Saline County commissioners deny conditional use permit for proposed battery storage project

The Saline County Board of Commissioners voted 4–1 on Jan. 6 to deny a conditional use permit application (CUP 25-09) for Mountain Peak Energy/Plus Power to build a 40-acre battery energy storage system in unincorporated Saline County.

The vote overturned an earlier unanimous approval by the county Planning Commission and followed more than an hour of public comment from neighbors, technical experts and economic-development representatives. Tim Hamilton, Saline County planning and zoning director, told the board that petition documentation represented roughly 80 parcels, about 3,896 acres—approximately 31% of the two-mile notification area—and that a four-fifths vote was required to overturn the Planning Commission.

Supporters said the project could support future economic attraction. Mitch Robinson, executive director of the county’s economic development organization, said staff and commissioners had worked with the company over several years and the Planning Commission extensively reviewed the proposal.

Opponents and several expert witnesses told commissioners they opposed the project on public-safety, environmental and procedural grounds. Appellant Brooke Swisher said neighbors had signed a protest petition and questioned why multiple requested regulatory modifications were accepted rather than requiring strict conformity with Saline County regulations. Teresa Swisher told the board she reviewed the submission and could not find the Safety Data Sheets (SDS) referenced repeatedly in the application materials and called the omission a “serious red flag.” Brenda Tollson Marcus, testifying remotely as an industrial-hygiene expert, said the application lacked adequate commitments to monitoring, mitigation and community protection in the event of a thermal-runaway fire.

Residents raised emergency-response concerns for volunteer fire districts and said there was no realistic shelter-in-place or prolonged monitoring plan for a large fire. Carolyn Sisley, who lives within about two miles of the proposed site, said the volunteer fire district had no current plans to train for battery or chemical fires and that the community would shoulder most of the risk while receiving little direct benefit.

Commissioners concentrated their discussion on public safety, setbacks, water resources and liability limits. One commissioner said the project’s per-incident liability coverage at $1,500,000 was inadequate and suggested a figure in the “$10 million to $18 million” range would be more appropriate; several public speakers and commissioners said they expected liability insurance in many battery projects to run tens of millions of dollars.

A motion to deny CUP 25-09 was moved and seconded; the roll call produced four votes to deny and one vote against denial, meeting the supermajority threshold required to overturn the Planning Commission. The chair announced the motion carried and the conditional use permit was denied.

The county planning staff had recommended that the board uphold the Planning Commission’s decision because the Planning Commission had approved the application on an 8–0 vote; staff noted the county has little local precedent for battery energy storage systems and provided the record and criteria for the board to review. Tim Hamilton told commissioners the record included the Planning Commission’s findings, the staff report and the petition documentation.

Next steps: staff recorded that agreements negotiated with the developer remain contingent on the project moving forward and that denial of the CUP removes an immediate pathway for construction. The board directed staff to follow the normal post-decision processes, including documenting the action in the record and notifying interested parties.