Permitting Status

No county application is pending. Jupiter Power withdrew both King County permits and is taking the project to the state instead. Jupiter announced on August 18, 2026 that it will seek approval from Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), and by August 22 King County’s permit records showed the clearing-and-grading application (GRDE26-0036) and the floodplain application (FLOD26-0137) as withdrawn. King County never published a Notice of Application and never issued a threshold determination, so the 14-day county comment window will not open. No state application has been filed yet. We check EFSEC’s records daily. Sign up for updates so we can alert you when a filing appears, and see the EFSEC process below for what happens then.

Accelergen Energy filed the original pre-application. Jupiter Power / Cascadia Ridge Resiliency LLC took over the project and expanded from one ~25-acre parcel to five parcels totaling ~45 acres, plus a sixth PSE-owned parcel (9030) providing the generation tie-line corridor. They filed a Commercial Site Development permit in December 2025, then canceled it in February 2026 because King County required issued-for-construction drawings that Jupiter could not produce within the county’s timeline. Jupiter Power held a voluntary community open house on March 17, 2026 that drew a standing-room-only crowd. Jupiter then filed a clearing and grading permit (GRDE26-0036) on May 6, 2026, which initiates SEPA review for the full project, along with a companion floodplain development permit (FLOD26-0137). King County found the first submittal incomplete on May 28, 2026; Jupiter resubmitted in July 2026, and the County completed intake triage of the resubmittal on July 23, 2026. County staff expected to publish the Notice of Application in early August, and it never issued. On August 6, in a ten-minute call, Jupiter told County staff it would go through the state process from that point forward. Jupiter announced the change publicly on August 18, and by August 22 both county applications were withdrawn. The County’s own records show it never placed either permit on hold; the applications went from active review straight to withdrawn.

King County released the full CMST25-0005 application package and related communications on April 13, 2026, in response to a public records request. Eight findings from that release, including the 410 MW / 1,640 MWh figure on the civil plans, the zero-margin sound compliance case, and the all-discipline Notice of Incomplete Application, are summarized at What King County’s Records Show.

Regulatory framework

King County Ordinance 19824 (announcement, September 2024, sponsored by Councilmember Sarah Perry) established the first regulatory framework for BESS in unincorporated King County, covering 97% of the county’s unincorporated land. The County described it as the first ordinance of its kind in the region. Cascadia Ridge is one of the first projects to move through it.

Before this ordinance, BESS fell under the generic “Utility Facility” category in King County Code, which was a permitted use in all zones with no BESS-specific development conditions or safety standards. Facilities could be placed up to the property line. The ordinance added setbacks, fire code requirements, financial responsibility, fire district coordination, and other conditions that would not otherwise have applied.

Under the site’s UR zoning, BESS is a permitted use. No Conditional Use Permit, no public hearing, limited formal public input. That framework governed the applications Jupiter withdrew. It still matters. EFSEC weighs a proposed facility against local land-use plans and zoning, so Ordinance 19824 and the rest of King County Code remain the standard this project gets measured against, and EFSEC can carry specific local requirements into a certification as binding conditions. What changes is who enforces them and whether falling short stops the project.

What’s in the ordinance

The ordinance is new and Cascadia Ridge is an early test. Some of its provisions may need adjustment as real projects reveal how the framework works in practice.

• Condition 29 requires an alternatives analysis: location, demand management, social and economic impacts, environmental impacts, public involvement. It does not currently address battery chemistry.
• Section 17.B sets financial responsibility at $1 million for BESS with thermal runaway risk. The same threshold applies regardless of facility size. See insurance and financial responsibility for context on what that covers.
• Section 19 builds in a review. It requires a study report within 3 years (~September 2027) evaluating technology changes and whether the financial responsibility levels are working.
• There is no community meeting requirement. A proposed amendment (Amendment 1 to Striking Amendment S3) would have required one under K.C.C. 20.20.035, but it was not offered at the full council vote and is not part of the adopted ordinance.

SEPA review

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review before any agency can approve the project. SEPA did not go away when Jupiter withdrew the county permits; the agency running it changed. EFSEC becomes the lead agency for the state process and makes the threshold determination described below. The county-specific mechanics in this section (the Notice of Application, the 14-day window, King County as the decision-maker) applied to the withdrawn applications and are kept here as the record of how that track worked. We will update this section once a state application is filed and EFSEC’s schedule is known.

Jupiter Power must submit a SEPA Environmental Checklist covering impacts to earth, air, water, plants, animals, environmental health, land use, transportation, and public services.

King County’s Acting Permitting Division Director confirmed on April 10, 2026 that if the clearing and grading permit triggered SEPA, the review would cover the full scope of the 130 MW BESS project, not just the grading work. The same logic carries to the state: the review addresses fire risk, toxic emissions, noise, water contamination, and all other project-level impacts, not a narrow slice of them.

The lead agency then issues a threshold determination:

• Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): No significant adverse impacts; project proceeds.
• Mitigated DNS (MDNS): Impacts can be mitigated with conditions attached to the permit.
• Determination of Significance (DS): Requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a detailed, public study of all environmental impacts and alternatives.

