Commissioners debate battery-storage language, March's Point emissions and county coordination in climate update

Planning Commission members spent substantial time on May 14 debating how the Comprehensive Plan's climate and environment policies should treat battery-energy storage and how the plan should address greenhouse-gas emissions tied to March's Point refineries.

Chairman Jeremy Martin told the commission he had consulted the Washington State Department of Commerce after receiving public comments and cited the agency's guidance to explain why the city's greenhouse-gas inventory excludes March's Point facilities: "the city of Anacortes has done exactly the correct thing in not including it," he said, because the refineries lie in the county urban growth area and are outside the city's permitting jurisdiction.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they want the comp-plan language to manage local land-use and siting questions where the city has authority while also ensuring the plan does not imply the city regulates facilities outside city limits. At the same time, several commissioners stressed that battery storage may be necessary to support electrification and resilience while others raised safety and siting concerns.

Key discussion points - March's Point and jurisdiction: Staff and commissioners confirmed March's Point is inside Skagit County's urban growth area and that the county has permitting authority for those sites; commissioners asked staff to review the county's draft comprehensive-plan language and to ensure the city coordinates where feasible. John Coleman noted county permit reviewers typically consult city development standards when appropriate but that the city does not have direct jurisdiction there. - Battery energy storage (BESS): Commissioners debated the tension between requiring storage to achieve electrification goals and community concerns about siting and safety. Commissioner Mills summarized the trade-off: if the city wants broad electrification, "we're probably gonna need [battery storage]." Other commissioners suggested the comp plan should not be interpreted as endorsing unconstrained siting and recommended inserting language that emphasizes safety, scale, and appropriate siting. - County example and potential text: Commissioners cited wording in the draft Skagit County plan (policy 12B1.4) that directs the county to identify appropriate areas for renewable generation and storage "that prioritize protection of natural resource lands." Commissioners asked staff to adapt similar, neutral language into the city's CE (climate/environment) goals so the plan supports resilience while explicitly calling for careful site selection and regulatory controls. - Implementation approach: Several commissioners said siting and safety details belong in implementing regulations (development code) rather than the comp plan; others asked the staff to add a cross-reference so the comp plan explicitly directs the creation of clear code standards for battery storage siting, design, fire-safety coordination and decommissioning.

Quotes and attribution: Chairman Jeremy Martin said the exclusion of March's Point from the city inventory followed Commerce guidance: "the city of Anacortes has done exactly the correct thing in not including it." John Coleman explained the practical review relationship with the county: "the county will then contact us and say, hey. Does this project look okay? But, you know, they kinda run it by us, and, you know, they follow they reference our our codes to make sure that it meets our development regulations. But we don't specifically have jurisdiction there." Commissioner Mills observed, "If battery storage is a part of going all electric...we're probably gonna need that, and doing that in a responsible way to meet the minimum requirements is probably responsible and safe."

Next steps: Commissioners asked staff to (1) review Skagit County's related policies and identify text that could be adapted, (2) revise CE 8 (and related CE 6/7 language) to emphasize energy resilience while explicitly calling for careful siting and safety requirements and (3) cross-reference the need for development-code standards for BESS siting and design. No formal policy vote was taken; staff will return with revised language in the comprehensive-plan draft.