Washington State. While EFSEC has primary jurisdiction over the siting and environmental review of energy facilities, including those located on or adjacent to shorelines, it must still coordinate with local governments and consider local shoreline master programs (SMPs) as mandated by the PSMA. Specifically, EFSEC’s review process, as outlined in RCW 80.50.070, requires consideration of local government regulations and policies, including SMPs, when evaluating a proposed energy facility. Therefore, a developer proposing a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the Puget Sound shoreline in Washington must obtain a site certification agreement from EFSEC. This agreement is a consolidated permit that preempts most other state and local permits. However, the EFSEC process is designed to integrate and consider local land use regulations, including those found in SMPs, to ensure consistency with broader state policies on shoreline management and environmental protection. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) also plays a role, with EFSEC acting as the lead agency for SEPA review for energy facilities. Local governments retain some authority, particularly concerning building permits and operational aspects not preempted by the site certification agreement, but the core siting decision and environmental impact assessment for a major energy facility rests with EFSEC.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities plan for future development and provide for the conservation of natural resources, including energy resources. While the GMA does not directly mandate specific energy generation technologies, it requires comprehensive planning that considers the availability and use of resources. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.020(1)(d) lists “natural resource industries” as a core planning goal, which can encompass energy production. Furthermore, RCW 36.70A.070 requires that comprehensive plans include policies and development regulations to protect and conserve natural resources. Counties and cities are also required to adopt capital facilities plans and concurrency requirements, which must account for the energy infrastructure needed to support projected development. The Washington State Energy Policy (RCW 43.21A.010 et seq.) also guides state-level energy planning and sets forth goals for energy conservation, efficiency, and the development of diverse energy sources, which local plans must consider. Therefore, a county’s comprehensive plan, when addressing the conservation of natural resources and planning for future development, must implicitly or explicitly consider the energy infrastructure and resource availability necessary to support that development, aligning with the broad goals of the GMA and state energy policy.

The question concerns the application of Washington State’s Renewable Energy Cost-Containment System (RECCS) as established under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 80.80.100 and related administrative rules, specifically focusing on how eligible renewable energy projects secure financial incentives. Under RECCS, a project developer must apply for and receive an allocation of capacity from the system. Once allocated, the developer enters into a production incentive agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce. This agreement specifies the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of eligible renewable energy generated. The incentive is paid to the developer for a defined period, typically ten years, as long as the project meets performance standards and reporting requirements. The system is designed to provide a predictable revenue stream, thereby encouraging investment in renewable energy generation within Washington. The key is the contractual obligation established through the production incentive agreement, which underpins the financial certainty for the project.

The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has a mandate to streamline the siting of energy facilities while ensuring environmental protection and public interest. When considering a proposed new hydroelectric dam on a tributary of the Columbia River in Washington State, EFSEC’s review process is governed by the Energy Facility Site Location Act (RCW 80.50). This act requires EFSEC to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed site and facility, including its environmental impact, economic benefits, and consistency with state and local plans. A key aspect of this evaluation is the determination of whether the proposed project is in the public interest. This involves balancing various factors, including the need for the energy, potential environmental degradation, impacts on local communities, and the availability of alternative energy sources. For a hydroelectric project, specific considerations under RCW 80.50 would include impacts on fish migration, water quality, instream flows, and the potential for cumulative effects on the river system. The council must also consider the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures. Ultimately, EFSEC makes a recommendation to the Governor, who then issues or denies the site certification agreement. The question asks about the primary legal framework governing this process in Washington State.

