Grand Island: Pros and cons heard on battery storage law

By Karen Carr Keefe

Senior Contributing Writer

Opposing views on a proposed battery energy storage systems law were expressed during a public hearing at Monday’s Grand Island Town Board meeting.

Several business spokespeople were in favor of easing certain restrictions they said could discourage companies from deciding to put such a facility on Grand Island.

However, engineer and town resident Jim Daigler said loosening regulations for such a facility is not in the best interest of Island residents.

The Town Board referred the matter back to the Planning Board, which will consider the public comments in its recommendations back to the town.

Defining a new energy technology

According to New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, a battery energy storage system (BESS) is a group of battery cells organized into modules and then into racks that store electricity for future use via connection to the electric grid, a local electric load, or both. The energy stored can come from renewable sources (such as solar or wind) or nonrenewable sources (such as natural gas or coal).

Energy developers advise easing ‘setbacks’

Lauren Hall attended the Town Board meeting on behalf of Carson Power, which she said has a leasehold interest in property at 2408 Bedell Road. Several of the changes the company seeks would include easing restrictions on how far away such a battery storage facility site should be from nearby properties.

“We consider this property well-suited for a ‘best project’ and we support the town's effort to adopt a clear framework for battery storage,” she said.

Hall said Carson Power, a company that is an efficient energy developer, wants to “help the town adopt a law that is protective, technically sound, and workable for responsible projects.”

“Battery storage provides important benefits for communities like Grand Island,” she said. “It improves grid reliability by delivering power quickly when demand spikes; supports resilience during extreme weather; and helps to meet the rising electricity demand without requiring the town or ratepayers pay for it.”

Carson Power supports the fire safety provisions and emergency response plans built into in the draft law, but the company is advocating for changes in setback requirements that the business considers overly restrictive, Hall said.

The first of the four suggested changes she cited was “reducing the side and rear yard setbacks from 150 feet to 100 feet. A 100-foot setback remains substantial, especially in this town’s industrial districts, where the standard setback is 25 feet.”

Local businessman shares perspective

Island businessman James Panepinto talked about the battery storage law from the perspective of his career as a civil engineer who has operated his family’s construction company for the past 35 years.

“After many years of little or no invest investment by the utilities in electrical infrastructure despite more recent efforts, I assure you that they are barely keeping up with the demand we place on the fragile network,” he said. “In addition, my firm is also working on several very large data center projects, which require huge amounts of power. No one really knows when all this demand, including the further electrification of transportation, will outstrip the supply the grid can handle.

“I have personal construction experience and ownership with renewable energy projects such as wind and solar, and I'm familiar with the costs and challenges private industries face when developing these projects. From my perspective, the public utilities and government alone can't get this done without private investment for projects that support the grid.”

Panepinto said, “It's important that our town has proper ordinances that govern these systems for the protection of our citizens’ rights and adjacent property holders. However, we need to be mindful not to place overly burdensome restrictions … and other regulations that make it difficult or impossible for projects to make sense.”

Panepinto concluded, “I respectfully ask the board to consider ordinance language that does not put an upfront, overly burdensome set of development criteria while not giving up the town's ability to make the best decision for each project based on the specific challenges of any proposed project location.”

Engineer: ‘Listen to the professionals’

From his experience as an engineer and adviser on conservation issues, Daigler’s analysis of the law had one thing in common with other speakers. “I, too, think batteries are a great idea,” he said.

Daigler’s main stated concern is that Grand Island’s battery law must include language that spells out required compliance with national safety standards. He said the town must make sure developers comply with provisions in the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) Section 855. This deals with the standard for the installation of stationary energy storage systems. Its requirements include that a battery storage facility have adequate means of fire suppression, detection, ventilation, spacing, emergency response planning and site evaluation by qualified professionals.

Section 855 also calls for:

•Size caps: Limiting the maximum energy capacity of a single fire enclosure or battery array to 600 kWh.

•Separation: Enclosures must maintain specific physical spacing and thermal barriers between battery units.

Daigler said, “I've had this long-running concern that the contractors that we hire in the town to protect the town don't protect the town. And this is another example of where that's happening. I was instrumental in CAB's (the town’s Conservation Advisory Board) comments (on the proposed battery law) and one of the things in my research I found is NFPA 855. It was in our comments for CAB (that the requiremenmts of NFPA 855) be put into this law. They are not there.”

He also said the town’s battery law should include a hazard mitigation analysis, then the Town Board should follow, not ignore it, when drawing up and adopting a battery storage law.