Fauquier supervisors uphold Planning Commission, find Summer Sweet 150 MW battery project not in accord with comprehensive plan

The Fauquier County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 13 voted to uphold the Planning Commission's determination that the proposed Summer Sweet Energy Center, a 150-megawatt battery energy storage system (BESS), is not substantially in accord with the county's comprehensive plan.

County staff opened the appeal under Code of Virginia section 15.2-2232 and said the system would occupy about 16 acres of a ~34-acre parcel off Shipstore Road in the Village of Morrisville and connect to Dominion's Morrisville substation. The application proposes 192 individual battery enclosures, a control house, substation work, access road, stormwater management and screening; the applicant anticipates construction in 2028 or later.

Maggie Howe, Eastpoint Energy's director of project development, told supervisors the company had expanded outreach, addressed prior use compliance issues, and argued the industrial zoning and county battery energy storage ordinance support the project: “We would have very little impact on the visual environment… and we could quietly in the background deliver, reliable electricity to the grid,” she said.

Retired New York City battalion chief Brian Fink, representing Fire & Risk Alliance, described current standards and upcoming testing and code updates (NFPA 855 and UL 9540/UL 9540A) that will require validated equipment testing and influence spacing and risk analysis. Fink said many codes currently require 10-foot separation from structures and that equipment testing to demonstrate propagation distances is forthcoming.

Opponents, including Mary Root of Citizens for Fauquier County, raised safety concerns and cited the Moss Landing fire in California as precedent; Root noted the site is about 1,200 feet from Mary Walter Elementary and argued a thermal-runaway event could produce hazardous emissions that reach the school quickly under certain wind conditions.

During deliberations board members discussed industrial zoning, existing on-site industrial uses, proximity to the school and the ability to impose conditions at the special-exception stage. A motion to uphold the Planning Commission's determination that the proposal was not substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan was moved and adopted by voice vote.

The vote means the applicant would need to pursue a different planning outcome (or a different site) before receiving a special-exemption permit; staff noted two draft resolutions had been provided to the board (one to concur with the Planning Commission and one to find the project in accord).