This bill amends RCW 34.05.518 to create a new procedural route allowing direct review by the court of appeals of a final administrative agency decision in three situations: (1) when the superior court certifies direct review under specified factors; (2) when an environmental board’s final decision concerns a “clean energy project” and the superior court certifies transfer; and (3) when an environmental board’s final decision does not concern a clean energy project but the superior court certifies transfer. Transfers under the clean energy and non-clean energy environmental board provisions do not require filing a motion for discretionary review in the court of appeals. The amendment specifies certification rules and limits. Under subsection (2) the superior court may certify only if judicial review is limited to the agency record and the court finds certain factors (such as whether the decision was adjudicative or lacked an adjudicative process; the presence of fundamental and urgent issues; that delay would be detrimental; that appeal to the court of appeals is likely; and that an appellate decision would have significant precedential value); an application for this direct review must be filed in superior court within 30 days of filing the petition for review. For clean energy project permits (subsection (3)), the superior court must certify transfer on motion if the review can occur on the agency record without supplementation or if any required supplementation has been completed; the superior court must then transfer the matter to the court of appeals as a direct appeal, and a party contesting certification may seek discretionary review in the court of appeals, which may remand if substantial prejudice from direct review is shown. For environmental board decisions not related to clean energy (subsection (4)), the superior court must certify if all parties consent and review can occur on the agency record, or may certify without unanimous consent if the court finds transfer serves the interests of justice, will not cause substantial prejudice (including to unrepresented parties), and the review can occur on the record or only issues of law remain after supplementation; contested certifications may likewise be reviewed by discretionary motion and remanded for substantial prejudice. This is a procedural change to existing law rather than a new criminal or penalty provision. It affects superior courts, the court of appeals, administrative agencies that issue adjudicative decisions, environmental boards referenced at RCW 43.21B.005, and parties to those appeals. The amendment references other statutes for key definitions and procedures (RCW 43.21B.005 for “environmental board,” RCW 43.158.010 for “clean energy project,” and RCW 34.05.562 for supplementing the record), and it directs that certification procedures be established by court rule; those definitions, court rules, and any related statutory text are not included here. Section 1 takes effect July 1, 2026.

If enacted, the bill will make it easier for some final decisions by administrative agencies—especially decisions from environmental boards and permit decisions tied to "clean energy projects"—to go straight to the Washington Court of Appeals instead of following the usual superior court route. That can speed up appeals for those cases because certain transfers no longer require filing a discretionary review motion, but superior courts must first certify that the case is suitable for direct review under specific standards and timelines (including a 30‑day filing deadline for one pathway). The court of appeals can still remand if direct review would cause substantial prejudice. The groups most affected are superior courts (they will have new duties to decide certification requests and to transfer cases, and must wait for court rules that flesh out procedures), the Court of Appeals (likely to receive more direct appeals), environmental boards and agencies (their final adjudicative decisions may be litigated at a higher appellate level sooner), and parties to appeals, including unrepresented litigants who courts must consider when assessing prejudice. Key details such as precise definitions of "adjudicative proceeding" and "clean energy project," and the certification procedures to be adopted by court rule, are not provided here, so how often and how smoothly the new pathways are used is uncertain.