The battery storage facility would address regular outages in the area, but some are gearing up to fight its installation
By Chloe Bennett and Gwendolyn Craig
A clash between residents and those pitching a battery storage facility heightened in Raquette Lake at a public meeting Tuesday. Many seasonal and full-time locals turned out to voice concerns about the environmental impacts of installing and operating the microgrid, which would address frequent power outages, but also create the potential risk of fire, they fear.
Following a Long Lake Town Board meeting in April on the proposal, National Grid and the company that is tasked with owning and managing the facility, Rev Renewables, held an informational session Tuesday at Raquette Lake Union Free School. More than 150 people filled the school’s auditorium, some wearing matching shirts with anti-project messages, and around 58 people attended on Zoom.
As a nonprofit, we rely on the support of readers like you.
Join the community of people helping to power our independent,
Adirondack-focused reporting.
The microgrid is the outcome of a 2019 call for proposals looking to address regular power outages. According to National Grid’s request for proposals document, the facility is a less costly and complicated alternative to traditional solutions such as building new supply lines. The proposed battery storage facility would include 12 tractor-trailer-sized modules on about 2.4 acres on Antlers Road in the hamlet of Raquette Lake. The estimated cost of the project would be around $50 million.
Jared Paventi, spokesperson for National Grid, said the public’s concerns about fire are appropriate and respected by the utility company, and they are in communication with Rev Renewables about the risks. “What we’ve demanded from our vendor is that they seek out the best fire mitigation practices that are available,” he said.
After their presentation, representatives from National Grid and Rev Renewables took questions for about two hours. Several people at the meeting questioned the location of the microgrid, in the vicinity of the Raquette Lake Girls Camp, which could be impacted should a fire occur. Questioners also brought up effects of floodlights on bird migration and the project contract’s duration.
Since 2010, there have been 83 outages in Raquette Lake with an average duration of 4.9 hours, according to data from National Grid. “If the microgrid and battery system was operational during this time, approximately 50% of outages would have been avoided and the duration of the remaining outages would have been reduced by 60% on average,” Paventi said.
Melissa Wilde, who owns property on Raquette Lake, said she and nonprofit Protect Raquette Lake, which was formed in response to the proposal, plan to hire environmental lawyers and perform their own assessments of the battery site. “We’re going to fight this every way we can,” she said.
Tom McCarthy, director of project development for Rev Renewables, told the Explorer in March that the likelihood of fire is low. The facility will have monitoring systems for smoke, heat and gas. If something is detected at a module, it will shut down, he said.
An emergency response plan will be developed during the construction phase, McCarthy said. At the meeting and in an online petition, opponents of the project have expressed unease about possible evacuations through Antlers Road, where the microgrid would be built.
“I don’t see a scenario where that happens,” McCarthy told the Explorer. “But that’s a call made locally. In this case, this is a very small project.”
Jack Carney, a Long Lake resident, said there is not a straightforward solution, “but they will not get anywhere and they will not put together something that is safe until they listen very intently to what the Raquette Lake people have to say and act on their concerns.”
“Hopefully we can move forward with a greater understanding from all sides as we pursue a solution,” Paventi said.
Amy Clough, a nearby resident and organizer of Protect Raquette Lake, said although the chance of fire is small, the risk of someone losing their home is not worth it. “This is their home, their ancestors’ home,” she said. “They’ve been here for multiple generations and for them to lose a home, even a single home would be absolutely devastating to the community.”
Mike Vogt, senior vice president of development for Rev Renewables, said should the battery storage facility be built, it would be designed with care for neighbors’ safety. “Fire concerns are being addressed through codes, particularly the New York State Fire Code, that is continuously being updated, and it’s one of the most strict in the whole country, that ensures these types of facilities are operated safely and with very, very low chance or risk of a fire occurring,” he said.
Rev Renewables must submit a permit application for the project with the Town of Long Lake. As of May 23, an application had not been filed. Vogt said the company will evaluate public comments from the meeting before filing the document.
National Grid proposes a greater investment in Raquette Lake. Parallel to the microgrid proposal, the power provider is applying to the Adirondack Park Agency for a subdivision permit to build a new electrical substation. The current substation in the hamlet is north of State Route 28 at the intersection with Hamilton County Route 2. The two-lot subdivision would allow for a new station on about a third of an acre south of Route 28. The project, according to an APA application description, would also install three new utility poles over 45-feet high and replace one utility pole.
The proposed substation is not an alternative option for the microgrid, Paventi said, because they serve different functions. The new substation would improve reliability for people by translating energy from the Route 28 line. The location of the current and proposed substations are at the end of the line. Paventi said if there is a fault in Old Forge, for example, everyone further down Route 28 loses service. The microgrid would remedy that by switching on during those outages.
“It’s called a microgrid because it takes those customers on Route 28 and, ensures that electricity is available on both ends of the line as if they were their own smaller power grid,” Paventi said.
Should National Grid receive all the approvals for building the new substation, it would need to switch power off from the old station to the new. Paventi said there would be an outage during the transition. Customers will be notified ahead of time when that would happen. The old substation would then be removed.
National Grid’s subdivision proposal to the APA is out for public comment until May 25. To submit comments, click here.
The entire proposed battery energy storage plan is absurd. It will cost $50,000,000 and serve at very most 6000 people (in mid-summer) and maybe 1000 in winter. And in midsummer the energy would last for only a few hours. How is this a feasible project?
The location selected violates many of their (Nat Grid/REV) own requirements for a site. It is in a tiny village, a forested area, close to houses and a Girls Summer Camp. Drainage from a site disaster would be into wetlands and then into Raquette Lake, a pristine body that drains through the Raquette River all the way to the St Lawrence River. A fire or other problem could block the one road to many homes and the Camp, leaving no egress for anyone.
