This bill amends existing law in chapter 80.50 RCW (specifically RCW 80.50.090 and 80.50.100) and repeals RCW 80.50.075 and RCW 80.50.320. It makes procedural changes to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) site certification process: it requires an informational public hearing in the county and as close as practical to a proposed site within 60 days of receiving a site certification application; it requires a public hearing to determine whether the proposed site is consistent with applicable city, county, or regional land use plans or zoning as of the application date; and it requires the council to hold a public hearing after any final environmental impact statement and before making a recommendation to the governor. The bill changes SEPA and review procedures by requiring the director to notify applicants, after an environmental checklist is submitted and before issuing a threshold determination of significance, of the basis for an anticipated determination and to offer the applicant the option to withdraw and revise the application and checklist before the threshold determination is issued; the director’s notification is not an official, appealable determination. If the council finds a proposed site inconsistent with land use or zoning, the council must hold an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW to consider whether inconsistent plans or ordinances should be preempted. The council must submit, when recommending approval, a draft certification agreement with conditions to protect state, local, community, and overburdened community interests and to recognize purposes of any preempted laws or ordinances. The bill sets timing and decision standards: the council generally must report to the governor within 12 months of an application being deemed complete by the director (or later by mutual agreement), with an expedited 180‑day reporting option for certain applications filed before December 31, 2025; the council must find specified approval criteria by a preponderance of the evidence (including public benefits, mitigation of impacts, protections for overburdened communities, health and safety, decommissioning agreements, and consideration of economic viability). The governor must act within 60 days of receiving the council report to approve and execute a certification agreement, reject it, or direct reconsideration; if directed to reconsider, the council must resubmit and the governor then has 60 days to approve or reject. An executed certification agreement is binding, and a governor’s rejection is final for that application but does not bar a later application for the same site based on changed conditions or new information. The bill references other statutes and terms (for example, definitions of “overburdened communities” and SEPA terms) and affects EFSEC, the director (entity not identified in the provided text), the governor, applicants, and local governments. The provided text does not identify who the director is, how an application is formally deemed complete, the full definitions of referenced terms, or the prior content of the repealed sections.

If enacted, the bill makes project review more public and predictable while adding new procedural steps that can both reduce and add costs for applicants. Projects will face an early local informational hearing and a required check for consistency with local land use rules, and the agency reviewing environmental impacts must tell applicants in writing if a significant environmental review seems likely and give them a chance to withdraw and revise before that determination. That change can let some applicants avoid a long environmental impact statement by fixing problems early, saving time and expense, but the council must also include specific mitigation and protections for overburdened communities and may require adjudicative proceedings when local plans conflict, which can raise project conditions, compliance costs, and review workload. The groups most affected are project applicants, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and its director, and city and county governments and nearby communities. Applicants gain clearer timelines (council reports generally within 12 months or 180 days for certain pre-2026 filings and the governor must act within 60 days) but also face potentially stricter conditions, hearings, and the risk that a governor’s rejection ends that application; the council and director will need more hearing capacity and will carry extra responsibilities. Key details about who the “director” is, how an application is formally deemed complete, and what the repealed sections previously required are not included here, so some implementation effects remain uncertain.