Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hood County tables BESS safety resolution after extensive public safety testimony
Summary
After hours of public comment citing NFPA 855 setbacks, UL 9540 testing and nearby school risks, Hood County Commissioners tabled a draft resolution on enforcing battery energy storage system safety to allow further edits and legal review.
Hood County Commissioners Court on July 22 introduced and then voted to table a draft resolution that would publicly announce the county’s expectation that incoming battery energy storage systems (BESS) comply with NFPA 855 fire‑safety standards.
The draft, presented by Commissioner Tu, was described as an informational notice intended to make prospective developers aware that the county and its fire marshal expect NFPA 855 compliance and that permitting and fee structures are under consideration. Fire Marshal Jeff Young confirmed the office already advises prospective projects that they must meet NFPA 855 requirements, and legal staff noted state statutes such as HB 3809 address decommissioning and lessor/lessee responsibilities.
The issue drew lengthy public comment from residents and outside advocates. Nancy White urged the court to require proof of compliance with NFPA 855 and proper UL testing (she cited UL 9540 and UL 9540A) and asked the county to demand site‑specific emergency plans and a 500‑foot remote setback where the standard requires it. John Highsmith said the Apache Hill BESS under construction is adjacent to Rainbows Promise Preschool and argued immediate permitting and inspection were necessary. Jessica Hall cited recent state legislation (referred to in the meeting as HB 3824, effective Sept. 1, 2025) and pointed to nearby counties’ actions to use NFPA 855 to block noncompliant construction.
Commissioners discussed the legal scope of local enforcement, possible unintended consequences of adopting broad fire codes, and the difference between storage (covered by NFPA 855) and generation codes (NFPA 850, not yet state‑adopted). Several commissioners said they support enforcement of safety standards but were concerned about symbolic versus substantive action and potential regulatory overreach. Commissioner Tu characterized the draft as a public notice to fill a gap while formal permitting information is posted online.
After deliberation Commissioner Tu moved to table the resolution for further work; Commissioner Andrews seconded. The motion to table carried 4–0. No regulatory changes were adopted; the draft will be revised and returned for future consideration.
Next steps: Commissioners asked staff and Fire Marshal Jeff Young to collect feedback, confirm UL testing sources and the permit‑fee structure, and return with a revised draft and possible public workshop.
