Siting and permitting rules are designed to protect communities, ecosystems, cultural and natural resources, and public health, but dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s can cause delays and increase costs. As entities across the Northwest work to achieve ambitious climate and clean energy goals, meet increased demand for electricity, and maintain a reliable and affordable system, they face complex challenges. Striking the right balance between responsible land use and rapid development of clean energy resources has emerged as one of the region’s most pressing issues.
While “siting and permitting,” are often combined as one phrase, they refer to distinct aspects of the process for developing the clean energy resources and transmission necessary to meet the region’s emissions targets. Siting determines the geographic location (or site) of a project, while permitting refers to the approvals and review needed to develop a project. In general, the site chosen for a project dictates the specific permits required (e.g., based on the jurisdiction or proximity to natural resources).
Some states have specific processes for clean energy facilities, while others have processes that apply to all energy generation types. There may also be different pathways based on the energy resource and size of facility. This blog focuses on siting and permitting pathways for clean energy generation facilities in the four Northwest states.
There are different siting and permitting processes at local, state, and federal levels (see “How does permitting for clean energy infrastructure work?” (Brookings) for a thorough overview). But local counties and cities in particular play a critical role in siting (or canceling) clean energy projects through comprehensive plans, zoning laws, and local ordinances.
A 2024 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Report found that local ordinances and zoning were among the top three reasons for wind and solar project cancellations, along with grid interconnection and community opposition. Local limitations on siting and permitting renewables are becoming more common: as of July 2025, Heatmap reported that one fifth of U.S. counties restrict renewable development to some extent.
Both city and county governments have the authority to create zoning ordinances, which are local laws that govern land use and development. Projects in more rural, unincorporated areas fall under the jurisdiction of the county, while projects within an incorporated city’s boundaries are under that city’s jurisdiction.
Some states have created centralized permitting entities to streamline the siting and permitting process, although some elements of local decision-making may remain. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, 20 states, including Montana and Washington, have established review requirements that mandate analysis of a project’s environmental impacts. Other states, including Oregon, have review processes that are distributed across various agencies and laws. State agencies, such as states' environmental protection departments, may also become involved depending on the project and location.
Federal oversight of clean energy facility siting and permitting is triggered when projects require federal permits or when projects are proposed on federally managed lands. Key federal environmental laws—primarily the National Environmental Policy Act, but also the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act, among others—mandate permitting and review processes.
Any project on or affecting federal lands or protected areas must obtain permits from agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or the Army Corps of Engineers. Projects on tribal lands require additional coordination with tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and may also involve the Department of Energy’s Office of Indian Energy.
County governments primarily handle siting clean energy facilities on private property in Idaho, with the State Board of Land Commissioners governing development on state land. Projects under county jurisdiction are reviewed by the local Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), typically comprised of representatives from each district within the county.
Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) mandates that local governments establish comprehensive land use plans that guide zoning ordinances in accordance with general state laws. Some counties have energy-specific zoning ordinances, such as height and noise restrictions and setbacks (distance regulations between energy facilities and nearby structures). Because energy facilities on private property tend to involve land uses that are not permitted under local zoning ordinances, they often require county-issued conditional or special use permits. For a project to be approved for a conditional or special use permit, it must be found ‘not’ in conflict with the local comprehensive plan.
Additionally, LLUPA authorizes counties to establish planning and zoning commissions, and grants some discretion as to whether a county exercises its siting authority directly through the BOCC, delegates this role to the planning and zoning commission, or includes the planning and zoning commission as a recommending body.
Whether this process is carried out by the BOCC, the planning and zoning commission, or a mixture of both, it generally consists of an initial application review to assess compliance with the comprehensive plan, applicable zoning ordinances, or potential variances/exemptions from these ordinances; at least one public hearing session; assessments of the environmental, social, and economic impacts; and a final decision on the granting of conditional or special use permits. Some BOCCs and/or planning and zoning commissions may require a decommission plan from the developer for a project to be approved. Decommission plans outline the process by which a developer will return the land to a useful, preconstruction-like condition.
