Everett council presses mayor, state after proposal for 20-acre lithium battery storage site

Councilors at the Everett City Council meeting pressed city and state officials about a proposed 20-acre lithium battery storage project and voted to ask the mayor nd state and federal representatives to pursue mitigation and further review.

The proposal discussed would place battery energy storage on roughly 20 acres of land in Everett nd, according to the city—ire chief, would amount to roughly 700 megawatts of capacity. Chief Joseph Hickey told the council "700 megawatts is huge" and said the size and output raised public-safety concerns, including evacuation, venting of toxic byproducts and the difficulty of extinguishing fully involved battery fires.

The council framed the issue as partly outside the city's permitting authority. Aaron Deveney, chief of staff to the mayor, told councilors the state regulatory process gives the Commonwealth primary siting authority for energy facilities and that the mayor has voiced opposition to siting a facility of this size in Everett; Deveney said the administration is nonetheless pursuing local mitigation and community protections where possible.

Why it matters: Council members said the project's scale contrasts with existing nearby hazards and with recent redevelopment ambitions for the waterfront. They cited risks to neighborhoods, potential long-duration fires that "you have to let burn out," and limitations on how much local government can shape state-regulated energy siting.

Key details and debate - Chief Joseph Hickey said subject-matter experts told the fire department that in a fully involved lithium battery fire "you have to let it burn out," creating concerns about air quality, long-duration combustion, and evacuation logistics. He compared the proposed site (700 megawatts) with a Chelsea project at 250 megawatts to highlight scale. - Aaron Deveney, Chief of Staff, said the state's regulatory framework gives the state primary authority to approve and site these projects but that the mayor has registered formal objections and is negotiating for mitigation and community benefits where possible. - Councilors raised questions about local infrastructure and response capacity. Councilor Rogers noted Everett—ire stations are old and that the city handled over 10,000 calls last year, with roughly 1,000 calls tied to the casino; she said the city needs to plan for a fourth fire station if new large hazards locate in the city. - Councilor Matuski and others said they were surprised by the scale relative to what was presented to the council earlier; some councilors said a presentation months earlier described a much smaller installation and they felt the change in scale was not clearly communicated.

Formal council action - The council voted to refer item 16 (the request for the fire chief to appear regarding Jupiter Power) to the mayor nd directed staff to send letters expressing council concerns to state and federal representatives, including the city elegation and the governor's office. (Motion moved by Councilor Matuski; action referred to the Mayor's Office; ayes carried.) - Councilors asked the Davis company (the property owner/developer associated with the site) to appear and present their master plan at a future meeting so the council and the public could review the developer—oordinates for the 80+ acres around Island End. Councilor Matuski said he wants the full developer presentation at the second meeting in March.

What the city says it will do next: The mayor's office and planning staff said they are continuing talks with the proponent and will seek mitigation and a community benefits approach if the state proceeds with siting. The council requested a written response from the mayor's office and copies of correspondence with the state.

Context and constraints: Deveney told the council that the state encourages, but does not require, community benefits agreements in this regulatory process and that the mayor has raised concerns with the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Multiple councilors said they felt local officials should have been alerted earlier and asked for clearer information sharing going forward.

Ending: The council did not block the project (it lacks unilateral local veto power under current state siting statutes) but voted to press the mayor and state representatives for mitigation, to invite Davis Company back for a full presentation, and to publicly register council concerns about safety, evacuation planning and impacts on Everett neighborhoods.