A proposed moratorium could break the project’s timeline
By Chloe Bennett
The Town of Long Lake proposed a moratorium that could interfere with a planned microgrid in Raquette Lake.
Following public pushback and battery fires in other parts of New York, Long Lake Town Supervisor Clay Arsenault proposed a law for a pause on processing permits for building, including the battery energy storage system project.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
If adopted during the town’s next public hearing on Aug. 30, the moratorium would last 12 months. An application from the microgrid’s developer REV Renewables has yet to be filed.
“No new applications for permit or building permit or operating permit for these tier-two battery electric systems will be accepted,” Arsenault said. “And nor will any pending applications continue to be processed or decided by the town board during the moratorium period filed, provided under this local law.”
The law states an extension of the pause could be implemented after the 12 months are up. Some applications submitted during the year could be exempt, the law reads, following a public hearing.
The proposed Adirondack Central Microgrid, a partnership between National Grid, REV Renewables and the Town of Long Lake, is currently planned to be built on about 2.4 acres on Antler’s Road in the hamlet of Raquette Lake. Residents and seasonal visitors have voiced unease about the risks of having the facility in the park’s natural environment. The town board previously sent a letter to National Grid stating that it wished to halt the project.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
“It is crystal clear to us that the people we represent do not want a battery energy storage system, as currently planned, anywhere in our Town,” the June 12 letter, sent by email, read.
Many in the community have expressed safety concerns like the possibility of fire and roadway obstructions. In public meetings, residents said the area does not have access to enough emergency resources and personnel. Shortly after an announcement of the energy storage system in April, residents formed a nonprofit to block the installation. “We’re going to fight this every way we can,” Melissa Wilde, member of Protect Raquette, told the Explorer in May.
As of Aug. 2, National Grid said the project had not undergone changes. “National Grid has taken no action on the battery energy storage system in Raquette Lake since the May public meeting so that we can continue to listen and learn from each other in pursuit of a solution to the reliability issues that exist in this area,” Jared Paventi, spokesperson for the utility company said.
The town is also considering altering its comprehensive plan, which now allows for battery storage plants, during the proposed moratorium period.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Written comments about the moratorium and changing the town’s comprehensive plan will be accepted by the town until noon on Aug. 30.
I think its safe to say that 95% of Raquetteers oppose this BESS and will do all in our power to be sure it never becomes reality in Raquette Lake. Why National Grid continues to pursue it one really wonders. Is it perhaps a money making proposition, rather than a solution to a few energy interruptions? Must be a reason. It’s certainly not any kind of “green” project. Go away!
How do you know? I hope you are not basing that 95% on a few vocal critics that have a lot of free time to comment on websites. Put it up for a vote for full time residents in RL. Just to be sure you don’t have a few people calling all the shots.
This project was initiated to alleviate the not-infrequent power outages in the area. Do you have any other proposal to deal with this issue? Maybe a bank of Diesel generators, but apparently you would rather maintain the status quo of an unreliable grid.
Not everyone is against this project. Spent time in the tap room recently. Not everyone is against this from talking to people in there.
I agree with you, CR. Ms. Bennett’s article reads like a paen to Gov. Hochul — she
begins her article with a review of Hochul’s presumed safety concerns and her recent establishment of another bureaucratic entity — the Inter-Agency Fire Safety Working Group. Which should have been in place from the git-go and which we can anticipate will downplay the dangers to the North Country so well illustrated by the battery fires last month in Lyme and Warwick. Which will allow the Governor to proceed with her multi-million dollar project, with much if not all of those dollars designated for the large electric utility companies she has recruited for the project.
Rather should the Governor take a page from Long Lake’s response by calling a halt, a moratorium, to all new battery storage construction, and by instructing her new Safety Group, as their first and immediate task, to conduct a state-wide inspection of all currently battery storage facilities. With no public mission to which it and Hochul can be held accountable, this “safety” agency will serve as public cover for the Governor to allow continuation of battery storage construction and operation as usual.
Bottom line, the construction and operation of battery storage facilities should be regarded as an experiment given lithium ion batteries’ volatility and the paucity of proven information we have about their safety. The immediate remedies — stop all planned construction; conduct an immediate safety review off all operating facilities and shut down those whose safety appears suspect; begin an immediate study or experimental period to gather data to ascertain what battery-safe operation means and requires.
My own estimation of Hochul is that she’s not to be trusted on this issue: she appears to have too much personally invested in the operation of these storage systems throughout the State as a means of burnishing her sparse environmental credentials; and too much money is involved and has been held out as an incentive to the utility companies to maintain their involvement. In comparison, virtually no attention has been paid to the safety of NYS residents. We must remember that Hochul is a politician who tosses about taxpayer money in a cavalier manner calculated to seal a deal between her donors and herself. I’ll never forget the $half-billion she handed over to her political crony billionaire in Buffalo so he could build his new stadium. And just very recently, her campaign fund received checks totaling $119,000 from the nursing home industry the day before new legislation reducing the state nursing home regulation was presented to her for signing.
Frankly, it would have been helpful if Ms. Bennett had included an examination of these factors in her article, ie, a little investigative journalism, since they serve as barriers to meaningful action by the Governor to ensure public safety and as indicators that any promises made by her are to met with our skepticism.