Supporting HB 1188 will restore local authority over wind projects in Washington
The following comment was submitted to the Environment & Energy Committee Testimony on HB 1188 Restoring Local Authority Over Wind Projects, January 20, 2025, 1:30 PM
Tri-Cities CARES a nonprofit charity organization that is opposed to the Horse Heaven Hills Wind Farm and Solar Project. We are on record as supporting House Bill 1188.
We have three years of significant first-hand direct experience dealing with the negative and harmful consequences of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and the governor's exercise of preemptive authority, and how it unfairly and unjustly favors the developer and the project.
We watched EFSEC ignore Benton County's comprehensive land use authority and decisions, and bypass substantive compliance with numerous county regulations, instead of ensuring that compliance with local requirements was achieved and maintained, as required by state law.
Our detailed comments on environmental regulatory compliance were largely ignored by EFSEC in the environmental impact statement process.
Only after being unreasonably challenged by the administrative law judge, to demonstrate that we could represent the local interests, were we approved as an intervenor in the adjudication.
We then helplessly watched as relevant expert witness testimony in the adjudication was improperly stricken from the record and not evaluated by the council.
This testimony focused on the very same issues later cited and relied upon by the governor, including the need for reliable power, air quality, visual impacts and property value reductions, aerial firefighting concerns and the lack of a source of water.
In their original recommendation, EFSEC recognized numerous significant adverse negative impacts. They mitigated the impacts by reducing the size of the project and shifting turbine locations away from the residential communities in the Tri-Cities.
However, the governor overrode this common-sense compromise and dictated that the project be maximized, in direct conflict with the rational basis established by the 'Final EIS and Adjudication.'
In deference to the governor's irrational and unsupported demands, EFSEC caved and revised their recommendation, ignoring their own scientific, cultural, social, racial equity and economic conclusions.
EFSEC then created a questionably legal process for siting the turbines.
To this date, no one really knows what the project is — not even the applicant.
The governor ignored the vehement objections of Benton County, local city councils, the Yakama Nation, environmental groups and the vocal majority of local citizens.
The governor ignored all the information indicating that the project is poorly sited. He failed to provide a rational basis to justify that the project provides abundant clean energy at reasonable cost, as required by state law.
This decision undermines the ability of local government to manage strategic planning and economic development, and protect and represent community and public interests.
Consequently, as a last resort, we along with Benton County and the Yakima Nation, submitted a petition for judicial review against EFSEC and the governor.
It's ridiculous that it takes an expensive and lengthy lawsuit to have the legality of these decisions reviewed by the Washington Supreme Court.
Please support this bill in order to ensure that cognizant authorities are fully engaged and that consensus is reached before project approval, so that balanced and rational decisions are achieved on energy projects.
Board Members on behalf of Tri-Cities C.A.R.E.S: Paul J. Krupin, Dave Sharp, Pam Minelli, Karen Burn. tricitiescares.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
EPA employees put names to ‘declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes 20 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. 'Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,' the letter read. The EPA responded with a statement that said policy decisions 'are a result of a process where Administrator (Lee) Zeldin is briefed on the latest research and science by EPA's career professionals, and the vast majority who are consummate professionals who take pride in the work this agency does day in and day out.' The statement also criticized the Biden administration for what it called 'attempts to shut down American energy and make our citizens more reliant on foreign fossil fuels,' with worse environmental outcomes around the world as well as economic pain. Employees want the EPA get back to its mission 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water.' The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. EPA has cut funding and rolled back federal regulations Under Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: 'That's decades worth of loss.'
CBS News
4 hours ago
- CBS News
U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether shutting down Michigan pipeline is a state or federal case
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will review whether Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's lawsuit seeking to shut down a section of an aging pipeline beneath a Great Lakes channel belongs in state court. Nessel sued in state court in June 2019 seeking to void the easement that allows the Enbridge Energy Company to operate a 4.5-mile (6.4-kilometer) section of pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, which link Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. She won a restraining order shutting down the pipeline from Ingham County Judge James Jamo in June 2020, although Enbridge was allowed to continue operations after meeting safety requirements. The company moved the lawsuit into federal court in 2021, arguing it affects U.S. and Canadian trade. But a three-judge panel from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Jamo in June 2024, finding that Enbridge missed a 30-day deadline to change jurisdictions. On Monday, the Supreme Court did not explain its rationale for taking up the matter. Enbridge officials said in a statement that they were encouraged by the Supreme Court's choice, noting that exceptions to the 30-day deadline exist. Nessel spokesperson Kimberly Bush said the lawsuit belongs in a Michigan court. The attorney general's lawyers have argued that the case invokes the public trust doctrine, a concept in state law holding that natural resources belong to the public. The pipeline at issue, Line 5, has moved crude oil and natural gas liquids between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario, since 1953. Concerns over the section beneath the straits rupturing and causing a catastrophic spill have been growing since 2017, when Enbridge engineers revealed they had known about gaps in the section's protective coating since 2014. A boat anchor damaged the section in 2018, intensifying fears of a spill. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources under Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer revoked the straits easement for Line 5 in 2020. Enbridge has filed a separate federal lawsuit challenging the revocation. The company is seeking permits to encase the section of pipeline beneath the straits in a protective tunnel. The Michigan Public Service Commission granted the relevant permits in 2023, but Enbridge still needs approval from from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. The pipeline is at the center of a legal dispute in Wisconsin as well. A federal judge in Madison last summer gave Enbridge three years to shut down part of Line 5 that runs across the Bad River Band of Lake Superior's reservation. The company has proposed rerouting the pipeline around the reservation and has appealed the shutdown order to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
E&E News
4 hours ago
- E&E News
Agencies roll out plans to pare down NEPA reviews
The Trump administration advanced its deregulatory drive Monday as government agencies announced plans to renege on the country's linchpin environmental law. At issue is the National Environmental Policy Act, designed to require the federal government to consider environmental impacts for permit applications and management of public lands. The 1970 law has been under threat since President Donald Trump's return as he has rallied to build pipelines, ports and other energy infrastructure to boost domestic production of fossil fuels without environmental reviews. The Department of Energy issued an interim final rule that rescinded all of its NEPA regulations while releasing guidance or 'implementing procedures' in their place. Advertisement Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Trump promised to speed up the permitting process for massive infrastructure projects.
