Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage And Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission starts work on battery storage and data-center rules, votes to visit existing facilities
Summary
Commissioners discussed battery energy storage systems and data centers, raised water, energy and safety concerns, and voted unanimously to task staff with arranging site visits and researching ordinances from nearby localities.
Commissioners spent substantial time discussing battery energy storage systems and data centers and directed staff to research standards and arrange field visits to existing facilities.
Chair introduced the topic referencing the Virginia Clean Economy Act and asked staff to elaborate. Planning staff (Mr. Randolph) and commissioners noted the county’s ordinance currently contains a brief industrial zoning reference for data centers (generally 30 acres or more) but does not have a defined category for battery energy storage systems. Staff said a zoning administrator could treat large battery installations as a conditional use but recommended drafting specific provisions to avoid ambiguity.
Speakers raised technical and community concerns: one commissioner warned of large water and electricity demands for some facilities and cited examples where projects were approved only where strong utility networks existed. Another participant described immersion cooling — an alternate approach that reduces water needs by immersing components in nonwater dielectric fluids — and observed that national fire-code thresholds govern large-scale battery facilities. Commissioners referenced recent local controversies in other Virginia localities (Chesapeake, Fauquier County, a Pennsylvania county) where projects were withdrawn or rejected after opposition citing noise, scale and siting near residential areas.
Speaker 6 moved that Mr. Randolph contact appropriate officials, arrange site visits to selected battery/data facilities (including local officials), and report back; the chair seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioners also instructed staff to consult the county attorney about legal authority and to compile ordinance language comparisons (Surry County and other jurisdictions were cited as examples of existing requirements such as noncombustible buffers). Staff said compiled research and site-visit findings would be distributed in future meeting packets for further discussion.
Next steps: staff will research ordinances, consult the county attorney on conditional-use authority and fire-safety buffers, and arrange site visits to nearby facilities such as those in Mecklenburg and South Hill for the commission to inspect.