The question pertains to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and its implications for energy facility siting, specifically concerning the transmission of electricity generated from renewable sources. Under the GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.020 and related administrative rules, counties and cities are mandated to plan for and accommodate housing, employment, and other needs, including energy facilities. While the GMA emphasizes local planning and zoning, it also requires that these local plans are consistent with state-wide goals. For energy facilities, particularly those that serve a regional or state-wide purpose, the state has a strong interest. The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), established under chapter 70.235 RCW, plays a crucial role in the siting of energy facilities that meet certain thresholds. EFSEC’s mandate is to provide a unified and coordinated process for the siting of energy facilities, balancing the need for energy with environmental protection and public interest. When a proposed energy project, such as a high-voltage transmission line for renewable energy, crosses multiple jurisdictions or has significant regional impact, the EFSEC process often preempts or coordinates with local permitting processes to ensure a consistent and efficient outcome that serves the broader public interest of the state. Local jurisdictions, while having planning authority, must ensure their plans do not unduly restrict or prohibit the siting of essential public facilities like major transmission infrastructure, especially when such infrastructure is necessary to meet state energy goals, such as those promoting renewable energy development as outlined in various Washington state energy policies. Therefore, a transmission line essential for transmitting renewable energy across multiple counties would likely fall under the purview of state-level coordination and approval processes, potentially involving EFSEC, to ensure it aligns with state-wide energy needs and goals, rather than being solely determined by individual local zoning ordinances that might not adequately consider the broader regional benefits and requirements.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities plan for future development to ensure the protection of natural resources, including energy infrastructure. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.020 outlines the goals of the GMA, which include the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, the protection of the environment and natural resources, and the promotion of a sustainable future. While the GMA doesn’t directly dictate specific energy generation technologies or transmission line siting in minute detail, it establishes a framework for comprehensive land use planning that must consider the impact of development on natural resources and public facilities, which implicitly includes energy infrastructure. Counties and cities are required to adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations that are consistent with the GMA’s goals. This planning process often involves identifying critical areas, such as wetlands, forests, and fish and wildlife habitats, and establishing policies to protect them. Energy projects, particularly large-scale ones like wind farms or major transmission corridors, must be evaluated for their potential impacts on these designated critical areas and natural resources as part of the GMA’s planning and permitting requirements. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, also plays a crucial role by requiring environmental review for proposed projects, and this review must be integrated with the GMA planning process. Therefore, a county’s comprehensive plan, when addressing energy infrastructure, must demonstrate how it balances development needs with the preservation of natural resources as mandated by the GMA, ensuring that energy development does not unduly impair critical areas or the environment.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities plan for growth and development to ensure the protection of natural resources, including energy infrastructure. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.020(1)(d) identifies energy facilities as a critical area. Planning for energy facilities involves considering their siting, transmission, and impact on the environment and communities. Under the GMA, counties and cities are required to adopt comprehensive plans that include policies and regulations for energy facilities, ensuring that they are located and operated in a manner that is consistent with conservation goals and public health and safety. This includes addressing potential impacts on sensitive ecological areas and ensuring adequate infrastructure for energy distribution. The State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), established under RCW 80.50, plays a crucial role in the permitting of energy facilities in Washington, providing a centralized process for evaluating and approving sites, and ensuring compliance with state environmental and energy policies. The GMA’s framework encourages coordination between local governments and state agencies like EFSEC to achieve balanced energy development.

The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has a mandate to ensure that energy facility siting decisions are made in a manner that balances the need for energy with environmental protection and public interest. When a proposed energy project, such as a new hydroelectric dam on the Columbia River, undergoes EFSEC review, a comprehensive process is initiated. This process involves detailed environmental impact assessments, public hearings, and consideration of economic and social factors. EFSEC’s role is to provide a single, coordinated state-level review and decision-making process for energy facilities, thereby streamlining the permitting process for developers while ensuring rigorous oversight. The council’s authority extends to issuing site certifications, which are binding on state and local agencies. In this scenario, the developer must demonstrate that the proposed dam complies with all applicable Washington state laws and regulations, including those pertaining to water rights, fish and wildlife protection, and land use. The decision to approve or deny the site certification hinges on EFSEC’s determination of whether the project serves the public interest and meets the state’s energy needs without causing undue adverse environmental or economic impacts. The core of EFSEC’s function is to facilitate responsible energy development through a transparent and inclusive evaluation process.

