Senate Bill 5015 amends multiple provisions of Washington law to make the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC or the council) the final decisionmaker on site certification for covered energy facilities, removing the governor from the project approval step. The bill amends RCW 80.50.040, 80.50.045, 80.50.060 and other sections listed in the bill heading, creates a new section, and repeals RCW 80.50.320. Under the changes, EFSEC reports must include a council decision and, when approving an application, a binding site certification agreement executed by the council and applicant; permits tied to state implementation plans or to EFSEC authority become effective only when EFSEC approves and executes a certification agreement. The bill makes several procedural and administrative changes: it designates EFSEC as the state siting authority for certain interstate transmission projects under 16 U.S.C. § 824p, prohibits consideration of the fuel source carried by transmission facilities when reviewing transmission applications, requires preapplication and public meeting processes for transmission siting, and defines “modification” of transmission facilities. It requires EFSEC to consult and coordinate with state agencies, local governments, tribes, and other stakeholders; mandates government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes and coordination by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation on tribal cultural resources; requires written notice to certain local authorities and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation on receipt of applications; and directs written notification to the U.S. Department of Defense for projects tied to transmission facilities of nominal voltage at least 115,000 volts. The bill changes application fees, cost-recovery, hearing, and timing rules: applicants must deposit up to $50,000 (or more after consultation) at application and certificate holders must deposit up to $50,000 within 30 days of executing a certification agreement; EFSEC may charge actual processing, inspection, and compliance costs against deposits and may suspend processing or certification for nonpayment. EFSEC must hold an informational public hearing no later than 60 days after application receipt and an adjudicative hearing before issuing its decision; it must decide approved or denied applications within 12 months of receipt of a complete application (with a 180-day expedited deadline for certain qualifying applications filed before December 31, 2025). The bill also makes certification agreements revocable for material false statements, failure to comply, or violations of the chapter, and requires site certification agreements to include carbon dioxide mitigation plans and specified conditions including mitigation for 20% of facility CO2 emissions with specified payment and sequestration options and deadlines. Some portions of the text available to this analysis are incomplete or truncated. The extract does not include the full text of every RCW amendment listed in the bill heading, the precise transitional mechanics for removing the governor beyond the amended report language, full definitions of some terms (for example the director referenced for NEPA coordination), and the completion of the council report language that was cut off.

If enacted, the council (EFSEC) would make final certification decisions without sending recommendations to the governor, and those decisions would include binding certification agreements that make related state permits effective. Practically, project sponsors will need to front significant application and certification costs (deposits up to $50,000 at application and again at certification, plus reimbursement of actual council expenses and consultant studies), meet tighter processing timelines (the council must decide within 12 months of a complete application, or 180 days for certain expedited cases filed before the end of 2025), and comply with new procedural steps: early notifications to local governments, tribes, the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Department of Defense for some transmission projects, a required government-to-government tribal consultation summary in council reports, and public hearings within set timeframes. The groups most affected are EFSEC (greater responsibility and final authority), applicants and certificate holders (higher upfront cash needs, ongoing monitoring and invoicing, potential suspension of processing or certification for nonpayment, and risk of revocation for false statements or noncompliance), local governments and tribes (new consultation and notification roles), and agencies involved in emissions oversight and sequestration. Certified projects also face a mandatory carbon mitigation obligation: an approved plan covering 20% of facility CO2 with payment options including a lump sum or five-year schedule and a baseline mitigation price shown as $1.60 per metric ton (adjustable by rule); failure to meet these funding and compliance steps creates financial and operational risk. Some implementation details are unclear from the provided text, including transitional steps for removing the governor from the approval process and the precise definition of the director role.