This bill creates a new section in chapter 43.21F RCW directing the Washington State Department of Commerce to seek nonstate funds and, if sufficient gifts, grants, or other contributions are received to cover costs, to develop and publish by December 15, 2026 a "nuclear power strategic framework" for integrating new fission (advanced nuclear) generation into the state energy strategy. The requirement to proceed is explicitly contingent on receipt of sufficient nonstate funds; no specific dollar amount or funding threshold is stated in the extracted text. The framework must, at minimum, identify state objectives for new fission nuclear power and key actions for government entities, joint operating agencies, utilities, and other stakeholders; outline preconstruction and operation processes (including financing, siting, permitting, tribal consultation, workforce, and regulatory processes); assess challenges and opportunities; consider strategic partnerships with nearby states and coordinated multistate cost reductions; and include policy recommendations (regulatory, tax/financial supports, education/workforce programs). The framework must address whether to expedite or curtail state siting and permitting to avoid redundancy with federal rules and to align with chapters 70A.45 and 19.405 RCW, consider preferences or expedited review for previously evaluated or formerly fossil-fueled sites (including within the Hanford footprint), identify mechanisms to mitigate financial risks, evaluate land use impacts versus nonnuclear options, and identify anticipated impacts on the economy, workforce, and electric sector goals. The department must solicit guidance from the energy strategy advisory committee convened under RCW 43.21F.090, provide public review opportunities for a draft, and integrate the final framework into the next review and update of the state energy strategy. The authority to seek gifts, grants, and contributions is cited to RCW 43.330.040(2)(c). This is a procedural and planning change establishing a required strategic planning product contingent on nonstate funding; it does not create a new crime or change penalties. Affected parties named include the Department of Commerce, the energy strategy advisory committee, government entities, joint operating agencies, utilities, tribal governments, nearby states for potential partnerships, and the U.S. Department of Energy as manager of the Hanford site. The extracted text does not specify the amount that would be "sufficient" funding, the composition or current status of the advisory committee, or the timing of the "next review and update" of the state energy strategy.

If enacted, the Department of Commerce would prepare and publish a funded-by-nonstate-money strategic plan by December 15, 2026 that lays out options, costs, and recommended actions for adding new fission (advanced nuclear) generation in Washington. The plan would identify state goals, the permit, siting, workforce, financing, tribal consultation, and regulatory steps to get projects built, evaluate challenges and opportunities, consider working with nearby states, and offer policy recommendations such as possible expedited or preferential siting at previously evaluated sites (including within the Hanford footprint), ways to lower financial risk, and measures to limit land‑use impacts. The department must seek input from the energy strategy advisory committee and the public and then fold the plan into the next state energy strategy update. The people and organizations most affected would be the Department of Commerce (which must raise nonstate funds and produce the framework), utilities and other project developers (who would see a state roadmap and potential recommendations that could reduce financing or siting barriers), state and local permitting authorities and joint operating agencies (whose processes could be targeted for change), tribal governments (who must be consulted as part of outlined processes), and neighboring states if multistate coordination is pursued. The initiative creates little direct state spending because it only proceeds with sufficient gifts or grants, so the immediate cost risk to the state is limited, but whether the work happens depends on securing unspecified nonstate funding and the timing of the next energy strategy update and advisory committee actions is not defined in the text.