Sedro‑Woolley officials and residents press governor, utilities over proposed battery storage site near city

Sedro‑Woolley elected officials and residents used Tuesday’s meeting to press state and utility decision‑makers over a proposed large battery storage facility near the city, citing fire, water and environmental risks and asking the governor’s office and Puget Sound Energy for stronger safeguards and alternative clean‑energy options.

Mayor (name shown in transcript as Tom) said the city has already sent a letter to the governor and that the tribal government has submitted a separate letter opposing the project. “We have got that going out to him,” the mayor said, adding he planned to travel to Olympia to raise the issue with the governor’s staff.

Speakers described the project as a battery‑storage installation proposed near low‑lying farmland and river systems. Commissioners and councilors repeatedly warned of the risk of fires at lithium‑ion storage sites and the difficulty firefighting agencies face when lithium batteries ignite. “Lithium cannot be put out by water. It continues to burn,” a councilor said during public comments, urging involvement from local fire departments.

Officials discussed legal and regulatory routes. City staff said they and outside counsel are monitoring the state siting process (referred to in the meeting as the FSEC process) and would explore potential opportunities to weigh in; they also noted the governor’s appointment to the siting committee must be reappointed and that an administrative decision may be forthcoming. Nikki (city staff) said the city has looked at appeal options and would coordinate with the county and tribe. “We have considered it… if they do [pursue legal action], then we will probably come before you to see if you want to join forces,” she said.

Council members repeatedly asked whether the project could be moved farther from the river and residential areas and said they would seek additional briefings from regional utilities, county water authorities and the local public utility district. One councilor asked whether the PUD intake is upstream or downstream of the proposed site; staff agreed to request a presentation about water‑supply intakes and potential impacts.

Concerns extended beyond safety to economic development and land use. Commissioners noted the valley hosts important farmland and salmon runs; they urged state decision‑makers to prioritize other clean‑energy alternatives that would not concentrate hazardous battery storage near rivers and communities.

No formal city action or vote occurred; the council said it would continue coordination with the tribe and county, pursue meetings in Olympia, request further technical briefings (including from the PUD and fire department), and circulate tribal and other letters to council members.

The discussion underscored the community’s unease with the siting process and the limits of local authority when the facility is proposed on land outside the city’s jurisdiction but within the valley’s critical infrastructure corridor.