A Local Government’s Role in Regulating Battery Energy Storage Systems

This is the second in a two-part blog series on battery energy storage systems (BESS), which are large, modular units composed of rechargeable batteries that can be used independently or in groups to store and later release electrical power generated by another source, maximizing energy efficiency and reducing costs associated with energy retention.

Part 1 of this series looked at what a BESS is, potential benefits and impacts of their use, and where such facilities can, and often are, located. This blog will focus on the approaches two Washington local governments have taken to regulate the introduction of BESS facilities into their communities.

Regulatory Considerations

Local regulations, such as fire codes, zoning requirements, and emergency response protocols can help protect public health and safety and address compatibility concerns. Below is a list of topics that are typically addressed in local BESS regulation:

• Fire and life safety
• Noise impacts
• Screening and security fencing

Part 1 covered those safety-related issues listed above and recommended additional resources for further review. Other issues likely to be addressed in local BESS regulations include facility size limits, location, facility decommissioning, and plans for facility operations and maintenance.

Maximum size limits

Regulatory size limits for BESS facilities can be based on physical size (i.e., the square footage or acreage of a medium or large-scale facility), and/or the amount of stored energy — For example, a threshold of 200 megawatt hours (MWh) or higher is often used to differentiate between a large-scale and medium-scale BESS facility.

Location

Agencies should identify where BESS facilities are to be permitted outright, allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP), or prohibited. Compatibility with adjacent uses is a related factor, which might result in standards requiring a minimum separation between similar facilities.

Decommissioning of BESS facilities

It is farsighted to plan for a potential BESS closure by requiring preparation of a decommissioning plan and confirming the applicant’s financial ability and willingness to do so in the future (Arlington’s regulations contain this requirement for large-scale BESS). This type of requirement is often included when local governments develop franchises or lease agreements with other utility/service providers, such as telecommunications companies.

Operations and maintenance plan and schedule

During the project approval process, agencies should also get firm commitments and clear understanding from the BESS owner/operator on how their facility will be operated and maintained. This is another common provision in local telecommunication agreements.

When developing local BESS regulations, it is recommended that all relevant departments within a municipality be involved (such as planning, building, fire, and other emergency response staff) as well as other relevant county and state agencies. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) staff are also available to work with local governments to explain the need for additional energy and BESS facilities.

Case Studies from Two Washington Cities

Though there are benefits, proposed BESS facility development can also generate controversy. For example, the location of a proposed BESS facility near Sedro-Woolley on land zoned for agriculture and in close proximity to a salmon-bearing creek has generated local opposition. What follows, however, are short descriptions of how Sumner and Arlington successfully dealt with BESS projects proposed within their communities.

Sumner

The city received an application for a large BESS facility (200-800 MWh) in February 2024, before they developed regulations to address this type of development. At that point in time, the city made a determination that it was an outright permitted use in the M-1 Light Manufacturing zone as a “major utility facility,” given its nature and association with the PSE grid/utility, but the city also required a CUP for the project, primarily because new power lines would need to be constructed within some residential zoning.

The BESS applicant participated in several public outreach opportunities (public open house and other community event) and held their own on-site informational event (with notice provided to the public). Because the city did not yet have specific BESS regulations in place, Sumner relied on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for conditions related to several issues, such as screening the public’s view of the BESS facility and requiring the BESS operator to develop an emergency management plan. The city also closely coordinated the permit application review of the proposed BESS with the local fire district. The permit was issued in November 2024.

Soon after the BESS application was received, city staff also went to work on creating new development standards to address future BESS facilities. These standards were recently adopted by the city council (see Sumner Municipal Code Section 18.18.60 (X)) and are focused on larger BESS facilities that generate greater than 200 MWh. The council will be working on regulations that address smaller BESS facilities in the near future.

Arlington

The Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) contacted Arlington in early 2024 about a proposal to construct a 100 megawatt-hours BESS facility. The city and PUD undertook a collaborative process, which resulted in the July 29, 3034, adoption of Chapter 20.144: Alternative Energy Systems and Technologies to the city’s municipal code. Part II of this new chapter directly addresses BESS.

Arlington’s BESS regulations create three different tiers. As a proposed BESS facility increases in size (and, correspondingly, potential impacts) permit applicants will encounter an increase in the number of requirements the facility must meet, and fewer zones in which the facility may be located. All BESS facilities, regardless of the tier they fall into, must be screened from view from adjacent property and the public right-of-way and must be securely fenced.

Under Arlington’s BESS regulations, a “Tier 1” BESS is allowed in all zones (subject to compliance with a small number of applicable standards). Residential electric vehicle (EV) charging stations are one type of facility that would fall within the Tier 1 category.

A “Tier 2” (medium-scale/commercial) BESS are those facilities with an aggregate energy capacity greater than 40 kilowatt hours (kWh) up to 600 kWh, which are allowed in a small number of commercial and industrial zones, and for which, applicants must obtain an administratively issued special use permit prior.

In contrast, a “Tier 3” BESS (industrial-scale/utility facility) include facilities with an aggregate energy capacity greater than 600 kWh, up to, but not exceeding 200 MWh and are only allowed in the city’s General Industrial zones and would need to receive a CUP (after a public hearing before Arlington’s Hearing Examiner) from the city and be subject to a multitude of restrictions and requirements. For example, Tier 3 systems must be set back 500 feet from any residentially zoned property and are required to submit a hazard mitigation analysis and an emergency management plan for the facility.

Conclusion

The increased demand for new and alternative sources of electricity generation will result in a growing need for construction of more BESS facilities. As the scale of a BESS facility increases, however, so do its potential impacts.

This blog highlights the efforts of two Washington State cities to regulate BESS but there are other local governments that have adopted their own regulations, such as King County and Whatcom County. It is important that Washington’s local governments are aware of BESS, so that they may proactively choose to consider their options for addressing possible BESS impacts.

The author wants to thank Ryan Windish, Community & Economic Development Director, City of Sumner; Marc Hayes, Director, and Amy Rusko, Deputy Director, Community & Economic Development, City of Arlington; Christine Nhan, Local Government Affairs & Public Policy Manager, Puget Sound Energy; and Abby Newbold, Public Policy Intern, MRSC.