 Thank You for Your Engagement Surrounding the Proposed Cascadia Ridge Battery Energy Storage System!
Dear Friend,
Many Valley residents have reached out to my office with questions and concerns about the proposed Cascadia Ridge Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in the last couple of weeks. In each case, we have responded to questions and concerns with a thorough overview of the process and structure, as well as opportunities for continued engagement on this issue. Today, I wanted to take a moment to share my position directly with the residents of the Upper Valley communities for clarity and continued dialogue as we walk through this together.
I am heartened to see such strong interest in advocating for the safety of the community. This is what a dedicated, invested community looks like. It’s clear that these concerns come from a place of love for the Snoqualmie Valley as a whole – a love that I share, having raised my family in the Valley starting in 1994.
I’d like to begin by clarifying the purpose of my legislation, Ordinance 19824, to regulate BESS siting and safety. Prior to adoption of the legislation in 2024, King County held BESS under the broad category of a “Utility Facility,” which meant that BESS could be located in all zones throughout King County with no use-specific development conditions, safety standards or financial surety in place, and were allowed to be placed all the way up to the property line.
So, to be clear, prior to my ordinance, King County allowed BESS to be sited anywhere. What my ordinance did was to ensure that King County had one of the most restrictive ordinances for BESS siting in the country, while meeting all ten best practices of the two national BESS standards organizations, including the American Planning Association and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory .
Specifically, the ordinance tightened regulations by mandating stricter guardrails and safety requirements. It added use-specific conditions, required conditional use permits or special use permits in some zones, removed the Utility Facility exemption (adding a requirement for a minimum 30-foot setback from property lines), allowed the Permitting Division to impose additional permit conditions for public safety, provided for financial surety, required early sharing of fire safety and evacuation plans with the local fire protection district, and tied any projects to standards in the State and International Fire Codes.
I very much understand that this legislation did not go far enough. In fact, I advocated for additional restrictions that did not pass, so I do take that feedback seriously. The process to adopt these safety and siting regulations took over a year and a half of careful conversation with stakeholders, including fire agencies, first responders, labor groups, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), renewable energy organizations, the King County Climate Action Office and more to get the legislation to a place where it was ready for adoption. I have heard the requests to consider additional updates to the legislation to further tighten requirements for BESS. It takes five or more members of the Council to adopt legislation, and further legislative action would require careful deliberation to earn the support of a majority of the Council. However, I am very open to this conversation and welcome the opportunity to discuss it more.
Next, I’d like to discuss the permitting process and clarify that, while I do believe BESS are an important tool for the region’s clean energy and energy resiliency goals, my role as a King County Councilmember and a representative of the King County Legislative Branch is one of checks and balances.
As a King County Councilmember, I don’t have authority over the King County Permitting Division or process, as it sits directly within the King County Executive Branch. In my role as an elected representative of the Legislative Branch, it is highly inappropriate for me – and in many cases illegal – to support or oppose a particular project where there is a permit application being considered by the Permitting Division.
For this reason, I do not support any individual permit application or applicant, nor am I a proponent of any particular location for the siting of specific BESS projects, as all of those deliberations are under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.
Putting my thumb on the scale for or against a project under consideration deprives landowners of their property rights to propose a project on their land and go through a fair process for consideration of permitting. Legal counsel strongly advises against influencing the process prior to permit review completion as this could easily pose legal risks to King County.
All that having been said, however, it remains true that just because a permit application is submitted does not mean that it will ultimately be approved.
The permit review process itself is the official process where technical reviewers will ensure whether or not an application is in compliance with all applicable King County codes and whether it addresses community concerns. If and when a permit application is submitted and undergoes review, the reviewers will learn more about the specific details of the project and whether the many reasonable concerns being raised, including the question of site appropriateness, are being adequately addressed.
The permit process also includes a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review process, which involves a public notice and public comment period and will give all community members the opportunity to weigh in and make their voices heard. If significant impacts from the proposed project were determined to be likely through the SEPA review process, the Permitting Division has the ability to impose additional, site-specific requirements to address those impacts. Additionally, if it was found that impacts could not be addressed through site-specific conditions, an environmental impact statement with an alternative analysis would be required.
The review process considers potential impacts from grading, construction, various battery technologies in operation and decommissioning, specific grading quantities, site configurations, impacts to sensitive environmental areas and habitat, fire and emergency response requirements (as outlined under state law), and more. Many of these areas have been raised as points of concern in emails we’ve received, and all of these will be carefully considered during the review process. That is the purpose of the review process itself.
What I can do in my role is to ensure that community members have the most up to date information about how to participate in the public process. My office is tracking this process closely so that we can widely publish all available opportunities to provide public comment and submit questions for consideration during the permit review process. In the meantime, any questions about the process or feedback on the proposal can be shared with the Permitting Division directly at PermitQuestions@kingcounty.gov.
I know that many questions still remain and will arise as we move through the process together. I am committed to staying engaged in whatever ways I can be helpful within the limitations of my role at this point in the process. Again, I want to thank the many residents who have been raising thoughtful concerns and are advocating for the safety and health of the community, and I want to wholeheartedly encourage you to stay engaged.
Sincerely,
Sarah
|