A DS and full EIS is the strongest outcome for the community. It means independent analysis of fire risk, toxic emissions, noise, traffic, stormwater, habitat impacts, and cumulative effects. It also means additional public comment periods (scoping, and 30 days for the draft EIS).

Under the county track, King County would have published a Notice of Application opening a 14-day public comment period, then issued the threshold determination at its close, with no further comment period after. That is the window that will not open. EFSEC runs its own comment opportunities on its own schedule, and they are generally more numerous than the county’s single 14-day window. What does not change is the substance: comments should be specific and cite environmental impacts the checklist underestimates, and the argument is that a DNS or MDNS is inadequate for a 130 MW facility adjacent to thousands of homes, fish-bearing streams connected to a salmon-bearing watershed, and parkland.

A full EIS requires analysis of alternatives (WAC 197-11-440), including alternative sites. PSE’s own Energy Storage System Location Study (2021, filed as Exhibit I in UTC Docket UE-210220) screened all ~382 PSE substations and identified 14 recommended ESS locations. Mt. Si, operational since 2012, did not meet the study’s initial electrical qualification screen and was never evaluated against its siting and community criteria. The nearest Snoqualmie-area substation that was evaluated was rated high risk. See full analysis.

Given the scale and site sensitivity, pushing for a full EIS is the most impactful thing residents can do during the SEPA window. Read our guide on how to write an effective SEPA comment. For context on how SEPA has played out at other Washington BESS projects, see SEPA outcomes for Washington BESS projects.

The EFSEC process

Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) provides a “one-stop” siting process for energy facilities. Standalone BESS facilities do not require EFSEC, but developers can voluntarily opt in. Jupiter Power announced on August 18, 2026 that it will do exactly that. This is the path the Kingfisher BESS project near Covington took after local opposition intensified.

What the change means:

• King County permitting is preempted. If the state certifies the project, that certification takes the place of local zoning and permitting, city and county alike.
• The final decision goes to the Governor. EFSEC makes a recommendation; the Governor approves or rejects it.
• Ordinance 19824 stops being a permit the project has to obtain and becomes a standard it gets measured against. EFSEC holds a hearing on whether the site is consistent with local land-use plans and zoning. A finding of inconsistency is not a veto; the Council can recommend approval anyway. But the reverse is also true: EFSEC can write local requirements into the certification as binding conditions, and local governments take part in the proceeding. The county’s standards are weighed rather than enforced by the county, not erased.
• There is still public process, at the state level. It includes comment opportunities, an early public hearing on whether the project is consistent with local land-use plans and zoning, and a formal proceeding in which affected people and organizations can seek party status to participate directly.

Two things preemption does not do: it does not erase recorded property rights, such as the covenants and easements on the corridor parcels, and it does not compel the City of Snoqualmie to provide water service.

No state application has been filed yet. Until one is, there is nothing to comment on and no schedule to work against. We check EFSEC’s records daily and will email the list when a filing appears. Sign up for updates if you want that alert.

Governance gap

The City of Snoqualmie has no permitting authority over this project, even though Snoqualmie Valley residents, on the Ridge and in the surrounding unincorporated area, are the most directly affected. The city does have other leverage: it controls the PSE franchise agreement, is a party to development agreements on adjacent PSE corridor parcels, and can formally participate in the SEPA review. The site sits in the city’s Southwest Potential Annexation Area. If annexed, the city’s Comprehensive Plan would apply instead of King County’s.

The city’s own Snoqualmie 2044 Comprehensive Plan, adopted unanimously by City Council on December 9, 2024, includes policies that were designed to prevent exactly this situation:

• Goal LU-3: “Pursue annexations that implement the future land use map designations.”
• Policy LU-3.1: “Enter into interlocal agreements with King County for annexations when feasible, including the application of contingent zoning to potential annexation areas.”
• Policy ED-3.9: “Preserve the Master Planned Business Park land use designation, focused on office, research and development, and light manufacturing/industrial uses, within the City’s potential annexation area (PAA).”

The Planning Commission developed these policies during the 2023 comp plan update, forwarded them to City Council, and Council adopted them. As of mid-2026, no interlocal annexation agreement with King County is in place and no contingent zoning has been applied to the PAA. The comp plan envisions this land as a business park. King County zones it UR (Urban Reserve), where industrial battery storage is a permitted use.

The gap narrowed in one respect and widened in another when the project moved to the state. On July 30, 2026, the Mayor wrote to King County formally asserting the City’s status as an agency with jurisdiction, because the generation tie-line crosses city limits and city-regulated wetland buffers, and requesting co-lead agency status. That letter was never answered before Jupiter withdrew. Under EFSEC the City has no permitting authority either, but it does have a defined role: the consistency hearing on local land-use plans and zoning is the venue where a city’s codes and its objections are heard directly, and the City can seek party status in the proceeding.

Five King County cities (Covington, Enumclaw, Black Diamond, North Bend, and Duvall) have passed BESS moratoriums, and Snoqualmie has introduced one. See other BESS projects in King County for context on what happened near Covington.