Support in principle for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) was quietly removed from an amendment to the County’s Official Plan last week.

The Planning and Development Committee voted to remove and re-think the amendment, which would have brought the County’s OP into line with the draft Provincial Planning Statement, which regulates land use across Ontario. The province is encouraging municipalities to plan for the development of a green energy supply that can accommodate current and projected needs.

BESS is a new technology that is becoming a part of Ontario’s electricity grid. The province anticipates increasing demand and lessening supply (as nuclear generators are taken offline) in the very near future.

It works by storing energy when there is more supply than demand, such as at night, or during strong solar days, and returning that energy when there is more demand than supply, protecting the grid from “brown-outs.” It stores this energy in large batteries of the kind used in electric vehicles.

The committee decided not to include support for BESS projects in its Official Plan for two main reasons: lack of knowledge about the new technology and concern about losing control over what happens in the County’s jurisdiction.

A number of residents attended the meeting to speak against such energy storage systems. Gary Mooney said it is “too soon” to express support for Energy Storage Systems when little is known about them and their environmental risks, including fires, and when their proponents have no track records.

Concerns were expressed that an in-principle statement of support would weaken Council’s ability to say no to proposals. Treating them on a case-by-case basis was preferred.

Councillor Bill Roberts suggested that this was an opportunity to come up with local “guardrails” for BESS, which would enable Council to control development by establishing its own parameters. Councillor Roberts suggested including: the protection of prime agricultural land; that the proponent of a BESS project has demonstrated successes and no failures on their record; that lithium iron or safer batteries be used (i.e., not lithium ion, which is prone to fire); that the overall footprint not exceed 0.2 acres; and that the intended energy benefits flow to the County and not elsewhere.

Rather than adopt this sensible language and include the amendment, the Committee voted to delete the amendment altogether and direct staff to “bring forward a report considering what municipal criteria are needed to be met to support future Battery Storage Energy Systems.”