Opponents of placing a battery energy storage site in Wheatland outlined points they would like to see in a town ordinance governing the facilities.
The presentation took place at a meeting Wednesday at Wheatland Center School. The opponents had requested the meeting to be able to present the info outside of the constraints of a regular Town Board meeting, which is run by the town chairman and limits public comments.
Jenny Morehouse said the proposed ordinance she presented was largely based on laws she found in effect in other communities, including Mason County, Illinois and Forest, Wisconsin.
“I am going to ask the board to take this info and start working on an ordinance,” Morehouse said.
About 45 people attended the meting held in the Community Room at Wheatland Center School.
Also in attendance were all Wheatland Town Board members (the meeting had been noticed by the town anticipating this) County Executive Samantha Kerkman, county Supervisor Erin Decker and state Rep. Amanda Nedweski.
In January, three of four land use requests related to a proposed battery energy storage system project in Wheatland received unfavorable recommendations from the town Plan Commission. The company behind the proposal, Robin Energy Storage, then withdrew the project from further consideration before the Town Board could formally weigh-in.
Robin was proposing a battery energy storage system facility located on approximately 12 acres within an approximately 19-acre tract of land east of 392nd Avenue and north of Highway 50 in Wheatland. The site is especially apt, Robin representatives said, because it is adjacent to an existing electrical substation.
Robin had proposed to pay the town about $8 million over 20 years under a joint development agreement if the project won town approval and moved forward to completion.
Local opponents are concerned Robin will seek some other avenue to place the facility in Wheatland. They cite concerns about fire hazards and environmental harm related to possible accidents at such facilities. They base those concerns on accidents and fires that have occurred at some existing facilities in other states.
While Wheatland currently does not have a BESS ordinance, Morehouse acknowledged Kenosha County does. However, she suggested the county ordinance is not strict enough, compared to other laws she found. Weak points of the Kenosha County ordinance included setbacks and other construction standards and oversight.
Points Morehouse found in other ordinances that she felt should be included in the Wheatland ordiance include:
- Studies, reports, certifications waiver and approvals demonstrating compliance with an ordinance.
- A decommissioning program.
- Complying with the National Electric Code, International Fire Code.
- An operation and maintenance manual.
- Erosions and sediment control, storm water management plans.
- Special use permits for wetlands.
- Setbacks of 200 feet from the parcel line; 200 feet from any public right of way, 1,800 feet from any non-participating residential structure or occupied community building.
- All damages to waterways, drainage ditches, field tiles, agricultural drainage systems or any other private and public infrastructures caused by the construction or decommissioning of the BESS must be completely repaired or replaced by the property owner.
- Needed inspections to be paid for by BESS operator.
- Owner or operator shall cooperate with the local fire department/adjacent fire departments to develop an emergency response plan, including providing needed specialized equipment.
- BESS owner shall provide funding for a community warning system.
Town Chairman Jeff Butler said developing an ordinance would be brought to the town attorney. He added that actually developing the ordiance could take time and likely would be relatively expensive in relation to typical town laws. For example, he said a recent ordinance that was one page when completed cost $500 in legal fees. Morehouse’s draft as presented was over 20 pages.
“We have to have our attorney look at this,” Butler said. “He’s going to have to call in some expertise on this too.”
Some audience members expressed disappointment that Morehouse’s ordinance proposal — which she frequently said she did have the expertise to develop into a final document — didn’t outright ban a BESS, but set up standards that needed to be met.
Morehouse replied that an outright ban might not be enforceable.
Butler affirmed the Town Board’s opposition to the Robin proposal.
“We all work for you people,” Butler said. “We never wanted this thing.”
The other present elected officials were asked about their position on allowing BESS projects. “I would like you to continue pushing against this,” Morehouse said to the county and state elected officials.
Kerkman pointed out the county ordinance, passed while she was in office, is one of the most detailed such ordinances in Wisconsin and is being taken as a model elsewhere. Nevertheless she suggested it could be better.
“I want to enhance the ordinance,” Kerkman said of the county law.
Kerkman pointed out that writing such an ordiance is a balancing act between being strict but not too strict. She offered the example of sex offender residency ordinances in some Kenosha County municipalities that were legally challenged for being too strict.
The BESS opponents heard strong opposition from Decker, whose supervisory district includes Wheatland.
“I would have voted against it,” Decker said, “If it makes it back to us I will vote against it.”
Nedweski pledged to advocate for the Wheatland opponents in the legislature and in front of the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, if that becomes necessary.
“You have my support,” Nedweski said.
“Update regarding battery ordinance” is on Monday’s Wheatland Town Board meeting agenda.
