Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy And Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pecan Plantation resident warns of safety and property risks from proposed solar and battery project
Summary
At the March 14 workshop, resident Bob Taber raised concerns that a proposed solar farm and battery storage across the river from Pecan Plantation lacks a confirmed location and could pose evacuation and firefighting challenges; county staff said permitting rests with state agencies and the county has limited authority, while the court has asked the legislature for potential setback authority.
Bob Taber, a resident of Pecan Plantation who said he speaks for himself and not his homeowners association, told the commissioners March 14 he is worried that a proposed solar farm and battery storage facility across the river could create safety, ecological and property-value problems if its location and routing are not coordinated with the county's planned roads.
"If these things have problems, you know, we're gonna have evacuation issues, possibly," Taber said during public comment, adding concern about toxic materials in lithium batteries and firefighting capacity: "that stuff blows up and get up to 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit." Taber asked who has precedence — whether a developer building a battery facility would work around the county's planned right-of-way or whether the county would have to adjust future roads.
County staff and other speakers replied that permitting and environmental oversight for renewable-energy facilities is primarily a state responsibility. An unidentified county official said regulators such as the Public Utility Commission and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) handle permitting and environmental compliance, and that the county's authority over a private development on private property is limited: "we can't tell them no. We can't tell them what they can do on their own property." A speaker cited Local Government Code 232.0033 in explaining how plat/subdivision rules apply and why some county controls may not be available where developers are not subdividing property.
Commissioners said they have asked the legislature to consider bills that would allow counties to set setback requirements for battery energy storage and other safety measures; staff noted the court recently passed a resolution calling for more regulation of PFAS in firefighting foam because PFAS are persistent and toxic, which affects battery-fire response strategies.
No regulatory action or permits were issued during the workshop. The court signaled it would seek legislative remedies and continue coordination with state regulators and potential developers so that county roads and planned right-of-way are considered during project engineering.
Next steps: County staff will coordinate with state regulators as appropriate, the court will continue pursuing legislative options for setbacks and safety rules, and the county will post the Master Thoroughfare Plan materials on its website for public access.
