Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kendall County approves consultant to review utility-scale battery projects after split vote
Summary
After a lengthy debate about vetting and procurement, Kendall County Commissioners approved a contract to hire a technical consultant to advise the fire marshal on utility-scale battery energy storage systems, 3–2. Opponents sought an RFQ and a live interview; supporters cited the consultant’s NFPA work and prior county referrals.
The Kendall County Commissioners Court voted 3–2 on Dec. 9 to contract with Colombia Power Systems, Inc. for technical consulting services to assist the county fire marshal in reviewing applications and equipment for utility-grade battery energy storage systems. The contract ceiling was set at $50,000.
The item, presented by Commissioner McCall, would bring on Dr. Robert Steele (identified in the backup as the consultant) to review county regulations, advise on application procedures and assist the fire marshal when requested. McCall told the court he had discussed Dr. Steele’s credentials with Vanzant County fire marshal Kevin Palmer, noting Palmer’s endorsement: according to McCall, Palmer said, “I respect his integrity and you’ve got the best.”
Opponents, including the presiding judge, pressed for more vetting and a public interview. “I’m not going to support voting on this today,” the judge said during the discussion, while underscoring support for hiring a technical consultant in principle. Commissioners opposing the motion also raised concerns about the proposed $50,000 cap and asked that the county issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) or allow direct questioning of the consultant before committing funds.
Supporters said an RFQ was not required for a specialized technical contract and described prior county work that established draft guidance for battery-storage proposals. Commissioners in favor said they expected to spend well under the ceiling and that the consultant’s work would help the county enforce its adopted fire codes, including adopted provisions aligned with NFPA 855.
The court’s majority voted to approve the recommended contract; two commissioners voted no. The contract authorizes review and advisory services to be provided to county staff and the fire marshal, and allows for consultant travel if on-site presence is necessary. No RFQ was issued; commissioners requested the consultant be made available by phone for a future meeting if commissioners want to question him directly.
