Dozens of residents filled the Oshtemo Charter Township Board meeting on June 9 to raise concerns about a proposed large-scale battery energy storage system, known as a BESS, proposed for a rural residential area in the Township. The public comment period on the item stretched for more than 40 minutes, with speaker after speaker raising questions about fire safety, environmental risk, property values, and the Township’s process for handling the proposal.
The central frustration voiced by many speakers: they said they had only learned about the project after receiving postcards sent by concerned neighbors — not through official Township communication. One resident said she had only found out about the project because neighbors had organized and funded the outreach themselves.
What a BESS Is and Why the Township Can’t Simply Say No
A battery energy storage system is a large-scale industrial installation used to store electricity generated from energy sources such as solar or wind and discharge it back to the grid. The type of battery involved — lithium-ion — is known to pose significant fire risk. Multiple residents noted that lithium-ion battery fires cannot be extinguished with water and must be allowed to burn out on their own, a process that can take days and release toxic chemicals into the surrounding area.
The proposed site’s proximity to the Wolf Lake Fish Hatchery, private residential wells, an elementary school, and local farmland was a recurring concern at the podium.
But as the Township’s attorney explained to the board following public comment, Oshtemo’s options are more constrained than many residents may realize. Under Michigan Public Act 233, if a township declines to regulate or rejects a BESS proposal, the developer has the right to take the application directly to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) in Lansing for approval. The MPSC has its own review process, but Township officials said they believe a locally developed ordinance would impose more stringent requirements than the state process would.
“If this board simply says no and does nothing, they simply go to Lansing,” the Township’s attorney said, adding that the board believes its ordinance will be “more extensive than even what the MPSC has for purposes of review.”
Board: Safety Is the Priority, Communication Could Have Been Better
Trustee Kristin Cole addressed the public directly after the comment period closed, responding to what she described as misconceptions about the board’s position.
“We are not in support of these facilities,” Cole said, adding that every board member shares the safety and environmental concerns residents raised. She acknowledged that the Township had not communicated well with residents early in the process: “We have not done a great job of it initially. A hundred percent I own that.”
Cole encouraged residents to attend the Township’s community forums on the BESS issue, where she said board members engage in open dialogue and answer questions. She also directed residents to the Township’s website, which includes a dedicated section on PA 233 and the BESS proposal updated regularly with information on the legal process and the Township’s approach.
Cole cautioned, however, that some of the questions raised, particularly around the ordinance’s treatment of rural residential versus industrial zoning, involve potential litigation considerations that limit what the board can say publicly at this stage.
Residents Raise Specific Concerns and Organize
Several residents raised detailed questions the board was not able to answer in full at the meeting, including the credentials and full report of the outside consultant the Township hired to help develop the ordinance, the status of tree removal along Almena Drive (one resident cited a figure of approximately 8,000 trees proposed for removal), and whether a prior community conversation forum had been recorded and where the recording could be found.
One resident also raised the issue of zoning consistency: she noted that prior drafts of the battery ordinance had not allowed BESS installations in industrial zones, only in rural residential, and argued that if the technology is safe enough for a rural residential area, it should be directed to industrial zones instead.
A resident with prior experience organizing against a high-voltage power line and proposed sewage disposal in the area told the crowd they had fought similar battles before and won. She said she had already obtained names of attorneys who have successfully challenged battery plant proposals in other communities and indicated legal action by residents was being considered.
The board took no action on the BESS proposal at this meeting. The Planning Commission continues to work on a draft ordinance.
Oshtemo Charter Township maintains a dedicated page on the PA 233 and BESS issue at oshtemo.org/About-Oshtemo/PA233-BESS.
