Recommendations and inspections of energy storage facilities to come in 2024
By Gwendolyn Craig
Toxic pollution from battery system fires does not appear to significantly spread off-site and “shows no notable lasting impacts on the health or safety of first responders,” Gov. Kathy Hochul announced on Thursday. The initial findings are part of an Inter-Agency Fire Safety Working Group the Democratic governor convened in August following multiple battery fires this year and amid her push to encourage installation of alternative energy systems.
The group is expected to release draft recommendations for battery system assessments and fire code reviews for public comment in the first quarter of 2024, according to a release. The working group is also negotiating with battery manufacturers and utility companies to review the root causes of the fires. And inspections of all operational battery systems over 300 kilowatts are underway and expected to be finished by the second quarter of 2024.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Adirondack Park residents have been interested in the working group’s findings because a 20-megawatt battery storage facility, also referred to as the Adirondack Central Microgrid, was proposed in the hamlet of Raquette Lake in the town of Long Lake. National Grid had contracted the project with Rev Renewables in 2018 to address frequent power outages in the area. The state has also championed the storage system technology as “a critical component to achieving a reliable, zero-emissions grid,” according to a news release.
But the community has largely come out against the technology, concerned about fires, pollution and noise. Raquette Lake Fire Chief Mark Bird had told the Explorer he was concerned about managing a battery fire with his approximately 20 volunteers. Battery fires happened across the state this summer in Jefferson, Orange and Suffolk counties.
The town of Long Lake passed a year-long moratorium in August on such battery system applications shortly after a battery fire in the town of Lyme, about 90 miles west of the Adirondack Park.
Hochul convened her working group around then, too. It included members of the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services Office of Fire Prevention and Control, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Public Service and Department of State. They gathered information on air, soil and water monitoring at the various fire sites.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
“New York State is grateful to the first responders who were on the scene at these fires, and we are taking this opportunity to ensure they can continue to do their jobs safely and effectively,” Hochul said in a news release. “As we continue to advance New York’s clean energy transition, maintaining this safety is of the utmost importance. Thankfully, the Working Group’s analysis shows no notable lasting impacts on the health or safety of the first responders or the communities they serve.”
Jared Paventi, spokesman for National Grid, said the company “appreciates the transparency of the committee in sharing these initial findings while continuing their work. We look forward to reviewing the draft report when it’s released.”
William Acker, executive director of the New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium (NY-BEST), said he was pleased with the initial findings.
“Energy storage technologies are critical to ensuring a reliable, cost-effective and emissions-free electric grid and have been safely deployed across the state and globally,” Acker said. “NY-BEST and our members are committed to ensuring the continued safe deployment of energy storage in New York State and we look forward to working with the State to implement the Working Group’s forthcoming recommendations.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
A nonprofit formed in October “to preserve, protect, and enhance the environmental integrity of Raquette Lake and its watershed for all humans, wildlife, and the surrounding ecosystem” Protect Raquette Lake, remains concerned about such a project in the hamlet. Vice Chair Melissa Wilde said their concerns besides fire safety include noise and light pollution and “the environmental destruction required to build such a facility.”
Wilde thought the governor’s working group should have reached out to Protect Raquette Lake and other concerned members of the public as part of its investigation, and offered to host the working group in the Adirondacks.
“We are not satisfied at all with this report. Fire safety in the Adirondack Park is very different from other areas of the state.”
Melissa Wilde, Vice Chair of Protect Raquette Lake
The Adirondack Park Agency, which oversees public and private development in the park, announced in November it was developing an energy storage application to address fire and safety concerns when such a project falls within its jurisdiction. The Raquette Lake project is currently not within the APA’s jurisdiction because it is within a hamlet, a zoning classification where development is encouraged. It so far has no other jurisdictional triggers, such as wetlands or a height over 40 feet.
