Scoping for Battery Energy Storage Systems Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comment From:
Rachel McCall
9/21/26 @ 11:40 AM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Rachel McCall and I live at 7517 Pinnacle Pl SE, Snoqualmie, WA. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility...↓-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study.
This is personal for my household. I live within 2 miles from the proposed site. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
My comment addresses the following:
Q1 · Facility types: Which kinds of battery facilities get studied.
I would like the study to look at stand-alone sites near homes like mine, not the remote ones it studied before, which are frankly not very relevant to situations my neighborhood is facing. The study should picture rows of container-sized battery nestled in neighborhoods near homes, schools and playgrounds, because that is what is being proposed and how Ecology itself describes these sites. I ask that Ecology define the facility types studied to include large, container-based lithium-ion installations near residential areas, and that the analysis assume the fire codes currently in force in Washington, rely on independent safety data, and call for the newest safety standards as a condition of approval.
Q2 -- Where they get built.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
The Ecology study should define "suitable" areas by what is safe for the people who live there, not just by where a facility could physically be built. Closeness to existing infrastructure should not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." The study's map should clearly say where facilities should not go, not only where they could, since nearly every kind of land is in play.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Rachel McCall
7517 Pinnacle Pl SE, Snoqualmie, WA.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Caitlin Hodges
9/21/26 @ 9:33 AM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Caitlin Hodges and I live in Snoqualmie Ridge. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility-scale, lithium-io...↓n battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q1 · Facility types — Which kinds of battery facilities get studied.
I would like the study to look at stand-alone sites near homes like mine, not the remote ones it studied before, since Ecology admits these sites are smaller and "could be sited in a variety of locations." The study should include the largest container-style installations now being proposed near neighborhoods, not just small substation batteries, since Ecology has not yet decided what kind of facility it will study. The study should picture rows of container-sized battery boxes beside homes and schools, because that is what is being proposed and how Ecology itself describes these sites. The study should assume facilities would be built to the rules Washington has actually adopted, and say what the newest standards would change, since Ecology admits the state's fire code is behind them. I ask that the PEIS evaluate the full range of stand-alone facilities actually being proposed in Washington — including large container-based lithium-ion installations sited near homes, schools, and constrained road networks — and that it analyze those facilities as built to the code Washington has actually adopted, drawing on independent safety data rather than industry assurances, and identify the most recent safety standards as required mitigation.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
It's crucial that responder training, hard-to-extinguish fires, toxic air, harm to water and fish, and cleanup each get a full analysis, not a mention, as the Ecology study scoping document states it "will evaluate" each of them. It's important that the study model what a battery fire's smoke does to the people living nearby. The scoping document acknowledges toxic gas from damaged batteries can hurt firefighters' skin and lungs. It does not mention neighbors, who have no protective gear and may not be able to leave. Evacuation, displacement, and offsite cleanup should count as impacts in their own right. Ecology's own example, the Moss Landing fire, forced 1,200 people from their homes. The study needs to measure nighttime noise at the nearest home, not at the fence line, since Ecology's earlier studies found that noise from these facilities reaches 1,000 feet in quiet rural areas. I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
This is personal for my household. I live 1–2 miles from the proposed site. My children go to school nearby, at Timber Ridge Elementary. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Matthew Prall and I live at 7405 Dogwood Ln SE, Snoqualmie, WA. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility-...↓scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q1 · Facility types — Which kinds of battery facilities get studied.
I would like the study to look at stand-alone sites near homes like mine, not the remote ones it studied before, since Ecology admits these sites are smaller and "could be sited in a variety of locations." The study should include the largest container-style installations now being proposed near neighborhoods, not just small substation batteries, since Ecology has not yet decided what kind of facility it will study. I ask that the PEIS evaluate the full range of stand-alone facilities actually being proposed in Washington — including large container-based lithium-ion installations sited near homes, schools, and constrained road networks — and that it analyze those facilities as built to the code Washington has actually adopted, drawing on independent safety data rather than industry assurances, and identify the most recent safety standards as required mitigation.
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
Closeness to existing infrastructure should not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
This is personal for my household. I live under 1 mile from the proposed site. My children go to school nearby, at Cascade View Elementary. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Matthew Prall
7405 Dogwood Ln SE, Snoqualmie, WA↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Jessica Moylan
9/19/26 @ 1:33 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Jessica Moylan and I live at 7903 Cortland Ave SE Snoqualmie WA 98065. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, u...↓tility-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
The Ecology study should define "suitable" areas by what is safe for the people who live there, not just by where a facility could physically be built. Closeness to existing infrastructure should not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." The study's geographic assumptions should screen out places with private wells, floodplains, earthquake faults, and neighborhoods with one road out, because site details will be left to later reviews. The study's map should clearly say where facilities should not go, not only where they could, since nearly every kind of land is in play. I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
It's important that the study model what a battery fire's smoke does to the people living nearby. The scoping document acknowledges toxic gas from damaged batteries can hurt firefighters' skin and lungs. It does not mention neighbors, who have no protective gear and may not be able to leave. Evacuation, displacement, and offsite cleanup should count as impacts in their own right. Ecology's own example, the Moss Landing fire, forced 1,200 people from their homes. The study should look at what a multi-day battery fire demands from local fire, hazmat, hospital, and evacuation capacity, since Ecology could not say whether the burden on small rural fire districts can be fixed. I would like to see the study thoroughly examine the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of how smoke settles into valleys, runoff reaches wells and streams, and what happens when there are several facilities on the same stretch of grid. The study should properly model whether neighbors can evacuate without breathing dangerous levels of toxic gas in places such as a valley that traps air, which is what the fire code requires. I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
Q4 · Mitigation — The steps Ecology should require to reduce the harm.
The study should be specific enough to give local reviewers something to hold a developer to, because my county will lean on it when it reviews a real project. The siting and design considerations Ecology plans to give developers from the study must include minimum distances from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells that are proven to be safe for the surrounding community, not just general guidelines. The study should recommend large-scale fire testing be required for every facility, whether or not the state has adopted the newest code, since Ecology itself credits it with reducing risk. The study should recommend developer-funded monitoring, cleanup guarantees, and decommissioning bonds, as state rules already require these for other energy facilities. The study should state that local governments may require stronger protections than the state minimum. State standards should be a floor, not a ceiling. I ask that the PEIS identify concrete mitigation measures, including minimum setbacks from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells; large-scale fire testing (UL 9540A) and compliance with the current edition of NFPA 855 regardless of state adoption status; funded emergency-response plans, training, and equipment for local fire districts before operation; containment and disposal plans for fire-suppression water; enforceable nighttime noise limits at the nearest residence; and decommissioning and financial-assurance requirements.
