Peregrine Energy proposes 300-MW battery storage project near Perky plant; commissioners and residents press for safety data

Benton Blaine of Cushman Wakefield and Jake Hitchings, project manager for Peregrine Energy, presented a proposal April 8 to build a 300-megawatt energy storage system (ESS) in Harrison County that the company says would discharge for four continuous hours and support peak grid demand. The court heard technical, safety and economic details and took public comment but did not vote on the project.

Why it matters: Peregrine says the installation would act as a “mini power plant” to meet short peak needs, improve local reliability and generate long-term property tax revenue. Neighbors and county officials pressed the company for independent safety analyses, details on decommissioning and proof of claims after hearing public accounts of battery incidents elsewhere.

The presentation and company claims: Blaine introduced Peregrine’s team and then Hitchings outlined the system design, which the company described as modular, outdoor-rated containerized battery units with an American-made battery management system and inverters. Hitchings said the proposed system would be sized to discharge 300 megawatts for four hours and, by the company’s calculation, could power roughly 120,000 homes for that period. “We use a specific system to ours that’s American made. It is American software and operated here in The States. We’re very proud of that,” Hitchings said.

Peregrine stressed safety features: company representatives said they would use lithium iron phosphate cells (LFP), which they described as less volatile than some other chemistries, and implement per-container fire detection and suppression coordination with the county fire marshal. The presenters said the project would follow current codes (they cited the NFPA standard in use for ESS design and said they are designing to the 2023 code cycle) and that site-specific fire and emergency plans would be developed and reviewed with local responders.

Economic and timeline details: the company outlined a development timeline with engineering largely complete by the end of the year, site mobilization the following year and commercial operation targeted before 2028. Peregrine estimated first-year property taxes in the mid-$600,000 range and about $8.8 million in property taxes over a 20-year window for the specific site and millage assumptions presented.

Public concerns and exchanges: multiple speakers during public comment voiced safety and environmental worries. Lee Lester said, “The fires that they’ve had in these energy systems cannot be put out. They just have to burn, and they put off toxic stuff,” and called attention to potential impacts on livestock. Another resident, Harmon, asked about the facility footprint and fumes, saying he would not want to live near the site. Nancy White, who identified herself as working with the Texas Secure the Grid Committee and the National Secure the Grid Coalition, told the court she maintains a spreadsheet documenting “56 runaways that have occurred since 2020” and said she had lab reports alleging lithium and arsenic in water and blood tests in other incidents.

Peregrine response and follow-up: company representatives responded that earlier incidents (for example in California) involved older designs or indoor installations and that modern, outdoor modular systems and updated standards reduce that risk. Blaine and Hitchings said they would share EPA and industry studies, a fire‑safety report and a list of operational facilities on request. Commissioners asked for site‑specific emergency plans, the company’s operational locations and copies of independent monitoring or cleanup studies; Peregrine agreed to provide the documents for further review and follow-up with the county fire marshal.

What happened next: no permit or zoning decision was made at the meeting. Commissioners requested additional data from Peregrine and indicated they want the county fire marshal and other local officials to review any site-specific emergency and response plans before the court considers approvals.

The court’s next step: Peregrine agreed to circulate requested studies and operational location lists; commissioners said they would meet with company representatives and the fire marshal to review plans and data before taking any formal action.