Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Harvey County to enforce Article 13 over Halsted battery storage proposal
Summary
A Halsted resident told the county commissioners that a proposed large battery energy storage system would violate Harvey County zoning Article 13 — the Equus Beds Protective (EBP) overlay — and raised cybersecurity and explosive-risk concerns during public comment April 29.
Kevin Henderson, a Harvey County resident, told the Board of County Commissioners on April 29 that a private proposal to place a large battery energy storage system (BESS) near Halsted appears to conflict with county zoning protections for the Equus Beds.
Henderson said the project would place “between 64 and 70,000 Tesla sized lithium battery packs stuffed inside 48 to 50 metal shipping containers,” and argued that the county’s rules should bar that use. “Article 13 in Harvey County zoning regulations is being ignored. It explicitly prohibits commercial battery storage over the ECWIS beds,” Henderson said during the public-comment period.
Why it matters: Henderson warned the commissioners of two classes of harms he says are associated with the proposal — safety and cybersecurity. He told the board he was concerned about remote control of the units, potential surveillance and even remote detonation because lithium batteries can ignite. He also cited the county zoning code’s stated purpose to “protect the quality of the Equus Beds” and said the proposed facility fits the ordinance’s definition of storage.
The commission did not take action on the matter during the meeting. Commissioners acknowledged the comment but noted city and state jurisdictions limit the county’s ability to act inside municipal boundaries. Henderson said he had been urging the Halsted City Council and the Halsted planning commission to enforce the same Article 13 provisions.
What the law says: Henderson read portions of the county zoning code as part of his comment, pointing to Section 13.o.1 and a later prohibition (Section 13.o.3.1.o) that he said bars “storage and primary electrical battery processing and reprocessing.”
What comes next: Commissioners discussed jurisdictional limits during later agenda items and said the county must respect city planning authority inside municipal limits. The board did not vote or issue direction on the Halsted proposal during this meeting.
