JOINT LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE ON ENERGY FACILITY SITING

Notes from the First Round of Work Group Meetings

Held September 12 and 13, 2000

in Senate Hearing Room 4, Olympia

BACKGROUND

At the first meeting of the Task Force, held August 24, the members established three work groups. The purpose of the work groups is to review issues and make recommendations to the Task Force. The "A" Work Group, which is reviewing the "What?" questions, will report to the Task Force on October 17 in Bellingham. The "B" Work Group, which is reviewing the "Who" questions, will report to the Task Force on October 24 in Olympia. And the "C" Work Group, which is reviewing the "How" questions, will report to the Task Force in Kennewick on November 13.

Anyone may participate in any of the work group meetings. If participants agree on a recommendation, they will forward the recommendation as one that has consensus. If participants disagree about how to solve an issue, they will explain the nature of the disagreement. Participants may also submit their separate views.

The list of issues in the budget proviso and the work group assignments are as follows:

(a) Jurisdiction and membership of the state siting authority: The "A" Work Group (looking at the What? questions) will review jurisdiction; the "B" Work Group (looking at the Who? questions) will review membership.

(b) Procedures: Work Group "C" (looking at the "nuts and bolts" or How? questions.)

(c) The scope of preemption of proprietary and regulatory functions of local governments and other state agencies: A Group.

(d) Local government participation: B Group.

(e) The standards and processes for determining the need for proposed projects: A Group.

(f) The role of a counsel for the environment: B Group.

(g) Funding and related costs of participating in the state siting process: C Group.

(h) Monitoring and oversight of certified facilities: A Group.

(i) The siting of facilities on public lands: A Group.

MEETING NOTES

The meeting notes will show any progress made on reviewing issues and will record any recommendations, but will not attempt to capture the full extent of the conversation. The meeting notes were prepared by facilitator and legislative staff.

THE "A" OR "WHAT" WORK GROUP

The "A" or "What" Group met from 1:30 - 4:30 on Tuesday, September 12 in Olympia. Attending were:

Margaret Allen, board member of Energy Northwest

Jim Arthur, Office of Community Development, facilitator

Chuck Blumenfeld, Perkins Coie LLP

William Bridges, Senate Energy, Technology and Telecommunications Committee

Chuck Carelli, Washington State Department of Ecology

Jim Chasey for Bill Kiel, Energy Northwest

Kathleen Collins, Pacific Corp

Maria Doss, Senate staff

Larry Farleigh, Washington Department of Parks and Recreation

Allen Fiksdal, manager of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council

Bill Frymire, Attorney General’s Office

Susan Harper, Fuel Safe Washington

Nancy Hirsch, Northwest Energy Coalition

Carol Jolly, Office of Financial Management, Executive Policy Office

Dick Little, City of Bellingham

Scott MacColl, staff, House Technology, Telecommunications, and Energy Committee

Patty McDonald, City of Auburn

Karen McGaffey, Perkins Coie

David Mudd, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Claudia Newman, Bricklin and Gendler, LLP, and Fuel Safe Washington

Arne Olson, Energy Policy, Office of Trade and Economic Development

Terry Oxely, Puget Sound Energy

Carole Richmond, House Agriculture and Ecology Committee

Richard Rodger, Senate Environmental Quality and Water Resources Committee

Gayle Rothrock, Natural Resources

Collins Sprague, Avista Corp.

Mike Tracy, Puget Sound Energy

J. Vander Stoep, Chehalis

Donna Veley, House staff

1. Participants agreed that the state should have a role in the siting of energy facilities, that there should be some sort of state siting authority.

2. Participants listed criteria or statements that would describe a state siting process. This is a list for future discussion; participants have not yet discussed each item on the list sufficiently to determine the level of support for each. Indeed, some remarks were stated as questions. The following were written on tear sheets:

-The state has a role in the siting of energy facilities of statewide significance. ("Statewide significance" was not defined.)

-One function of a state siting authority is to coordinate state regulatory roles (one-stop shopping); another function is to perform siting.

-What constitutes a needed energy facility?

-What type of facility should the siting authority have jurisdiction over? What size?

-The siting authority should have jurisdiction over energy facilities that affect multiple jurisdictions, that cross government boundaries.

