Saline County adopts battery energy storage system regulations after months of review

The Saline County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 on Aug. 5 to adopt Resolution 25‑24‑23, establishing county rules for battery energy storage systems (BESS) and related facilities after a multi‑month review by the county Planning and Zoning Commission and a lengthy public comment period.

The regulations set process and operational standards for future conditional use permits but do not approve any specific project or location. Supporters said the rules create a consistent permitting framework; opponents said the draft does not provide adequate safety protections, liability limits or community notice and urged the commission to require larger setbacks and higher insurance minimums.

Tim Hamilton, planning and zoning administrator, told the commission the draft resolution reflects changes requested by the county and reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 24 and July 22. He said the planning commission considered the county’s suggested changes — including a half‑mile setback from residential uses, a 10‑acre site limit and higher liability amounts — and declined to adopt all of them, instead relying in part on nationally referenced codes and standards to set baseline requirements. “We would both kinda work in tandem,” Hamilton said when asked who would inspect commercial construction, referring to an interlocal agreement with the city for building inspections.

Residents and local stakeholders pressed the commission on several substantive points during the public comment period. Carolyn Sichley urged the board to reinstate a half‑mile setback, limit projects to 10 acres and require “a minimum of 10,000,000 liability coverage.” Bill DeSilvey and other residents raised concerns about fire response, contamination after thermal events and site placement near agricultural uses. Brenda (last name on file), who has followed the county process closely, said written questions to county staff had not been answered and urged the commission to seek outside technical expertise including NFPA and the state fire marshal before adopting final rules.

Industry representatives supported the regulations. Hunter Armstrong, senior project manager for Plus Power, said the Planning and Zoning Commission’s draft “carefully balances innovation, safety, and community interests” and urged the board to adopt the framework to allow responsible energy development and local investment.

Commission discussion repeatedly emphasized that the vote before the board concerned countywide regulations and not a specific site. A motion to adopt Resolution 25‑24‑23 with Option A carried 3‑2. Commissioners clarified that any future facility application would return to the county for a conditional use permit and could include site‑specific conditions, including emergency notification plans and mitigation measures.

County Administrator Philip Smith Haines told the commission he had preliminary, separate negotiations with a project developer about three distinct agreements that would be relevant if a future application came forward: a payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes (PILOT) or contribution agreement to share revenues with taxing jurisdictions, an agreement placing financial responsibility on a developer for any county road repairs caused by construction traffic, and a separate easement/compensation agreement related to the county farm lease where an easement would be required. Haines said draft documents exist but that any such agreements would be negotiated and presented to the commission only if a developer files a site application.

The commission and members of the public raised additional implementation questions left open in the ordinance language: the permitted maximum site acreage (planning staff noted the planning commission opted for flexibility above the 10‑acre limit requested by some commissioners), the specific definition and timelines for “extraordinary events” (the draft requires written notice within three days and a mitigation plan within 30 days), perimeter and security fencing standards, decommissioning and material disposal requirements, and the adequacy of a $1.5 million liability minimum that several residents said is too low.

Supporters argued the county needs a consistent permitting framework to manage potential projects and allow the Planning and Zoning Commission’s work to guide future reviews. Opponents asked the board either to send the draft back to the planning commission for further study or to amend the current resolution to reinstate the half‑mile setback, a 10‑acre cap and a significantly higher per‑incident liability minimum.

With the resolution adopted, any company seeking to build a battery energy storage facility in Saline County would still need to file a site‑specific conditional use permit; that application could trigger additional hearings, conditions, traffic and emergency‑response agreements, and negotiations over taxes or easements. The county’s interlocal agreement with the city and referenced national standards (including NFPA guidance cited during public comment) will inform inspections and code enforcement when a project reaches the permitting stage.

The commission recorded the vote as 3 in favor, 2 opposed. Commissioners present at roll call were Commissioner Shadwick, Commissioner Grievous, Commissioner Sparks, Commissioner Weese and Commissioner Hay. The record shows the motion to adopt the resolution passed 3‑2; individual roll‑call votes were not recorded on the public audio as named votes.