Harford County residents, officials urge PSC to deny 500 MW 'Oystercatcher' battery project over watershed and safety risks

Tenaska’s proposed 500 MW Oystercatcher battery energy storage project drew sustained opposition from Harford County residents, the county’s planning director and local elected officials at a Maryland Public Service Commission public hearing on PSC case 9866.

Keith Latham, who identified himself as Tenaska’s battery storage development lead, described Oystercatcher as a 500 MW front‑of‑the‑meter system sited near BGE’s Coniston substation on roughly 70 acres and said it “can power as many as 500,000 homes.” He told the commission the project was selected in PJM’s resource reliability process, would use lithium‑iron‑phosphate batteries, meet applicable safety codes including NFPA 55 and UL 9540, include emergency‑response planning with local fire departments, and create over 100 construction jobs and local tax revenue.

Local officials and many residents disputed the site choice. Donald Watson, speaking for Delegate Lauren Arcon, said the project “would consume 71 to nearly 73 acres of prime agricultural farmland” and warned that its location just “400 to 900 feet from Deer Creek” with steep drop‑offs posed unacceptable risks of chemical runoff and fires that could threaten drinking‑water supplies and a nearby elementary school. Harford County Council Vice President Gian Giordano echoed those concerns and said the county’s long investments in farmland and open‑space preservation justified rejecting this location.

Harford County’s Director of Planning and Zoning, Matt Cropp, urged the commission to weigh technical site constraints. Cropp said the site has over 210 feet of vertical elevation change, is bisected by a stream that drains directly into Deer Creek, and questioned how heavy industrial development could be safely sited on such terrain without harming downstream water supplies that serve multiple jurisdictions.

Other residents described Deer Creek as a high‑quality watershed and raised specific infrastructure concerns: proximity to Norrisville Elementary School (about 1 mile), limited rural water supplies and volunteer fire capacity, landlocked access roads that would require upgrades, and the potential for firefighting runoff to carry contaminants (including PFAS) to groundwater and surface waters. Several speakers cited petitions signed by more than 1,200 residents in the project area.

Supporters of storage—including testimony from the Maryland League of Conservation Voters and a fire‑safety professional—argued storage is critical to grid reliability and can be sited safely. The commission’s initial decision in case 9866 will concern awarding energy storage capacity credits; any award would still require a later construction‑phase review and additional public hearings on siting, safety and environmental matters.

The PSC hearing record remains open for the formal administrative process; the commission will weigh cost‑effectiveness, rate‑payer impact and safety evidence before determining ESCC awards and any subsequent construction approvals.