Yes is the only answer Washington wants when it comes to siting solar and wind facilities.

That’s our impression, anyway, after reading a recent report that recommends ways to streamline the process of siting facilities in Washington state — recommendations that would lead to the approval of the projects no matter the objections raised by local residents and other stakeholders.

It seems barely a month goes by without another large solar or wind project being proposed to be built on farm or pasture land somewhere in the Pacific Northwest.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee asked the Legislature to fund a study of the state’s permitting process, a process that he judged obsolete in 2022.

And last month, environmental law firm Beveridge & Diamond delivered a $150,000 study packed with recommendations to speed up the permitting process and get to the inevitable “yes.”

The report contends that the permitting process is often “too slow and too unpredictable,” with energy developers complaining EFSEC members have “limited expertise in energy project development.”

The report says that building alternative facilities is the “overarching” state priority. But, local opposition and the current form and procedures of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council are standing in the way.

Out in the countryside where the behemoth energy projects are built, there can be considerable local opposition. And local officials have attempted to exercise their authority to limit the impacts of these projects, or block them altogether.

County officials have statutory authority over zoning issues. They can attach mediation measures to building permits to minimize impacts on locales. Cities and counties are also required to make regulations to protect wetlands, water quality and natural habitat.

Inslee has made it clear that local elected authorities who represent local constituencies shouldn’t be making these decisions when it comes to energy facilities. Beveridge & Diamond recommends the Legislature “limit the burdens local government can impose on renewable energy developments.”

It recommends that the state establish maximum setback requirements for energy facilities, prohibit local moratoriums on energy projects, and prohibit counties from banning projects on all but the highest-value farmland.

The report also recommends that local governments be given no more than 120 days to permit large projects.

Currently, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is made up of an appointed chairperson and representatives from five state natural resources agencies, who evaluate projects and recommend approval or denial to the governor.

The report recommends replacing the council with a three-member panel picked by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.

EFSEC is charged with balancing the need for new energy facilities with the broad interests of the public, but that too seems burdensome. The report also recommends that the state adopt statutory language that would require the panel to recommend approval if a project meets a list of enumerated standards.

One state representative said the recommendations set up a dictatorship, establishing a process that serves the governor’s climate agenda over any other concerns.

It’s difficult to see how these “improvements” to the process lead to anything other than a project’s approval, despite any opposition.