Company proposes battery-storage installation adjacent to Spiritwood wind site in Emmons County

A company representative told the Emmons County Board of Commissioners that it plans to site containerized battery-storage units adjacent to an existing wind-farm substation near Spiritwood and asked county staff about the permit fee, setbacks and timing for local and state reviews.

The presenter said the proposal would place battery containers on agricultural property near the substation in the same section as a prior wind project. He said the company intends to follow the same fee approach used for the earlier wind permit (February 2018), when the county assessed a total fee of $29,750, and proposed applying a per-container rate to the 38 containers planned for this project. The presenter said that approach would result in a charge of about $34,000 under the proposed math. He described the total project cost as about $185 million "ish." The company said the planned battery units would have a lifespan of about 30 to 35 years and would likely follow the wind project's decommissioning schedule.

Why it matters: utility-scale battery storage can change how local generation is used on the grid by storing excess energy and discharging at times of need. Local permitting questions include which zoning setback rules apply, whether the county treats the site as agricultural or industrial for fee and setback purposes, and how local reviews interact with state Public Service Commission (PSC) processes.

Details presented and questions from the board and staff

- Fee history and proposal: The presenter said the earlier wind application was processed as an agricultural conditional use (CUP) in 02/2018 with a county fee of $29,750. For the battery containers he proposed applying the same per-unit calculation used previously (the presenter described it as the $250-per-unit approach), which he said would produce roughly $34,000 for the proposed 38 containers. County staff and commissioners discussed whether the agricultural application fee or an industrial fee (a percentage of project cost) should apply.

- Site and setbacks: The company said the battery containers would be placed within the existing footprint near the prior turbine infrastructure and the substation but noted final siting would depend on setback calculations; planners and commissioners debated how county ordinance pages and definitions apply. Participants referred to the county zoning ordinance language on setbacks (agriculture district setbacks, primary/major roads and a 250-foot radius at intersections) and questioned whether the nearby federal-aid route should be treated as a primary highway or as a major rural road for setback measurement (centerline vs. right-of-way).

- Permitting sequence and PSC timing: The presenter said the company expects to file with the PSC around the same time as the local permit application and that the PSC typically waits for local permits before scheduling hearings; the company said the PSC would accept a concurrent submittal but would not issue completion dates until local permitting was finished.

- Safety and decommissioning: The presenter said the battery units are self-contained, resemble storage containers, and will be sited and vented to meet NFPA 55 (the standard referenced in the meeting) and that the site would be fenced with cameras. He also addressed questions about decommissioned wind-turbine blades, saying the industry has begun grinding blades for use in cement and other applications.

- Timeline and economics: The company said it aims for construction in a September window if PSC timing permits, otherwise spring work would begin; it described tax credits and production/infrastructure tax credits generally applicable to the industry but said specific credits (a referenced "Q45") would need clarification from the company's tax experts. The presenter said economic-impact and tax studies are being prepared but that detailed tax treatment was "not specified" at the meeting.

Next steps and follow-up

The presenter said he would meet with county planner Marlys to review the application and to provide more precise site maps and tax/credit information during the county's conditional-permit (CP) process. Commissioners asked the company to bring technical experts (e.g., on fire safety, interconnection studies and tax treatment) to future CP hearings, and staff said they would clarify which fee category and setback measurements the ordinance requires for the proposed siting.