This is personal for my household. I live less than one mile from the proposed site. My son currently go to Pre-K nearby, at Timber Ridge Elementary. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding the development of the Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
As Washington evaluates the environm...↓ental impacts and safety considerations associated with the growing deployment of battery energy storage systems, I encourage the Department to recognize and evaluate advanced fire protection technologies that can reduce both environmental risks and public safety concerns. One such technology is F-500 Encapsulator Agent (F-500 EA®).
F-500 EA is a fluorine-free, biodegradable fire suppression and hazard mitigation agent that has demonstrated effectiveness in lithium-ion battery fire incidents. Unlike traditional firefighting foams that may contain persistent PFAS compounds, F-500 EA contains no fluorinated active ingredients and is designed to be non-toxic, non-corrosive, and readily biodegradable. These characteristics can help reduce the potential for long-term environmental contamination associated with fire suppression activities.
For battery energy storage systems, F-500 EA offers several capabilities that are particularly relevant to the environmental and safety objectives of the Programmatic EIS:
Thermal runaway mitigation: F-500 EA is specifically designed to rapidly cool lithium-ion batteries and surrounding equipment, helping to interrupt thermal runaway events and reduce the likelihood of fire propagation between cells and battery modules.
Reduced water usage: Because the agent improves heat transfer and cooling efficiency, significantly less water may be required during fire suppression activities compared with conventional methods. Reduced water usage can decrease contaminated runoff and lessen demands on local water resources.
Reduction of smoke and toxic byproducts: By encapsulating hydrocarbons and combustion products, F-500 EA can help reduce smoke, airborne contaminants, and hazardous emissions generated during battery fires, potentially improving conditions for first responders and surrounding communities.
PFAS-free environmental profile: As state and federal agencies continue to address concerns regarding PFAS contamination, the use of fluorine-free suppression technologies should be encouraged where technically appropriate. F-500 EA provides an alternative that aligns with broader environmental protection goals.
Compatibility with modern energy infrastructure: F-500 EA can be integrated into fire protection strategies for utility-scale and commercial battery storage installations, supporting safer deployment of energy storage systems that are essential for renewable energy integration and grid reliability.
As the Department evaluates alternatives, mitigation measures, and best management practices for BESS facilities, I encourage consideration of advanced suppression technologies such as F-500 EA that can reduce environmental impacts while improving fire safety outcomes.
Washington's transition to cleaner energy resources should be accompanied by equally progressive approaches to risk reduction, environmental protection, and emergency response planning. Including consideration of F-500 EA in the Programmatic EIS would help provide a more complete evaluation of available mitigation measures for battery energy storage facilities.
I have uploaded files that include SDS's, Technical Data Sheets, and other informative information regarding the capabilities, safety, and environmental benefits of F-500 EA.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and please feel free to reach out to me via email for more information.
Sincerely,
Michael Cusumano
Regional Sales Manager
Creation Organics LLC. (Sole Distributor in WA and OR of F-500 EA)
mcusumano@creationorganics.com
I have reviewed many comments about the proposed battery storage systems. However, what do you do with the batteries when they eventually fail?
What are the impacts of disposal?
No attachments
Comment From:
Sean Smith
9/17/26 @ 12:33 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Sean Smith and I live at 15825 SE 258th Street, Covington, WA. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility-s...↓cale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q1 · Facility types — Which kinds of battery facilities get studied.
I ask that the PEIS evaluate the full range of stand-alone facilities actually being proposed in Washington — including large container-based lithium-ion installations sited near homes, schools, and constrained road networks — and that it analyze those facilities as built to the code Washington has actually adopted, drawing on independent safety data rather than industry assurances, and identify the most recent safety standards as required mitigation.
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
The Ecology study should define "suitable" areas by what is safe for the people who live there, not just by where a facility could physically be built. Closeness to existing infrastructure should not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." The study's map should clearly say where facilities should not go, not only where they could, since nearly every kind of land is in play. Snoqualmie Valley's conditions should be part of what the study considers, because this is the one chance to shape the study area before Ecology draws it. I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
Q4 · Mitigation — The steps Ecology should require to reduce the harm.
I ask that the PEIS identify concrete mitigation measures, including minimum setbacks from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells; large-scale fire testing (UL 9540A) and compliance with the current edition of NFPA 855 regardless of state adoption status; funded emergency-response plans, training, and equipment for local fire districts before operation; containment and disposal plans for fire-suppression water; enforceable nighttime noise limits at the nearest residence; and decommissioning and financial-assurance requirements.
This is personal for my household. I am a Natural Resource Manager/Environmental Planner, and I offer this comment with that professional background.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Sean Smith
15825 SE 258th Street
Covington, WA 98042↓
No attachments
Comment From:
JoAnne Dyer
9/17/26 @ 12:27 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Joanne Dyer, and I live at 34602 Cottonwood Dr SE in Snoqualmie, Washington. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-al...↓one, utility-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
Jupiter Energy has proposed a BESS facility on Snoqualmie Ridge, a short walk from my home. My comment addresses the harms the study is required to consider.
The state must consider what a battery fire's smoke does to the people living nearby. The scoping document acknowledges toxic gas from damaged batteries can hurt firefighters' skin and lungs, but it does not mention neighbors who have no protective gear or training, and who may not be able to safely leave in time.
I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities such as the one proposed by my home: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys such as my neighborhood; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
In an emergency such as a BESS fire, my husband, pets, and I would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway and I-90 west, along with everyone else who depends on those roads.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume these facilities will be far enough away from people to ensure the safety of communities. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record.
Sincerely,
JoAnne Dyer
34602 Cottonwood Dr Se
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065
↓
No attachments
Comment From:
WILLIAM Bates
9/14/26 @ 1:00 PM
I want to know how they will ensure these things don't have an adverse effect on the rest of our utility bills. I just can't see how this won't in the end cause the cost of utilities to go up.
No attachments
Comment From:
Charles Vision
9/14/26 @ 9:51 AM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Charles Vision and I live at 34602 Cottonwood Dr SE, Snoqualmie, WA 98065. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alon...↓e, utility-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017). I have a master's degree in Mechanical engineer and have 30 years of experience specializing in failure analysis, and I offer this comment with that professional background.
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q1 · Facility types — Which kinds of battery facilities get studied.
The study should assume companies will build facilities to the exact rules Washington has actually adopted. So, the rules should be updated regularly to the latest standards as they are being modified as failures occur and the states learn more about the issues. This technology is quite young and changing regularly so the state should be ready to revise their rules to keep up with the technology. The study should also use independent safety data rather than just relying on a limited set of failure data being documented by EPRI. As EPRI has stated many times in their database, their failure data is inadequate since no laws on the state or federal level require companies to admit when failures occur that do not make the news. Unless we force the companies to document all failures, we will never know the full scale of what issues this technology poses.
