Hood County firefighting officials and residents press for enforceable rules on battery storage; fire marshal will draft permitting and fee plan

Hood County Fire Marshal Jeff Young told the commissioners— court at a special April 10 workshop that he now understands Local Government Code 352.016 and related state-adopted codes give him "the ability and the authority to enforce fire code," and asked the court for guidance on how far enforcement should go.

The meeting, held at the Ralph H. Walton Junior Justice Center in Granbury, drew county officials, outside fire officials and scores of residents — many from Pecan Plantation — who raised safety, evacuation and environmental concerns about nearby battery energy storage projects such as the Rain Lily site.

Why it matters: speakers said battery energy storage systems (BESS) present distinct risks because of scale and potential for thermal runaway. County staff said enforcing state-adopted codes would require a permitting and inspection program with a fee schedule and additional staffing; residents said failing to require or verify safety measures could expose communities and volunteer firefighters to toxic smoke, water contamination and long evacuation times.

At the workshop Jeff Young framed the issue as one of implementation, not rule-writing. "The code already exists," he said, explaining the county would need to adopt a fee schedule and a permitting process if it intends to enforce state-adopted fire codes. He added the county has performed some inspections as a courtesy (daycare centers, fireworks stands) but that routine enforcement would require a formalized process and staff time.

Commissioners and speakers debated scope and consequences. Commissioner Andrews questioned whether county enforcement risks overburdening small businesses and expanding government oversight, while other speakers urged the county to prioritize public safety over potential regulatory friction. "Is that the job of government?" Andrews asked during the discussion, reflecting the tension between safety and regulatory scope that threaded the workshop.

Residents voiced safety concerns tied to local response times and population density. Cindy Highsmith, who lives in Pecan Plantation and said she lives directly across the river from the Rain Lily site, told the court: "When we're talking about the Rain Lily project, what scares me so much about it ... This scares me." Rebecca Fayol, who said she lost a home in a California wildfire, urged the court to plan evacuation routes and consider the potential for high winds to move smoke and contaminants across the lake.

Technical context and enforcement details

Speakers cited NFPA 855 — the national standard for stationary energy storage systems adopted by Texas — and other NFPA and state-adopted life-safety codes as the framework for enforcement. A visiting plans examiner and Fort Worth lieutenant explained that standards (NFPA/International) become enforceable codes only when the state or the county adopts them and that counties without 250,000 residents generally follow state-adopted codes.

Jeff Young said the practical requirements under those codes can include site-specific emergency plans, evidence of UL testing, on-site water supplies or engineered water storage for cooling, and financial assurances such as decommissioning bonds. He also told the court that existing buildings would normally be grandfathered, and that retroactive enforcement would not be his intent except in limited circumstances such as rebuilding after damage that affects roughly 30% or more of the structure.

What the court directed next

Though this was a workshop and included no formal votes, the commissioners asked Young to prepare a concise, high-level draft that would include parameters for a permit and inspection program and a sample fee schedule. The court asked that the draft be crafted to protect public safety without unduly burdening mom-and-pop businesses; Young agreed to bring materials back to commissioners for review.

Legal and policy threads raised

Speakers referenced pending Texas legislation discussed at the state level (members cited bill numbers discussed during the workshop) and federal incentives such as the Inflation Reduction Act as levers that influence where and how energy projects are built. Multiple speakers recommended the county seek legal clarity (Attorney General interpretation) on retroactivity, grandfathering and the county—s enforcement discretion.

What was not decided

No ordinance or statute was adopted at the workshop. Commissioners did not vote to adopt a county code or impose inspections; they asked staff to return with a proposal. The timetable for any formal adoption and the final scope of enforcement were left open pending the fire marshal—s draft and possible legal review.

The court recessed after roughly two hours of presentations and public comment; the fire marshal said he will prepare a fee schedule and permitting outline for the court to consider at a future meeting.