Rativ Majumdar, Skagit County hearing examiner, opened a land-use hearing on Dec. 12 in the hearing examiner chambers to establish a factual record for a special‑use permit application by NextEra Energy Resources for a utility‑scale battery energy storage system near the Puget Sound Energy Fredonia substation.

Brandon Black, senior planner with Skagit County Planning and Development Services, told the hearing that the application (PL23‑0408) proposes a battery energy storage system (BESS) with a four‑hour duration sited across two parcels in the Bayview Ridge Heavy Industrial zoning designation. Black said the facility was described in the application as “capable of storing up to 200 MWh of energy by a 4 hour duration” and that it would interconnect to the Fredonia substation via a 115‑kilovolt gen‑tie line of roughly 1,750 feet.

The department has classified the proposed use as a “major utility development” under Skagit County Code and, following its review and a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) process, recommended approval with conditions. Black told the examiner the department’s recommended special‑use permit includes 25 conditions listed in Exhibit 1 and that the county issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance on June 11, 2024, with 18 mitigation measures attached.

Why it matters: the Bayview Ridge area is a long‑standing industrial zone located near working farms, an airport environs overlay and critical drainage and wetland areas. The hearing was the county’s formal opportunity to compile evidence and public testimony before the examiner issues a written decision on whether the special‑use permit complies with county code and applicable state and federal requirements.

Project details and county review

Black said the project site spans about 22.55 acres of a roughly 31.29‑acre combined property, with the applicant sometimes describing the area used by the facility differently in various application materials (the applicant and county staff also referenced a 17.7‑acre footprint in some exhibits). The facility as presented to the county would use up to 92 power conversion system (PCS) units and up to 368 cabinets on the site. The applicant has submitted civil and technical appendices for fire safety, commissioning and decommissioning; several appendices were submitted in abbreviated or confidential form and the county and hearing examiner confirmed full versions were on file for examiner review.

Black said the project was reviewed under county permit procedures (Skagit County Code, including sections cited for special‑use criteria and utility development definitions) and SEPA. He told the examiner that the department determined the applicant had “adequately addressed the special use criteria” in the staff report but that the record lacked several full technical appendices, which the applicant and county agreed would be added as exhibits (numbered 57–60 in the hearing record).

Applicant presentation and timeline

Chibu Ijem Aju (presented as Ijem Aju), the project developer, introduced the applicants’ team and described the company and portfolio. Aju and other NextEra representatives said the Mount Vernon Battery Storage project would be sited adjacent to Puget Sound Energy’s Fredonia substation; the applicant said it has executed a long‑term contract with Puget Sound Energy and estimated construction would begin in the fourth quarter of 2026 with completion in 2027. Aju said the company “plan[s] to return the land to original condition at the end of life.”

Sarah Twitchell, listed as NextEra’s environmental project manager, said the applicant submitted a SEPA checklist and supporting studies (wetland delineation, habitat surveys, cultural resources assessment, a phase‑1 hazardous materials assessment and a wetland mitigation plan). Twitchell told the hearing the county’s SEPA determination concluded that, with implementation of planned mitigation and best‑management practices, “there's gonna be no probable significant adverse impacts on the environment.” She said the applicant plans to purchase wetland mitigation credits from a local mitigation bank and that permit coordination with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is underway.

John/Josh Adams (appearing as the project’s fire and engineering expert) described the project’s fire‑safety documentation. Adams said portions of the commissioning, hazard‑mitigation analysis and emergency response plans were submitted in redacted or abbreviated form because they contain proprietary details, but that those full items are on file with the county and the county’s fire marshal and emergency‑management staff have reviewed them. He described planned firefighter training and said the systems and plans are designed to meet industry standards.

County and applicant conditions; decommissioning surety

Black said the department recommends approval with conditions (Exhibit 1) and proposed adding a further condition on decommissioning: that the owner or any transferee provide financial security (for example, a performance bond or letter of credit) to guarantee decommissioning and site restoration obligations following the facility’s life. The hearing examiner asked who would determine the surety amount; county staff said the department would approve the form and amount as part of the permit review and the applicant said it would provide proposed language from its decommissioning and restoration plan.

Public testimony and recurring concerns

The hearing drew extensive public comment from residents, farmers, local organizations and others. Common themes among speakers included:

- Fire risk and emergency response: multiple speakers cited recent battery‑storage incidents elsewhere and asked how local fire departments would respond, what training and equipment would be provided, and whether sprays of water and runoff could create secondary contamination. Applicant witnesses described adherence to industry standards (including testing protocols and NFPA/IFC guidance referenced in the record) and said fire events are contained within containers in tested designs; county staff said the building and fire codes and the fire marshal’s comments were incorporated into the SEPA conditions.

- Wetlands, stormwater and habitat: commenters said the site contains multiple wetlands and criticized the plan to mitigate wetland impacts by purchasing mitigation bank credits rather than retaining on‑site habitat. The applicant said it plans to purchase mitigation credits through a local mitigation bank and that Army Corps and Ecology permits are in progress; Twitchell said the mitigation plan and critical‑area review would need agency approvals before land‑disturbance permits issue.

- Decommissioning and financial assurance: several speakers asked for an independent surety estimate and for guarantees that cleanup and off‑site impacts would be covered by the developer rather than taxpayers. The county and applicant agreed to submit decommissioning documents and to propose surety language.

- Notice and community engagement: several residents said they received late or insufficient notice of the proposal and of public‑meeting opportunities; the applicant described an open house it hosted in September 2024 and meetings with county staff.

Representative comments and quotes

- Hearing examiner Rativ Majumdar opened the hearing by stating, “What we are doing here today is a land use action.”

- Senior planner Brandon Black summarized the project as “capable of storing up to 200 MWh of energy by a 4 hour duration.”

- Applicant lead Ijem Aju said the company “plan[s] to return the land to original condition at the end of life.”

- Environmental project manager Sarah Twitchell said the SEPA review and mitigation measures led the county to conclude there would be “no probable significant adverse impacts on the environment” if mitigation is implemented.

- Public commenter Connie Pryor of the Stewards of Skagit asked, “Who is the community that they're speaking of?” to press for clarity on who would benefit from the project’s output and how outreach was handled.

- A nearby resident, Les Nicole Frisbee, summarized a view heard from several speakers: “this is something that we here in this county don't need.”

Next steps and permits

The hearing examiner closed the factual record at the end of the session, admitted the exhibits that were on the record (the examiner noted 61 exhibits by the hearing’s close), and said he will issue a written decision within 14 days plus holidays. County staff, the applicant and members of the public noted that additional federal and state permits (including U.S. Army Corps and Washington State Department of Ecology approvals related to wetlands and joint aquatic resources, and development permits such as land‑disturbance, stormwater and building permits) will be required before construction. County staff said those technical plans are reviewed during development‑permit and building‑permit stages and that the county’s stormwater reviewer and the fire marshal will conduct detailed reviews before any land‑disturbing activity is authorized.

The hearing record will include full technical appendices the county acknowledged were on file but initially submitted in abbreviated or proprietary form; the applicant said it will provide redacted public versions where those materials contained proprietary details. The hearing examiner also recorded an intention to consider the unredacted materials in his decision.

The examiner’s written decision will state whether the proposed special‑use permit, with or without additional conditions, complies with Skagit County code and SEPA requirements and whether any modifications or additional review are necessary.