This study also needs to look at the effect of evacuations and cleanup since the closer these sites are to homes, the more this will dramatically affect the neighborhoods. I ask that the PEIS evaluate the full range of stand-alone facilities actually being proposed in Washington — including large container-based lithium-ion installations sited near homes, schools, and constrained road networks — and that it analyze those facilities as built to the code Washington has actually adopted, drawing on independent safety data rather than industry assurances, and identify the most recent safety standards as required mitigation.
This is personal for my household. I live under 1 mile from the proposed site. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Charles Vision
34602 Cottonwood Dr SE, Snoqualmie, WA 98065↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Preston Rutherford
9/13/26 @ 7:35 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Preston Rutherford and I live at 34328 SE Graves Street. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility-scale, ...↓lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
The Ecology study should define "suitable" areas by what is safe for the people who live there, not just by where a facility could physically be built. Closeness to existing infrastructure should not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q4 · Mitigation — The steps Ecology should require to reduce the harm.
The siting and design considerations Ecology plans to give developers from the study must include minimum distances from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells that are proven to be safe for the surrounding community, not just general guidelines. The study should state that local governments may require stronger protections than the state minimum. State standards should be a floor, not a ceiling. I ask that the PEIS identify concrete mitigation measures, including minimum setbacks from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells; large-scale fire testing (UL 9540A) and compliance with the current edition of NFPA 855 regardless of state adoption status; funded emergency-response plans, training, and equipment for local fire districts before operation; containment and disposal plans for fire-suppression water; enforceable nighttime noise limits at the nearest residence; and decommissioning and financial-assurance requirements.
This is personal for my household. I live 1–2 miles from the proposed site. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Preston Rutherford
34328 SE Graves Street↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Tony Usibelli
9/13/26 @ 2:04 PM
The Department of Ecology deserves to be commended for its commitment to evaluate battery energy storage systems (BESS). The cost of BESS has declined dramatically as their technical viability has improved. Today the U.S. has more than 1,000 one-meg...↓awatt or larger BESSs representing over 50,000 megawatts of capacity with another 70,000 additional megawatts in development.
During your scoping study you should consider the following items:
1) Examining BESS technologies beyond just the traditional lithium-ion chemistries.
2) Carefully reviewing existing assessments and experiences from the large-scale deployment of these systems in states such as Texas and California
3) Allowing a wide range of input from groups and individuals who both support and oppose BESS deployment.
4) Conducing a details analysis of proven strategies which mitigate potential impacts of BESS.
5) Identification of ways to broadly educate Washington citizens on the BESS system characteristics, impacts, and benefits.
I look forward to seeing the results of your work,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Ryan Crompton
9/12/26 @ 9:42 PM
It's critical that the state take into account the newest battery chemistries that have vastly lower to almost no fire risk. The fires from five years ago aren't possible given how today's BESS systems are designed, built and integrated. These newer ...↓systems are also much quieter or effectively silent. BESS systems are key to keeping electricity rates from skyrocketing, keep the lights on during extreme heat or cold, and to allow large power users like ports, stadiums, hospitals, and manufacturers to manage their onsite power usage and backup critical systems.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
K Natarajan
9/12/26 @ 3:50 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is K. Natarajan and I live at 7720 Greenridge Ct SE, Snoqualmie, WA 98065. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, ...↓utility-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q1 · Facility types — Which kinds of battery facilities get studied.
As a former Big Pharma global public policy and government affairs executive, I know how a wholly-owned Blackrock private equity holding company like Jupiter Power LLC operates. Take a note that they have steamrolled over some city/town political leaders and paid lobbyists like 360 Strategies to draft King Co. Chairwoman Sarah Perry's BESS ordinances (the PRRs have revealed shocking corruption). Your study must assess stand-alone sites near homes like mine, not the remote ones it studied before, since Ecology admits these sites are smaller and "could be sited in a variety of locations." The study should include the largest container-style installations now being proposed near neighborhoods, not just small substation batteries, since Ecology has not yet decided what kind of facility it will study. The study should picture rows of container-sized battery boxes beside homes and schools, because that is what is being proposed and how Ecology itself describes these sites. The study should assume facilities would be built to the rules Washington has actually adopted, and say what the newest standards would change, since Ecology admits the state's fire code is behind them. I ask that the PEIS evaluate the full range of stand-alone facilities actually being proposed in Washington — including large container-based lithium-ion installations sited near homes, schools, and constrained road networks — and that it analyze those facilities as built to the code Washington has actually adopted, drawing on independent safety data rather than industry assurances, and identify the most recent safety standards as required mitigation.
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
Close proximity to existing infrastructure (particular when it's adjacent or on protected wetlands and/or Snoqualmie Tribal lands) should not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." The Ecology study should define "suitable" areas by what is safe for the people who live there, not just by where a facility could physically be built. The study's map should clearly say where facilities should not go, not only where they could, since nearly every kind of land is in play. Snoqualmie Valley's conditions should be part of what the study considers, because this is the one chance to shape the study area before Ecology draws it. I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
It's crucial that responder training, hard-to-extinguish fires, toxic air, harm to water and fish, and cleanup each get a full analysis, not a mention, as the Ecology study scoping document states it "will evaluate" each of them. It's important that the study model what a battery fire's smoke does to the people living nearby. The scoping document acknowledges toxic gas from damaged batteries can hurt firefighters' skin and lungs. It does not mention neighbors, who have no protective gear and may not be able to leave. Evacuation, displacement, and offsite cleanup should count as impacts in their own right. Ecology's own example, the Moss Landing fire, forced 1,200 people from their homes. The study needs to measure nighttime noise at the nearest home, not at the fence line, since Ecology's earlier studies found that noise from these facilities reaches 1,000 feet in quiet rural areas. I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
Q4 · Mitigation — The steps Ecology should require to reduce the harm.
I would like the study to name specific, measurable protections a permit can require. Protections described "at a high level" give my county nothing to write into a permit. The study should be specific enough to give local reviewers something to hold a developer to, because my county will lean on it when it reviews a real project. The siting and design considerations Ecology plans to give developers from the study must include minimum distances from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells that are proven to be safe for the surrounding community, not just general guidelines. The study should recommend large-scale fire testing be required for every facility, whether or not the state has adopted the newest code, since Ecology itself credits it with reducing risk. I ask that the PEIS identify concrete mitigation measures, including minimum setbacks from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells; large-scale fire testing (UL 9540A) and compliance with the current edition of NFPA 855 regardless of state adoption status; funded emergency-response plans, training, and equipment for local fire districts before operation; containment and disposal plans for fire-suppression water; enforceable nighttime noise limits at the nearest residence; and decommissioning and financial-assurance requirements.
