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.