The Washington State Clean Energy Transformation Project (CETP) established a framework for utilities to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2045, with interim goals. A key component of this framework is the consideration of cost-effectiveness and affordability for customers, as mandated by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 19.405.040. This statute requires the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) to ensure that proposed clean energy plans are not unreasonably expensive and do not disproportionately burden low-income households. When evaluating a utility’s plan, the UTC must consider a range of factors, including the impact on electricity rates, the availability of alternative energy sources, and the economic development implications within Washington. Furthermore, the Energy Independence Act (EIA), codified in RCW 19.285, provides foundational principles for renewable energy procurement and energy conservation, which are integrated into the CETP. The question assesses the understanding of the balancing act required by Washington law between ambitious clean energy targets and the practical economic realities of utility operations and customer affordability. The correct option reflects the statutory obligation to balance these competing interests, ensuring that the transition to clean energy is both environmentally sound and economically viable for the state’s residents and businesses, as guided by the principles of RCW 19.405.040 and the broader EIA.

The Washington State Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 19.405, mandates that electric utilities in Washington achieve 100% clean electricity by 2045. A key component of this transition involves the integration of renewable energy resources and the retirement of fossil fuel-fired generation. Utilities are required to develop biennial energy supply plans that demonstrate how they will meet these clean energy targets, including strategies for resource acquisition, grid modernization, and customer engagement. The Act also establishes a framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, with specific interim targets. The concept of “cost-effectiveness” is central to utility planning under CETA, requiring utilities to balance the pursuit of clean energy goals with the need to provide affordable and reliable service to their customers. This involves careful consideration of various generation technologies, energy efficiency programs, and demand response initiatives. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) plays a crucial role in reviewing and approving these plans, ensuring compliance with the Act’s provisions and promoting the public interest. The Act also addresses issues such as energy equity and environmental justice, ensuring that the benefits of the clean energy transition are shared broadly and that vulnerable communities are not disproportionately burdened.

The question concerns the application of Washington’s Renewable Energy Cost-Share Program (RECS) and its interaction with federal tax credits, specifically the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The RECS program, established under RCW 80.80.040, aims to provide financial incentives for the installation of renewable energy systems. A key aspect of such state-level programs is how they are designed to complement, rather than duplicate or conflict with, federal incentives. The RECS program generally allows participants to receive state incentives in conjunction with federal tax credits, provided that the combined incentives do not exceed the total cost of the eligible system. The calculation to determine the maximum RECS incentive would involve subtracting the value of the federal ITC from the total system cost. For a system costing $10,000 and eligible for a 30% ITC, the ITC value is $10,000 * 0.30 = $3,000. Therefore, the RECS program could potentially provide up to $10,000 – $3,000 = $7,000, assuming the program’s per-kilowatt incentive rate and total program cap allow for this amount. The core legal principle tested here is the principle of avoiding “double dipping” or “stacking” of incentives in a way that artificially inflates returns beyond the actual cost of the project, a common consideration in energy policy and utility regulation. Washington’s approach, like many states, is to allow the combination of incentives as long as the total state and federal benefits do not exceed the project’s capital cost. This ensures that the state program effectively supplements federal efforts and encourages the adoption of renewable energy without providing an undue financial windfall. The specific wording of RCW 80.80.040 and related administrative rules would further define the precise mechanisms and limitations.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities plan for future development and establish urban growth areas (UGAs) to concentrate development and protect rural and environmentally sensitive lands. For energy facilities, particularly those providing essential services, the GMA’s principles of promoting efficient development and protecting environmental resources are paramount. When a proposed large-scale renewable energy project, such as a wind farm, is to be located in a rural county that has not yet adopted a comprehensive plan or designated UGAs under the GMA, the county’s authority to permit such a facility is governed by its existing land use regulations, which must be consistent with the GMA’s underlying goals. While the GMA does not explicitly detail siting procedures for all energy facilities, it requires that all land use decisions, including permitting of significant development, be consistent with the Act’s goals. This includes ensuring that development does not impair the environment, conserves natural resources, and promotes the public welfare. In the absence of a formal GMA-compliant plan, a county would typically rely on its interim or non-GMA-compliant zoning ordinances, but these must still be interpreted in light of the GMA’s broader objectives. The State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) also plays a significant role in permitting energy facilities, often requiring a unified state-level review process that can preempt or complement local permitting, especially for projects of statewide significance. However, the question specifically asks about the county’s role in the absence of a GMA plan. The county’s decision-making process, even without a full GMA plan, must consider the public interest and the long-term implications for resource conservation and development, aligning with the spirit of the GMA. Therefore, the county must ensure its decision is reasonably consistent with the broad principles of the GMA, even if specific plan elements are missing.