This is personal for my household. I live under 1 mile from the proposed site. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road. As a public health professional and WHO Expert Adviser (MSc from Harvard) with an undergraduate degree in Industrial Engineering and years of experience manufacturing vaccines and bulk chemical pharmaceuticals in highly regulated environments. I offer my comments with that professional background.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
K. Natarajan
7720 Greenridge Ct SE
Snoqualmie, WA 98065↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Darlani Asuega
9/12/26 @ 12:22 PM
Unless this actively regenerates or supports the landscape we do not want it . The red flags of having this near our families out weighs the finances that fund it. Auburn doesn't need or want more on its shoulders . Out of all of WA you have so many ...↓other places to place a lithium storage facility where fires and water run off don't harm surrounding neighbors .↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Henrika Stich
9/10/26 @ 3:28 PM
SCOPING COMMENT
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stand-Alone, Utility-Scale Lithium-Ion
Battery Energy Storage Systems
Publication 26-06-017
Submitted to: Washington State Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination
Submitted by: ...↓Henrika Stich
Address: 36702 SE Gravenstein Ct.
Subject: Formal Scoping Comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Henrika Stich, and I reside at 36702 SE Gravenstein Ct. I respectfully submit this scoping
comment concerning the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for stand-alone, utilityscale
lithium-ion battery energy storage system (BESS) facilities in Washington, identified as Publication
26-06-017.
This comment is submitted because a stand-alone BESS facility has been proposed in the Snoqualmie
Valley, and the Department of Ecology has indicated that subsequent project -level environmental
reviews will tier from this PEIS. Because Ecology has requested public input regarding the questions and
matters that should be addressed in the study, I request that the scope of the PEIS include the issues
set forth below.
Q1. Categories of Battery Facilities to Be Evaluated
The PEIS should evaluate stand-alone BESS facilities proposed near residences and other sensitive
receptors, rather than limiting its analysis to remote facilities of the type previously studied. Ecology has
acknowledged that these facilities may be smaller and "could be sited in a variety of locations."
Accordingly, the study should encompass the largest containerized installations currently being
proposed near residential neighborhoods and should not be limited to small battery installations
located at substations.
The PEIS should depict and evaluate the reasonably foreseeable configuration of multiple container -
sized battery units located near homes and schools, because such configurations are currently being
proposed and are consistent with Ecology's own description of these facilities. The analysis should
evaluate facilities as constructed pursuant to the codes and standards presently adopted in
Washington and should expressly identify how more recent safety standards would alter the anticipated
risks and impacts, particularly in light of Ecology's acknowledgment that the State fire code does not
incorporate the most current standards.
The PEIS should identify the safest current standard and evaluate it as the appropriate mitigation
baseline for all facilities, recognizing that local safety requirements vary among jurisdictions. The
analysis should rely upon independent safety data and should treat evacuation, displacement,
environmental remediation, and cleanup as impacts in their own right, rather than limiting the
assessment to the occurrence of a fire or relying primarily upon failure data produced by an industry -
funded research institution.
For these reasons, I request that the PEIS evaluate the full range of stand-alone facilities reasonably
anticipated to be proposed in Washington, including large, container -based lithium-ion installations located near residences, schools, and constrained transportation networks. The PEIS should analyze
such facilities under the codes adopted by Washington, rely upon independent safety data rather than
industry assurances, and identify compliance with the most recent safety standards as required for
mitigation.
Q2. Siting Assumptions and Areas to Be Evaluated
The PEIS should define "suitable" areas by reference to public safety and the protection of affected
communities, not merely by whether a facility can be physically constructed at a particular location.
Proximity to existing electrical infrastructure, including substations, should not be treated as a
substitute for a site-specific determination of suitability and safety.
The geographic analysis should identify locations where stand-alone BESS facilities should not be sited,
rather than only mapping locations where development may be technically feasible. The conditions
present in the Snoqualmie Valley should be included in the study's geographic assumptions before
Ecology establishes the final study area. Those assumptions should screen for locations involving
private wells, floodplains, seismic faults, and residential communities dependent upon limited
evacuation routes, particularly because detailed site-specific conditions may otherwise be deferred to
later project-level review.
The geographic analysis should also account for wildfire exposure and the capacity of local fire districts.
Ecology's prior studies identified wildfire risk associated with "new ignition sources in remote locations
with limited response capabilities." Ecology has also committed to receiving input from local
communities. Accordingly, the PEIS should consider the knowledge and concerns of the residents who
would be directly affected by these sitting decisions.
I therefore request that the PEIS expressly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals;
wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; mapped seismic hazard zones and floodplains;
areas dependent upon private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes. Proximity to
existing infrastructure should not, by itself, be deemed evidence that a site is suitable.
Q3. Environmental Impacts Requiring Full Analysis
The PEIS should provide a complete and substantive analysis of responder training needs, fires that are
difficult to extinguish, toxic air emissions, impacts on water and fish, and post-incident remediation and
cleanup. These matters should not be addressed only in passing, particularly because Ecology's
scoping document states that the PEIS "will evaluate" each of them.
The PEIS should model the dispersion and public-health consequences of smoke and hazardous gases
generated by a battery fire for persons residing near a facility. Although the scoping document
recognizes that toxic gases released from damaged batteries may injure firefighters' skin and lungs,
neighboring residents have no protective equipment and may be unable to evacuate promptly.
Evacuation, displacement, and offsite remediation should therefore be evaluated as separate and
material impacts. Ecology's own example involving the Moss Landing fire states that 1,200 people were
displaced from their homes.
The PEIS should evaluate continuous and maximum nighttime noise at the nearest residence, rather
than solely at the facility boundary. Ecology's prior studies found that noise associated with these
facilities may extend 1,000 feet in quiet rural areas. The PEIS should also evaluate the operational
burden that a multi-day battery fire would place upon local fire, hazardous-materials response,hospital, and evacuation capacity, particularly where Ecology has not determined whether the resulting
burden on small rural fire districts can be adequately mitigated.
At a minimum, the PEIS should analyze: (1) thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions,
including hydrogen fluoride, using dispersion modeling appropriate for inversion-prone valleys; (2)
contaminated fire-suppression water and its potential migration to groundwater, private wells, and fishbearing
streams; (3) demands created by multi-day incidents upon local fire, HazMat, hospital, and
evacuation resources; (4) continuous nighttime noise from cooling equipment and inverters at
distances exceeding 1,000 feet; and (5) the seismic performance of container-based installations
located within mapped fault zones.
Q4. Mitigation Measures and Steps
The PEIS should identify specific, measurable, and enforceable mitigation measures capable of
incorporation into project permits. Mitigation described only "at a high level" would not provide local
jurisdictions with sufficiently definite standards for permit conditions or enforcement. Because local
reviewing agencies are expected to rely upon the PEIS when evaluating individual projects, its
recommended protections should be sufficiently precise to establish objective requirements for project
applicants.
