Fauquier supervisors weigh siting agreement for Summer Sweet Energy amid safety, precedent concerns

Fauquier County supervisors on March 13 debated whether to authorize a public hearing on a proposed siting agreement with Summer Sweet Energy LLC for an energy storage facility, focusing on safety near a nearby elementary school and the legal effect of a siting agreement on comprehensive‑plan compliance.

The board heard staff explain that adopting a resolution to authorize the public hearing would let county attorneys and fiscal staff complete negotiations and bring a package back for possible April consideration. Planning staff told the board that the Planning Commission previously recommended denial because it found the project not in conformance with the county comprehensive plan and that the applicant had filed an appeal and waived the 60‑day statutory deadline to act until April.

Several supervisors said they supported battery storage in principle but raised technical and safety questions that they said were not yet settled. Supervisor Kevin Washer asked whether the siting agreement simply substitutes a payment for compliance, and expressed concern it could create the appearance that applicants can “pay their way out” of a noncompliance finding. Planning staff replied that under state code, entering a county siting agreement deems the project compliant with the comprehensive plan but does not bind the board to approve any special exception required for the project.

Supervisor Wash er and others pressed for more information about safety, including the risk and behavior of battery fires, off‑gassing and runoff, and the distance from battery enclosures to the school building. Staff and the applicant’s representative said some of that material was included in the planning commission packet but acknowledged it did not answer every question. One supervisor asked whether conditions could be added to a siting agreement; staff said the state code’s effect means a siting agreement creates compliance with the comprehensive plan and that site‑level conditions are typically handled as special‑exception conditions.

Board members noted timing constraints tied to the developer’s interconnection rights and the applicant’s waiver of the 60‑day clock, which are driving the compressed schedule. Several supervisors said they preferred to see the special exception and the siting agreement considered together in April so the board could review the full package before taking final action.

No formal vote on the siting agreement was recorded during the work session; the item was described as a staff recommendation that would move to the public‑hearing process if the board authorized it for placement on the April agenda.