Emmons County commissioners delay permit decision on battery storage project pending tax numbers and ordinance review

Emmons County commissioners heard extended public comment and a developer presentation on a proposed battery storage facility and declined to make a final permit decision, instead discussing a short special meeting next week or a meeting in about a week to decide after obtaining tax-impact information from the state.

The discussion centered on a proposed permit fee equal to 3% of the project value and uncertainty about how the project would be taxed at the state level. A company representative said the projects’ economics are “very tight” and warned that increasing fees could render a project uneconomic. County commissioners and residents pressed for more precise tax estimates and for assurances the county would not shoulder long-term infrastructure costs such as road damage.

Why it matters: commissioners said the county could see only a small fraction of the revenue they expect after state apportionment, and several members said they have previously been disappointed by optimistic local revenue projections. Commissioners also emphasized they need to protect county roads and ensure a project creates tangible local value (jobs, tax revenue or related business) before approving siting or updated zoning language.

A company representative told the commission the developer had an application with the State Public Service Commission and that public hearings there were pending. The representative said the developer intended to be “partners of the county” and reiterated a commitment to safety and to following the applicable processes, saying, “the economics are very tight” and “we’re going to be partners of the county the way we are right now with the wind site, going forward here for a long time.”

Several commissioners and residents pressed for clarity on tax treatment. One commissioner said the county had been led to expect substantial revenue from past projects only to have the state take a portion, leaving the county with a fraction of the projected funds. That commissioner said, “we’ve been burned by, oh, we’re gonna make so much money off of these wind turbines and it comes out to be no.” Commissioners asked staff to contact the state tax office to determine whether there is an existing formula or precedent for taxing battery storage and to return with numbers.

The commission discussed whether to set a deadline for a decision. Members proposed a short special meeting in about a week; potential dates mentioned were Aug. 11 or Aug. 12 (participants used those dates as examples). Commissioners cautioned that any special meeting would have to comply with open-meeting and public-notice requirements before a final date could be set.

County staff and commenters also raised infrastructure and permitting concerns. One resident asked about road damage from heavy equipment; another county representative noted a road use agreement would be part of the process, including pre-project video documentation and a requirement to return roads to pre-project condition. Commissioners discussed the possibility of conditioning approval so the county would be made whole if tax receipts came in below a target amount tied to a percentage-based fee.

No permit, ordinance amendment, or fee schedule was adopted at the meeting. The only formal vote recorded in the transcript was to adjourn; the adjourn motion passed. The commission left the record open for follow-up actions: obtaining tax-impact numbers from the state tax office, confirming legal notice timelines for a special meeting, and scheduling a decision meeting once those items are resolved.

A follow-up: commissioners asked staff to check with the tax office and legal counsel about whether a one-week notice would be sufficient for a special meeting; they emphasized transparency with the public about any new meeting date and whether it would be a public hearing or a decision meeting.