Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedro-Woolley council backs joint opposition to 'Golden Eye' battery storage near Hansen Creek
Summary
After public testimony and legal staff briefings, Sedro-Woolley voted to join a multi-jurisdictional letter urging state denial of a proposed Golden Eye battery energy storage facility sited near Hansen Creek, citing risks to salmon-bearing streams, drinking-water sources and nearby schools.
Sedro‑Woolley’s City Council voted June 24 to co-sign a joint letter urging state officials to deny the Golden Eye battery energy storage (BESS) application for a site near Hansen Creek.
The vote followed public comment from state Sen. Wagner, who said the project “is right next to a stream” that the Upper Scadget Tribe spent “hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring” and that the site lies within the Scadget River watershed and is close to schools and the city’s drinking-water supply. “I am not against the technology as a whole,” Wagner said; “I am against it at this site.”
City attorney Dan summarized the interlocal effort and told the council that the joint letter represents coordinated local opposition intended to ensure state regulators and the applicant are aware of shared technical and environmental concerns. Council members echoed worries about the proposal’s proximity to agricultural land, a salmon-bearing stream and populated areas; several cited emergency-response and fire‑safety questions raised at earlier public hearings. One council member said company representatives told him that if a battery unit ignited, their response plan was effectively to “let it burn,” which members said was inadequate for a site near homes and sensitive waterways.
The council’s resolution instructs the mayor to sign the joint letter of opposition and to coordinate with Scadget County and the Upper Scadget Tribe. The motion passed by voice vote.
Next steps: the joint letter will be delivered to the state review body referenced in earlier testimony; the BESS applicant’s proceedings before the state remain subject to the quasi‑judicial review process described in the record.
