Neighbors press developer on noise, property values and emergency response

During an extended public‑comment period, Highland Falls residents pressed New Leaf Energy on how a battery site would affect daily life and municipal services. Multiple speakers described the parcel as directly adjacent to residential lots and a recently upgraded Little League field and said they feared noise, lowered property values and insufficient evacuation options. One resident asked whether the village would receive a direct bill reduction or other compensating community benefit; Corina Solis said the company routinely negotiates host‑community agreements and cited examples such as park improvements.

On noise, Solis said the company had completed a study showing a maximum 1–2 decibel change at ambient measurement points and that the system would be tucked behind tree screening and oriented toward the highway; she offered to provide the specific noise‑study file referencing the exact site location. On emergency response, Paul Rogers and Solis described code requirements that developers provide an emergency response plan, on‑call subject‑matter experts reachable by a posted contact number and training for volunteer fire departments; Rogers noted the state code includes response‑time and training expectations for energy‑storage incidents.

Residents asked about monitoring, third‑party monitoring firms, and whether the developer would remain liable if contractors or manufacturers left the market. Solis said decommissioning bonds and contractual obligations protect municipalities and that owners/operators maintain responsibility for response and decommissioning. The discussion left many attendees seeking written copies of monitoring and decommissioning commitments before any application proceeds.