In 2019, Washington committed to a carbon-free electricity supply by 2045 under the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), and the state continues to build out the generation, transmission, and storage infrastructure needed to meet that long-standing goal. Kurt Beckett, Chair of Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), the state agency responsible for siting and permitting major energy facilities, recently hosted a public information session addressing the state’s approach to permitting and areas where it may evolve. The recording is available here.

This article summarizes several of the points raised during that session as a reminder of where things stand, including efforts to address permitting timelines, align planning processes, and coordinate with tribal nations and neighboring Oregon.

The Clean Energy Transformation Act’s 2045 Target

CETA requires the state’s electric utilities to supply 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, with interim compliance milestones along the way, under RCW 19.405.050. This works alongside Washington’s separate Climate Commitment Act (CCA), which sets economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction targets of 45% by 2030, 70% by 2040, and 95% by 2050, with the state aiming for full carbon neutrality by 2050. State officials are examining how to align the CCA’s cap-and-invest requirements with CETA’s clean-electricity mandate to ensure both programs goals can achieve their goals together.

EFSEC’s Siting and Permitting Role

EFSEC serves as Washington’s state-level siting authority for major energy facilities, including power plants, transmission lines, and energy storage projects. EFSEC coordinates review across multiple state agencies, including the Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Commerce, and the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC), together with the relevant local jurisdiction. Once a project is approved, EFSEC’s jurisdiction continues through construction and decommissioning.

Permitting Timelines and the Appeals Process

A benchmarking study comparing permitting reforms in Washington, California, Illinois, and New York identified Washington’s appeals process as the leading driver of permitting delay in the state. EFSEC can, in theory, issue permitting decisions within about nine months, but in practice, appeals currently often add more than two years to the overall timeline. As Beckett explained, the goal is not necessarily speed: EFSEC aims to “deliver time certain outcomes,” and “that’s not easy,” but doing so consistently “drives up certainty.” He was careful to note that “time certain outcomes doesn’t mean that everybody gets a permit. It doesn’t mean that everything goes fast always.” Beckett identified the appeals process as a significant contributor to overall permitting timelines and raised whether appeals could be more narrowly focused on unresolved issues, while emphasizing that existing appeal rights should not be curtailed.

Coordination with Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council

Beckett also compared Washington and Oregon’s approaches to energy planning and permitting. Unlike Washington, Oregon has a dedicated department of energy, which Beckett noted “helps,” though he does not favor creating one in Washington given budget constraints, preferring a more integrated approach over time. Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) also engages applicants earlier, before a formal application is filed, giving staff a more developed understanding of a proposal before formal review. A key legal distinction between the two states is that Washington reviews projects under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), while Oregon applies standardized mitigation requirements directly in its siting standards. Whether Washington could adopt Oregon’s standardized mitigation standards within SEPA remains open—Beckett called it “a work in progress.”

Tribal Consultation Requirements

As EFSEC chair, Beckett is responsible for government-to-government consultation with the 32 federally recognized tribes connected to Washington. As he explained, that consultation is conducted “tribe by tribe” on each project, since “that tribal council gets elected from their people,” and there is no regional or statewide consultation process that applies across multiple projects. Beckett noted that project developers should plan for individualized tribal engagement early in a project’s timeline.

Aligning Utility Resource Planning with Local Land-Use Planning

Washington utilities must prepare Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) under CETA to demonstrate their ability to reliably meet future customer demand. Separately, local comprehensive land-use plans adopted under Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) must include a utilities element under RCW 36.70A.070(4) and a climate change and resiliency element under RCW 36.70A.070(9). As Beckett noted, these two planning processes “don’t always touch,” and some local comprehensive plans do not fully account for future electricity infrastructure needs. Better aligning utility resource planning with local land-use planning is a continuing focus of state policy efforts.

Energy Northwest’s SMR Application

A small modular reactor (SMR) application from Energy Northwest is currently in pre-application review at EFSEC and is the first SMR application to come before the council. Beckett explained that SMR technology is certainly expected to “be in the mix” as part of the region’s future generation, though whether that happens in Washington specifically remains to be seen.

Takeaways for Energy Developers and Utilities

In summarizing these points, Beckett described Washington’s energy transformation as advancing on multiple fronts simultaneously. He highlighted the length of the permitting appeals process, the project-by-project nature of tribal consultation, and the need to better align utility resource planning with local land-use planning under the GMA as areas of continuing focus. He also noted that new generation technologies, including small modular reactors, and continued coordination with Oregon’s siting framework are likely to shape the state’s permitting landscape in the months ahead. Beckett also briefly addressed the role of data centers in the broader energy conversation, noting that while he has largely stayed outside that debate, it does come up regularly in discussions about the state’s energy future.

EFSEC has scheduled its next public session for October 8, 2026. Please watch for an additional article containing updates on further developments.

This article summarizes aspects of the law and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice with regard to your situation, you should contact an attorney.