Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County staff lay out zoning options for battery energy storage systems
Summary
At a May 6 work session staff told commissioners BESS (battery energy storage systems) present distinct safety and infrastructure challenges and recommended a tiered approach: allow small systems by existing mechanisms but require conditional review, safety standards and infrastructure assurances for grid-scale projects.
Get email alerts on the Battery Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County planning staff told the Board of County Commissioners on May 6 that standalone battery energy storage systems (BESS) are not currently permitted by right in the unincorporated county and that any standalone application would require a text amendment or a finding of a similar use.
Carl, a county planning staff member, said the county initiated a text amendment in July 2024 to address BESS, data centers and digital asset retrieval and that staff’s work so far has focused on understanding how peer communities regulate these uses and on coordinating with local water suppliers, fire districts and public works. "No application is under consideration. There is no specific site that is being considered," Carl said, adding that he was not presenting draft code language at the work session.
Staff emphasized the difference between small, in-home battery systems and containerized, grid-scale installations tied to substations or generation facilities. Carl described common zoning concerns for grid-scale systems: the risk of thermal runaway and fire, limits on rural fire districts’ response capacity, noise from inverters and ventilation, visual impacts, and infrastructure strain during multi-year construction.
The staff packet cites existing standards the county already applies when BESS are associated with solar projects: a 500-foot setback from existing residences, compliance with NFPA guidance, an enclosed fence with a self-locking gate, noncombustible surfacing within 10 feet, and a noise cap of 60 A-weighted decibels measured at the property line or 500 feet from a residence. Carl said many peer communities use a tiered approach: smaller systems are handled administratively while grid-scale projects are subject to conditional use permits, third-party technical review and conditions for decommissioning and financial assurance.
On emergency response, staff said codes commonly require submittal of an emergency response plan and coordination with local responders and that some jurisdictions require applicants to fund third-party reviews to cover complex technical analyses. Carl pointed to a recent peer example: a proposed 350 MWh project in Selen County that the local planning commission approved in November 2025 and whose county commission overturned in January 2026 after a protest petition, underscoring the political and technical complexity of large projects.
Commissioners pressed staff on infrastructure capacity. On water, staff reported outreach to rural water districts and said several indicated that accommodating facilities that use "hundreds of thousands of gallons per day" would require significant system upgrades or changes to existing water-rights contracts. On fire protection, staff said rural districts have expressed concern about their ability to respond to a battery fire and that coordination and training with applicants would be part of any code requirements.
Staff recommended that the county consider allowing grid-scale BESS in districts that already permit large utility-scale energy uses and require conditional review, will-serve letters from utilities and water suppliers, noise and setback standards, emergency-response plans, and financial assurances for decommissioning. Carl said some communities have adopted moratoria while they draft regulations; he noted that because standalone BESS are not in Douglas County’s permitted-use table, the initiated text amendment functions similarly to a moratorium on applications until the code is updated.
Next steps: staff will continue drafting possible regulatory language, coordinate with the Clarion zoning diagnostic (expected to report to the board in roughly 60–90 days), consult with local stakeholders including rural water and fire districts, and bring proposals to the planning commission and then back to the board for a formal vote and public comment.
The work session recessed to the 5:30 business meeting; staff did not propose immediate regulatory text and reiterated that the process will include public hearings and interagency coordination.

