Marion County adopts code amendments clarifying how battery energy storage systems are treated under zoning

Marion County commissioners on July 9 adopted an administrative ordinance to clarify how existing Marion County urban and rural zone codes (Chapters 16 and 17) apply to battery energy storage systems, after public comment from an industry representative and an affected landowner.

The ordinance, adopted by voice vote, updates county code language to make clear how current zoning provisions apply to the siting and permitting of battery energy storage systems (BESS). Commissioners and planning staff said the change is intended to provide clarity while the county develops detailed standards for future applications.

Why it matters: county staff told commissioners that BESS are not expressly contemplated in current county code, state statute, or state administrative rule, and that the code language needed clarification before the county proceeds to write permitting standards. Planning staff said the clarification will not retroactively change approvals or applications already in process.

Industry and landowner comments: Christina Gispert, who identified herself as an employee of RWE Clean Energy, told the board she represents two energy storage projects in Marion County (one with a conditional use permit already approved and another with an application pending). She said RWE was not notified in advance of the board action and urged the county to delay or reject an outright ban under consideration earlier in the process, offering technical experts to assist the county on safety. "We presently have 16 energy storage projects under operation and another 8 under construction. We have not had a single battery safety incident at any of our facilities," Gispert said, adding that battery cabinets are about "10 feet tall" and have a small land footprint.

John Lewis, a Marion County landowner and tree grower who said he owns property near a large substation, described the site as "poor soil" and argued siting a BESS there would preserve more productive farmland while providing a future revenue stream for his family operation. Lewis said he did not receive notice of earlier hearings and asked commissioners to postpone a ban or ordinance action until affected landowners had "meaningful public participation." He also described broader agricultural pressures, referencing a recently enacted state bill (identified in his remarks as "bill 2548") that he said could materially affect farm labor costs.

Planning staff presentation and next steps: Brandon Reich, Marion County planning director, summarized the county’s process: the board held a work session on April 15, initiated code amendments on May 14, held a public hearing on June 11 and approved the amendments, and scheduled adoption for July 9. Reich emphasized the amendments clarify applicability of current provisions and said they do not affect the already-approved project east of Salem near the Bethel substation (the approval remains valid through 2028) or the recently filed application. He said the county will form a stakeholder committee to develop objective siting and operational standards for future BESS applications; that committee is expected to include technical experts, nearby property owners and neighborhood representatives and will address notification standards.

What the ordinance does and does not do: The administrative ordinance clarifies that the existing county zoning provisions apply to BESS and sets the procedural framework for how future BESS applications will be processed. It does not repeal or change existing approvals or pending applications that are already submitted and vested under prior rules, according to planning staff.

Commissioner remarks and vote: Commissioners asked staff to ensure a robust notice and stakeholder process for the forthcoming standards. After discussion, a motion to adopt the administrative ordinance clarifying the applicability of Chapters 16 and 17 passed by voice vote.

Next steps: Planning staff will convene a standards-development process with stakeholders, draft objective technical and notification standards, and return proposed standards to the board for formal consideration. The county will verify how rural land uses are treated under state law as the standards are developed.