An extensive update and public comment period at the Kerr County Commissioners Court on Monday centered on battery-energy storage systems, the county’s recent work with outside consultants and whether the county’s position differs from the Hill Country Energy Subregional Planning Commission’s opposition to siting such facilities.

The commissioners’ update summarized a Nov. 18 meeting of the Hill Country Energy Subregional Planning Commission. Topics included cybersecurity requirements and executive orders restricting components from certain countries, volunteer fire departments’ difficulty fighting lithium-ion fires, and a Van Zandt County temporary restraining order that a local official said halted delivery of batteries whose manufacturer had failed relevant UL testing. Commissioners said PUCT staff attended their meeting but that the state agency has limited authority over siting, and they discussed options including a local permitting and fee schedule and hiring a fire marshal or emergency-management specialist.

Audrey Burner, a Kerr County resident and researcher, summarized publicly available documents about Pine Gate Renewables and Rio Largo Solar — including a November 2025 Chapter 11 filing — and warned that bankruptcy-related asset limbo could leave landowners with leased equipment on their property and uncertain remediation responsibilities. "Now it seems that Bandera and the landowners are stuck with over 1,000 acres of solar panels," she said, and warned about hazardous materials and long bankruptcy timelines.

Linda Bullard, landowner representative and secretary of the local 3-91 commission, challenged the court on wording and process: she said the 3-91 commission had adopted a resolution opposing installation of BESS in the county earlier in the year, and she asked whether the court’s later professional-services agreement and draft resolution (titled as guiding "safe development") represented an intentional policy shift. Bullard said she and the 3-91 commission had not been adequately briefed before the county contracted with an external firm and asked for explicit planning coordination.

Commissioners responded that the court voted to contract with outside consultants to advise on codes, compliance and public protection and emphasized the county’s intent to prioritize public safety and regulatory compliance rather than to endorse siting. Several commissioners expressed support for pursuing a permitting process and for stronger, site-specific emergency-response documentation from developers. One commissioner urged exploring creation of a local fire marshal position or increased emergency-management capacity.

No formal regulatory change or permit was adopted Monday; commissioners asked staff to continue coordination with the 3-91 commission, consider options for a local permitting and fee schedule, and report back. The discussion underscored active community concern about developer readiness, technical testing (UL standards), local firefighting capacity, and financial risks tied to developer bankruptcies.