The siting and design recommendations should include minimum protective setbacks from homes,
schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells, supported by evidence demonstrating that the distances
are protective of the surrounding community. General guidance, without measurable criteria, is
insufficient. The PEIS should also recommend large-scale fire testing for every facility, regardless of
whether Washington has yet adopted the latest code edition, because Ecology has recognized that such
testing reduces risk.
The PEIS should further make clear that any statewide siting, design, or operational standards establish
minimum requirements only and do not preempt or otherwise restrict a local jurisdiction from imposing
more protective measures when warranted by site-specific conditions. State standards should
therefore operate as a regulatory floor, not a ceiling. In addition, the PEIS should recommend
enforceable, developer-funded obligations for ongoing environmental and safety monitoring, post -
incident investigation and remediation, financial assurances for cleanup, and decommissioning
security, including bonds or equivalent instruments sufficient to ensure that the costs of closure,
removal, restoration, and remediation are borne by the facility owner or operator rather than affected
communities or public agencies. Such financial-assurance measures should be evaluated in light of
analogous requirements applicable to other energy facilities under existing state regulatory programs.
The PEIS should specify the measures necessary to reduce wildfire and emergency-response impacts,
including fully funded training and equipment for local responders before a facility becomes
operational. Where a material impact cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, including a fire beyond
the containment capacity of a small rural fire district, the PEIS should clearly identify that impact as
unavoidable rather than presuming that mitigation will be adequate.
I therefore request that the PEIS identify, at a minimum, the following mitigation requirements:
minimum setbacks from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells; large-scale fire testing in
accordance with UL 9540A; compliance with the current edition of NFPA 855 regardless of State
adoption status; funded emergency-response plans, training, and equipment for local fire districts
before operation; containment and lawful disposal plans for contaminated fire-suppression water;enforceable nighttime noise limits measured at the nearest residence; and enforceable
decommissioning and financial-assurance requirements.
Site-Specific Community Considerations
The matters identified above directly affect my household. My residence is located less than one mile
from the proposed site. My children attend Snoqualmie Middle School nearby. In the event of an
emergency, my household would be required to evacuate by way of Snoqualmie Parkway, together with
other residents who depend upon the same roadway.
Because Ecology has stated that stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations,"
including locations near cities, the PEIS should not assume that these facilities will be remote from
population centers. Proximity to residents should be treated as a defining condition of environmental
analysis. The Draft PEIS should clearly identify any significant impacts that cannot be reduced below
the applicable significance threshold so that lead agencies and the public are not left to speculate
regarding the nature or severity of unresolved impacts.
Request for Inclusion in the Scoping Record
Thank you for considering this comment. I respectfully request that it be included in the official scoping
record. The affected community is closely following the development of this PEIS and intends to
participate in the public-comment process for the Draft PEIS.
Respectfully submitted,
HENRIKA STICH
36702 SE GRAVENSTEIN CT
SNOQUALMIE WA 98065
206-234-4705
henrika.stich@outlook.com↓
"Suitable" should not simply mean that a site has enough physical space or is close to existing power infrastructure. It should mean that the location is safe and appropriate for the people who already live there, and that the concerns and disapprova...↓l of the surrounding community are meaningfully taken into account.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Samantha Weller
9/09/26 @ 9:05 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Sam Weller and I live at 36708 SE Gravenstein CT, Snoqualmie WA 98065. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, u...↓tility-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q1 · Facility types — Which kinds of battery facilities get studied.
The study should assume facilities would be built to the rules Washington has actually adopted, and say what the newest standards would change, since Ecology admits the state's fire code is behind them. I ask that the PEIS evaluate the full range of stand-alone facilities actually being proposed in Washington — including large container-based lithium-ion installations sited near homes, schools, and constrained road networks — and that it analyze those facilities as built to the code Washington has actually adopted, drawing on independent safety data rather than industry assurances, and identify the most recent safety standards as required mitigation.
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
The study's map should clearly say where facilities should not go, not only where they could, since nearly every kind of land is in play. I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
The study needs to measure nighttime noise at the nearest home, not at the fence line, since Ecology's earlier studies found that noise from these facilities reaches 1,000 feet in quiet rural areas. The study should properly model whether neighbors can evacuate without breathing dangerous levels of toxic gas in places such as a valley that traps air, which is what the fire code requires. I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
Q4 · Mitigation — The steps Ecology should require to reduce the harm.
The siting and design considerations Ecology plans to give developers from the study must include minimum distances from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells that are proven to be safe for the surrounding community, not just general guidelines. I ask that the PEIS identify concrete mitigation measures, including minimum setbacks from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells; large-scale fire testing (UL 9540A) and compliance with the current edition of NFPA 855 regardless of state adoption status; funded emergency-response plans, training, and equipment for local fire districts before operation; containment and disposal plans for fire-suppression water; enforceable nighttime noise limits at the nearest residence; and decommissioning and financial-assurance requirements.
This is personal for my household. I live under 1 mile from the proposed site. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Sam Weller
36708 SE Gravenstein CT, Snoqualmie WA 98065↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Diane Bevins
9/09/26 @ 10:59 AM
This movement is wrong and blind sighting. Having such a storage facility without first allowing proper knowledge to the homeowners in the area is wrong. The city and county governments allow for continued growth, but yet the power grid is not secu...↓re. It seems these battery "farms" are the answer but they could be the destruction as well. How about stopping growth for a while. How about not endangering the public. And let's try to focus on what we have at this time and make it work properly!
↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Sarah Carter
9/08/26 @ 10:01 AM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Sarah Carter and I live at 36309 SE Woody Creek Ln, in Snoqualmie, WA. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, u...↓tility-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
Closeness to existing infrastructure should not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
The study needs to measure nighttime noise at the nearest home, not at the fence line, since Ecology's earlier studies found that noise from these facilities reaches 1,000 feet in quiet rural areas. I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
This is very personal for my household. We live under 1 mile from the proposed site, and use the adjacent park and trails daily. In an emergency, my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Sarah Carter
36309 SE Woody Creek Ln, Snoqualmie, WA 98065↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Winnie Stephenson
9/07/26 @ 8:52 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Winnie Stephenson and I live at 7805 Melrose Ln SE Snoqualmie WA 98065. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, ...↓utility-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
Ecology promised to hear from local communities and it's important to take what our communities are saying about where we live seriously in order to ensure this study is done properly. I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q4 · Mitigation — The steps Ecology should require to reduce the harm.
The siting and design considerations Ecology plans to give developers from the study must include minimum distances from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells that are proven to be safe for the surrounding community, not just general guidelines. I ask that the PEIS identify concrete mitigation measures, including minimum setbacks from homes, schools, hospitals, and drinking-water wells; large-scale fire testing (UL 9540A) and compliance with the current edition of NFPA 855 regardless of state adoption status; funded emergency-response plans, training, and equipment for local fire districts before operation; containment and disposal plans for fire-suppression water; enforceable nighttime noise limits at the nearest residence; and decommissioning and financial-assurance requirements.
