Commissioners press staff on battery-storage language and March's Point jurisdiction in climate update

The Anacortes Planning Commission revisited draft Climate and Environment & Conservation element language at its May 14 meeting, focusing on how the draft treats energy infrastructure, battery storage and the city's connection to county-jurisdiction industrial sites such as March's Point.

Commissioners said the topic matters because climate and energy language in the Comprehensive Plan shapes where and how the city will encourage or regulate renewable energy generation, distributed resources and battery energy storage systems (BESS), and because some major industrial facilities that affect Anacortes (March's Point refineries) sit in the Skagit County urban growth area and raise questions about which jurisdiction addresses emissions and siting.

Libby Grange and staff led the discussion and relayed advice from the Washington State Department of Commerce that March's Point emissions were not included in the city's greenhouse gas inventory because the facilities lie outside the city's jurisdiction (in the county UGA) and therefore the city lacks direct regulatory control. Commissioner Mills asked whether the county plan addressed refining and storage; staff reported a county policy (12.B.1.4) that directs the county to identify areas appropriate for siting renewable energy generation and storage while prioritizing protection of natural resource lands.

Commissioners debated battery storage specifically. Several commissioners said they were concerned the draft language read as if it promoted siting of battery farms without sufficient siting controls or safety and scale distinctions. Commissioner Currier and Commissioner McCombs said they feared being seen as either blanket-encouraging or de facto-forbidding a technology that may be necessary for an electrified future; McCombs summarized the tension: if the region moves to all-electric heating and transport, electricity storage may be required, but the scale and siting of storage facilities raise safety and land-use concerns.

Staff and commissioners discussed options for tightening policy language: one suggested path was to use county policy language as a model—identify appropriate areas for siting renewable generation and storage and prioritize protection of natural resource lands—paired with stronger city-level caveats requiring safety, design standards and explicit scale distinctions so the comp plan does not read as a general invitation for large battery farms. Commissioners also asked staff to make the city’s role and limitations clear where the refineries are in county jurisdiction and to track county proceedings on March's Point policy.

Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and consultants were referenced in the draft as stakeholders; staff noted a prior collaboration and that CE 6 policy language had been modified after PSE review and subsequent Climate Team edits. Commissioners asked staff to remove potentially ambiguous lists of examples (generation, transmission, storage) where those examples create confusion, and to prefer policy statements that commit to energy resilience while directing detailed siting and safety standards to development regulations or later code work.

Ending: Staff will revise the climate and environment text (CE6, CE7, CE8 references highlighted during the meeting) to clarify that the city supports overall energy resilience but intends to require careful siting, scale and safety standards for battery storage and will coordinate with Skagit County and PSE. Commissioners asked staff to return a revised draft for final review and to monitor county proceedings on March's Point; no formal regulatory actions were adopted at the meeting.