Confusion, frustration, and distrust are growing in rural Hillsboro as neighbors press Washington County for clarity on the controversial 10-acre Jupiter/Blackberry Grove battery storage facility proposed for AF-5 land near West Union Road.
Full disclosure by me: I have friends, former clients, and used to live and work in this area of Hillsboro/Washington County. I am also a veteran of the land use process, with over 40 years of experience here in Oregon. I want to assure you, my readers, that I love my neighbors, always want the best for people, and will always advocate for good citizens of our Valley. My first article has pressed 20,000 reads because people want to know what the hell is going on. I provide the facts and some opinions in articles like this one. Call it advocacy journalism. When you see the Real Story and the photos attached to it, know that it is a column where I share facts and opinions based on those facts.
On Monday morning, I joined a group of residents and visited the County Planning Department to review the application file. What we found was a process riddled with confusing information and shifting explanations from staff. The planner in charge of this case was on defense, trying to answer questions from the get-go.
“We want to know what they are applying for,” said Heather Alvarez, a neighbor with acreage just to the West of the proposed 10-acre battery storage. “All we have is a notice, and there are no documents online or anywhere, and with this deadline to respond, it is hard to know what to say. We are without any information.”
No File Online, No Clear Notice
The County’s public notice referenced the project as a “Special Use & Development Review for a Utility Facility (Battery Energy Storage System)”. Still, it did not specify the codes being relied upon or the specific use Type permitted for this battery storage facility. All of us in the room were told the application qualifies as a Type II Utility Facility Necessary for Public Service under CDC (Community Development Code) 430-105 — but that detail was absent from the notice.
The notice itself has very little information and a relatively harmless little black and white sketch – it looks like this.
With just that black and white sketch and a cover sheet, people are supposed to understand what is at stake. But today as we flipped through the application, a hundred or more documents, we found this. And this is why the devil, as they say, is always in the details.
Now, wouldn’t you think that people who have to live with this in their backyards should at least see this? I mean, it is a big difference. This site plan was stored on the 3rd floor of the planners’ area in Washington County. Just sitting there waiting for approval- not for those who received the notice to review easily. There was no other way to get a look at it and a deadline to comment is pending.
The site plan above mentions an SMA Power Conversion System. So what is that? Shouldn’t people be allowed to see? We turned to AI to make a carbon copy image of those already in existence. It’s a pretty big unit, and there is no telling how many will be on that portion of the site.
And what about even a photo or draft of what the batteries themselves will look like? The county notice doesn’t reveal much, making it look harmless, so who would even worry? Since I didn’t have one and Jupiter didn’t provide one to the County in the application, I had to rely on AI to create a color site plan for Tesla Batteries and make an educated guess about the site’s appearance. I say this is a likely outcome.
This is why these files and the applicant’s information need to be online. The application file, site plans, and technical reports could have been put online, the planner said, but they did not do it. The only option was to sift through a massive physical file at the County offices. Our group tried, but the tiny desk only allowed two of us to look. After being pressed for answers and verbalizing complaints, Senior County Planner Maltreyee Sinha promised to post the materials online “within 1–2 days.” She had no explanation for why a notice would be sent to their homes, requesting comments by August 21st, but no information would be posted or made available for public review.
Neighbors in the room today and those who have contacted the Herald are all gravely concerned that the deck appears stacked and the County is making it impossible for most people to participate. This lack of information directly contradicts the goals and objectives of local governments to promote transparency, access, and equity. Those without mobility or who work a 9-5 job are blocked from fair participation. Given the massive and potentially dangerous nature of the project, it appears the County is not siding with the public and those directly affected.
A Type II With “No Deadline”?
Even more confusing is that the notice has a deadline of 8-21 to testify, which has people scrambling to get something turned in. Today, we were informed that, due to the case being filed as a Type II application, there is no deadline for public comment and no requirement for a person to be on the record to have standing to appeal.
That interpretation appears to conflict with ORS 215.416(11), which requires participation in the local process to preserve appeal rights to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). In most counties, Type II cases carry a clear comment deadline and participation requirements.
In an email sent to planner Maitreyee Sinha, neighbors demanded written confirmation of these unusual claims:
“You stated that anyone can appeal any decision made by the County on this application, regardless of if they submit testimony or written information into the file. You stated that there is no requirement for anyone to submit comments to the record for that person to have legal standing for an appeal. We need you to confirm this in writing. This is not how Type II applications work in many counties, and we are not sure your take meets the standards set in ORS 215.416(11).”