Wilde said she hoped the APA would close that loophole, which “was largely why such a problematic facility was ever proposed for the pristine and historic hamlet.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Top photo: These battery modules, supplied by the battery company BYD, show a similar-sized project to the one proposed in the hamlet of Raquette Lake. Photo courtesy of BYD
All the ginned-up commissions, agencies and other “experts” cannot change the fact that Raquette Lake is not the place to put an ugly, noisy and potentially dangerous battery farm. Perhaps batteries are necessary to store energy from solar or wind devices (although those don’t belong in the Adirondack Park either) but not to store energy generated elsewhere for later release at a higher cost to consumers. I hope that National Grid will finally come to the conclusion that this little hamlet is the wrong place and take its monstrosity elsewhere.
So nothing like this, or any solar or wind turbines should be placed anywhere in the park?? They should all be placed elsewhere in the state??
So just ignore all the facts and base a decision on a few people’s opinions? The ‘protest’ had 5 people and a dog.
I agree with RLer. Raquette Lake is a hamlet inside the only large area of Virgin Forest inside the Adirondack park. NYSERDA would pose less threat to this forest ecosystem if they placed a battery inside the high peaks region, which was historically was logged or burnt.
In my opinion, I don’t understand why Raquette Lake was chosen for the project in the first place. There are so many other townships/hamlets in the Adirondack Park that are considered second growth forests. I assume that people in NYSERDA and electrical companies failed to consider the age of the forests around Raquette Lake and the rarity of Virgin Forest in NYS and in the Adirondack Park. If they were well-informed of trees 200-400 years old in that area, they would change their mind about placement of the battery project to a location that doesn’t have nearby trees that are older than the NYS itself (in 2024, NYS will be 247 years old).
So you’re basing this on the age of the forest?? Not how it could benefit the whole area as far as power service in the event power is lost??
Rob. The year-round residents already deal with power outages. How is a BEST tied to the grid going to help when a tree falls on a power line when it’s -9 and it just snowed 1-2’?
Might need to run underground wiring throughout RL for this system to come close to benefiting year-round residents. That’s if a BEST works when temps are in the negatives. I don’t live in RL, but I’ve been there on -10 to -20 days. Those days individual home lead acid battery system works well. Like a solar system setup. It least keeping the furnace on. I don’t believe this project benefits year-round residents enough for the risks to the surrounding Virgin Forest (pre-colonial) environment.
There different ways to look at this project I get that, but from what I’ve saw the project on the engineering side needs progress to be self-contained. Replacement years legislation between township and energy providers. So, the tractor trailer sized batteries aren’t just left on the property. Etc.
This is the Adirondack Park, Federal Wilderness areas are based on its legislation. I think that this topic is interesting and has many different routes it can take. In the end, I personally hope it benefits the year-round residents and business owners of Raquette Lake. If it doesn’t, it’s a burden, not a benefit. A burden imposed by NYS and Electrical company. The majority if not all BEST outside of the park are NYSERDA supported. There’s a good bit of them.
Rob, I think all townships inside of the Blue Line should understand. That it is possible. They’ll need to have legislation on this type of stuff. In regards to this particular Project, it seems NYS has no stance in regards of the ADK private land impacts on their own land and water, apparently.
Lastly, Rob I personally I think if NYS cared Raquette Lake would have consistent good drinking water. Before batteries get installed. This RL Battery project can be greener than proposed.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I have no dog in this particular fight but do have friends in RL who say it would benefit them. Not sure.
But it all comes down to what your last statement was. It can be greener. Makes me wonder how so many are totally against cutting a tree for a trail but vote Democrat and support abortion. Makes no sense to me but I will never vote democrat so maybe I’ll never understand. Even if something was to benefit an area people would be against it if it doesn’t for their “green” plan
Rob, I was referring to the plans for the battery project. There’s room for improvement to uphold the environmental standards to higher level. That does benefit the year-round residents and the surrounding environment. I honestly think we are thinking similar ideas. Sorry I used a keyword. I get what you mean ‘green’ or ‘greener’ could mean something good or something that’s over the top or just a cover up for something that doesn’t help much of anything.