Charlotte County planning panel asks staff to draft rules after debate over battery energy storage zoning

The Charlotte County Planning Commission on Sept. 19 considered East Point Energy’s application to amend the county zoning ordinance to allow battery energy storage systems in General Agriculture, Intensive Agriculture and General Industrial districts and to set zoning requirements for those facilities. After public comment and questions for the applicant and staff, commissioners voted against a motion to recommend denial and instead directed staff to draft potential regulatory language for future action.

County staff opened the public hearing with an overview of recent industry growth, the application and the county’s review process, outlining potential benefits and challenges including fire risk. Benjamin Hadlock, representing East Point Energy, told the commission the company had developed projects in Northern Virginia, Midlothian (Dry Bridge battery facility), Lynchburg and Pittsylvania County, and said there are ten operational facilities in Virginia “and there have been no fires,” noting that designs follow National Fire Protection Association Standard 855.

Members of the public raised safety and land-use concerns. George Toombs of Saxe said he had warned the county about solar projects and described batteries as “dangerous and toxic,” and he referenced a lawsuit tied to a recent solar approval. Daniel Dixon of Madisonville said he presented East Point with a dozen questions and that the company had addressed all but one in revised conditions. Cindy Longerbeam of Charlotte Court House objected to converting agricultural land for energy storage.

Commissioners pressed the applicant about the project footprint and emergency coordination. Hadlock said the disturbed area for the project would be approximately 20 acres (subject to change) and described typical surface treatment as packed gravel with concrete pads. He said East Point met with roughly 15 local fire personnel after Public Safety Director Chris Russell arranged a session; the applicant acknowledged the Chase City Fire Department had not attended that meeting but said they would continue coordination. Supervisor Hazel Bowman Smith said she believed Chase City was represented at the fire meeting.

Staff told commissioners they reviewed the applicant’s recommended regulations alongside other Virginia ordinances and raised concerns about developer-drafted language, including use of discretionary wording such as “should” and allowing a company guarantee for decommissioning. Commissioners debated whether to bar the use outright or to develop county-specific standards. A motion by Commissioner Miller Adams to recommend the commission not approve battery energy storage systems (citing limited historical data, fire risk, community concerns, the volume of approved energy projects, variation among projects, and need for experienced developers and monitoring) failed on a 4-6 roll call vote.

Commissioner James Benn then moved that staff draft potential ordinance language for battery energy storage systems; that motion passed on a 7-3 roll call. Staff said they will determine whether an extension of the county’s 100-day review requirement is possible; to meet the 100-day deadline a recommendation would be needed by Oct. 31. The applicant expressed willingness to work with the county to allow additional review time.

The commission’s next step is for staff to prepare draft regulatory language and return to the Planning Commission for further review and a potential recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant and staff signaled they will continue coordinating with local emergency responders and the Commission on the timeline.