The question concerns the application of Washington State’s Renewable Energy System Incentive Program, specifically the production incentive component under RCW 80.80.060. This program provides a financial incentive for the generation of electricity from qualifying renewable energy systems. The scenario involves a solar photovoltaic system with a nameplate capacity of 100 kilowatts (kW). The system is operational for 300 days a year, and on average, it generates 4 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per day per kW of installed capacity. The incentive rate is $0.05 per kWh. To determine the total annual incentive, we first calculate the total annual energy production: \(100 \text{ kW} \times 4 \text{ kWh/day/kW} \times 300 \text{ days/year} = 120,000 \text{ kWh/year}\). Then, we apply the incentive rate: \(120,000 \text{ kWh/year} \times \$0.05/\text{kWh} = \$6,000 \text{/year}\). This calculation demonstrates the direct application of the program’s incentive structure to a specific generation scenario. The Washington State Legislature’s intent with this program is to encourage the development and deployment of renewable energy sources within the state by providing a predictable revenue stream for system owners, thereby contributing to the state’s clean energy goals and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Understanding the calculation of these incentives is crucial for project developers, investors, and policymakers involved in Washington’s renewable energy sector. The program’s design reflects a policy choice to internalize the environmental benefits of renewable energy generation through direct financial support.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities plan for population growth and development to ensure the conservation of natural resources, protection of the environment, and promotion of public health and safety. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.170 requires the adoption of comprehensive plans that include policies and regulations to manage urban growth and protect critical areas. Critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5), include wetlands, areas with a significant flood hazard, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, and salmonid habitat areas. Local governments are required to adopt development regulations to protect these areas. The question asks about the primary mechanism for implementing these protections within the GMA framework. While public participation is crucial for the planning process (RCW 36.70A.140), and capital facilities plans (RCW 36.70A.070(4)) are part of the comprehensive plan, the direct implementation of critical area protections is achieved through the adoption and enforcement of specific development regulations that detail permissible activities, performance standards, and mitigation requirements within these sensitive zones. Therefore, development regulations are the direct and primary tool for implementing critical area protections under the GMA.

The Washington State Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 19.405, mandates a transition to a 100% clean electricity supply for Washington by 2045. A key component of this act involves the establishment of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for electricity generation and consumption. Specifically, the act requires electricity retail sellers to achieve a 100% clean electricity supply by 2045, with interim targets for GHG emissions reductions. For electricity generated within Washington, the act aims for an 80% reduction in GHG emissions from electricity by 2030, and 95% by 2035, relative to a 1990 baseline. For electricity consumed in Washington, regardless of its origin, the targets are 50% reduction by 2030 and 75% reduction by 2035, again relative to a 1990 baseline. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) is responsible for implementing and enforcing these provisions, including approving utility-specific clean energy implementation plans (CEIPs) that detail how utilities will meet these targets. These plans must demonstrate a clear pathway to achieving the mandated reductions, considering factors like grid reliability, cost-effectiveness, and environmental justice. The concept of “clean electricity” is defined within the act to include renewable resources and electricity generated from sources that do not emit GHG emissions.