Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer outlines 100‑megawatt battery storage proposal near Hazel Run substation
Summary
Representatives of New Leaf Energy introduced a proposed 100‑megawatt battery storage facility sited adjacent to the Hazel Run substation and described technology, timeline, costs and possible local tax agreements.
Get email alerts on the Energy Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives of New Leaf Energy told the St. Francois County Commission that they are proposing a 100‑megawatt battery storage facility adjacent to the Hazel Run substation northeast of Bonne Terre.
"This is a proposed project. It's a battery storage facility," attorney Mark Brady said as he introduced company representatives and laid out the project's purpose, siting rationale and schedule.
Brady and company representatives said the site was chosen because of capacity shortfalls in the area after thermal plant retirements and because the substation is being upgraded. They said the batteries would inject power adjacent to the substation and that the project was intended to help Ameren and the MISO wholesale market meet peak capacity and stabilize the grid.
The developer described typical equipment and scale: about a five‑acre fenced pad of containerized battery units — "what these batteries look like a 20 foot shipping container" — set on concrete footings with internal inverters and HVAC. They estimated several hundred containers for a 100‑megawatt site but noted container counts could change as battery energy density improves.
Company representatives discussed chemistry and safety. Brady said the industry is moving from nickel‑manganese‑cobalt (NMC) chemistries used in early EV applications toward lithium‑iron‑phosphate (LFP) for stationary storage because LFP is "a far more stable chemistry" and, according to the presenter, has had far fewer thermal events in deployments since 2022. He acknowledged batteries remain a relatively new utility‑scale technology and said developers rely on evolving codes, UL testing and containment and suppression systems.
On operations and markets, the developer described how storage is used for energy arbitrage and capacity: buying power when prices are low, storing it, and dispatching when prices and demand rise; they noted batteries respond in milliseconds and can serve intra‑hour grid needs that older resources cannot.
The firm said it applied to the MISO interconnection queue in 2022 for a 100‑megawatt project and estimated an online date in 2028–2029, depending on the multi‑year interconnection and permitting process. Brady said the project is currently a development-stage effort; the company typically builds approvals, then sells a shovel‑ready project to an owner/operator (for example, a utility) for construction and operation.
On costs and local economic impact, the developer estimated total project costs near $100 million and said roughly 80% of that is the battery equipment itself. They said a similar project would produce about 50 temporary construction jobs and about five full‑time operations/maintenance jobs (remote monitoring and occasional on‑site maintenance). The company said it has used local point‑of‑sale purchases and PILOT (Chapter 100) agreements in other jurisdictions to localize sales tax and project revenues and described those agreements as a way to deliver guaranteed, mapped payments to local taxing districts over the life of a project.
Commissioners and members of the public asked about safety, decommissioning, recycling and tax treatment. The developer said decommissioning agreements and bonds are typically required by permitting jurisdictions to guarantee site cleanup and that batteries are recycled through facilities meeting state standards. On tax issues the presenter said Chapter 100 offers "tax certainty" and can keep PILOT payments local rather than having tax revenue flow across a utility's entire service territory.
Commissioners said they would treat the presentation as a report and not take immediate action. The developer indicated it would return for further discussions, including potential Chapter 100 negotiations and decommissioning terms.
Ending: The company asked to keep lines of communication open and to return if the commission requested more information; no permit, zoning decision or Chapter 100 approval was requested or granted during the meeting.

