[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":56,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5972929,"mediaKeyId","5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6","parentId",5868508,"title","FSEC final transmission programmatic EIS due in October; aims to guide routing and mitigation","audioSeconds",617,"startMs",1780000,"endMs",2397000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6&start=1780&end=2397","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6/thumbnail_1780000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5972929/Washington/FSEC-final-transmission-programmatic-EIS-due-in-October-aims-to-guide-routing-and-mitigation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972929-d3a2a56d936892c33959b6fc51355c6c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775386076&Signature=a0whOgRtxb8GC9a17zTnGKfKWD4LDhJGGDbSIoOeB58-QQ2~DNvJ4p4dWpFY995rSIxHzBzDkXet81d7nzsCZ4CmVrQ-b-NdQVUFI-MgvAErVpXnUqGisEJmnP9dBP7sgwT4szmdbQC5p13wvaXFjjDqerBxKPvGLYJ5jj3Br~5IfRNA2jclYjNZOfr57N0A-cIG3AMYY-Wg9f4mZfkRof5JlFZqKTzdvSGlvHK7UUo07zphr9oam5JjhG06HZgOQm6P6K2hxdC2BUXRQzeY~iljqlpC~LAwwRbeVNr2wy-71DNbE35VpjP8~WT5j~WYR0seUkvOWw3mPONm5tlevw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington","date","2025-09-29T00:00:00Z","article","The Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (FSEC) told the House Environment & Energy Committee that its non-project programmatic environmental impact statement for high-voltage transmission (nominal voltage 230 kV and greater) will be finalized and issued in early October and is designed to provide a consistent statewide framework for transmission siting and mitigation.

\"The final document will be issued in early October,\" FSEC presenter Amy Hoffgemeier said, describing a document the agency characterized as roughly 1,000 pages of analysis and appendices. FSEC said it scoped the review to include all of Washington except marine areas and islands without bridge connections; tribal lands were excluded by default but tribes were offered the option to opt in and none had requested inclusion as of the presentation.

FSEC said the programmatic EIS was required by statute to identify geographic areas suitable for large transmission, analyze probable significant adverse environmental impacts, and develop mitigation strategies that could include avoidance of sensitive areas. The programmatic will present general measures (baseline procedures assumed for projects), design examples (for example, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife management recommendations), and avoidance criteria for resources deemed difficult to mitigate (for example, traditional cultural properties). FSEC also described a sensitivity-mapping process that combined multiple data layers into \"criteria cards\" and statewide sensitivity maps intended as planning tools to help optimize corridor routing and reduce conflicts between developers and lead agencies.

The agency said the programmatic would serve as an informational and planning tool, not a prohibition on siting, and warned that maps represent sensitivity, not definitive impact magnitudes; for example, an area rated as high sensitivity does not automatically mean a project there will have a high-magnitude impact — that determination rests with the project lead agency's technical review. Hoffgemeier walked committee members through a decision tree intended to guide both developers and lead agencies in using the programmatic and noted the document assesses impacts from overhead and underground lines, reconductoring, upgrades that expand footprint, and modifications that do not.

Committee members raised questions about reconductoring versus footprint expansions and about tribal engagement where older lines pre-date consultation. Jim Anderson Cook, director of Grant County Development Services, and Shona (attorney for the Yakama Nation) highlighted on-the-ground challenges: Cook said Grant County currently has ten large-scale solar projects in various stages — two beginning construction, two conditionally approved and two under SEPA review — and described the challenge of cumulative-impact review where projects cluster in corridors; Shona urged more front-loaded data and improved timelines to allow tribes to address cultural-resource data gaps.

FSEC said the programmatic is intended to make review more consistent and quicker by giving lead agencies a well-documented set of likely impacts and mitigation options; the agency plans coordinated outreach with Ecology to help jurisdictions use the programmatic in project-level SEPA reviews.

