Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany County Planning Board OKs modified referral for 137-acre battery storage project after safety debate
Summary
The board voted to modify its local recommendation for a 137-acre battery energy storage project in New Scotland, adding notes requiring the town to confirm stormwater controls, address public opposition at an upcoming hearing, and prioritize erosion/runoff measures after extensive resident safety concerns and developer safety briefings.
The Albany County Planning Board voted to issue a modified local recommendation for a proposed 137-acre battery energy storage facility at 1543 Indian Fields Road in the Town of New Scotland, adding three advisory notes after sustained public concern about safety and runoff.
Board members asked the applicant to ensure a current stormwater pollution prevention plan, to address public opposition at the October 8 public hearing, and to consider additional erosion and runoff controls for steep access roads. The motion to modify staff opinion passed with one member recorded in opposition.
Why it matters: The proposal would place large-scale battery storage near a rural hamlet, touching on fire-department readiness, environmental protection and community acceptance. Local decisions about siting and operational safety will shape whether the project proceeds and under what conditions.
Project and developer response: The applicant team said it has already prepared a proposed SWIP and safety appendices and held training for the local fire department. "We do," Jeremy Kaufman said when asked if a proposed SWIP had been submitted with site applications, adding they would share the SWIP with the board. Project representative Weston Hellegas described on-site safety measures and training: "We had our energy safety response group consultant put on a ... 4 hour, safety demonstration" and said the company had conducted additional briefings and monitoring preparations.
Public and board concerns: Several board members and residents said the site’s rural character and proximity to homes made them uncomfortable. One attendee said simply, "I'm ... gonna be honest and vote no on it," reflecting local opposition. Board members pressed for clarity on whether safety appendices had been shared with the board and public before the county’s referral decision.
Safety measures cited by the developer: The project team described built-in protections, including lithium iron phosphate battery chemistry, 24/7 monitoring, FLIR cameras and cooling systems. Hellegas summarized the developer’s view: "These ones are the lithium iron phosphate batteries," and added the firm’s consultant had demonstrated that, in tests, thermal runaway is contained within cabinets and does not necessarily propagate outside the facility.
Next steps: The board’s modified recommendation asks the town and applicant to ensure the SWIP addresses steep-slope runoff guidance and for the town to include community concerns at the scheduled October 8 hearing. The Planning Board recorded the modified staff opinion and will monitor the town’s public process; final approvals remain with the town and any state agencies with jurisdiction.
