House Bill 1237 amends RCW 80.50.090 and 80.50.100 and repeals RCW 80.50.075 and 80.50.320, making procedural and substantive changes to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) certification process. It requires EFSEC to hold an informational public hearing in the county of a proposed site within 60 days of receiving an application, and a subsequent hearing to determine whether the proposed site is consistent with city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning ordinances as of the application date. If EFSEC finds inconsistency, an adjudicative proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act (chapter 34.05 RCW) must occur before EFSEC issues its recommendation, and that proceeding must consider whether inconsistent local plans or ordinances should be preempted. The bill changes SEPA procedure by requiring the director, after an environmental checklist is submitted and before a threshold determination of significance, to notify the applicant of the basis for an anticipated determination and offer the applicant an opportunity to withdraw and revise the application; that pre-determination notice is explicitly not an official, appealable determination under chapter 43.21C RCW. EFSEC must also hold a public comment hearing after any final environmental impact statement and before recommending certification, must include conditions in draft certification agreements to protect government, community, and overburdened community interests, and must recognize the purposes of any laws or ordinances preempted under RCW 80.50.110. For certain facility types (alternative energy resource, clean energy manufacturing facility, biofuel production facility, fusion energy facility, storage facility, or electric transmission facility), EFSEC is directed to recommend approval if the preponderance of the evidence supports specified findings about public benefits, mitigation of environmental and cultural impacts, protections for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations, health and safety, and decommissioning and reuse/disposal; EFSEC’s assessment of what is “practicable” must include economic viability. Timelines are adjusted: EFSEC must report to the governor within 12 months of receipt of an application deemed complete by the director (or sooner by mutual agreement), with an expedited 180-day reporting option for certain applications filed before December 31, 2025. The governor has 60 days to act on EFSEC’s report (and another 60 days if EFSEC returns an amended draft), and an executed certification agreement is binding on both the governor and the applicant. The document references several terms and roles (for example, the “director,” definitions of facility types, and the standards for deeming an application complete) and cites other statutes, but those definitions and standards are not provided in the extracted text. The prior content of the repealed sections (RCW 80.50.075 and RCW 80.50.320) is not included, so the full effect of those repeals cannot be determined from these facts alone.

If enacted, project applicants and local governments will face a more structured and front-loaded review: the council must hold a public information hearing near the proposed site within 60 days of an application, then a later hearing to test consistency with local land use rules, and if the council finds inconsistency it must hold an adjudicative proceeding before recommending approval. Applicants will also get a written heads-up from the director about an anticipated SEPA significance finding and the chance to withdraw and revise the application before an official determination, and the council must take public comment after any final EIS and build conditions into draft certification agreements to protect local and overburdened communities. For certain clean energy and transmission projects, the council is directed to recommend approval when evidence shows public benefit, mitigation, protections for vulnerable populations, and viable decommissioning, and the governor has firm 60-day windows to act on the council’s recommendation (with a shorter 180-day review option for some applications filed before December 31, 2025). The people and offices most affected are project applicants (who may face earlier hearings, possible extra adjudicative steps, and opportunities to revise applications), the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (new hearing and conditioning duties), counties and cities (whose land use rules can trigger adjudicative review and possible preemption questions), and overburdened communities (who gain explicit protection considerations). The bill also repeals two prior statutes but the prior procedures they created aren’t included here. Key implementation details are unclear from the provided text, including which office the referenced “director” represents and the standards for when an application is “deemed complete,” so some operational effects and timing could vary in practice.