Permitting and siting authority at the state and local level has significantly influenced the pace and scale of clean energy development in Idaho. For example, six counties in Idaho currently have wind energy ordinances, including one moratorium in Fremont County. There have also been bans or proposed bans on large-scale solar energy development in counties including Gooding County and Bannock County, as well as solar ordinances in other counties.
Idaho state agencies are often involved in an application review to ensure adherence to relevant regulations and standards. The following Idaho state agencies exercise power and/or are triggered in the review process:
There is a diversity of county perspectives across the state surrounding siting of clean energy facilities, with some counties imposing more restrictive setbacks and ordinances to limit solar and wind development and others attempting to remove barriers to siting clean energy projects. While clean energy siting resources have been published in the past, such as Idaho Department of Water Resources’ “Permitting Small and Medium Sized Wind Turbine Projects” manual from 2005, there is a need for updated and consolidated information about the current energy siting process.
As of September 2024, Boise State was the recipient of a $1.9 million U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grant to create a hub for Idaho Clean and Resilient Energy Siting Teams. This hub would have aimed to connect tribal, state, and local governments with resources to make renewable energy siting decisions. The DOE has not distributed this grant, and the project is currently pending.
Like Idaho, there is no single statewide authority for siting and permitting clean energy projects in Montana; instead, local governments and state agencies are involved, with the specific process differing from one project to the next.
Montana has a state-level review process through the Montana Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) for certain energy facilities, including hydroelectric facilities that generate at least 50 megawatts (MW) and facilities that use geothermal resources. The MFSA does not regulate wind farms or solar farms. Instead, these projects go through review and approval at the county or city government level unless petitioned by the project developer to be reviewed under MFSA. The project may also be required to go through the MFSA process if it requires a new transmission line greater than 69 kilovolts and would be longer than 10 miles.
There is additional state-level oversight through the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which administers most environmental permits required for all energy projects. The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), a 1971 policy that requires environmental review when state agency actions significantly affect the quality of the human environment, is typically triggered when a developer seeks a permit from DEQ. In these cases, DEQ would be the lead MEPA agency responsible for preparing environmental review documents, coordinating public engagement, and ensuring compliance with MEPA procedures.
DEQ also enforces other requirements for clean energy facilities. For example, owners of wind and solar generation facilities must submit decommissioning plans and bonds (the financial guarantee to carry out the decommissioning plan) to DEQ, with specific revised requirements outlined in House Bill 31 (2025).
Other state agencies may also be involved in the siting and permitting processes. For example, if the energy project intersects with state-managed lands or natural resources, additional reviews, permits, and leases may be required by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC).
Beyond these state-level processes, clean energy facility siting and permitting falls to counties and cities, which have land use zoning and planning authority under the Montana Land Use Planning Act. Local jurisdictions manage land use with mechanisms including zoning ordinances, height limits, noise standards, building permits, setback limits, and more. Local siting and permitting decisions also often include opportunity for community input through public hearings and comment periods.
County commissions and/or land planning boards hold public meetings where community members can express their opinions about project siting and permitting decisions directly to developers and policymakers.
For example, during discussions about the proposed 800 MW Glendive Wind Project, the Montana Free Press reported that residents voiced concerns about view shed rights, shadows from wind turbines, potential radio wave interference, and human health. In addition, residents who had already been approached about leasing their land for the project were outspoken about wanting to protect that right and see the project move forward. As of this writing, the project was still in the planning and permitting phase amidst conversations about potential zoning changes in the county.
All clean energy projects in Oregon must be compliant with Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development rules and goals, relevant land use statutes, and county land use plans and regulations. In addition to that compliance, clean energy projects in Oregon follow different siting and permitting pathways based on the size and type of facility.
The first option is a state-level pathway through Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC). Created in 1975 by the Oregon State Legislature, EFSC is comprised of a governor-appointed council. EFSC oversees siting and permitting, consolidating state and local government regulations into a streamlined review process.
