By SEAN BOSTON
Hutch Post
HUTCHINSON, Kan. — Reno County commissioners rejected proposals Tuesday to ban battery energy storage systems and data centers in portions of the county, but the debate has led to a public meeting next week.
The Reno County Board of Commissioners scheduled a study session for 6 p.m. Monday, June 15, with the location to be determined. The meeting is expected to focus on potential regulations for battery energy storage system projects, commonly known as BESS, and data centers.
The study session was scheduled after commissioners spent more than an hour discussing whether the county should prohibit the emerging industries in unincorporated areas outside city limits and cities’ extraterritorial jurisdictions.
A proposed BESS ban failed on a 3-2 vote. Commissioners Randy Parks and Don Bogner supported the motion. Commissioners Ron Vincent, Richard Winger and Ron Hirst voted against it.
A separate proposal to ban data centers failed 4-1. Parks cast the lone vote in favor.
No formal BESS application has been submitted to the county. Commissioners referenced public concern about a possible site near 43rd Avenue and Buhler Haven Road, but emphasized that Tuesday’s vote involved a broader ban rather than a decision on a specific project.
Vincent said he was not prepared to support an outright BESS ban before the county had an opportunity to gather more information and allow the planning process to move forward.
“I really don’t want to see it banned at this point without even being anything proposed or what’s coming down the pipe,” Vincent said.
Vincent said commissioners should examine the potential risks and hear from both sides before acting.
“We need to hear this out instead of getting down to crunch time when someone puts in an application or proposes one, and then have to figure it out,” Vincent said.
Hirst said he also had concerns about the location discussed by residents but favored developing strict rules rather than immediately shutting the door on all future projects.
“I think there can be some real tight regulations put on this to protect water,” Hirst said. “We can protect water, we can protect people.”
Parks said residents have asked commissioners to take a clearer position. He argued the county should act before a formal proposal forces officials to make decisions under a tighter timeline.
“This is a call to action as much as anything for me, for the people, because they’ve asked, they want something to happen,” Parks said.
Bogner supported the BESS ban and raised concerns about potential fire risks, nearby homes, schools and senior care facilities. He said commissioners should not base their decision solely on possible economic benefits.
“Not everything we do in life should be for money,” Bogner said.
The data center discussion exposed a different challenge.
Commissioners expressed concerns about the amount of electricity, water and other resources that could be required by large-scale facilities. But they also questioned whether a blanket ban could unintentionally apply to smaller server rooms and technology systems used by local businesses and government offices.
Parks said his intent was to address larger facilities rather than equipment used by existing local businesses.
“I’m saying there the people are asking for a ban on these in the bigger hyper scale, like you’re talking about the bigger scale data centers that are not seeking to just serve local businesses,” Parks said.
Bogner initially seconded the data center motion but voted against it after concluding the language was too broad.
“I am going to say no, because it’s all inclusive, it doesn’t put a cap on it,” Bogner said.
Hirst said the county should move quickly toward a more detailed policy. He asked county staff to arrange a meeting within 10 days so commissioners could continue working toward possible action.
“There’s opportunities,” Hirst said. “There’s also opportunities for companies to try to overrun locals. Doesn’t have to be that way. You stick to your guns, make the proper regulations.”
Residents also asked commissioners to provide more opportunities for public participation.
Margie Westfahl of Haven urged the county to hold the next discussion during the evening and in a larger venue. She also asked how the county would enforce any development agreement with a company if commissioners choose regulations instead of a ban.
“I agree, a larger venue would be, would be great, and having it in the evening, so there’s more public there that would be great,” Westfahl said.
The location for the June 15 study session will be announced once a place has been secured.
The upcoming meeting is expected to give commissioners and residents another opportunity to discuss possible limits involving project size, location, resource use and safety requirements.