Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Hunter battery-storage CUP letter amendment pending counsel review
Summary
Representatives for the Hunter battery-storage project described a separate project entity and roughly 80 MW/4-hour capacity; commissioners approved an amended CUP letter subject to county-counsel review and emphasized future coordination on emergency response and fire safety.
Representatives of the Hunter battery-storage project appeared before the Emery County Commission to request approval of minor administrative edits to the county’s conditional-use-permit (CUP) letter for the Hunter battery facility. Joel Puritz and Emma Cripps (identified in the transcript as representing "Desiree Renewables") said the edits clarify the project entity and do not change prior conditions, and they emphasized that the storage facility is a separate project from the Hunter solar project.
Puritz described the storage system as roughly 80 megawatts of capacity with a four-hour discharge duration; he said that equates, at a single point in time, to enough energy to power roughly 16,000 homes for that discharge window. He noted the project's operational footprint would largely sit within the area the county already has under the solar project's control. "The battery storage facility... is not part of the CRA for the solar," Puritz said, adding that the edits were intended to match previous CUP letters used in past financing rounds.
Commissioners pressed for clarity about fire-safety planning and emergency-response training for local fire departments; Puritz said the company regularly prepares emergency-response plans and will coordinate training with local officials. County Attorney Mike indicated he had not yet reviewed the amendment language and asked to receive the proposed edits for review. The commission voted to approve the amendment to the Hunter Solar Battery Storage CUP letter pending county-counsel review; commissioners Warwood, Leonard and Jensen voted aye.
Why it matters: The county’s approval (subject to counsel review) clarifies administrative language that can affect financing and project permitting. The developer’s description of roughly 80 MW of battery capacity with four-hour duration indicates a significant storage asset sized to support grid peak needs, and local emergency preparedness may require training and coordination if the project proceeds.
