Bonney Lake committee moves to recommend six‑month moratorium on proposed battery storage site near Veterans Memorial Drive
Loading...
Summary
City staff briefed the committee on a PSE RFP for a 5 MW lithium‑ion battery site near Veterans Memorial Drive; East Pierce Fire and water staff raised safety and groundwater risks and staff recommended a six‑month moratorium while the city drafts interim rules or evaluates prohibition.
Bonney Lake City staff told the City Development Committee on April 7 that Puget Sound Energy (PSE) issued a request for proposals seeking a 5‑megawatt lithium‑ion battery energy storage system and identified potential siting corridors including Veterans Memorial Drive.
"Fall 2025, PSE reached out to us to let us know that we're doing a request for proposal related to energy storage sites," Lauren said, describing the RFP and the utility's interest in short‑duration grid support.
East Pierce Fire representatives emphasized operational limits and hazards. "With these battery packs ... this is not something that we would put out with water. We'd let it burn, and it could burn for 2 days," Kevin, an East Pierce Fire official, said, adding that manufacturer teams and hazmat protocols inform response. City water staff warned the proposed Veterans Memorial Drive location is within a one‑year groundwater travel time to Granger Springs, a primary spring source, and said runoff from a fire could reach spring sources quickly.
Staff explained the city's current municipal code broadly allows public‑utility facilities and does not include siting rules specific to large battery storage. That left the committee with three options: (1) proceed under existing code, (2) draft interim regulations that would take effect upon adoption, or (3) place a temporary six‑month moratorium on accepting or processing applications while staff researches preemption, safety standards and siting distances. Staff recommended option 3 to allow time for drafting permanent regulations.
"If the committee has significant concerns, which it sounds like you do, our recommendation would be then to go with option 3, which is to pass the moratorium for 6 months," the staff member said.
Committee members voiced aesthetic and safety concerns and questioned whether the city would obtain direct benefits. "What is the benefit to the city for having this?" one committee member asked; another said the city receives "no benefit" and urged moving the site away from springs and critical infrastructure. Committee members signaled support for placing a moratorium ordinance on next week's full council agenda for further deliberation.
Next steps: staff will research preemption, site‑specific setbacks from sensitive uses, and interim code language and will place a moratorium proposal on the council agenda for consideration. No formal vote was recorded during the CDC meeting.