Residents Raise Fire, Noise Concerns Over Proposed Crowned Ridge Battery Storage Project in Codington County
- Steve Jurrens
- Jul 2
- 5 min read
Northeast Radio SD News – Watertown, SD - On Wednesday evening, local residents, emergency responders, and industry representatives gathered to voice their opinions at a South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) public input meeting regarding a massive new energy project. EL26-014
The proposed Crowned Ridge Energy Storage 1 project, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, has drawn sharp criticism from neighboring residents concerned about fire risks, noise, and a lack of independent oversight. Meanwhile, industry advocates and the project’s developers championed the facility as a necessary step for grid reliability and rural economic development.
Project Details at a Glance
The PUC is currently reviewing the company’s application for an energy conversion facility permit, which was officially filed on May 14, 2026. If approved, the facility would represent a major addition to the state’s energy infrastructure:
· Capacity & Output: The facility will be a 4-hour duration battery energy storage system with a maximum output of 120 megawatts, equating to 480 megawatt-hours.
· Location: The project would be located in Codington County at the intersection of 464th Avenue and 161st Street. It would connect directly to the existing Crowned Ridge wind collector substation.
· Footprint: While situated on a 52.7-acre parcel, the physical battery footprint will actively develop approximately 7.9 acres.
· Infrastructure: The site will initially house 126 weather-resistant battery cabinets. Over the project’s 35-year operating life, this number is expected to grow to approximately 150 cabinets due to necessary capacity augmentation.
· Timeline: If all permits are secured, commercial operations are targeted to begin in May 2028.
The Applicant’s Case: Reliability and Safety
James Moore, legal counsel for the applicant, introduced the NextEra Energy Resources team, who laid out their vision and safety protocols for the project.
Clay Cameron, an executive director with NextEra, emphasized the company’s deep roots in the state and its vast portfolio of clean energy. NextEra operates roughly 22 gigawatts of wind, 10 gigawatts of solar, and 5 gigawatts of battery storage nationwide.
“NextEra Energy Resources has been invested in South Dakota for more than two decades,” Cameron noted. “Since 2003, our subsidiaries have invested approximately $840 million in the state. Today, we own and operate four wind energy centers in South Dakota and have two battery storage projects currently under development.”
Cameron explained that battery storage is vital to modernizing the grid because it “captures energy produced by wind and solar when it’s most abundant and releases it when customers need it most.”
To address immediate community anxieties regarding the lithium-ion batteries, Matt Quinn, a fire safety consultant for the project, testified that the facility meets strict NFPA 855 and UL 9540A safety standards. Quinn assured attendees that the system incorporates multiple layers of protection with two primary goals: “to make a fire as unlikely as possible and two, if a fire does occur, to minimize the impact.” He highlighted that the project includes 24/7 monitoring of individual battery cells for temperature anomalies and utilizes advanced thermal management systems.
Additionally, Laurie Morrell, a lead scientist in NextEra’s acoustics group, stated that a comprehensive sound level study proved the site would comply with local noise ordinances. The project is modeled to emit no more than 45 dBA for non-participating landowners and 50 decibels for participating landowners at the exterior of their residences.
“Ground Zero”: Community Pushback
Despite the applicant’s assurances, local residents and emergency responders expressed deep skepticism, painting a picture of a community that feels left in the dark and put at risk.
Tim Lindgren, whose property is directly adjacent to the proposed site, delivered some of the night’s most pointed criticism.
“My wife and I are at ground zero for this project,” Lindgren said. “Our house is only a half mile away, and our well is a quarter mile away.”
Lindgren pointed out that in May 2023, his livestock were killed by a lightning strike in the exact pasture across from the proposed site, asking point-blank what would happen if lightning struck a battery cabinet.
“I don’t trust a company to police itself when profit is on the line,” Lindgren stated, demanding independent oversight. “For a project of this size and risk, the public deserves third-party experts to review these claims, not just the company’s own paid consultants. Best case, this project should be denied.” His wife, Linda Lindgren, echoed his sentiments, stating, “We feel like we are being steamrolled by a big corporation.”
Local emergency responders were equally concerned about their inability to handle a potential disaster.
Michael Klatt, a local resident of South Shore, spoke to the importance of the volunteer firefighters and EMTs having the proper equipment and training if there is an incident. He also suggested an independent sound study and raised concerns about stagnant land values.
John Sliesman, representing the South Shore Fire Department, warned the Commission that local crews are entirely unprepared for a lithium-ion emergency.
“We have had no training from the company on how to deal with a battery fire,” Sliesman testified. “We don’t have the equipment. If a fire happens, our protocol is basically to let it burn, and that’s a huge concern for the surrounding area, especially during a drought.”
Wayne Borgink, a Waverly Township supervisor, shifted the focus to infrastructure, demanding a solid road agreement to ensure local taxpayers aren’t left footing the bill for road damages caused by heavy construction equipment.
A Divided Audience
While local resistance was heavy, the project did see support from state-level energy advocates. Damon Seher, a board member of the South Dakota Renewable Energy Association from Sioux Falls, urged the Commission to see the broader benefits.
“Battery storage helps strengthen the grid, increases reliability, and provides economic opportunity for the state,” Seher said. “It is a crucial piece of the puzzle as we transition to more renewable energy sources.”
Next Steps for the PUC
The PUC commissioners—who sit as judges in this open docket and are prohibited from discussing the project outside of formal meetings—will use the public input to formulate questions for an upcoming evidentiary hearing.
The Commission has a legal mandate to issue a final decision within 12 months of the application’s May 14 filing date. To approve the permit, state law dictates the PUC must find that the facility complies with all laws, poses no threat of serious injury to the environment or local economy, does not substantially impair public health and safety, and does not unduly interfere with regional development.
Residents or organizations wishing to formally intervene in the proceedings, which allows them to present sworn testimony and cross-examine witnesses, must file for “party status” by 5:00 PM on July 13th.
However, the PUC will continue to accept informal written public comments via mail or email right up until the final permit decision is made. EL26-014 (website)
Read more local & state news at www.northeastradiosd.com/news
Subscribe to the DAILY newsletter & download the LOCAL online RADIO app - https://zurl.co/FchgS
