Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Vernon council renews 60‑day moratorium on battery energy storage permits
Summary
The Mount Vernon City Council on July 23 approved ordinance 39-15 to renew a temporary moratorium on permitting battery energy storage systems while staff develops permanent regulations; council set a workplan of up to one year and heard written and in-person comments from Puget Sound Energy and local residents.
Mount Vernon — The City Council voted July 23 to adopt ordinance 39-15, renewing a moratorium on accepting applications for battery energy storage systems while staff prepares siting and safety regulations. The renewal, presented by Development Services Director Stacy Practioner, extends the city's pause on permitting for up to one year — the maximum allowed under the cited state authority — but council may shorten that timeline.
The moratorium matters because Mount Vernon currently has no zoning classification or local siting criteria for grid-scale battery systems. "The city does not have siting criteria or regulations to address safety standards or the placement of these systems," Development Services Director Stacy Practioner told the council. Practioner noted a scrivener's error in the draft ordinance packet (a 2024 date that should read 2025) and said staff will correct it if the council adopts the ordinance.
Council heard written comment from Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and live testimony from two Mount Vernon residents. Special Projects Manager Steve Sexton read a July 21 letter from PSE explaining the utility's view that battery storage can help meet growing peak demand and the state's Clean Energy Transformation Act goals. The letter states, in part, that batteries "can help provide clean, reliable, cost effective, and immediate power to help avoid outages." Resident Alicia Lewis urged the council to seek experiences from jurisdictions that have operated battery facilities and asked who would be accountable for fires, pollution, noise and long‑term disposal of lithium batteries. Resident Kevin Moss described potential local economic benefits and urged the city to consider whether a developer might provide community benefits in exchange for siting a facility locally.
Councilmember Mary moved to approve ordinance 39-15; the motion was seconded and carried. The ordinance renews the emergency moratorium first adopted May 28 under ordinance 39-13 and directs staff to pursue a work plan to develop permanent code. Practioner told council the draft provides a workplan for up to one year but can be shortened at council's discretion; staff noted the timeline must account for public notice, SEPA review and public hearings for code amendments.
Discussion at the dais reflected a mix of caution and a desire to study the issue. Councilmembers said they wanted public‑safety information, emissions and disposal plans, and technical input from both proponents and opponents before allowing permitting. Practioner and staff said they plan to seek technical testimony and to return with regulatory options during the moratorium.
The ordinance as approved does not itself adopt permanent siting standards or ban battery technology indefinitely; it temporarily halts permitting while the city develops regulations. Council and staff repeatedly noted the moratorium is intended to buy time for due diligence rather than to permanently exclude investment.
Next steps outlined by staff include public outreach, technical briefings for the council, and drafting code language; council may amend the timeline or repeal the moratorium earlier if a satisfactory regulatory framework is adopted.