This is personal for my household. I live 1–2 miles from the proposed site. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Winnie Stephenson
7805 Melrose Ln SE Snoqualmie WA 98065↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Zac Small
9/07/26 @ 5:17 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Zac Small and I own land at 10393 Halloran Rd in Skagit County. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility...↓-scale, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
For more information on the Samish Island BESS and its flawed installation, visit www.samishislandbess.com
Sincerely,
Zac Small
Home Address 816 Mclean Dr Sedro-Woolley WA
Property Owner: 10393 Halloran Rd. Bow WA 98232↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Don Steinke
9/07/26 @ 2:50 PM
Expand your scope to include Zinc batteries.
https://www.eose.com/eos-energy-enterprises-selected-to-deliver-mission-ready-power-for-golden-dome-for-america/
No attachments
Comment From:
Jennifer Pierce
9/07/26 @ 8:48 AM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Jennifer Pierce and I live at 38214 SE 92nd St, Snoqualmie. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility-scal...↓e, lithium-ion battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on questions for the study. My comment addresses the following:
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
The Ecology study should define "suitable" areas by what is safe for the people who live there, not just by where a facility could physically be built. Snoqualmie Valley's conditions should be part of what the study considers, because this is the one chance to shape the study area before Ecology draws it. I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
It's crucial that responder training, hard-to-extinguish fires, toxic air, harm to water and fish, and cleanup each get a full analysis, not a mention, as the Ecology study scoping document states it "will evaluate" each of them. Evacuation, displacement, and offsite cleanup should count as impacts in their own right. Ecology's own example, the Moss Landing fire, forced 1,200 people from their homes. It's important that the study model what a battery fire's smoke does to the people living nearby. The scoping document acknowledges toxic gas from damaged batteries can hurt firefighters' skin and lungs. It does not mention neighbors, who have no protective gear and may not be able to leave. I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
This is personal for my household. I live 3 miles from the proposed site and my parents live 1 mile from it. My children go to school nearby, at Snoqualmie Elementary. In an emergency my household would evacuate via I-90, while my parents would have to evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Pierce
38214 SE 92nd St, Snoqualmie↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Ashleigh Moe
9/06/26 @ 7:59 PM
I am a resident in Sedro Woolley, Wa and I am extremely concerned about the environmental impacts to our already dying farmlands and local food supplies. Additionally, when I was listening to the company during one of the Town Hall meetings a while b...↓ack, they literally said "we will cross that bridge if we get to it" when discussing emergency evacuations for fires and toxic airs. In my opinion, that is insanity that we are still even discussing the potential of these facilities when the company themselves cannot protect the community members or land. We will regret this if we move forward. We will lose salmon, wildlife, food and farmlands. We must stop our precious land from being destroyed.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Anonymous
Anonymous
9/06/26 @ 2:53 AM
I am a resident of Snoqualmie Ridge, Washington, and I am writing to raise serious concerns about battery energy storage system (BESS) facilities being sited close to residential neighborhoods, schools, and parks — specifically in reference to the pr...↓oposed Cascadia Ridge Resiliency Energy Storage project near Fisher Creek Park and Snoqualmie Ridge. I urge Ecology to ensure the PEIS thoroughly studies the following:
1. Fire and thermal runaway risk. Lithium-ion BESS fires can burn for hours to days, release toxic gases (including hydrogen fluoride), and are difficult for local fire departments to suppress. The PEIS should require rigorous, enforceable setback distances from homes, schools, and other sensitive receptors based on documented BESS fire incidents nationwide, not industry-proposed minimums.
2. Proximity to schools and residential density. Facilities should not be permitted near schools, daycares, or high-density residential areas without a clear, science-based buffer standard. The scoping should evaluate cumulative risk to nearby populations, including evacuation feasibility.
3. Emergency response capacity. The PEIS should assess whether local fire departments have the specialized training, equipment, and mutual aid agreements needed to respond to a BESS fire, and require project sponsors to fund necessary training and equipment upgrades before permits are issued.
4. Water and soil contamination. Firefighting runoff from a BESS fire can contaminate soil and water. The study should address containment and remediation plans for facilities sited near watersheds and residential wells.
5. Air quality impacts. Off-gassing during a fire or thermal event poses respiratory risks to nearby residents. The PEIS should model worst-case air dispersion scenarios for facilities near populated areas.
6. Property values and quality of life. Noise (from cooling systems), visual impact, and stigma associated with a fire hazard facility can materially affect nearby property values; this should be studied as a socioeconomic impact.
7. Meaningful local input. Because BESS siting decisions may bypass local jurisdictions entirely (as with the shift to EFSEC review for Cascadia Ridge), the PEIS should recommend a formal mechanism ensuring affected cities and residents have real influence over site selection — not just comment opportunities after a site is chosen.
Given the scale of growth expected in BESS deployment statewide, I ask that Ecology adopt precautionary, health-protective standards now, rather than after an incident occurs near a community like mine.
Thank you for considering these comments.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Paul Hott Sr
9/05/26 @ 8:34 PM
Why spend all the money and land resources to implement this dangerous BESS.
They say dangers can be mitigated, but no clue how.
Why don't we focus on new energy sources instead.
My property value will suffer if it's anywhere near me.
Most importa...↓ntly, this a serious danger to people and my family!
In the meantime WA is forcing us to use electricity for everything, and the cost is already skyrocketing. There really is no solid evidence that burning natural gas and/or coal causes climate change. It's all scientific "theory".
We say absolutely NO to BESS.
↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Jesse Skorupa
9/05/26 @ 4:25 PM
To the Department of Ecology, Clean Energy Coordination:
My name is Jesse Skorupa and I live at 35312 SE Kinsey St. I am writing to submit a scoping comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for stand-alone, utility-scale, lithium-i...↓on battery energy storage system facilities in Washington (Publication 26-06-017).
I am commenting because a stand-alone BESS facility is proposed in the Snoqualmie Valley, and Ecology has said that project-level reviews will tier to this PEIS. Ecology has asked for input on four questions: what facilities to evaluate, what geographic assumptions to use, what impacts to analyze, and what mitigation to consider. My comment addresses the following:
Q2 · Geographic scope — Where the study assumes batteries will go.
Being near a substation should not make a place "suitable." I ask that closeness to existing infrastructure not be used as a stand-in for a safe site. Nearly every kind of land is in play, so the study's map has to say where facilities should not go, not only where they could. I ask that the PEIS's geographic-scope assumptions explicitly account for proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals; wildland-urban interface and wildfire-prone areas; seismic hazard zones and floodplains; areas dependent on private wells; and communities with limited evacuation routes — and that proximity to existing infrastructure not be treated as a proxy for suitability.
