Uxbridge hearing on battery storage projects spotlights fire, noise and vendor concerns; hearings extended

Developers representing two proposed battery energy storage facilities told the Town of Uxbridge Planning Board on July 9 that engineering, fire and sound peer reviews are complete, but residents urged the board to press for stronger safeguards before final approval.

Tom Corbett of 0 Point Development described recent revisions to the projects at 374 Hazel Street and 404 Blackstone Street, including a switch to a newer PowerTitan 2 system at Blackstone and a reduced container count. Corbett said peer reviews by Graves and a Code Red fire consultant are finished and that the town’s fire chief has submitted recommendations. “We have developed roughly 65 megawatts worth of battery storage since 2018 … and 0 fires to date,” Corbett said, describing the vendor and consultant oversight.

Neighbors repeatedly pressed the board on two themes: emergency response and noise. Several residents asked how the local fire department — which board members acknowledged has no prior experience fighting battery-storage fires — would respond. Corbett and the board said applicants have agreed to train the fire department; the meeting record also notes the fire chief recommended an infrared drone to detect heat as a response tool rather than relying solely on cisterns.

The sound study and its underlying baseline prompted equally detailed scrutiny. Residents asked that noise remediation be measured at individual property lines or second-floor windows rather than through a single modeling receptor. The developer and contracted sound engineer explained the typical process — ambient monitoring, 3-D modeling with receptor points and seasonal checks — and the board said it will require an unannounced sound test within six months of full operation and corrective action if conditions are exceeded. The board clerk read baseline results from the report during the hearing: the lowest ambient reading was 26 dB (midnight) and a peak of 37 dB during early-morning measurements.

Several speakers also raised broader concerns about supplier origin and evolving technology. One resident asked whether SunGrow, the manufacturer named in project documents, presented a national-security risk because of its headquarters; Corbett said SunGrow maintains U.S. field offices and U.S.-based representatives facilitate operations. The board repeatedly noted the projects must meet state DEP standards and local conditions or the town has recourse, including shutdown if noise or safety conditions fail.

After extended public comment and technical discussion, the board left the hearings open. The public hearing for 374 Hazel Street was closed on the night’s motions but the board requested time to draft conditions and a written decision; the public hearing for 404 Blackstone Street was continued to September 10 at 6 p.m. so the planning staff and town counsel can review outstanding legal and notice items.

The board’s actions leave both projects in a review phase: technical memos and promised training remain part of the record, and residents will have further opportunities to comment at the continued sessions.