Saline County’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted Nov. 25 to approve a conditional use permit for a battery energy storage facility proposed near the Summit substation, after hours of testimony and negotiated changes to the staff conditions.

The permit (CUP 25-09) authorizes a battery energy storage system on a roughly 40-acre parcel at McReynolds Road and Simpson Road, with the project’s fenced and built area expected to occupy about 10–15 acres. Applicant representatives said construction would likely begin in 2029 with operations starting in 2030. The commission accepted amended conditions that require a decommissioning plan, a performance bond with Saline County as beneficiary, annual updates while the project remains unbuilt, and negotiated liability insurance terms to be agreed before construction.

County staff described the application as consistent with recent zoning rules for battery energy storage and said the proposed site is adjacent to an existing Evergy substation and rural in character. The staff report listed required submittals—including an emergency response plan and compliance with federal and state environmental and fire-safety laws—and recommended conditions tied to county code sections 12-17-04 and 12-17-05.

Plus Power representatives framed the facility as a tool to support grid reliability and lower peak energy costs. Joshua Swati, speaking for the applicant, urged the commission to apply the locally adopted standards, saying the project “meets those requirements that were listed in your regulations.” Christina Hoffman, the project lead, said the company’s designs follow national safety standards and that the site was sited to minimize visibility and roadway impacts.

Community members who spoke at the hearing pressed the commission on risks and local impacts. Johnny Keller, a former hazardous‑materials certifier, asked about containment if lithium batteries enter thermal runaway and whether local water resources could support firefighting needs. Theresa Swisher, who said she lives about 1.5 miles from the site, cited an EPA lithium‑ion battery response guide and said she feared airborne toxins and water contamination if a large fire occurred: “The EPA on scene coordinator lithium ion battery response guide talks about thermal runaway,” she said, adding that guidance to “let it burn” raised questions about where runoff and smoke would go.

Emergency management director Michelle Wise told the commission her office has been involved with the project since 2023 and that county responders and volunteer fire districts have participated in drafting an emergency response plan. Wise said her office has provided some battery-specific training via a hazardous‑materials grant and is pursuing IPAWS cellphone-alert capabilities but has not yet implemented that system countywide.

Fire‑service and code experts on the panel and among witnesses discussed past incidents and improvements in standards. A retired Phoenix fire professional and a code‑committee member said many recent incidents involved earlier battery chemistries and installations that predated current UL and NFPA tests. One expert described modern battery management and smoke/heat detection systems that can shut down cells before propagation occurs.

Commissioners spent significant time addressing insurance, permitting timelines and grading. The ordinance currently includes a $1.5 million per‑incident liability minimum; several commissioners and residents said that is too low for worst‑case scenarios. The applicant and its counsel acknowledged the concern and agreed the insurance amount would be negotiated with the county and set before construction begins. The commission also agreed to remove a staff‑recommended requirement that any change in surrounding land use would automatically require a new CUP application, and to have the 25‑year CUP term begin at commencement of commercial operations (or otherwise extend the effective period to capture the multi‑year development timeline).

A motion to approve CUP 25-09 — excluding the staff report’s fifth bullet relating to surrounding‑use reapplication and adding several of the applicant’s requested conditions — passed on a voice vote. Staff told the public a protest petition may be filed within 14 days; if a valid protest is received, the matter would go to the county commission for final consideration.

The applicant said the project would bring multi‑million‑dollar private investment and a small number of long‑term operations jobs; Plus Power estimated local direct contributions to county programs of roughly $18 million over a 20‑year operating life, though commissioners and residents noted that the exact fiscal arrangements would require further negotiation and documentation. Construction is expected to last 12–18 months when it begins.

The commission closed public comment, finalized the conditions to be added to the staff recommendations, and voted to adjourn the meeting.

The county planning office said documents for the CUP, including the emergency response plan and technical reports, are available for public review and that residents who received notice about the application may file a protest petition within 14 days of the decision.