Q3 · Impacts to analyze — The harms the study has to look at.
Ecology notes toxic gas from a battery fire can hurt firefighters. Neighbors have no protective gear. I ask that the study model what a battery fire's smoke does to the people living nearby.
Indirect and cumulative effects are in scope. I ask that the study cover smoke that settles into valleys, runoff that reaches wells and streams later, and several facilities on the same stretch of grid. I ask that the PEIS analyze, for stand-alone facilities: thermal-runaway fires and hazardous-gas emissions (including hydrogen fluoride) with dispersion modeling for inversion-prone valleys; contaminated fire-suppression water and its path to groundwater, private wells, and fish-bearing streams; multi-day incident demands on local fire, HazMat, hospital, and evacuation capacity; continuous nighttime noise from cooling and inverters at distances beyond 1,000 feet; and seismic performance of container-based installations in mapped fault zones.
This is personal for my household. I live under 1 mile from the proposed site. My children go to school nearby, at Cascade View Elementary School. In an emergency my household would evacuate via Snoqualmie Parkway, along with everyone else who depends on that road.
Because Ecology itself says stand-alone facilities "could be sited in a variety of locations," including near cities, the PEIS should not assume facilities will be far from people. I ask that Ecology treat proximity to residents as a defining condition of the analysis, and that the Draft PEIS state plainly which impacts cannot be mitigated below significance, so that lead agencies and the public are not left to guess.
Thank you for considering this comment. Please include it in the scoping record. Our community is following this PEIS closely and intends to participate in the Draft PEIS comment period.
Due to the potential environmental and citizen impacts these sites need to be a minimum of 50 miles from any densely populated areas. Financial impacts need to fall on the utilities installing these facilities. Failure in one site has far reaching...↓ negative impacts to biological inhabitants. Smaller distances cannot be allowed in any site in Washington state. Anything less the 50-mile limit puts the state and citizens at great risk of which the state will be liable. If one were to be sited closer than this to my community, the community would sue the state.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Garrett Waller
9/05/26 @ 7:19 AM
I am a resident of Snoqualmie. I am horrified of the thought of an ugly and unsafe battery storage facility in my neighborhood. We literally live in one of the most beautiful and visited places in the state and showcase an amazing waterfall, cute dow...↓ntown, train, trails, a river, and a casino. Now they want to ruin it. Literally ruin it by throwing an ugly, dangerous, toxic, and noisy BESS in the middle of it. Awful people! If it must be built, and I do not believe it does, then do it away from schools and families and tourists attractions that feature the best of this beautiful state.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Laurie Baker
9/05/26 @ 6:24 AM
So a lithium battery powered golf cart exploded with no warning on the Willows run golf course in Redmond last week. Yet people think it a good idea to build a facility on Snoqualmie ridge the windiest place in King County. I think its clear this is ...↓not a safe power alternative↓
I appreciate the analysis and clarity of the scoping document. I hope you will additionally consider aspects of environmental justice for other marginalized communities who are impacted by displacement. Your point about the dominance and increasing s...↓afety of lithium ion batteries is valid, but I think you should also consider the new chemistries being deployed for safety and cost as part of the mix. Please also consider the longer term environmental benefits that BESS may provide by reducing the need for carbon emitting power sources.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Bruce Wade
9/04/26 @ 11:29 AM
Hello,
My readings on utility battery storage lead me to see it as an essential part of the energy strategy.
Going back to Tesla's installation in Australia, the electric utility reported significant improvements in power management from millisecon...↓d-level peaking responses.
There are risks, like lithium-ion fires, but they're known, preventable, and have proven mitigations.
I see mostly positives and few, manageable negatives in BESS.
↓
No attachments
Comment From:
janice a castle
9/04/26 @ 11:22 AM
This is the most ridiculous proposal I have ever seen. To put all our citizens in harms way! There is plenty of open land away from schools, resident, businesses where this could be. KEEP OUT OF COVINGTON.
No attachments
Comment From:
Heidi
Anonymous
9/04/26 @ 8:14 AM
While I support solar as an energy source the risks of lithium battery storage in our area seem problematic due to proximity to clean water and soil intended to grow food. What is the clearance from these zones? Once it's gone it's GONE. I think it's...↓ safe to say a spill WILL happen so what is the safety protocol...? We have volunteer run fire departments-will they be trained to help? There is a lot of tribal land, the residents there should have a say in these BESS locations. The whole thing makes me rather nervous. I was in CA during the Moss Landing incident-very scary! Please keep human health in the forefront of your decision making. In addition as a component, perhaps we can address using LESS energy in general: lights out at night as a strong message to our surrounding cities & will also lend to our migratory and resident bird population, something this area is well known for.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Shellie Sadr
9/03/26 @ 9:02 PM
I urge you to look into the entire impact of BESS - to our environment, our children, how it's managed when there are problems, our support infrastructure, etc
Please, if we must have them. Let's limit them to highly industrialized areas and a long ...↓ways away from our communities.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Judy Haugness
9/03/26 @ 7:07 PM
Please do not allow these Lithium Battery projects on Farmland, Residential area, near schools, Hospitals or heavy populated areas
They are expecting our Fire Dept to manage and handle all emergencies. . Our local FD are made up of all volunteer ind...↓ividuals. 3 actual employed Fire employees. Our community would not have enough time to evacuate when there is an emergency. Too much danger for our waterways.
Build them only in Heavy industrial zoned land and away from all the above.
Think of the citizens↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Tyler Grove
9/03/26 @ 6:14 PM
I'm for green energy to combat climate change and if BESS is the right solution for that, I'm on board. However, we need to be careful, thoughtful, and intentional with the placement of these batteries.
They belong in commercial areas where fire de...↓partments are prepared and equipped to handle any situation. I'm deeply concerned about these going near schools, residential areas, and natural lands prone to wildfire.
Please keep these away from heavily populated areas. Transmission lines are feasible options to properly locate BESS and extend their reach.
Thank you,
Tyler Grove↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Anonymous
Anonymous
9/03/26 @ 4:00 PM
I do believe these BESS would be great benefit for the State of Washington to offset the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and to cut our reliance on fossil fuel. I understand there are concern with BESS with solar and wind; however, since majority of our el...↓ectric power is hydroelectric, is there a safety issue in combining hydroelectric with BESS?
I do believe BESS would be great for those isolated locations and during off-peak seasons (Summer for those with hydroelectric, Winter for those with solar) and help keep the electric bill down.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Ed Lam
9/03/26 @ 12:07 PM
1. "What is the site-specific thermal runaway and fire response plan, and has the local fire department reviewed and signed off on it?" Unless you are using the latest Sodium Ion batteries, Lithium ion has been known to be problematic.