Ending: Hoffgemeier said FSEC will finalize QA/QC and printing and then coordinate outreach to help lead agencies implement the programmatic. The council emphasized that project-level reviews remain necessary and that avoidance criteria in the programmatic will be used where mitigation is infeasible.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Environment & Energy - 9/29/2025 10:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (FSEC) told the House Environment & Energy Committee it will issue a final programmatic EIS for high‑voltage transmission in early October and that the document is intended to standardize sensitivity mapping, avoidance criteria and mitigation templates statewide.","taxTitle","Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20248,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":56,"_72":73,"_74":73},5972934,"State Ecology says clean-energy programmatic EISs aim to speed siting, flag site-specific risks",664,91000,755000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6&start=91&end=755","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6/thumbnail_91000.jpg","/articles/5972934/Washington/State-Ecology-says-clean-energy-programmatic-EISs-aim-to-speed-siting-flag-site-specific-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972934-57de21e4cc7d789661926e8d94a8fb18/orig.mp4?Expires=1775386076&Signature=nIguOIa1jBkRvkDHlLUXzYFqzD96ufk1RiCbVtaOMdk~i3x79Qexn6scgXrLP1R0JiWbRDO4S8fWX7G0-LoCbYDDWp4XNfWm0P2dhtSwjrRxGKOGiN6DcOEf5JpQIK3~fXVjnW0wFKHBImnz8SQdQ6cKqnyhUR6sUzlPj1QbLHoGRuNACGT~5zP0aYF4S7J6u~pnP8wEi6efkPKPKZiLenXGzI~pN9xQCyQKcKa8DRO9FiarTYVSl4uZ4oa3pY8V-QEHHGZWD6wk66nXNhjMHkaQio9glokaSSmZts9aU7sxk7-EO32Yh2AYbOJN2Cjw2RtlZIzHRus8ossZvmFPBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clean-energy programmatic environmental impact statements (PEISs) completed by the Washington Department of Ecology are intended to streamline siting and permitting of large clean-energy projects while flagging impacts that require detailed, project-level study. Ecology told the House Environment & Energy Committee that three PEISs (utility-scale solar, utility-scale onshore wind and green hydrogen production and storage) were completed in June 2025 and a fourth, for sustainable aviation fuel pathways, blending and distribution, is underway.

The PEISs provide broad evaluations to inform developers, lead agencies, tribes and the public, Ecology said. \"The clean energy programmatic environmental impact statements support efficient, effective siting and permitting of clean energy projects,\" Ecology presenter Diane Buterak said. The agency added the PEISs do not approve projects or remove local or state permitting authority; they are planning-level reference documents that identify where impacts could be \"less than significant\" and where impacts could range up to \"potentially significant,\" depending on site-specific conditions.

Ecology explained why PEISs matter: they supply consistent, early information so developers can make siting and design choices that avoid or reduce impacts, and provide state and local lead agencies with a technical baseline that can shorten the environmental-review timeline. Ecology contrasted environmental-review timelines: a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) can take months, while a full project-level environmental impact statement (EIS) can take up to two years.

The PEISs evaluate natural and built resources across multiple disciplines — air, water, transportation, noise, terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and cultural resources — and include layered outputs: a summary (12–15 pages), a plain-language main body and technical appendices. For many resource categories the PEISs found impacts \"less than significant,\" but Ecology said some resources may show impacts that are significant at particular sites (for example, if a project would affect a specific habitat type). Those site-specific determinations must be made during the project-level review.

Ecology listed cross-cutting potentially significant concerns across the three completed PEISs: wildfire risk from new ignition sources in remote locations, battery energy-storage system (BESS) overheating and hazardous emissions risk, noise and vibration during construction and decommissioning, and impacts to terrestrial habitat including special-status species. Solar- and wind-specific issues included land-use changes that could alter rural character or convert long-term commercial natural-resource lands, recreation loss, turbine blade disposal if recycling is unavailable, and visual landscape changes. Green-hydrogen-specific issues included fire and explosion risk from flammable gases, aquatic habitat impacts, and greenhouse-gas emissions that depend on production pathway and energy source.

Ecology emphasized mitigation and tools: the PEISs recommend siting and design practices, mitigation measures for construction, operation and decommissioning, and identification of required permits and codes. Ecology said it has created outreach workshops, project siting and design worksheets, online mapping resources, consistency templates for lead agencies, and a \"kit\" on its PEIS website intended to reduce review time when lead agencies receive developer-submitted materials. The agency also recommended early tribal engagement and emphasized that tribal rights and historic/cultural resource protections are addressed through existing federal and state consultation processes.

Committee members pressed Ecology on timelines, water use, waste and fire response. Representative Joe Bridal asked whether Ecology has empirical data on time savings; Buterak replied there is not yet quantitative data because the PEISs were finalized in June, but that the agency expects the documents to enable more complete project applications and faster MDNS determinations in some cases. Representative Dye asked about water consumption; Ecology said construction-phase water use for solar and wind is typically limited and operational water demands are low, but green hydrogen could require large water quantities and projects must demonstrate both physical and legal water availability at the project site. On battery fire risk, Ecology said the PEISs identify mitigation measures including fire suppression in BESS enclosures, state-adopted fire code standards, and recommended collaboration with local fire responders on training and equipment.

