Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane Valley council reaffirms interim ban on battery energy storage systems after public hearing; resolution passes 6–1
Summary
After a public hearing on fire and chemical risks associated with battery energy storage systems, Spokane Valley City Council approved a resolution (26Dash003) reaffirming findings that supported the city’s interim ban while planning staff studies permanent land‑use rules; the vote was 6–1.
The Spokane Valley City Council on March 17 held a public hearing and then voted to approve a resolution documenting and reaffirming findings that supported the city’s emergency interim ban on battery energy storage systems. The resolution (recorded in the meeting as resolution number 26Dash003) passed by a 6–1 vote.
City Attorney Kelly Conkrad opened the hearing by summarizing the emergency interim ordinance (26‑002), which pauses siting of battery energy storage facilities inside the city while staff and the planning commission evaluate where and how such systems could be safely allowed in city code. Conkrad cited thermal‑runaway fire risk, protracted fires, and toxic fumes as the primary hazards motivating the interim pause.
A former fire investigator who testified in the public hearing said the technology has risks and supported a temporary pause but opposed a permanent ban, arguing the industry will likely become safer over time if regulated. No members of the public testified in favor of an outright permanent ban during the hearing.
Councilmember questions focused on process and timing: staff and the city attorney said the interim ban runs for up to 365 days while planning‑code updates proceed in conjunction with the city’s comprehensive plan work, and that reaffirming the findings in a resolution was a housekeeping action that does not prevent the planning commission from conducting a full study.
Council took the motion to approve the resolution and the measure passed 6–1. Several council members urged the planning commission to consider sunset clauses and periodic reevaluation in any final regulations because the underlying technology is evolving.
The county and city representatives also discussed the balance between protecting neighboring properties and permitting appropriately sited facilities. The planning commission will consider regulations and make recommendations to the council ahead of any permanent ordinance.