The recent meeting in Raquette Lake showed two things, (1) Nat Grid and Rev had absolutely no idea what this area is like (distance to hospital, tiny fire departments and EMS personnel) and (2) the overwhelming majority of Raquette Lakers want no part of it. They are self sufficient and happy to stay that way.
The developers say that a fire is “low percentage” and disaster planning will be done after the construction. NO! No matter what they say, few people believe that lithium batteries are safe. There is too much evidence to the contrary
Put the lithium batteries somewhere where they are wanted and needed. There is no great need, or any desire for, the battery farm or the microgrid in Raquette Lake. Let the people’s voice be heard.
If the opponents to this plan their own study and vow to fight it to the end are they willing to listen if their study finds less impact then they imagine or is this a study intended to show the worse.
If you look further you will find that a huge amount of research has been done by the people of Raquette Lake and it leads us to believe that this project poses a potential threat to the area and its environment, and its benefits are too small to justify it. If anyone wants these lithium batteries in their vicinity, they should speak up. So far, nobody has.
How about do us tell where the huge amount of research done by the people of Raquette Lake is.
By the way. This is about the battery farm, not the relocation of the substation.
“Should National Grid receive all the approvals for building the new substation… The old substation would then be removed. ”
The removal of the old sub-station now on the corner of the Raquette Lake UF School, immediately adjacent to the ballfield, would be a wonderful improvement for Raquette Lake. Currently the first thing you see when turning into Raquette Lake from the south is that unsightly electrical sub-station. Remove the eyesore.
$50M? It would be cheaper and less risky to buy every property owner in Raquette Lake a whole house generator and hook it up. It can be done for less than $10,000 each so $50M would buy more than 5,000 generators ready to go. How many would actually be needed? 63 year-round residents plus the summer population can’t possibly come close to 5,000.
Thank you for your informative article. I am curious; at a price tag of $50 million, what would it cost to put solar panels on residents and businesses homes in the Raquette lake area? Would that be a suitable back up for when the power goes out? I don’t know a lot about it but it seems like a lot of money to support a smallish population.
Many of us in Raquette Lake have backup generators. We who live here year ’round are well equipped to deal with power outages and they are only a minor inconvenience.
This is an ill-conceived plan and ridiculous cost for so little benefit. The danger of fire, although they claim little danger, at even one of these batteries would be catastrophic and not just for the immediate area.
Please read the comments above from the Long time Raquette Laker.
This project does not belong in the Adirondacks.
Mary Blanchard
Raquette Lake
Thank you. Nearly everyone in Raquette Lake has already availed themselves of a back up system if they felt if necessary, so the cost for that would be minimal. RLers do not expect, want, or need this microgrid. If Inlet wants it, put it there.
Thank you. Nearly everyone in Raquette Lake has already availed themselves of a back up system if they felt if necessary, so the cost for that would be minimal.
Are there some sort of federal government incentives or payments for this project? $50M is a huge number; does this capital expenditure get incorporated into the National Grid rate base and get charged to consumers with the typical 11% ROI?
I’m all in favor of renewables and have residential PV for my house. But the approach of the Cuomo’s energy policy (which this is likely a part) has been to enrich private equity “investments” in utility scale PV or transmission toll roads like the Champlain Hudson Power Express and cut out NYPA and residential solar.
This has nothing to do with “renewables”. The battery farm would be kept charged and heated in winter by Nat Grid ‘s power line. If it was storing energy from a renewal source it would be SLIGHTLY less objectionable. That what battery farms are supposed to be for.
However this is not the place to put lithium batteries- for any reason.
So if this was storing power from a renewable it would be “slightly” less objectionable. You’re good with that because it is “green”. Well let’s scrap the battery farm and throw up some wind farms then. Already a couple proposed for the park.
Better make sure the Prius is charged before you head out this morning
On the signs it says “battery farm”. That isn’t accurate. The footprint doesn’t really come close to anything that would be described as a “farm”. Why can’t we be honest in the debate?
Who cares what it is called. Farm, storage, etc. Doesn’t matter!!
It is only 0.334 acres and replaces another spot where they are getting rid of stuff. Farm?
Better check your info before you comment. 2.4 acres so far, and nothing but forest on that land now.
I did I looked at the plans. Plus some of the other stuff is being removed.
I wonder if this thing creates a whole less noise and air pollution than backup generators during power failures.
It matters because the truth is it isn’t a “farm”, and maybe the discussion should be honest instead of misleading
National Grid along with irresponsible State administration banning diesel power generation, is trying to force us to accept the installation of a lithium battery installation in our small community of Raquette Lake. Anyone wanting this can put it in their own back yard!! This warrants an industrial location only, not in the middle of a wooded area near one of our pristine ADK lakes and watersheds in the Adirondack Park, where we are supposed to have safeguards from our Adirondack Park Agency!
Presently, NY State is experiencing widespread air pollution, haze and smoke from fires in Canada. This is a very dry Spring and just imagine the Park on fire! NY State uses burn bans during these times to help prevent such occurrences. There are well documented risks associated with any installation of this kind. We do not want and should not be required to have this risk here, no matter how small those companies that that have self-serving interest of profit, minimize the dangers!!
Now the majority of residents are against this project have to spend our time and efforts and a good deal of frustration to stop it from happening. This is just a pilot project for many more of its kind. Lithium batteries are not ‘Green’ by any measure, and certainly not appropriate in a small, wooded community in the Adirondack Park.
Again…..No matter how much supporters minimize the risk, it is simply not worth it here. This ill-conceived project should not have gotten this far without a proper outreach to the residents, long before this. Primarily represented as backup power, but actually a profit maker, the cost of which ultimately will likely be borne by the consumers. It should not be forced on a community that does not want it.