Senate Bill 6165 (S-3904.1), introduced in the 2026 session, would restrict the use of eminent domain to site electrical transmission facilities on agricultural lands by amending existing statutes and adding a new section to chapter 8.25 RCW. The bill modifies RCW 80.50.060 to clarify which transmission projects are covered by the certification chapter, to require that applications include a comprehensive evaluation of all feasible corridors on public lands or within existing rights-of-way, and to require a detailed evidentiary explanation when a proposed route crosses agricultural land. The bill also revises the definition of “modification” for transmission facilities and adds notification and tribal consultation requirements tied to certification applications. The bill imposes procedural limits on eminent domain. It amends RCW 54.16.020 to bar a district from exercising eminent domain on agricultural land for a transmission facility unless it first demonstrates that public lands or existing rights-of-way are not a feasible alternative. A new section to chapter 8.25 RCW places the burden on the condemning authority in eminent domain actions to prove necessity, requires a good faith effort to use public lands and existing rights-of-way, and requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that no feasible alternative exists. If a court finds the condemnor failed to meet that burden, the court must enter a final adjudication preventing the condemnation and award the condemnee reasonable attorney and expert witness fees under RCW 8.25.070. Similar limits are added for cities or towns that own electric systems and for corporations that manufacture or transmit electric power. The bill defines key terms by cross-reference: “agricultural land” means land meeting the definitions in RCW 84.34.020; “public lands” includes federal, state, and political subdivision lands (such as state forest and trust lands); and “feasible alternative” means an alternative capable of being completed considering cost, technology, and logistics. The bill also reiterates that eminent domain over public roads requires prior authorization under RCW 80.32.010 and includes other acquisition limits for municipal utilities and intercity acquisitions. The record provided is incomplete in several respects: the remainder of the new section added to chapter 8.25 RCW is cut off, the amended text for RCW 35.84.030 and RCW 80.32.060 is not shown, and the statutory identity of “the council” and the precise meaning of “district” are not defined in the extracted facts. No effective dates or full procedural text beyond what is summarized here were included.

If enacted, the bill would make it much harder for utilities, public utility districts, municipal power systems, and other condemning authorities to take productive farm and ranch land for new high-voltage transmission lines. Before they can condemn agricultural land they would need to show they first tried to use public lands or existing rights-of-way and then prove by clear and convincing evidence that no feasible alternative exists; project applications must document that analysis. Practically, developers will likely face higher upfront costs and delays for routing studies and documentation, greater litigation risk, and the possibility that a court will block the condemnation and require the condemnor to pay the landowner’s attorney and expert witness fees. The people most affected are utilities and other entities wanting new transmission corridors (more planning, study, legal exposure) and farmers and ranchers (reduced chance of losing productive agricultural land). State agencies that manage public lands and local governments will be more involved as potential alternative sites. Important details are missing from the excerpts—including parts of the new eminent domain provision, the exact amendments to two other statutes, and definitions of the council and district—so how the rules will work in some cases and when they take effect is unclear.