EFSC has siting jurisdiction of large-scale energy facilities, transmission lines, and pipelines that exceed certain size and capacity limits. The Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) siting team plays a coordinating role throughout the EFSC review process, working with the developer on the project application and providing recommendations to EFSC for its decision making. EFSC has the final authority to approve or deny permits for these clean energy projects.
A summary of the key steps in the EFSC review process are outlined in ODOE’s siting brief and process flowchart. A more detailed explanation of each step can be found in ODOE’s Public Guide to Energy and Facility Siting in Oregon, published in 2023.
After the developer submits a Notice of Intent to ODOE, ODOE begins contacting government agencies and tribes who may be interested or obligated to be involved in the review process based on potential project impacts and land use requirements. The local government where a facility is proposed is appointed as a Special Advisory Group in the review process, advising EFSC on relevant land use laws and comprehensive plans.
Most importantly, ODOE’s involvement includes issuing the project order. A project order includes information regarding applicable ordinance requirements, statues and rules, and public feedback that the applicant must address; drafting the site certificate application; evaluating the application against council standards; preparing the draft proposed order; and coordinating public hearings for the local community and nearby landowners.
EFSC becomes involved later in the process, reviewing the Proposed Draft Order and making a final decision by a majority vote. If concerns arise during the public hearing session, a contested case hearing is held, facilitated by an impartial hearing officer contracted by EFSC. The hearing officer makes a recommendation to EFSC following the contested case hearing and EFSC issues a final order, appealable directly to the Oregon Supreme Court.
The second pathway for facilities that fall below EFSC size and capacity limitations is local review at the county or city level. According to a 2023 report, Siting Renewable Energy in Oregon, most renewable energy projects developed in the state have been approved through a local process.
The local process typically begins with a pre-application meeting with the developer, local jurisdiction planning department, and certain state agencies that may be involved in the permitting and review process. From here, a developer can apply to the local jurisdiction for a conditional use permit, generally consisting of a site plan, environmental impact statement and mitigation plans, and a decommission plan.
The city or county reviews the project application. If the application is complete and aligns with Oregon’s statewide planning goals, the official review process can begin. Any state agencies that have jurisdiction over areas in proximity to the proposed facility, or that the local jurisdiction requests specific expertise of, are notified and may be asked to participate in the application review.
At this juncture, a public hearing session is hosted for local community members to learn about the project and provide comments. Taking feedback into consideration, a decision and final order is made, including any conditions that must be met for approval. Sometimes, a local jurisdiction may decide to bypass a public hearing and make an administrative decision to approve or deny a permit in accordance with county and/or city codes. In this case, prior notice of the decision is typically made public to the community, providing an opportunity for comments before the final order is publicly issued. Regardless of which route the decision takes (public hearing or administrative decision), it is open to appeal by community members or state agencies.
There were two siting and permitting bills under consideration during the 2025 Oregon legislative session. Senate Bill 1034 attempted to limit EFSC’s decision-making power over local jurisdiction in siting energy projects and did not pass. House Bill 3874 passed and changes application requirements for the local permitting pathway for wind projects by increasing the size threshold required to obtain a site certificate through EFSC from 50 MW to 100 MW.
There have also been recent studies that aim to improve renewable energy siting and permitting. The Oregon Renewable Energy Siting Assessment (ORESA) was developed in 2021 with funding from the U.S. Department of Defense to support the process of developing renewable energy facilities in Oregon while balancing land use restrictions, environmental protections, military requirements, and community impacts. This ORESA report provides specific information on siting renewable energy facilities and resources on various land use restrictions and considerations.
Like Oregon, Washington has a state-level siting and permitting pathway as well as local government pathways. As of 2023, with the passage of House Bill 1216, Washington also has a third pathway through the state’s Department of Ecology. This Ecology fact sheet provides a helpful overview and comparison table of the three options:
Parallel to these pathways, Washington has the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) which is triggered by all energy projects. SEPA is a process designed to evaluate environmental impacts of governmental decisions (including energy projects, as well as other development projects). Under SEPA, all project proposals are reviewed by a designated “lead agency,” which can vary depending on the siting and permitting pathway, to ensure compliance. The lead agency would also prepare the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if the project is determined to have potential significant adverse environmental impacts.
