Snoqualmie council adopts temporary moratorium on new battery-storage facilities

The Snoqualmie City Council on May 26 approved an amended ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on new battery energy storage system facilities while the city develops siting and safety standards.

The ordinance (agenda bill EB26-027, Ordinance No. 1322) — moved by Council member Johnson and seconded by Council member Holloway — was amended on the floor and approved by voice vote. City Attorney Dina Burke clarified that, absent an emergency declaration, the ordinance would take effect five days after passage.

Why it mattered: Neighbors and council members said the moratorium is intended to give the city time to study public-safety, land-use and housing impacts associated with systems that would connect to a nearby substation. Two residents urged immediate and specific countermeasures: Danielle Wallace asked that the moratorium language be made publicly available and displayed; Sydney Sabara said the city must “act now” and suggested the council consider measures such as restricting utility access to the substation that a proposed BESS would use.

Council debate focused on balancing urgent safety concerns with grid reliability and legal process. Several council members said peer cities in the valley had moved quickly: North Bend passed a moratorium the prior week and Carnation had advanced a first reading. Council members discussed the ordinance’s effective date and whether to include emergency authority; the city attorney said that without declaring an emergency the law provides a five-day delay before the moratorium becomes effective.

Next steps: The council scheduled a special meeting for Friday at 5:00 p.m. to continue work on two items: the moratorium ordinance and a proposed letter to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Council also chartered a community working group to help draft a council response to the King County permit process for the proposed BESS site.

What wasn’t resolved: Public commenters asked the city to take immediate operational steps—such as limiting access to a substation or withholding utility services—but the ordinance itself is a time-limited regulatory pause to allow the city to develop standards. The transcript records community concern about safety and land-use conflicts but does not record a direct response from the utility or from King County.

The ordinance was adopted as amended; the transcript shows a voice vote with no roll-call tally recorded in the meeting minutes.

Action recorded: Ordinance No. 1322, moratorium on new battery energy storage system facilities, adopted (mover: Council member Johnson; second: Council member Holloway). A special meeting was scheduled for additional discussion and potential action.