Beach Haven residents urge council to delay activation of battery storage facility over safety concerns

Dozens of residents told the Beach Haven Borough Council on June 8 that the newly installed battery energy storage facility should not be energized until the borough completes a public review of final permits, inspections, testing and emergency plans.

At the start of public comment, resident Cliff Limes (introduced to the council from the floor) asked the borough to direct the borough attorney, construction officer and fire officials to obtain and review the land use board file, final construction/electrical/fire permits and all final inspections and signoffs; he also requested written emergency response and cleanup plans specific to the barrier‑island location and peak‑season access constraints. Limes said the borough should confirm whether the installed system matches materials presented at approval hearings and whether any safety‑related facts were omitted from the record.

Why it matters: commenters said a thermal event at the site could pose outsized risks to residents and first responders because the installation sits amid homes and businesses on a barrier island, when summer seasonal congestion and limited outside responder access could slow emergency response. Petition organizer Jim Chula told the council a petition asking for removal or further action has gathered 677 signatures.

Residents cited national precedents and local incidents as context. One commenter referenced a 1–2 megawatt battery installation that experienced a thermal‑runaway fire in Surprise, Arizona; a speaker identified in the record only as Jamie described the Beach Haven facility as roughly a 2‑megawatt storage installation and warned against directly comparing it to much larger California facilities.

Council and staff response: Mayor Lambert and other council members said they have been pursuing every available option and reaching out to state and federal officials, the utility, the county and other mayors. The borough mentioned that it has engaged multiple legal counsels and that additional external expertise is hard to find in the still‑new field of large lithium‑ion installations.

Adam Millander, the Beach Haven Emergency Management Coordinator (who identified himself at the meeting), told the public that the borough has an emergency operations plan and has provided training to relevant agencies, but said portions of the plan are not publicly released because they contain sensitive security information. Millander and borough staff said many items raised by speakers have been addressed in internal planning and certification processes, but they declined to release detailed operational material in public for security reasons.

What residents asked for: In addition to a full permit and inspection review, residents asked the borough to confirm: whether batteries were tested after long exposure to salt air; whether the installed system matches application drawings and approvals; which site‑specific standards are being enforced today; whether a fire official accepted a site‑specific emergency response plan; who is legally and financially responsible in the event of a thermal event; and whether any approvals or certificates remain outstanding.

Next steps: The council had included an executive session on its consent agenda to discuss potential litigation related to the borough's electric battery energy storage system; the meeting moved into that executive session for approximately one hour and later adjourned without additional public action. Council members told residents they would continue to seek legal and technical options and to report back when possible.

The meeting record shows continued community concern and a request for greater public transparency on testing, site‑specific emergency plans and final permitting before activation of the facility.