The PEISs were developed under legislative direction, Ecology said, citing the bills that directed the work. Ecology urged lead agencies and developers to use the programmatic analyses as a tool but reiterated that project-level SEPA review remains required.

Ending: Ecology said it will continue outreach with developers, planning agencies and tribes, and keep tools online to encourage consistent application of PEIS recommendations during project-level permitting.","Clean-energy programmatic environmental impact statements (PEISs) completed by the Washington Department of Ecology are intended to streamline siting and permitting of large clean-energy projects while flagging impacts that require detailed, project-level study.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":56,"_72":73,"_74":73},5972920,"Lawmakers hear implementation updates and industry, recycling and environmental perspectives on Washington's carryout-bag law",265,5065000,5330000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6&start=5065&end=5330","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6/thumbnail_5065000.jpg","/articles/5972920/Washington/Lawmakers-hear-implementation-updates-and-industry-recycling-and-environmental-perspectives-on-Washingtons-carryout-bag-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972920-4c0502d67066095d219627f6b21c4948/orig.mp4?Expires=1775386076&Signature=SM~uENe99-uKYYRSSPPCBp690BJvgKV75cIbn-OeiGjNvzNWQOHzUG2blanVhG1gfezx4aXleORsyQdaZUZFzhrTc6h0APZgQKLHAvmLx8m4U6SrPRP7S9-951XhHB-9whLGHi49MuLgExb72VvXAhfPL~OgjkGC7z5-hLDrEwuITwbRfmhjOEnEPTfWs9-fGmofqkQCfI1qYXyd~Ds4MD5a9h4YQHQWaSaFpvLxaRNwL--u6OdHvqHtR-EH761jAVm71wGcl3kbrGjskFjf0K3pI3aTEvxCJ9jV5g4uHhgSzIMI81ovPcY4aQ4FIVpTFwMVLpPDSYnyMfl1Loqi8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Environment & Energy Committee heard updates and competing perspectives on Washington's statewide carryout-bag law, including enforcement practice, revenue effects and supply-chain and recycling implications as the state prepares a scheduled fee increase and pending changes to the types of bags that can be provided.

Jacob Blips and Tracy Taylor briefed the committee on the statutory scheme: the state law restricts single‑use thin plastic bags and requires retail establishments to charge customers a pass‑through fee for paper and reusable plastic film bags. The fee is currently 8¢; the Legislature previously scheduled an increase to 12¢ for plastic reusable bags to take effect Jan. 1, 2026, and the Legislature left that increase intact last session. The scheduled increase in the minimum thickness requirement for plastic reusable bags was delayed: the thicker (4‑mil) minimum will not take effect until 2028, and last session the Legislature added a temporary 4¢ civil penalty on 4‑mil or thicker bags while the transition rules apply.

\"These pass through charges that are currently 8¢ ... are retained by the retail establishment,\" Jacob Blips said, adding they are taxable sales but deducted for B&O tax calculations under the 2020 law. Tracy Taylor described revenue reporting: retailers have reported B&O deductions for the fee (roughly $2.5M in fiscal 2022, $3.5M in FY23 and $3.6M in FY24) and an assumed state sales‑tax base effect of roughly $3.7M in annual sales tax revenue (per the fiscal estimate). Ecology manager Peter Lyon said the agency has prioritized education and complaint‑driven enforcement and that, to date, \"we have never imposed a $250 fine on any retailer thus far.\" Ecology also said it had received 872 noncompliance reports and generally responds with technical‑assistance letters and a graduated enforcement path before conducting a site visit.

Industry witnesses told lawmakers the law is confusing for retailers and that current fees do not fully cover rising bag costs. Brandon Huskeeper of the Northwest Grocery Retail Association said retailers will \"do everything they can to avoid the additional 4 cent penalty\" and described increased per‑bag costs after the 2020 shift from thinner to thicker film. Smaller retailers and convenience-store representatives said bag use and purchase patterns vary by neighborhood, store type and region, and that paper-bag supply is constrained: paper pallets hold far fewer bags than plastic pallets, which drives transportation and per‑bag costs.

Recyclers and curbside operators urged that plastic film bags remain out of commingled curbside recycling streams because they wrap equipment and cause processing problems; Republic Services and other MRF operators said film should be returned to store take‑back points for specialized recovery. Environmental and local-government speakers said bans and fees reduce litter and marine impacts: an academic analysis cited by 0 Waste Washington correlated local bag policies with 25–47% reductions in shoreline bag litter in U.S. cleanup data.

