Everett, Wash.
Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2007

When local, state priorities collide, nobody is happy

By Richard S. Davis

 Few things rile local politicians more than when state government interferes with how they do things. It's called preemption and, like water, it flows downhill. The feds trump the state. The state trumps cities and counties. The closer you are to the bottom, the less you like it. Where there's preemption, there's always political fallout.

Knowing this and recognizing the minefield they enter when they presume too much, state officials typically tread lightly when invited to bigfoot purely local affairs. Sometimes, though, state intervention is required.

We're seeing this play out in Kittitas County, where a wind energy project is making slow progress. On the surface, it's a familiar NIMBY (not in my backyard) battle. Were the consequences exclusively local, the state could stay out of it. But because the issue has statewide significance, it has landed on Gov. Chris Gregoire's desk.

In 2003, Sagebrush Power Partners proposed building a wind farm, the Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (KVWPP), in a rural area 12 miles north of Ellensburg. Originally, they wanted to put up to 121 wind turbine generators. Responding to community concerns, they've scaled that back to 65 turbines over 6,000 acres. The output will be enough to bring electricity to 40,000 homes.

Last year, voters approved Initiative 937, requiring utilities to get 15 percent of their energy power from renewable sources (excluding existing hydro). It's hard to see how that threshold is reached without ventures like KVWPP. (Disclosure: My employer opposed I-937 and supports the wind project.)

While some residents have accepted the turbines, folks in 16 neighboring homes still object. They're called "non-participating" residences.

Basically, it comes down to the view. The windmills are large, reaching a "tip height" of 330 feet. To minimize the "looming" effect, KVWPP agreed that no turbine would be built within 1,320 feet — a quarter mile, or four times tip height — of a non-participating residence.

No one expects big infrastructure projects to drop in smoothly. From runways to sewer plants, these things often have negative spillover effects — traffic, noise or appearance. No one wants them. And while the nuisances may not be trivial, neither should they be determinative.

While the downside impacts tend to be extremely local, the benefits generally extend well beyond the region. Politically, that creates a difficult dynamic. Local politicians have little to gain by supporting projects opposed by their constituents. And the diffuse benefit rarely translates to the kind of political pressure generated by those who are affected adversely.

That's where preemption comes in.

Back in 1970, recognizing the critical demand for energy and the difficulties firms face in getting local approval, the Legislature set up a group called the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). It's billed as a "one stop" licensing shop for large energy projects. Lawmakers also took an additional, essential step. They granted the council specific preemption authority, subject to the approval of the governor.

Facing local opposition, Sagebrush sought EFSEC preemption. Last May, the council recommended approval, passing the decision to the governor and bypassing local officials who opposed the project as designed.

Unsurprisingly, several local legislators carried the objectors' arguments to the governor. She then took the unusual step of asking EFSEC to reconsider its recommendation. Specifically, she asked them to determine if the setback could be increased without jeopardizing the project's economic viability. Additional reviews and hearings resulted in a reaffirmation of the project, this time with a provision urging KVWPP to make mitigation a high priority and do what it could to increase the setbacks.

Last week, U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, wrote Gov. Gregoire, stopping just short of asking her to deny approval. Instead, he urged her to consider the "implications of setting aside the lawful policies of locally elected officials."

In directing EFSEC to conduct a second review, she's already done that. The visual impact on a handful of folks has now been duly considered. The more important issue before the governor is whether such narrow parochial interests should be allowed to block responsible efforts to satisfy the state's growing energy demand. The stakes are high. Preemption is justified. If we're going to meet the I-937 objectives, this won't be the last time.



Richard S. Davis, vice president-communications of the Association of Washington Business, writes every other Wednesday. His columns do not necessarily reflect the views of AWB. Write Davis at richardd@awb.org or Association of Washington Business, P.O. Box 658, 1414 Cherry Street SE, Olympia, WA 98507-0658.
© 2009The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA