Pottawattamie supervisors advance ordinance to add battery energy storage systems with strengthened safety rules
Summary
The Pottawattamie County Board held a public hearing and gave first consideration to Ordinance No. 2026‑01 to add battery energy storage systems to the county zoning code, embracing NFPA‑855 safety standards, a 500‑foot minimum setback and developer responsibilities for firefighter training and on‑site emergency plans. Concerns about explosions and toxic‑gas risks were raised.
The Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors on [date of meeting] advanced a zoning amendment that would add standards for battery energy storage systems to Chapter 8 of the county code and set a date for second consideration.
Matt Wyatt, the county’s director of planning and development, told supervisors the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval and described the draft ordinance as modeled on the county’s solar rules. "This will help add in siting criteria for projects that come to us looking to do battery energy storage systems," Wyatt said, adding the draft requires compliance with NFPA‑855 and a site‑specific fire safety compliance plan maintained to the manufacturer's specifications.
The ordinance would classify large battery installations as a conditional use in multiple rural and commercial districts and requires a minimum 500‑foot setback from property lines or road rights‑of‑way, whichever is greater. Wyatt said developers would be responsible for equipping and coordinating with local fire departments and that an emergency operations plan would be provided to local responders and kept on site. "The applicant shall document and describe how the fire safety system and its associated controls will function and be maintained to the manufacturer's specifications as intended," he said.
Supervisors and members of the public pressed staff on safety details. One supervisor asked whether facilities would be located above or below ground; Wyatt said they would be above ground. Concerns included the potential for rapid uncontrolled heating, explosions, fires and the release of toxic gases. Wyatt said such risks would be addressed through the conditional‑use review and the required emergency operations plans, and that the ordinance gives the county authority to impose site‑specific conditions if a particular facility’s hazard radius exceeds the baseline setback.
Supporters noted the ordinance’s business benefits. A supervisor observed having a clear regulatory framework could make the county more attractive to companies proposing energy projects.
The board voted to set the ordinance for second consideration and further action. Roll‑call voting on the motion to advance the ordinance recorded one dissenting vote; the motion carried. (Transcript shows one supervisor recorded a Nay during the roll call.)
What happens next: the board set a date for second consideration; developers seeking conditional uses would later be reviewed under the ordinance's siting and emergency‑planning criteria.
