HALSTEAD, Kan. – A community-led petition aimed at preventing the construction of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Halstead, Kansas, has been rejected on a technicality, intensifying a year-long dispute between local residents and city officials. The decision by the Harvey County Clerk to invalidate the petition, citing missing date lines on signatures, has fueled residents' frustration, who argue their concerns about the proposed facility's safety are being ignored.

The controversy centers on a planned BESS installation, which residents fear poses significant fire risks, particularly given its proximity to local schools and assisted living facilities. Kevin Henderson, a leading voice among the concerned residents, articulated the community's apprehension, stating, “It seems like every time we tell the city council and local officials what the people of Halstead do or don’t want, we’re being ignored.” The primary concern revolves around the inherent challenges of extinguishing lithium-ion battery fires. Henderson explained, “The basic fire protection system for lithium-ion batteries, including a battery energy storage system, is that basically they’re going to let it burn, and they can’t put it out with water.” This perception, while not fully encompassing modern BESS safety protocols which include advanced thermal management and suppression systems, reflects a significant public trust deficit.

In an effort to legally block the project, Henderson and his neighbors initiated an ordinance petition under Kansas state statute 12-3013, seeking to ban BESS facilities within city limits. Upon submission to Halstead City Hall, the petition was forwarded to Harvey County Clerk Rick Piepho. However, Piepho declined to certify it, asserting that none of the signatures included required date lines. Henderson vehemently disputes this ruling, contending that the clerk referenced a different statute (25-3601) which, according to his interpretation of 12-3013, does not supersede the requirements for their specific petition type. “They’re quoting a different statute, which is 25-3601, but if you read in 25-3601 it states that if another statute has requirements that if another statute has requirements different than this that shall apply so in other words 12-3013, we had done what we needed to do,” Henderson stated.

This local struggle in Halstead mirrors a broader national trend where the rapid deployment of BESS projects, crucial for grid stability and renewable energy integration, often encounters community resistance. While BESS technology is vital for balancing intermittent renewable sources like solar and wind, concerns over safety, noise, and visual impact frequently arise in siting discussions. Industry best practices for BESS deployment emphasize robust fire suppression systems, extensive safety protocols, and comprehensive risk assessments, often involving inert gas suppression or advanced cooling systems designed to prevent thermal runaway. However, public education and transparent communication regarding these measures are critical for alleviating community fears.

Residents, including Henderson, remain resolute in their opposition. They are actively working to challenge the county clerk's decision regarding the first petition and are prepared to organize a second petition if necessary. This ongoing dispute underscores the complex interplay between energy infrastructure development, local governance, and community acceptance, highlighting the need for clearer regulatory frameworks and enhanced stakeholder engagement in the clean energy transition. The outcome in Halstead could influence future BESS siting decisions and public engagement strategies across the state and potentially beyond.