Many clean energy projects (a broad term defined by state law as facilities that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions) are eligible to use any of the three processes. However, certain projects are required by law to use the EFSEC siting process, including thermal power plants of at least 350 MW, nuclear electricity generating facilities, and long-distance high-voltage transmission lines. Other facilities, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and battery storage, may choose to apply through EFSEC or one of the two other pathways.
Project developers may choose to go through a local government-led permitting process, unless there are local restrictions on the types of clean energy that can be developed. In the case of a local government-led process, there is no single agency coordinating the overall process. Local government-led permitting is more common for smaller-scale projects and is subject to local ordinances and community buy-in.
If a project faces local opposition and/or is denied a permit through the county, the project developer can appeal to EFSEC. In contrast to Ecology and local government-led processes, EFSEC can override county and local ordinances. In these cases, EFSEC would conduct an EIS; hold public hearings and adjudicative hearings conducted by an administrative law judge if EFSEC determines a project is not consistent with local rules; and provide a recommendation to the governor, who ultimately approves or denies the recommendation.
The Wautoma Solar Project in Benton County provides one recent example of EFSEC overriding local zoning ordinances. Despite local ordinances restricting solar development, a judge ruled in November 2024 that EFSEC had the authority to override local zoning laws as long as environmental standards were met. This ruling allowed EFSEC to recommend the project for approval to Governor Jay Inslee, who approved the project in January 2025.
The ability for EFSEC to override local ordinances is not always viewed in a positive light. In the 2024 Rural Clean Energy Economics and Community Engagement Study and Report,1 some rural community members shared that while solar siting is not necessarily controversial on its own, community members are likely to oppose development if they feel it is being forced upon them (e.g., by EFSEC). The report recommended strengthening “local involvement in clean energy siting/project development processes,” including specifically strengthening “county-level engagement in the EFSEC decision-making process.”
There has been much activity in recent years around clean energy siting and permitting in Washington. In addition to establishing Ecology’s Coordinated Clean Energy Permitting process described above, the 2023 House Bill 1216 established directives aimed at streamlining siting and permitting in the state. The bill directed Ecology to prepare programmatic EISs that analyze general impacts of solar, wind, and green hydrogen facilities in an attempt to speed up future project reviews.
House Bill 1216 also set up an Interagency Clean Energy Siting Council, a group of state agencies led by Commerce and Ecology that meets monthly and develops annual reports with recommendations for the Washington Legislature on how to improve clean energy project siting in the state. The Council’s 2025 report is available here.
While there has been a dramatic shift in the federal government's attitude toward clean energy, Oregon and Washington still have ambitious clean energy and climate goals that will require significant build-out of clean energy resources. In addition, the loss of clean electricity production tax credits after July 4, 2026 may cause a rush of development and efforts—including an October 2025 executive order by Oregon’s governor—to streamline and fast-track permitting to ensure that projects can connect to the grid.
The four Northwest states differ in siting and permitting pathways, and there are nuanced differences between more streamlined, state-level processes and those that afford more local decision-making power. Regardless of the exact siting and permitting process, clean energy projects can face delays and cancellations at any stage, and the region will continue to face questions about how to accelerate the pace of clean energy project development while also ensuring responsible land use and community input.
To get CETI updates straight to your inbox, sign up for our mailing list.
1. CETI worked on the 2024 Rural Clean Energy Economics and Community Engagement Study and Report for the Washington State Department of Commerce. See: https://www.cleanenergytransition.org/programs/rural-community-decarbonization/rural-clean-energy-economics-and-community-engagement
* Sabine collaborated on this blog with Research Analyst Ruby Moore-Bloom.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
