Anson County planning board recommends denial of Duke Energys Anson Solar Center over battery fire and emergency-response concerns

The Anson County Planning Board on Nov. 6 recommended that the county commissioners deny a special-use permit for Duke Energys proposed Anson Solar Center (SUP25-0007), saying expert testimony raised unresolved threats to public health and safety tied to the projects battery-energy-storage system.

The board voted unanimously to recommend denial after a two-hour public hearing that included presentations from county staff and Duke Energy, and expert and lay testimony from local residents, emergency responders and retired incident-command personnel. The boards recommendation is advisory; the county commissioners will make the final decision at a Nov. 18 hearing.

Why it matters: The project would install a 145-megawatt photovoltaic facility with up to 51 megawatts of co-located battery storage on a parcel largely used for silviculture. Duke Energy and its consultants said the project would bring construction jobs, long-term tax revenue and grid benefits; residents and emergency-response experts said the county currently lacks the equipment and hazmat capacity to handle a large-scale battery fire or prolonged BESS incident.

Duke Energy representatives described the project and safety work. "The Anson Solar Center will provide a 145 megawatts of clean, renewable energy and potentially 51 megawatts of energy storage," Emily Tucker, a Duke government and community relations manager, told the board. Company presenters said the arrays would be buffered with vegetation, would satisfy county setback rules and carried a decommissioning plan; staff described an estimated gross decommissioning cost of $14,100,000 and an estimated salvage value of $1,200,000.

Company engineers and operations staff addressed fire and containment questions during the hearing. "Fire suppression is an optional standard" for typical battery systems, and the industry relies on design features, cell-level protections and remote monitoring to reduce propagation risk, said Justin LaRoche of Duke Energys renewables development team. He and other company witnesses said modern BESS units include active cooling, sensors and compartmentalization designed to minimize spread.

Residents and local emergency personnel pushed back. "These lithium ion batteries, they're nothing short of a major danger," Dennis Knapp, a retired federal law-enforcement incident commander who testified as an expert, told the board. Knapp and on-duty county firefighters said that even with improved technology, some BESS incidents can flare for days and require specialized hazmat resources and long mutual-aid response times that Anson County currently lacks.

The crux of the planning boards decision was the conflicting expert evidence over whether the county could safely respond to a severe BESS incident. After deliberation, a board member moved to recommend denial "based on item 1," referring to the special-use permit criterion that the use must maintain public health, safety and general welfare; the motion carried unanimously.

What Duke and staff said next: Duke counsel said the company paused a related Anson project (SUP25-0006) and would continue community engagement; staff and Duke engineers said state and federal permitting (DEQ, Army Corps, FAA) and local stormwater rules would shape final designs. Duke said it had performed wetland delineations, a glare study, and a health-and-safety review included in the project packet.

What residents raised: Adjoining landowners and community members cited runoff and watershed risks to the Pee Dee River intake, potential impacts on timber and hunting lands, agricultural and property-value harms, and the lack of a local hazmat unit. Several residents said they were seeking or preparing appraisals or technical studies to present to the commissioners.

Next steps: The planning boards recommendation and the record from the Nov. 6 hearing will go to the Anson County Board of Commissioners for a final decision on Nov. 18, 2025. The planning board recessed further unrelated business to Nov. 13 so staff and the public can prepare additional materials. Board members and planning staff encouraged residents who wish to contest applicant appraisal evidence to obtain and submit licensed appraisal or expert reports before the commissioners hearing.

The planning boards full record includes staff findings that the applicant met many ordinance standards on setbacks, screening and site design; the denial recommendation turned on the boards weighing of the public-safety testimony in the hearing record.