Commissioner's Court April 21, 2026

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Commissioner's Court met on April 21, 2026, to address matters concerning development processes, regulatory frameworks, and the Apache Hill Battery Energy Storage Project. The court approved an amended engagement letter with Burrell law firm and heard extensive public testimony regarding a proposed disclaimer for development director communications, ultimately refining language to clarify that such communications do not create contractual obligations or vested interests. Significant discussion centered on the Apache Hill battery storage facility's compliance with NFPA and Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act standards, with Fire Marshal Haas presenting technical details on emergency response capabilities, suppression technologies, and required safety protocols. The court also addressed communication gaps between county and city development offices regarding Project Patriot and directed retained consultants to refine the county's development definition to address regulatory gaps and overly broad language.

• Call to order and opening proceedingsThe meeting was called to order with invocation and pledges of allegiance.
• Amended engagement letter from Burrell law firmThe court approved authorization for the county judge to sign an amended engagement letter with Burrell law firm.
• Development director disclaimer directive and public inputThe court heard six public speakers on whether to direct the development director to add a disclaimer to all letters and emails regarding projects.
• Public speaker: John Highsmith on development director responsibilitiesSpeaker outlined the role and responsibilities of development directors in Texas counties and hyperscaler project management.
• Public speaker: Tim Malone on precinct disparity and director actionsSpeaker criticized unequal treatment of projects across precincts and the development director's autonomous decision-making affecting Precinct 2.
• Public speaker: Jennifer Carey on process breakdown and legal exposureSpeaker warned of legal liability and process breakdown in the development review system.
• Public speaker: Kenneth Beller on disclaimer necessity and vested rightsSpeaker supported the disclaimer language to clarify that communications do not create contractual agreements or vested interests.
• Public speaker: Sheryl Shedd on unequal project treatment and investigationSpeaker criticized inconsistent application of development standards across projects and commissioners.
• Public speaker: Lana Robinson on county government failure and accountabilitySpeaker expressed disappointment in county government's handling of industrial projects and called for leadership changes.
• Commissioner Samuelson on Texas Local Government Code 245 vesting provisionCommissioner discussed the vesting law and its application to development submissions.
• Commissioner Andrews on authority limitations and legal complianceCommissioner emphasized adherence to state law and existing development regulations.
• Commissioner Mance on disclaimer intent and notification requirementCommissioner discussed the practical purpose of the disclaimer and notification protocols.
• Proposed disclaimer language revisionThe court refined language for the development director's disclaimer statement.
• Development review process clarificationThe court refined language regarding when development director communications require Commissioner's Court approval, distinguishing between routine meetings and project approvals.
• Apache Hill Battery Energy Storage Project agenda itemPrecinct 2 Commissioner introduced the Apache Hill Battery Energy Storage Project on Membrillo Highway, noting recent work with Fire Marshall Young on NFPA 855 compliance and Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act compliance.
• Speaker Cheryl Shatten—school safety and evacuation concernsResident Cheryl Shatten living near the Apache Hill facility raised concerns about emergency preparedness for nearby nursery and elementary schools.
• Speaker Cindy Haspel—emergency preparedness and public notificationResident Cindy Haspel, appreciating Fire Marshall Young's work, detailed specific concerns about fire response planning, inspection frequency, and public communication systems for the Pecan Plantation area.
• Speaker Jeff—Lone Star Act compliance and component sourcing gapsAn unidentified speaker identified compliance problems with the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act, focusing on multi-tier vendor sourcing obscuring the origin of components.
• Speaker Nancy White—Sungrow and CATL vendor connectionsNancy White from Fairfax County presented detailed intelligence on battery storage companies, focusing on Chinese connections of Sungrow and CATL and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
• Follow-up discussion on Sungrow announcement and affidavitThe court and speakers discussed a recent Apache Hill public announcement regarding Sungrow inverter sourcing and reviewed a new affidavit response from the project developer.
• Nancy White continued—enforcement gaps and legislative recommendationsWhite explained that the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act lists only countries (China, Iran, Russia, North Korea) without specific entity lists, creating enforcement gaps.
• Commissioners' questions on ERCOT enforcement authorityCommissioners questioned whether ERCOT has disconnected non-compliant systems from the grid and discussed timing of detection for cyber attacks.
• Senator Bob Hall's 12-year legislative effort on grid protectionWhite referenced Senator Bob Hall's long history of grid protection advocacy and the passage of Senate Bill 75.
• Speaker Dr. Andy Wolford—Apache Hill business identity and affidavit concernsDr. Wolford questioned the validity of Apache Hill's Lone Star Act compliance affidavit based on business registration and signer authority issues.
• Dr. Wolford—lithium battery hazardsDr. Wolford characterized lithium as a unique element with special hazard properties comparable to radioactive materials.
