Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage Bess topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ulster County committee advances resolution opposing proposed TeraGen battery storage at former Coleman High School
Summary
The Energy, Environment and Sustainability Committee voted to advance Resolution 569 opposing a TeraGen battery energy storage system proposed for the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School site in the Town of Ulster, citing proximity to homes, wetlands and fire‑safety concerns; the measure goes to the full Legislature next week.
The Ulster County Legislature’s Energy, Environment and Sustainability Committee on Dec. 9 voted to advance Resolution 569, which opposes the development, construction and operation of a battery energy storage system (BESS) proposed by TeraGen for the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School property in the Town of Ulster.
The resolution targets the specific Coleman site, a roughly 15‑acre parcel that committee members said sits near private homes, apartment complexes, churches and schools and contains wetlands that feed into the Esopus Creek. “This is not a good location for a battery storage” given neighborhood density and proximity to the Thruway, Legislator Stuart told the committee, citing local inspections and a constituent letter that referenced data from the Electrical Power Research Institute noting fires at BESS facilities.
Public commenters urged caution and more time to reconcile state and developer materials. “My concern is...how much more time do you need to research?” asked resident Jillian Bridal, who told the committee she had compiled research she wanted members to consider. Vicky Lucarini of the Environmental Management Commission recommended alternative sites closer to substations and transfer stations, suggesting IPark 87 as a viable option.
Several legislators urged more education and presentations by TeraGen and independent experts — including emergency services personnel — before taking final action. Legislator Green said a fuller briefing and referral to the Ulster County Planning Board would help the committee evaluate both industry‑level risks and site‑specific factors. Legislator Nolan and others argued the resolution is narrowly focused on the Coleman property and does not prejudge siting elsewhere.
The committee debated a motion to postpone consideration but defeated that motion. After procedural back‑and‑forth about motions and the call for the question, members moved and seconded adoption of the resolution and recorded a voice vote in favor; committee staff said the measure “passed out of committee” and will be considered by the full Legislature on the next floor session. The committee did not record a roll‑call tally in the transcript; the voice vote was noted on the record.
What happens next: Resolution 569 will go to the full Ulster County Legislature for consideration. Committee discussion emphasized both caution about the specific site and the committee’s interest in more comprehensive briefings about BESS technology, emergency response and siting alternatives before broader policy steps are taken.