2. "What are...↓ the decommissioning and end-of-life battery disposal/recycling obligations, and is there a bonded financial guarantee behind them?"
3. "What cumulative impact analysis was done for water resources and groundwater — specifically fire suppression runoff and any chemical leaching, not just routine operations?"↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Timothy Prusa
9/03/26 @ 11:32 AM
I support Ecology's study of utility-scale battery energy storage systems. Battery storage is an important part of Washington's energy future because it can store electricity when generation is abundant and provide power when demand is high. This fle...↓xibility can help integrate wind and solar energy, improve grid reliability, reduce dependence on fossil-fuel generation, and support a more resilient electric system.
A programmatic review will help the state plan for battery storage consistently and efficiently while providing clear information to communities, utilities, local governments, and project developers. By evaluating battery storage at a statewide level, the Department can identify best practices for siting, construction, operation, emergency preparedness, and decommissioning. This approach can help ensure that future projects are developed responsibly while avoiding unnecessary administrative delays and supporting investments in energy and infrastructure.
Battery energy storage can also provide broad public benefits, including improved energy security, greater grid flexibility, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions, and support for critical facilities during outages or emergencies. I encourage Ecology to move forward with the PEIS and to use it to establish a clear framework that enables the expansion of battery storage across Washington.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Stacy Miller
9/03/26 @ 10:43 AM
Please do not allow these sites to be built in residential areas, next to schools, or hospitals. Please limit development to industrial areas, requiring a minimum radius from highly populated areas.
No attachments
Comment From:
Centre for Studies and Experim... (Manuel Ramón García Sánchez-Colomer)
9/03/26 @ 12:02 AM
Good morning from Spain,
I conducted a search using Copilot with the following prompt:
"I need you to search BOE.es for environmental impact assessment documents related to battery energy storage projects."
The response was:
"I have identified seve...↓ral environmental assessment proceedings published in the Spanish Official State Gazette (BOE) related to Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). These are particularly relevant because many of them include the environmental document, impact assessments, consultations with public authorities, and proposed mitigation and corrective measures."
In the attached document, I have included links to the projects, which can be easily translated using any online translation tool.
If you encounter any issues or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards,
Manuel Ramón García Sánchez-Colomer, PhD
Área de Ingeniería Ambiental / Environmental Engineering Department
Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas (CEDEX) / Centre for Studies and Experimentation of Public Works (CEDEX)
Tel. (+34) 91 335 72 01
manuel.colomer@cedex.es
C/ Alfonso XII, 3 - 28014 Madrid (España)
www.cedex.es↓
Thank you for listening to our concerns and asking for input. I am concerned about fire at the Snoqualmie BESS. We are told that a fire would be allowed to burn out and the water run off will be toxic ruining our water shed. Have they looked into how...↓ we would evacuate the Echo Glen Children's Prison, 2 Elementary schools, a Hospital and homes? The size of the clear cut so close to Fisher Creek would be detrimental to the creek. Putting a BESS in a neighborhood is not good planning.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
climate action of sw WA (Don Steinke)
9/02/26 @ 4:12 PM
Need
California has been able to avoid burning fossil fuels for evening production of electricity by storing excess solar in batteries for evening use.
We absolutely need short term battery energy storages systems to store daytime solar for evening u...↓se.
We absolutely need solar plus batteries to reduce emissions.
Without short term batteries, wind and solar energy is often curtailed and goes to waste.
Alternatives
Consider including sodium-ion batteries in your study in addition to lithium-ion. See sodium-ion-batteries
Sodium ions are plentiful. Sodium ion batteries are cooled passively. They have fewer failure modes. They can operate in hotter and colder ambient temperatures. Although Lithium-ion batteries are best for light weight or mobile applications, sodium ion batteries may be preferable for stationary uses.
Consult
Consult with Minnesota, California, Texas, Portland General Electric and Arizona for lessons learned. See https://www.volts.wtf/p/sooner-than-you-think-electricity
Locations
Consider the implications of Trump's executive order (around Aug 31, 2026) seeking to protect high voltage long distance transmission systems from cyber threats. The concern is related to the components within batteries made by foreign entities of concern. Locating batteries downstream from substations might isolate a cyberattack to a neighborhood.
Instead of envisioning a dozen or more clustered grid scale batteries, broaden your scope to include single distributed grid scale batteries located in neighborhoods, in church parking lots and on top of commercial buildings. See https://www.volts.wtf/p/sooner-than-you-think-electricity
↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Bonnie Blessing-Earle
9/02/26 @ 9:44 AM
1) please consider whether any water uses needed for a BESS Would drain local streams or wetlands or wells nearby
2) please consider whether the BESS would save fish or wildlife that otherwise could be harmed in dams or windmills. I realize this is o...↓ffsite, but could be an indirect effect
3) please consider the effects of lithium mining
4) please consider the effects of whether reversible rusting technology would be less impact thatn lithim mining
5) no one wants BESS to explode or burn but can you review technologies to put such fires out!↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Anonymous
Anonymous
9/02/26 @ 9:41 AM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for stand-alone Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS).
The 2025 programmatic environmental reviews for wind, solar, and green hydrogen fa...↓cilities, including co-located battery storage, provided valuable analysis of operational and siting-related concerns such as wildfire risk, hazardous air emissions from battery failures, noise, emergency response, and environmental justice. The standalone BESS PEIS presents an opportunity to build upon that work by more fully examining the broader material and resource systems that would be needed to support large-scale battery deployment in Washington.
Battery storage systems are not merely energy technologies. They are highly material-intensive industrial products that depend upon extensive supply chains, mineral extraction and processing, energy-intensive manufacturing, transportation networks, and end-of-life management systems. Understanding these dependencies is important to providing decision-makers and the public with a more complete picture of the environmental context surrounding large-scale deployment.
The PEIS should evaluate not only the environmental impacts associated with the siting, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of battery facilities in Washington, but also the reasonably foreseeable upstream and downstream environmental effects associated with battery production, replacement, recycling, and disposal. Such analysis need not attempt to regulate activities occurring elsewhere. Rather, it should help characterize the broader systems upon which battery deployment depends and identify potential cumulative environmental implications associated with increasing deployment over time.
Because Ecology has identified Earth Resources, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Justice, Tribal Interests, and Cumulative Impacts as key areas of study, consideration of upstream material requirements (and disposal considerations) appears directly relevant to the scope of this review. Sound environmental review requires consideration of the material inputs, infrastructure needs, and lifecycle requirements associated with the technologies being deployed. Thank you in advance! A meaningful assessment of battery energy storage will help provide decision-makers and the public with a clearer understanding of the cumulative environmental implications associated with large-scale deployment.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for subscribing to the Scoping for Battery Energy Storage Systems Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement mailing list.
