Board approves Dahlgren battery storage facility special exception with safety and siting conditions

The King George County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a special exception allowing a battery energy storage facility on a portion of tax map 17, parcel 72 near Dahlgren, contingent on an agreed-to siting agreement acceptable to the board and the updated safety and monitoring conditions included in the applicant’s packet. The motion passed on a 4-1 vote, with one supervisor voting no.

The project proponents, represented by Cyrus Tashicori of Harwood Power (also coordinating with OpenRoad Renewables), presented a revised conditions package and said they had contacted residents and public-safety officials after the last public hearing. “We reached out to everyone who spoke with concerns about the project, including all of you, and thankfully talked to most of them,” Tashicori said during the hearing, and the project team provided written and verbal updates on new or clarified conditions.

The nut graf: Supervisors said they weighed the county benefits, public-safety implications, water and stormwater questions and protections for downstream waterways before voting. The approval requires a final siting agreement approved by the board; supervisors made clear that agreement must incorporate the packet conditions and additional negotiated terms before final site-plan or building approvals proceed.

Board and public discussion focused on emergency response, stormwater and firefighting resources. Several residents and district representatives raised questions during public comment about fire risk, hazardous materials response and potential water contamination if a long-duration fire were to occur. Resident Ryan McGill, who described fire-department call-volume increases and concerns about evacuation zones, told the board to weigh “the economic impact to King George along with the health and safety impact to our community.” Jason Greenwood, a Shiloh District resident, said many property owners in his district were not being adequately notified of large proposals and urged clearer public outreach.

Project conditions in the packet and discussed in the meeting include: requirements for adherence to NFPA standards for energy storage facilities, on-site and off-site emergency-response coordination, a 30,000-gallon on-site water tank or an agreed county water-refill arrangement, post-incident environmental sampling and disposal plans, periodic third-party safety testing, operator responsibility for cleanup and remediation following an incident, and specified contributions to county equipment needs (for example, funding of turnout gear and a PPE-cleaning unit for the fire department as negotiated in the forthcoming siting agreement).

Supervisors also debated whether automated sprinkler or fixed-suppression systems should be required; the applicant and technical witnesses said modern response practice for this type of facility emphasizes standoff cooling and containment and that sprinklers are not a recognized substitute for trained responders in existing guidance. Fire Chief comments submitted to the record note that King George does not maintain a HAZMAT team in-county and that regional or state teams would be requested for incidents beyond local capabilities; the project team’s conditions and the proposed siting agreement include language on contracting for third-party mitigation and testing after an event.

The vote: Supervisor Collins, Supervisor Stroud, Supervisor Sullins and the Chair voted to approve; Supervisor Bender voted no. The board’s motion instructed staff to advertise and return a siting agreement for public hearing that incorporated the packet conditions and any additional negotiated elements.

The approval does not itself authorize construction. County staff will return a siting agreement and final site plan for public review and any required permits, and the board’s conditional approval makes the final approvals dependent on that siting agreement.

Ending: The project will next move toward a public hearing on the siting agreement and site-plan review; supervisors said they expect additional technical details and the final agreement to be presented to the board for final confirmation before the operator begins construction or site work.