Planning Commission recommends approval for battery storage facility with decommissioning and emergency-response conditions

The Virginia Beach Planning Commission on May 14 recommended approval of a conditional-use permit, rezoning and related street-closure requests from Starling BESS Energy LLC for a large battery energy storage system on a Dam Neck Road property, while adding conditions requiring an engineer’s decommissioning-cost report and an emergency-response plan to the site plan.

The recommendation, which goes next to City Council for final approval, followed more than three hours of technical testimony and commissioner questions focused on fire risk, decommissioning costs, setbacks and regulatory oversight.

Attorney Eddie Bridal, representing the applicant, told the commission the project responds to the region’s need to store offshore wind energy and that construction will occur only if Dominion Power integrates the facility into the grid. "This facility with this use permit will only be built if and not really a question of if, but when Dominion Power approves it to be added into their grid," Bridal said.

Commissioners pressed the developer’s technical witnesses on safety, monitoring and end‑of‑life handling. Mark Paulson, a project engineer, said sound levels would comply with the city zoning code and "typically, these things range between 45 and 50 dBA." Joe Brown, a project operations representative, said the batteries are designed to last about 20 years and that the company does not plan to store end‑of‑life batteries on site: "we would be recycling them ... there would be no storage of any waste battery products on‑site." Mike Watson, the applicant’s safety and regulatory compliance officer, described the company’s testing regimen and gas‑analysis work and said that when they intentionally induce thermal runaway for testing they collect and analyze the exhaust gases. "In every event, it's almost, you know, about 50% is hydrogen, another 25% is carbon dioxide, another, you know, about 15% is carbon monoxide," Watson said.

Commissioners sought a range of clarifications: whether the site will be remote monitored (the applicant said yes, 24/7 monitoring), whether an on‑site fixed water supply existed (applicant deferred that to local water/fire authorities), the minimum buffer between batteries and property lines (the city ordinance calls for a 100‑foot buffer; the application shows larger buffers in most directions), battery spacing (about 25 feet between containers), and an engineer’s estimate for decommissioning (the applicant provided an estimate of roughly $2.5–$3.5 million based on independent engineering input).

Several commissioners urged caution because recent large‑scale BESS incidents nationally have prompted additional regulatory attention. Commissioner Plumlee called for more information and initially moved to defer. After further discussion and a substitute motion to approve, the commission added two specific conditions: (1) submission of an engineer’s report detailing decommissioning and remediation costs and posting a bond or letter of credit to the city prior to site‑plan release, and (2) submission of an emergency‑response plan to the satisfaction of staff and the fire chief. The commission voted 9–2 to recommend approval.

The applicant and staff said additional regulatory reviews remain required if council and the city move forward, including site‑plan review, stormwater permitting (the applicant acknowledged the DEQ stormwater filing had not yet been submitted) and fire‑department coordination before construction and operation.

The project drew extended public and commissioner attention to the limits of current local ordinance language and to what city staff and council might adopt in future policy updates as battery storage technologies and incident histories evolve.