Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Bess Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kitsap briefs planning commission on 365-day moratorium and work plan for battery energy storage systems
Summary
County planners described a one-year moratorium adopted June 11 on new battery energy storage system (BESS) applications, described preliminary public comments and outlined a work plan to study fire safety, environmental and zoning impacts before proposing code updates.
Jim Rogers, with the Kitsap County Department of Community Development Long Range Planning division, briefed the Planning Commission July 15 on a county ordinance that places a 365-day moratorium on acceptance of new battery energy storage system (BESS) permit applications and on the department's work plan to study siting, safety and policy responses.
Rogers said the Board of County Commissioners adopted the moratorium June 11 and that the ordinance number is 639-2025. He said the Board declared an emergency and that the moratorium pauses acceptance of new applications while staff evaluates technical, regulatory and health and safety issues. "On June 11, the County Commissioners adopted a 365 day moratorium on the acceptance of new battery energy storage system applications and declaring an emergency," he said.
Rogers told commissioners that county staff held a public hearing with the Board and received largely supportive comments; Puget Sound Energy (PSE) responded, urging recognition of the role BESS projects can play in meeting clean-energy and resilience goals. Staff outlined the work plan goals: identify risks and land-use and environmental impacts; evaluate emergency-response and fire-safety requirements; review Department of Ecology guidance and state legislation identified by staff (House Bill 1216 was mentioned at the briefing); and assess economic impacts and long-term financial assurances for decommissioning.
Rogers said a proposed project under review is in North Kitsap near Bond Road adjacent to a substation; he summarized public comments describing the project as approximately 170 megawatts proposed on two parcels totaling about 17 acres, with the battery footprint estimated at 8 to 10 acres. He said current county code allows these systems in industrial zones but not in residential zones and that the project under review was proposed in a rural-residential zone.
Commissioners asked about notification distances; Rogers said the county uses standard noticing procedures and that notice currently extends to properties within 800 feet of a project, consistent with other land-use notices. He said staff anticipates completing the work plan and returning with code recommendations for Planning Commission review in late winter or spring, with an anticipated Board decision in May of the following year, and that the moratorium can be extended if more time is needed.
No commission vote occurred on July 15; the briefing served to solicit commission input on the scope and priorities of the study and the public outreach plan. Staff established a project web page and requested public comments via the county contact provided.
