(Getty Images)
Gov. Bob Ferguson is tapping the brakes on a controversial solar farm proposed in south-central Washington to allow more time to appraise concerns of Yakama Nation leaders.
Ferguson on Friday turned down a recommendation for the Carriger Solar project from the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and directed the state panel to reconsider tribal officials’ desire for tougher conditions to protect cultural resources.
But the first-term Democratic governor signalled his eagerness to sign off on an updated development agreement that is due from the council by Oct. 21.
“Washington State needs clean energy. Based on the record developed in this matter, I find that the Carriger Solar Project is consistent with state policies regarding the mandated shift to renewable and zero-emitting sources for energy production,” he wrote in an Aug. 22 letter.
Washington is striving to end its reliance on electricity from fossil fuels such as coal by mid-century. To do that, it is counting on a rapid buildout of new clean energy generation and transmission projects.
Ferguson wants Carriger Solar to proceed rapidly enough for its developers to secure federal clean energy tax credits before they are ended by the Trump administration. Solar and wind projects must begin construction by July 4, 2026 to fully qualify for the credits, he wrote.
“These tax credits are critical to ensure not only that the project remains financially viable, but that the energy it generates will remain affordable for Washingtonians,” he wrote.
The big picture
This is Ferguson’s maiden foray into the procedural and political turbulence of siting a large-scale clean energy installation.
Cypress Creek Renewables of Santa Monica, California, wants to build the solar farm north of State Route 142 along Knight Road, about two miles west of Goldendale in unincorporated Klickitat County.
As envisioned, it will have 160 megawatts of solar generating potential, enough to power up to 32,500 homes, according to the company website. The project, which also includes a 63 megawatt battery energy storage system, will tie into the Bonneville Power Administration transmission system.
It would occupy 1,326 acres within a 2,108-acre development site that is mostly agricultural and rural residential lands. That footprint includes all solar arrays, battery storage facilities, operations and maintenance building, employee parking, and access roads.
The council, after more than two years of public meetings and review, cast a 6-1 vote on June 26 recommending Ferguson approve the project, and sent a report to the governor two days later.
Matt Chiles, who represented Klickitat County on the panel, dissented, writing separately to Ferguson that from the outset, his community didn’t want it.
“There has been consistent loud and vocal opposition to this project from what appears to be an overwhelming percentage of the local Klickitat County population,” he wrote. All three county commissioners opposed it, he noted.
He cited three main reasons underlying the community’s distaste: it is a bad location because it is too close to homes; there is an increased fire danger from the proposed battery storage system; and agricultural land would be taken out of production.
“Solar systems are a needed component of our energy grid for the foreseeable future,” he wrote. “However, this system is a poor example of how a solar installation should be designed. It is sited here only because of its proximity to existing energy infrastructure, with no regard for other factors.”
Are cultural resources protected?
Meanwhile, Gerald Lewis, chairman of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council, wrote in a June 18 letter to the siting council that there had not been “true government-to-government consultation” and conditions imposed on the development fail to “avoid or mitigate” impacts to their traditional cultural properties. As a result, the council should not advance the project, he wrote.
The council-passed agreement requires fencing and solar panels be pushed farther from the state route, Knight Road and parcels managed by the state Department of Natural Resources adjacent to the project. There also must be additional natural screening, such as earthen berms, rock piles, or native vegetation, on the north side of those state-owned parcels.
It also requires that tribal access to traditional and cultural properties is maintained during construction.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Ferguson found little fault with much of the siting council’s handiwork.
He called the environmental review thorough and said many of the imposed mitigations exceeded the required minimums. He said the agreement “adequately addressed fire-safety concerns associated with battery energy storage systems.”
He said the siting council “had substantial engagement” with the Yakama Nation over a two-year period regarding impacts on traditional cultural properties. But he wants more.
He directed the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to give the Yakama Nation an opportunity to provide further input on those mitigation measures.
The council “should give due consideration to any input received” and should “account for this input as appropriate,” Ferguson wrote. He did not direct any specific changes be made.
Going forward, he said he wants to review the siting council’s policies and practices for tribal consultation and decide if changes are needed.
This is the second clean energy project in the past year to not pass initial muster with a Washington governor.
In May 2024, former Gov. Jay Inslee rejected the initial recommendation from the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council for the Horse Heaven wind and solar project along Interstate 82 south of the Tri-Cities.
He disagreed with conditions that effectively reduced the number of turbines in the Benton County project in half to curb threats to tribal cultural resources and endangered hawks. Inslee told the panel it had downsized the project too much and wanted revisions to get more turbines back into the project.
The council did. Inslee signed off on the revamped site certification application in October and Scout Clean Energy of Boulder, Colorado, the developer, did so in November. The project is under litigation.
Inslee spotlighted tensions incited by clean energy projects proposed in the state’s rural areas and on or near traditional tribal lands.
“We must come to grips with the fact that we will need to adapt and accept relatively moderate changes to our physical landscape, in order to ensure continued, reliable electricity service,” Inslee wrote.
