February 20, 2026
Why Bannock County Should Pause—Not Rush—Large-Scale Solar and Batteries
By: Jim Phelps
There is broad agreement in Bannock County on two points: Idaho’s energy demand is growing, and local leaders want economic opportunity that allows families to thrive here.
The real question is not whether energy development matters, but whether large-scale solar farms paired with industrial battery storage are the right fit for this county—right now.
Idaho Power projects real growth ahead and, as a regulated utility, must meet that demand reliably and affordably. Counties, however, have different responsibilities: land-use decisions, public safety, and long-term risk management. These roles are not interchangeable.
While solar farms paired with batteries may contribute to regional energy planning, it is neither a complete solution for round-the-clock power nor inherently compatible with every community’s land-use priorities.
It is also important to ask who actually benefits from these projects. California’s burgeoning community choice energy agencies plow as much renewable energy into their portfolios as possible.
These agencies would welcome carpeting Bannock County and other states with solar farms and batteries whose energy they would take, and whose end-of-life decommissioning and disposalwould be someone else’s problem.
Many utility-scale solar and battery facilities in the West meet California’s latest clean-energy accounting requirements.
New rules now allow “solar” generation deliveries during nighttime if that electricity is from batteries holding energy produced by solar during daylight.
The absence of executed power purchase agreements for the proposed solar-plus-battery facility near Downey heightens the likelihood that the project’s output would be exported to California’s higher-priced retail electricity market — about 3x Idaho’s prices — through direct sale, or layered resale, while Bannock County assumes land-use, safety, and environmental risks.
Those risks include liability for drinking water contamination from battery fires and pollution.
Economic claims also deserve scrutiny. Some counties have experienced modest revenue gains, while others have seen revenues fall short due to tax abatements, reassessments, and appeals.
Worth County, Iowa is cited for a nearly 20 percent increase in revenue from wind farms, but its June 2024 independent audit shows its increase would equal only about 2 percent of Bannock County’s current budget.
Other jurisdictions report revenue losses, fiscal instability, or moratoria following noise, setback, and health complaints.
These mixed outcomes show that promised benefits are far from guaranteed.
Battery safety presents a more serious and long-term concern. Large battery energy storage systems that are the proposed type in Downey, lithium-iron phosphate, are not immune from thermal runaway.
These fires burn for days making firefighters’ water supply of little use as toxic smoke is released and contaminated runoff threatens soil and groundwater.
Despite assurances, battery systems that meet established fire and safety standards still fail.
Pacific Gas & Electric’s 2022 Elkhorn (Tesla) battery fire was triggered by rain water. According to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),operators did not receive alarms until two days later, when smoke and fire were reported to the fire department.
Downey’s proposed battery system would be monitored from Texas.
Elkhorn demonstrates that risk persists even under regulated and “properly designed” conditions. EPRI concludes “investigations into battery failures are often inconclusive, and there is a lack of transparency that further limits the sharing of lessons learned.”
Bannock County relies heavily on wells and aquifers, including the Lower Portneuf Valley Aquifer—the sole drinking water source for Pocatello and surrounding communities. Lifting the County’s solar ban opens Pandora’s box, exposing the aquifer to the same development pressures Downey is now experiencing.
These concerns directly intersect with Bannock County’s adopted planning documents. “Comprehensive Plan 2040” emphasizes avoiding new or avoidable hazards, especially where critical water resources, wildfire risk, and emergency response capacity are involved.
Undisclosed acreage covered with industrial-scale battery storage introduces a hazard profile in Downey that does not exist on agricultural or open land, increasing the consequences of system failure.
Similarly, the “2021 Bannock County Hazard Mitigation Plan” calls for reducing—not increasing—foreseeable hazards, including hazardous materials incidents and threats to groundwater.
Siting large battery facilities in rural areas shifts long-term risk and emergency response burdens onto local fire districts and vulnerable aquifers.
Even with clearly defined decommissioning, recycling capacity, insurance coverage—including long-term tail coverage—and cleanup responsibility, large-scale solar paired with batteries remains a poor fit with both the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
It’s a compounding reality given lack of guarantees that thinly capitalized developer LLCs will still exist when claims arise.
Choosing to pause is not choosing stagnation. Bannock County already contributes to Idaho’s energy future through hydropower, landfill gas-to-energy, and existing utility infrastructure. Bannock can continue to support innovation and economic growth without assuming disproportionate and avoidable risk.
Sometimes leadership means saying “not yet.” In this case, it may mean saying “not here.”
Bannock County should follow its comprehensive planning documents, protect its water and land, and let Idaho Power Company and California solve their respective energy demands — without turning southeastern Idaho into collateral damage.
Jim Phelps served several years in the rulemaking process, implementing energy reporting legislation at the California Energy Commission, codified by the California Public Utilities Commission. He has family that lives in Pocatello.