Ending: Committee members heard a wide range of views as agencies and stakeholders prepare for the statutory fee increase to 12¢ and the 2028 thickness transition; Ecology urged continued education and a complaint process, industry asked for predictable policy and attention to supply‑chain limits, and recyclers and environment groups urged stronger measures to reduce litter and keep plastic film out of curbside streams.","Committee received an overview of Washington's carryout-bag law and its scheduled changes, enforcement status and fiscal effects, followed by industry, recycler and environmental testimony about bag thickness, fees, recycling and public behavior.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":56,"_72":73,"_74":73},5972924,"Puget Sound Energy warns permitting unpredictability threatens near-term reliability goals",404,4152000,4556000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6&start=4152&end=4556","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5868508-0bf875de080ed2c44360490c6828f3f6/thumbnail_4152000.jpg","/articles/5972924/Washington/Puget-Sound-Energy-warns-permitting-unpredictability-threatens-near-term-reliability-goals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972924-f52cf4630e20ab246a6f080975763816/orig.mp4?Expires=1775386076&Signature=fe9Mp2gcSSpt7wjP9Io1Aj3v63gEuZE6clDsQK0Q088QeZweX~9xZXUmEho2C9IJmX6bmUqJAN0UrtUOrisr2XLAG8Jsckveo5MUIjKDHikWHf8sxuo7tDIkq2IIex-O2fIrJsxmdlkynkIycLUuAFTJEGt-guOBrRBVvJut8tAb-RAOPfH2mYaNMfLK9mP1Dq6dRBhwy7HQSSCPRKT4xk2yN~bH-IYupma3PfEml9HFhEYo8Rj5KwzBh-dWa-vNAhqC4EzSOw-6IL6ZDULZ023z0EtlxEikK~OGkefOsJ4ZuGOTZTgr1We4aa3dJz-SuTstIGwI7nVLsUpF6~f7oQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Puget Sound Energy (PSE) told the House Environment & Energy Committee that the utility must acquire thousands of megawatts of new clean energy to meet state targets and that permitting uncertainty and inconsistent SEPA applications across local jurisdictions threaten predictable timelines.

\"We are needing to acquire significant new clean energy at an unprecedented rate and scale,\" PSE director Sarah Labourette said, noting the utility serves about 1.2 million electric and 900,000 gas customers. Labourette said PSE's 2023 progress report estimated the company would need roughly 6,700 megawatts of new clean-energy capacity by 2030 to meet statutory objectives.

Labourette described two intersecting challenges. First, CETA-era procurement requires more dispatchable and intermittent resources than in the past; second, local SEPA and permitting expertise varies by jurisdiction. She described a 16-mile reconductoring project that took ten years because five jurisdictions needed to be educated and engaged on technical issues. PSE said programmatic EISs and statewide tools may help produce more consistent applications and mitigation packages, but the company still expects long timelines for long‑haul transmission projects and urged state-level leadership to create more predictable permitting pathways.

Committee members asked about possible fuel mixes to firm supply in the near term. Labourette said PSE is pursuing an \"all of the above\" strategy within the bounds of CETA and investor caution: options include geothermal, hydrogen in the longer term, new wind or solar (often remote), and technologies that can provide firm dispatchability. On the question of using hydropower to firm renewables, Labourette said PSE operates hydro assets such as Baker and Snoqualmie but was not aware of near-term opportunities to site new hydropower; she offered to connect legislators with utility staff on any identified hydro opportunities.

Ending: PSE said it supports clearer, more consistent permitting processes and anticipates continuing long lead times for major transmission, asking the Legislature to consider policies that raise predictability while the utility pursues multiple technology options to meet statutory clean-energy goals.","Puget Sound Energy officials told lawmakers that meeting Clean Energy Transformation Act targets while maintaining reliability requires large amounts of new clean capacity and long-haul transmission, but local permitting and inconsistent SEPA application across jurisdictions make timelines unpredictable and could delay projects.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

FSEC final transmission programmatic EIS due in October; aims to guide routing and mitigation

State Ecology says clean-energy programmatic EISs aim to speed siting, flag site-specific risks

Lawmakers hear implementation updates and industry, recycling and environmental perspectives on Washington's carryout-bag law

Puget Sound Energy warns permitting unpredictability threatens near-term reliability goals