Southampton County planning commission forwards battery energy storage ordinance to supervisors
May 21, 2026 | Southampton County, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Southampton County Planning Commission unanimously voted to forward a draft battery energy storage systems (BESS) ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for first reading after reviewing county attorney edits and technical provisions.
Chair opened the special meeting to review the draft ordinance and said the commission would send a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Prince, the county director who circulated the packet, told the commission the county attorney had reviewed the draft and made a series of largely formatting and wording changes that were tracked in the circulated copy. “The majority of his revisions … was formatting,” Mr. Prince said, adding that he would distribute copies showing the attorney’s tracked edits.
Why it matters: The ordinance addresses safety, siting and emergency-response requirements for battery energy storage projects and establishes definitions and development standards that will guide future permitting. Commissioners focused on ensuring consistent language across sections, clarifying emergency-response requirements and adding a definition for BMS (battery management system).
Key details: Commissioners and staff identified duplicated Emergency Response Program (ERP) and noise sections that appear to be lifted from other jurisdictions; the commission agreed to remove redundant text and keep a single, clearer version later in the draft. Mr. Prince said the county attorney recommended adding a BMS definition to the definitions section to clarify how battery management systems are described in the ordinance.
Technical safety concerns surfaced during the discussion. An agency official explained the phenomenon known as “thermal runaway,” saying it is an overheating reaction in battery cells that can lead to fire and, in rare cases, explosion. “Thermal runaway is when you… reach a critical temperature, it’ll just keep on going and just getting hotter,” the official said, describing why redundant safety systems and code compliance matter.
A line in the draft notes that “active fire extinguishing technology may not be required if it can be shown that the battery energy storage system meets the applicable code requirements.” Commissioners discussed leaving certain decisions to the building official’s discretion and to code compliance reviews.
Decommissioning and financial assurances were also discussed. The commission asked Mr. Prince for a copy of the decommissioning agreement used for a prior Southampton solar project; Mr. Prince said that agreement is reviewed every five years to reassess costs, salvage value and financial assurances for a project’s typical 25–30-year lifespan.
Motion and next steps: A commissioner moved that the commission forward the draft ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for their reading; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission approved the motion unanimously (6–0). Mr. Prince will transmit the revised draft to the Board ahead of the scheduled first reading on Tuesday; the Board’s public hearing on the ordinance was scheduled for late June.
The commission closed the agenda item after confirming the packet changes and the transmission plan to the Board.
Chair opened the special meeting to review the draft ordinance and said the commission would send a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Prince, the county director who circulated the packet, told the commission the county attorney had reviewed the draft and made a series of largely formatting and wording changes that were tracked in the circulated copy. “The majority of his revisions … was formatting,” Mr. Prince said, adding that he would distribute copies showing the attorney’s tracked edits.
Why it matters: The ordinance addresses safety, siting and emergency-response requirements for battery energy storage projects and establishes definitions and development standards that will guide future permitting. Commissioners focused on ensuring consistent language across sections, clarifying emergency-response requirements and adding a definition for BMS (battery management system).
Key details: Commissioners and staff identified duplicated Emergency Response Program (ERP) and noise sections that appear to be lifted from other jurisdictions; the commission agreed to remove redundant text and keep a single, clearer version later in the draft. Mr. Prince said the county attorney recommended adding a BMS definition to the definitions section to clarify how battery management systems are described in the ordinance.
Technical safety concerns surfaced during the discussion. An agency official explained the phenomenon known as “thermal runaway,” saying it is an overheating reaction in battery cells that can lead to fire and, in rare cases, explosion. “Thermal runaway is when you… reach a critical temperature, it’ll just keep on going and just getting hotter,” the official said, describing why redundant safety systems and code compliance matter.
A line in the draft notes that “active fire extinguishing technology may not be required if it can be shown that the battery energy storage system meets the applicable code requirements.” Commissioners discussed leaving certain decisions to the building official’s discretion and to code compliance reviews.
Decommissioning and financial assurances were also discussed. The commission asked Mr. Prince for a copy of the decommissioning agreement used for a prior Southampton solar project; Mr. Prince said that agreement is reviewed every five years to reassess costs, salvage value and financial assurances for a project’s typical 25–30-year lifespan.
Motion and next steps: A commissioner moved that the commission forward the draft ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for their reading; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission approved the motion unanimously (6–0). Mr. Prince will transmit the revised draft to the Board ahead of the scheduled first reading on Tuesday; the Board’s public hearing on the ordinance was scheduled for late June.
The commission closed the agenda item after confirming the packet changes and the transmission plan to the Board.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
