Residents oppose proposed lithium battery site near Sedro‑Woolley; commissioners reiterate opposition and outline limits of local authority

Several residents used the county’s weekly public comment period April 29 to oppose a proposed large lithium‑ion battery energy storage project near Sedro‑Woolley (the meeting transcript refers to the site in the Sedro‑Woolley / Cedarville area). Speakers described the proposed site as adjacent to a large mobile‑home park, close to schools and farmland and said many neighbors report they have not received project notices.

"It's like in the backyard of this huge mobile home park across the street, you see kids playing," said Ingrid Hinton, who said she toured the neighborhood. "Most of them had not received letters about the building." Nancy Lee, a Seager Woolley business owner, said local elected officials and the mayor's office have no local support for the project and called it greenwashing that would endanger fisheries and nearby communities. Jim Lee, also a local business owner, said the project has been advanced "in the dark" without adequate public notice.

A commissioner clarified the county’s formal position and the limits of local permitting authority. The commissioner stated on the record that the Skagit County Board of Commissioners "has taken a repeated opposed position" on the BEST project and that the county amended its code to prevent similar projects on agricultural land in the future. The commissioner said the project owner submitted its application to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), which evaluates such energy facility siting and makes recommendations that then go to the governor. "That recommendation from the evaluation site council goes to the governor. The governor has the final pen. They don't come back here and ask this board of commissioners," the commissioner said, describing the board’s limited role in the EFSEC process.

Speakers asked the board to visit the site and consider the proximity to residences, farms and Padilla Bay. County officials acknowledged the concerns and reiterated that while the board opposes the project, EFSEC is the permitting pathway for this facility and final authority for the state siting decision rests with the governor after EFSEC action.

Ending: Residents and business owners asked the county to continue its opposition and to press for closer review of environmental and public‑safety impacts at the state level. The county reaffirmed its opposition on record and noted limits to local permitting authority under state siting rules.