Energy council grants expedited review for Carriger Solar despite tribal objections

The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on Monday voted to grant expedited processing for Cypress Creek Renewables’ Carriger Solar application, moving the project into a public-comment review and toward a council recommendation to the governor.

The council’s action followed staff findings that the project met two statutory criteria for expedited processing: a prior order finding the site consistent with local land-use requirements, and a mitigated determination of nonsignificance under the State Environmental Policy Act. The vote was taken by voice and the motion was adopted; a single "nay" was recorded and there were no abstentions.

The decision matters because expedited processing replaces a formal adjudicative hearing—where testimony and exhibits are subject to cross-examination—with a less-formal public comment hearing. That shortens the timeline for a council recommendation; council rules call for a recommendation within 60 days of granting expedited processing unless the council and applicant agree to a different schedule.

Council staff described the procedural and technical steps that led to the decision. Joanne Snarski, EFSEC siting specialist, summarized the application history, including a land-use consistency order issued on Sept. 25, 2023, and a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) published April 7, 2025, after further mitigation work with the applicant.

Sonia Bumpus, EFSEC director, said staff had worked with Cypress Creek Renewables and other agencies to identify and adopt mitigation to reduce visual and cultural impacts identified during the SEPA review. "This decision is not your recommendation on the project," Bumpus told council members and the public, noting additional opportunities for comment, technical input and tribal consultation.

But the Yakama Nation signaled it disagrees with EFSEC staff’s conclusion that mitigation reduced impacts to a less-than-significant level. Stacy Brewster, EFSEC’s Utilities and Transportation Commission representative, said she would "be voting no on expedited processing" and cited a May 1 letter from the Yakama Nation stating the tribe lacked a confidential avenue to communicate project impacts and mitigation proposals outside adjudication.

SEPA specialist Sean Green said staff and the applicant had proposed and the council had approved setbacks and other measures that staff believes reduce visual impacts to traditional cultural properties (TCPs). "The Yakama Nation does not agree with that determination by staff," Green said, adding that the tribe had also flagged cumulative impacts tied to a nearby, reasonably foreseeable project currently in pre-application with EFSEC.

Cypress Creek Renewables’ director of development, John Hanks, reviewed changes to the project since its initial application, including increased setbacks (a minimum 100-foot setback to the fence and 20 feet to panels along Knight Road, and 500-foot setbacks from residences in parts of the design), revised fencing (welded wire game fence instead of chain link with barbed wire), relocation of panels to avoid newly identified vernal pools and wetlands, and commitments to noise monitoring and soil testing with the Department of Agriculture.

Several council members asked whether expedited processing would foreclose confidential tribal consultation; staff and counsel said it would not. Bumpus said the chair could meet with the tribe for consultation and report back to the council; Assistant Attorney General John Thompson explained that certain reports and TCP locations can be treated as confidential under public-records exemptions for archaeological resources and traditional cultural places, but that in-person presentations to a full council raise public-meeting constraints.

Members of the public who spoke at the hearing urged the council to deny expedited processing or to require stricter mitigations. Speakers raised recurring concerns about loss of productive agricultural land, effects on property values, wildlife and migration corridors, lithium battery energy-storage fire risks and long-term decommissioning of solar panels.

"Please consider not approving the project on Knight Road," Delmer Eldred told the council, citing farmland loss. Elaine Harvey, who identified herself as a Yakama Nation member, said the project would affect traditional food-gathering areas and cultural resources. Local officials and county representatives asked the council to require agrivoltaic design, reduced fence height, additional visual screening and mechanisms to route emergency or surplus power to the Klickitat County Public Utility District.

With expedited processing granted, the council opened the public-comment portion of the hearing. EFSEC staff noted a site tour for council members was scheduled the next morning and that the council has additional deliberations scheduled for May 21 and June 18, 2025. Staff said written comments are being accepted via EFSEC’s online comment portal, a comment box at the meeting, and by email.

What happens next: EFSEC will hold a public-comment hearing under the expedited process, consider any additional information from tribal consultation or technical analyses, and prepare a recommendation to the governor. The council and applicant may agree on timing; otherwise council rules contemplate a recommendation within 60 days of granting expedited processing.

The council’s action does not itself approve the project; it only changes the procedural path EFSEC will take to develop its recommendation. The Yakama Nation and others said they remain prepared to press for adjudication or further mitigation if their concerns are not addressed through consultation and the public comment process.

—

Sources: Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council meeting transcript; public comments and staff presentations at the May 5, 2025 special meeting.