-Alternative energy sources

-A siting process should be equitable to local interests.

-A siting process should be efficient.

-A siting process should have predictable timelines.

-What should be the extent of preemption?

-A siting process should respond to economic need.

-A siting process should consider resource impacts (air, water, etc.).

-A siting process should result in projects that maximize efficiency of energy production and minimize environmental impacts.

3. Other statements or questions recorded by notetakers, but not on tearsheet, that might be useful for future discussion:

-What is the state energy policy and what is its connection with siting?

-The current statute is ambiguous. A state siting process, whatever its form, should be clear.

-Should the state siting authority be a siting entity or a policy entity?

-A fundamental role of a state siting authority is looking at the state’s interest.

-A state siting authority should not be in a position of choosing among projects.

-Is there a need for more development of an energy policy in the state? What should be the connection between the state energy policy and a siting authority?

-Should the statute presume need?

-Should the process have an "opt-in" provision? In other words, should it set a threshold and then allow projects below that threshold to use the process if they prefer? This idea was also suggested for local governments: For projects below the threshold for automatic inclusion under the state process could a local government decide to have the project go through the state process?

THE "B" OR WHO WORK GROUP

The "B" or "Who" Work Group met from 9:00 - 12:00 on Wednesday, September 13 in Olympia. Attending were:

Margaret Allen, board member of Energy Northwest

Jim Arthur, Office of Community Development, facilitator

Heather Ballash, Office of Community Development

William Bridges, Senate Energy, Technology and Telecommunications Committee

Chuck Carelli, Washington State Department of Ecology

Kent Caputo, Miller Nash, LLP, for Duke Energy

Jim Chasey for Bill Kiel, Energy Northwest

Kathleen Collins, Pacific Corp

Maria Doss, Senate staff

Allen Fiksdal, manager of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council

Bill Frymire, Attorney General’s Office

Susan Harper, Fuel Safe Washington

Jerry Henry, Puget Sound Energy

Carol Jolly, Office of Financial Management, Executive Policy Office

Scott MacColl, staff, House Technology, Telecommunications, and Energy Committee

Patty McDonald, City of Auburn

David Mudd, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Claudia Newman, Bricklin and Gendler, LLP, and Fuel Safe Washington

Arne Olson, Energy Policy, Office of Trade and Economic Development

Terry Oxely, Puget Sound Energy

Carole Richmond, House Agriculture and Ecology Committee

Richard Rodger, Senate Environmental Quality and Water Resources Committee

Deborah Ross, Chair of EFSEC

Collins Sprague, Avista Corp.

Craig Ward, City of SeaTac

Rusty Fallis, Attorney General’s Office

1. The issue of membership: Based on the discussion, there would appear to be two basic types of membership on a state siting authority: representatives of state agencies or a body made up of stakeholders. There was considerable discussion about the problems with the current state agency membership. There were no strong points made in favor of agency membership.

-There were three ideas behind agency membership, none of which is now working as intended. First, it was thought that someone could speak for the agency, but the adjudicative process complicates that and the representatives cannot represent their agency. Second, it was expected that experts would be able to represent the agency, but directors are choosing to keep their experts for intervenor status, and because of adjudication, the representatives may not talk with the experts. Third, it was thought that there would be a high level of policy involvement, but in fact directors cannot devote the time to the process.

-EFSEC is taking considerable time away from representatives’ other responsibilities.

-Agencies are compensated for only some of the costs.

-Local membership on the council is valuable, but constituents may not talk with their representative because of adjudication. Furthermore, funding is difficult for local members.

2. Type of process: The problems noted with the present adjudicative process led participants to pose the alternative of an informal advisory body, whether comprised of agency representatives or stakeholders appointed by the governor.

3. Who makes the final decision? There was considerable discussion of the governor’s present role as final decision maker and a wide range of opinions. The original intent was to introduce a political element. At present the governor can reject a project recommended by the council or send a project back to the council for further consideration. An alternative discussed would be to have the final decision made by a siting authority comprised of stakeholders appointed by the governor. If the process were not adjudicative, the political element would then come into play as the governor worked with cabinet agencies that participating in the siting process. A variation on this option would be for the council to make the final decision but discuss the decision with the governor before making it.