Ms. Sinya promised to put her statements today in writing. The email follow-up sent by today’s group to her for confirmation has not been responded to as of tonight.
Is It Even a Public Utility?
At the heart of the case is a deeper dispute: can a privately owned battery farm operated for profit by Jupiter Power/BlackRock even qualify as a “Utility Facility Necessary for Public Service”? This is what Washington County says the project is being approved as. However, when we asked the planner to explain how a private Battery Storage system could be considered a public utility, she was at a loss for words.
The County appears to think this approval path will work. Neighbors and land-use experts disagree.
This Battery Storage is not a public utility dedicated to serving Washington County residents. It is an industrial facility, designed to trade power in wholesale markets, and it is likely to stabilize loads for the massive cluster of data centers south of West Union Road. Not very public.
Other arguments:
By calling it a “Utility Facility Necessary for Public Service” (430-105), the County and the applicant avoid the Type III hearing requirements.
Compatibility Standard: Under 430-105, staff must find that this battery facility will meet compatibility with rural residential neighbors. 10 acres of lithium containers + toxic risk + 24/7 noise = not compatible with rural residents.
Calls for a Restart
Residents are now calling for the County to re-notice the application properly, restart the process, and move it into a Type III review where a public hearing would be required.
“This is not qualified as a Public Utility. The County erred in its Notice and must restart this process. We urge you to alter the process to a Type III,” neighbors wrote.
A Landmark Case?
With a growing email chain of concerned residents and mounting questions about due process, transparency, and legal standing, this case could become precedent-setting for how Oregon counties handle large-scale battery facilities in rural zones.
“The way Washington County is bending over backward to keep this moving forward is shocking,” said one neighbor. “Bad notice, no file access, and a misclassification that shuts the public out — this isn’t transparency. This is bad governance.”
The Herald will continue to follow this developing case. We will share the response once it is received from Washington County below , so please check back.
Part 1 of our story is linked right here:
Energy Giant Proposes 10-Acre Battery Facility in Rural Hillsboro Next To Homes
Thank you for this update, very helpful.
I do not believe that “neighbors” met as you imply. You are NOT a neighbor unless your property borders on the proposed site. Those living a mile or 3 away are also NOT neighbors. I think you and one or two other residents of the greater Hillsboro area may have been present. Your misleading article, as usual, is loaded with questionable information. Your first article pressed 20,000 reads because of sensationalism, call it advocacy journalism if you like. Saying it just does not make it so.
There were 8 of us in the Lobby, trying to surround that little cubicle Bob, I lived in that area, owned a business adjacent to it for many years, and had childhood friends from right there. My friend lives adjacent, and your efforts to demean her and her neighbors are pitiful. The fact is, people like me are speaking up on abuses of power and of our land use laws. An increasing number of people who read the Herald are active. And as long as the people of this valley suffer with soaring power, water, and sewer rates — not to mention environmental threats from projects like this —our voices will not be quashed.
So let’s have you be on the record. We will assume you are in favor of this land use action and that the neighbors who were with me, the 20-plus others now standing with them, and all the people of Rock Creek and Helevtia coming in on this, can accept it and live with it —that is your stance? Great. Duly noted. And the Herald is the only media outlet that is brave enough to allow dissent and comments like yours. Enjoy your day- Thanks, Bob!
I completely disagree with your narrow definition of “neighbor.” While it is true that immediate property line residents are directly adjacent to the proposed site, the impact of a battery storage—traffic, noise, environmental concerns—extends well beyond those boundaries. Residents living a mile or more away, and even across the greater Hillsboro area, have a legitimate interest in the project and deserve to be consulted.
Community engagement is not just about proximity; it’s about ensuring that all who may be affected have a voice. Many residents, including those who attended the meeting, felt excluded from the process. A broader approach to “neighbor” better reflects the shared stakes in land use decisions that affect our environment and quality of life.
I see you did not like my reply. Too close to home eh? Then you will not like my email to you either. Good luck with your crusade. I shall attempt to foil your efforts with reason and truth. – Bob
Your just plain misinformed Bob – Where is your place? Can we move this into your backyard?
Yikes—your response has all the hallmarks of defensiveness and gatekeeping, Bob!
Take a nap, Bob.
Based on the contour lines on the second map, it looks like the “sound barrier wall” of the first map may just be a 6 or 7 ft. berm with a fence on top. Not sure how much sound that will stop.
Responding to earlier safety concerns I would like to provide the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTaZFQA18E
Does anyone know what fire suppression is installed in the Jupitar project?
As well as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLdjjDFCrCw
Just a storage facility..