Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns town of 'potentially lethal' safety issues at Block Island Medical Center solar array
Summary
A resident urged the New Shoreham Town Council to investigate ground-mounted solar arrays at Block Island Medical Center, saying prior notices to the town produced no substantive response and alleging safety and liability risks.
Christopher Warfel, a Block Island resident, told the New Shoreham Town Council during public comment that he has documented “serious and potentially lethal safety concerns” with the ground‑mounted solar arrays at the Block Island Medical Center.
Warfel said he first provided information to the town on Sept. 16, 2025, and that planning staff told him they lack enforcement authority and would not undertake a site visit. “To date, I have not had any meaningful responses from the town except planning who stated they had no enforcement capability,” he said.
Warfel said he furnished the council with images and a nine‑page table of alleged violations and described what he called retaliatory responses to his complaints: “EPCO made derogatory statements to the Rhode Island PUC and accused me of trespassing. The Block Island Medical Center chair accused me of trespassing.”
Warfel said his top concern is public safety and the town’s potential legal and financial exposure if an injury or death were to occur: “Another concern is who will be held responsible financially and performance wise if an injury or death occurs. I think this would be gross negligence, but as a matter for lawyers and insurance companies to decide.”
He said he believes the problem is not unique to the medical center and described other installations with similar defects, including unsecured safety switches he called “potentially lethal.” Warfel also referenced changes in the National Electric Code that he says now require those switches to be secured.
Warfel said he will pursue state and federal remedies if the town does not publicly address the matter and develop a remedy plan. Councilmembers did not state a formal action at the time of public comment; the council did not vote or direct staff to a specific next step on the record during the meeting.
The transcript shows Warfel explicitly asked the council to identify the system to the public and to produce an action plan; he said attempts to review the town’s liability insurance were rebuffed. No written response from the town was recorded in the meeting minutes. The council acknowledged the comment and moved on to the consent agenda.
Ending: The town council did not take a formal vote on Warfel’s request during the meeting. Records of subsequent staff follow‑up or a formal inspection were not presented at the session. Residents who provided testimony asked the council to respond publicly and, at minimum, to clarify who will inspect the site and whether the town intends to pursue enforcement or a remediation plan.
