Washington County supervisors push for coordinated response to battery-storage on solar sites

Washington County Board of Supervisors members discussed a broad set of concerns about battery energy storage systems being added to utility-scale and distributed solar arrays and asked staff to coordinate county-level guidance and a working group.

The discussion centered on public-safety risks, potential contamination of wetlands and waterways, gaps in local firefighting capacity, and limits in existing local zoning and permitting tools. Supervisors said state guidance exists but that local governments need a shared approach so towns do not face piecemeal permitting decisions.

Supervisors said battery systems proposed in several parts of the county differ from the projects originally permitted as solar arrays and often involve very large numbers of batteries in a single facility. “They don’t even call it batteries,” one supervisor said, noting applicants now present projects labeled as electric storage or “storage farms.” Several supervisors expressed concern about fire suppression capacity, runoff from firefighting water, and long-term contamination risks if batteries or their components enter wetlands or surface waters.

Supervisors Jay, Jim and Brian all described instances where local planning boards stopped work or requested more information. The board discussed examples from nearby towns and counties, and a county staff member said the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the state agriculture agency (referred to in the meeting as “Ag Markets”) have materials and technical guidance, but that the guidance alone has not resolved local concerns. Supervisors and staff repeatedly raised the lack of mutual-aid capacity and specialized equipment at volunteer fire departments to fight large battery fires.

Instead of pursuing separate town ordinances, several supervisors proposed the county assemble a working group, collect model language and create a template developers and towns can use. “If the county did it, then the towns could adopt it,” one supervisor said, arguing a county-level approach would create consistency across municipal lines and reduce legal risk.

Board members asked staff to: (1) reach out to state agencies for technical guidance; (2) compile a list of known battery-storage proposals and of companies operating in the county; (3) explore registration and escrow/financial assurance tools to cover decommissioning and cleanup costs; and (4) form a working group of supervisors, planning-board members and municipal staff with experience handling solar projects.

The board identified additional steps including tracking state legislative changes, consulting Warren County’s experience on registration, and attending an upcoming state webinar on storage regulation. Supervisors also discussed the tradeoffs of moratoria and the constitutional and legal risks of overly broad bans.

Supervisors said they will return to the issue with staff reports and recommended model language and will invite fire, planning and emergency-management officials to the working group.

The discussion did not produce a formal ordinance; the board’s direction was to have staff and a cross-jurisdiction group prepare options for future action.

Washington County’s chairman and the board scheduled follow-up coordination and requested that planning, emergency services and legal staff be included in the next steps.

Ending — The supervisors agreed the issue is countywide and cross-jurisdictional; they asked staff to assemble technical guidance, reach out to the state agencies named in the meeting and convene a working group that will report back to the board.