• NFPA 26 updates and lithium-ion facility requirementsNFPA 26 shifted from prescriptive to performance-based regulatory code, requiring hazard analysis by third-party engineers and emergency response planning for battery storage facilities.
• Proposed Hood County requirements for BEST developmentsHood County should require detailed disclosures and compliance documentation for battery energy storage facilities, including power capacity, layout, separation distances, and fire response plans.
• Apache Hills project concerns and proximity issuesBob Sawyer raised concerns about Apache Hills battery storage proximity to Rainbow Child Care facility and questioned approval process, safety protocols, and insurance coverage.
• Fire Marshal Haas NFPA standards and compliance reviewFire Marshal Donnie Haas reported that NFPA 1, 70, 72, and 855 standards apply to the battery storage facility, and submitted plans must include site-specific emergency action plans and UL-certified testing.
• Water source and fire hydrant location concernsFire Marshal Haas identified a critical issue with the water source location and requested repositioning of the fire hydrant to eliminate traffic hazard during emergency response.
• Facility construction status and permit requirementsThe Apache Hills battery storage facility is not yet operational; construction is nearly complete but no batteries have been installed and no certificate of occupancy has been issued.
• Document accessibility and public postingFire Marshal Haas received planning documents in password-protected electronic format and stated willingness to provide copies to commissioners and post publicly without signing an NDA.
• Carver Fire cryogenic suppression system technologyFire Marshal Haas researched and demonstrated enthusiasm for a new cryogenic suppression system using liquid nitrogen and dry ice, potentially deployable on trailers and effective for lithium-ion fires.
• Carver system application and operational detailsFire Marshal Haas demonstrated video evidence of the cryogenic system extinguishing fires in 20 seconds and explained safe deployment procedures for lithium-ion battery containers.
• Carver system cost, status, and fire department acquisition strategyFire Marshal Haas is negotiating with battery facility developers to fund acquisition of the Carver Fire system without burdening taxpayers and is considering it a requirement for future battery projects.
• Remote monitoring and evacuation planningRemote monitoring systems will detect thermal anomalies and enable remote disconnection and battery drainage; evacuation plans coordinate with nearby schools and county all-hazards planning.
• Emergency response capacity and timeline concernsFire Marshal Haas estimated 7 to 15 minutes best-to-worst-case response time and disclosed that fires can double in size every 30 seconds in contained environments.
• Carver system product demonstration skepticismA court member noted that Carver Fire's demonstration was produced by the selling company in controlled conditions, urging caution about the product claims.
• Carver Anderson background and product developmentCarver Anderson's father worked with dry ice and liquid nitrogen for 40 years, including well fires in Afghanistan; the company spent years solving storage and delivery problems.
• Carver system recharge requirements and operational costsThe Carver system uses dry ice pellets stored in cryogenic container with solar panel regeneration; recharging costs about $750 per unit through gas companies.
• Legal authority and technology requirements for future facilitiesCommissioners discussed what legal authority exists to require new suppression technology for battery facilities and conditions under which Fire Marshal would reject a system.
• Follow-up actions and next stepsFire Marshal Haas will scan and distribute planning documents to commissioners, potentially posting them on county website, and will work with county attorney on Lone Star Act compliance questions.
• Granbury Economic Development Communication discussionSpeaker raised concerns about lack of communication between the development office and Commissioner Samuelson regarding development proposals and potential legal risks from inconsistent application of permitting requirements.
• Project Patriot and Knox Ranch backgroundCommissioner Samuelson provided context that the agenda item concerns communication regarding Project Patriot, a proposed development on the Knox Ranch property in Precinct 2.
• Project Patriot documentation and timelineSpeaker detailed documents provided by Granbury's economic development showing the project was known at least since June 2025, contradicting city statements that no developer had submitted plans.
• City statements contradicting known documentationCity manager and attorney stated on January 6, 2026 that no developer had submitted plans, despite evidence the city had known of Project Patriot since at least June 2025.
• Property ownership documentation discrepanciesSpeaker presented investigation into property records showing inconsistencies in statements made to the court about when the property was purchased.
• Public concern about incomplete vetting and information presentationSecond speaker expressed concern that lack of communication prevented proper vetting of the project and caused confusion about what was actually being discussed.
• Attorney General order and document withholdingSpeaker noted that city attorney continues to withhold documents that were ordered released by the Attorney General.
• Development definition modification discussionCourt discussed proposed changes to Hood County development permit regulations, specifically the definition of "development" to address overly broad language capturing residential driveways and minor property modifications.
• Regulatory gap and enforcement challengesDiscussion focused on the gap in county regulatory authority, particularly for developments over 10 acres which fall outside subdivision regulations, and the challenge of applying broad development language without zoning authority.
• Consultant engagement and development regulation overhaulCourt directed that Freeze and Nichols, retained consultants, be asked to develop a refined definition of development to address the overly broad current language and regulatory gaps.
• AdjournmentMeeting was adjourned at approximately 4:38 p.m.