Solar Developer Cancels Washington State Project on Sacred Indigenous Land 42%

By B. “Toastie” Oaster52%

8/3/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.3% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 947 faulty-reasoning hits from 639 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.8% and a BS Rank of 42% (15,883 of 27,321 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.10% of the article peer group.

A renewable energy developer has pulled its controversial permit application to build an industrial-scale solar facility on an Eastern Washington mountain sacred to Indigenous nations. 
Avangrid, a powerful player in the Northwest’s push for green energy development, sought for at least five years to build a solar plant on Badger Mountain. 
The project site straddled private as well as public lands. 
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation have protected rights to practice cultural traditions, such as food gathering and ceremonies, on Badger Mountain and other ancestral public lands. 
A 2024 investigation by High Country News and ProPublica found that Avangrid and a consultant it retained, Tetra Tech, had omitted key archaeological and cultural information from a state-mandated review of the site, which would have been used for a solar farm. 
Avangrid continued pushing the project despite a state archaeologist’s warning that the planned development would threaten significant historic sites and current ceremonial activity. 
An elected member of the Colville Tribal Business Council told the newsrooms at the time that the project would destroy roughly half the root vegetable harvest in the area. 
An Avangrid spokesperson said then that the company had followed “all relevant law and regulation” with regard to the Badger Mountain solar project and had “taken additional steps to accommodate stakeholder feedback where possible.” 
It’s unclear whether the company’s decision to cancel the project had anything to do with Indigenous rights. 
Avangrid declined to clarify its reasoning to HCN. 
The Colville Tribes chair, Cindy Marchand, praised the decision in a statement last week. 
“While the Colville Tribes certainly appreciates the value of renewable energy such as solar power, sacred sites must remain pristine to pass down to future generations.” 
After the publication of HCN and ProPublica’s investigation, some members of the Wenatchi-P’squosa, one of the 12 Confederated Colville Tribes, held a demonstration on Badger Mountain , saying that while they support renewable energy, they’re against facilities being built on important cultural sites. 
Following the demonstration, Avangrid announced that it would pause development to reconsider tribal input and public response. 
The public comment process is one of the only avenues available for tribal nations to advocate for their rights regarding land development. 
At a meeting of the state’s permitting authority council in July, an Avangrid senior director sought a continued pause of the permitting work, pointing to anticipated construction delays affecting the power grid. 
At the same meeting, the council chair, Kurt Beckett, characterized concerns over the project’s environmental and cultural impacts as “noise,” but he also said tribal objections should be considered in the state’s permitting decision. 
Washington State Is Leaving Tribal Cultural Resources at the Mercy of Solar Developers 
Five days later, Avangrid filed a request to completely withdraw its proposal. 
And last week, the permitting council formally announced the withdrawal and said it was “closing out existing financial arrangements and notifying interested and agency partners.” 
It did not provide further comment, referring questions to the developer. 
The state Department of Natural Resources, which owns the public parcel on Badger Mountain, said it had not received any other requests to develop it for clean energy projects at this time, and a spokesperson did not have additional information about future plans for the site. 
No matter the reason for the project’s cancellation at Badger Mountain, the outcome is a good one, said Steven Wynecoop, vice chair of the Wenatchi Advisory Group, an independent body that advises the Colville Tribal Business Council and that organized the 2024 Badger Mountain demonstration. 
The mountain is a “very sacred site to us,” said Wynecoop, grandson of the Wenatchi Advisory Group founder Matthew Dick. 
“Generations, we’ve been going to that mountain for plenty of reasons: medicines, foods like roots and berries.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.8%ProPublica: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.3%ProPublica: 0.6%Anchoring Bias5.0%This article: 6.6%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.6%ProPublica: 2.3%Availability Heuristic6.6%This article: 7.2%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.8%ProPublica: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.7%ProPublica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.9%ProPublica: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias3.4%This article: 7.5%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 8.0%ProPublica: 5.9%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect4.1%This article: 9.7%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 2.4%ProPublica: 0.7%Optimism Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 8.5%ProPublica: 7.7%Negativity Bias20.3%This article: 12.4%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 3.1%ProPublica: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias12.4%This article: 8.6%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 2.2%ProPublica: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error8.6%This article: 5.3%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.3%ProPublica: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias5.3%This article: 13.1%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 5.0%ProPublica: 0.5%In-Group Bias13.1%This article: 6.7%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.7%ProPublica: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.3%ProPublica: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.6%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.6%ProPublica: 3.5%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.9%ProPublica: 2.6%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.9%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 4.5%ProPublica: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion9.9%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.7%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.4%ProPublica: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.7%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.5%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 2.3%ProPublica: 1.8%Anecdotal4.5%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.3%ProPublica: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.7%ProPublica: 0.1%Middle Ground6.7%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.1%ProPublica: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 1.3%ProPublica: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.9%ProPublica: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.9%ProPublica: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%B. “Toastie” Oaster: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

639 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers40%attributed speech386writer words
Selected voice

Kurt Beckett

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words13% of attributed speech93% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.