Joel Creswell

The third meeting of the Low Carbon Energy Project Exciting Improvement Study Advisory Board focused on updates and discussions regarding systemic issues. Key agenda items included an update on the interim legislative report submitted in early December, an overview of a report on state siting efforts and agencies concerning clean energy permitting, and updates from the Governor's office. The majority of the meeting was dedicated to unpacking systemic issues identified during the November mural exercise and pivoting towards potential solutions. The meeting structure involved updates, initial business, three breakout sessions focusing on different issues, followed by public comment.

The initial meeting of the advisory board for the low-carbon energy siting improvement study commenced with welcoming remarks and an acknowledgement of the traditional land. The stated objectives for the meeting included introductions of the advisory board members and state agency representatives, establishing grounding in the project's focus and purpose, discussing the advisory board charter and ground rules, and setting the stage for future discussions on systemic issues surrounding facility siting, environmental review, and permitting. Presentations from Ecology, the Department of Commerce regarding the state energy strategy, and the SEC on the siting process were also on the agenda. A public comment period was scheduled for the conclusion of the session.

The July 13 meeting of the Advisory Board focused primarily on environmental justice and community engagement in the context of the low-carbon energy project siting improvement study. Key discussion points included how environmental justice considerations should be integrated into environmental review, permitting, and citing processes, and identifying opportunities to improve community engagement. An update was provided on the Columbia Plateau Lease Conflict Solar Siting Project, detailing the mapping group process involving conservationists, farmland/rangeland concerns, and the solar industry to identify low-conflict areas, noting that tribal input will be sought after initial map creation. The schedule for the siting study, which runs for one year starting July 1st, was outlined, including a kickoff meeting on September 20th, midpoint review in January, and a final report due June 30th. The presentation also highlighted previous discussions regarding community awareness, clarity on involvement, understanding project impacts versus benefits, and the need for project alternatives.

The meeting focused primarily on the economic considerations for low-carbon energy project siting. Key discussion points included local economic benefits, impacts such as tax burden, job creation, workforce opportunities, and the costs associated with permitting and environmental review processes for tribes and local governments. Presentations were delivered by representatives from the Department of Commerce, Department of Revenue, and the Utilities and Transportation Commission regarding these economic factors. Additionally, the board discussed emerging insights on high-level recommendations shared previously, and a follow-up was initiated regarding the development of a GIS mapping tool, requesting user stories for input.

The discussion, stemming from a breakout session, focused on optimizing the project review and permitting processes. Key topics included the desire for earlier, pre-application engagement between applicants, reviewing entities, and stakeholders, particularly tribal nations and NGOs, to avoid late-stage surprises and inadequate mitigation measures. Participants discussed the constraints of current timelines, where short comment periods (e.g., 30 days) hinder thorough review, contrasting with the need for longer lead times (six months to a year) for complex projects that require extensive studies. A suggestion was made to make the pre-application process mandatory, including compensation for agencies involved in the early review, to ensure all critical issues like cultural resources and wildlife corridors are addressed before formal application submittal. Counterarguments noted that extensive early analysis might be redundant if a Determination of Significance (DS) review is already comprehensive, potentially leading to a balance between time and the level of review protection.