Town tables battery energy storage local law after developers and residents weigh in

The Grand Island Town Board on May 18 deferred action on a proposed local law to regulate battery energy storage systems after a lengthy public hearing in which developers, local contractors and residents offered both support and detailed criticisms.

Developers and proponents, including Lauren Hall of Carson Power, told the board the technology improves grid reliability and resilience and urged the town to adopt a “protective, technically sound and workable” law. Hall urged several specific changes: reduce side and rear setbacks for large (tiered) projects from 150 feet to 100 feet, measure setbacks from the battery containers rather than the project fence, apply a 200-foot residential buffer to residential zoning boundaries rather than individual homes, and allow setback relief where neighboring property owners voluntarily agree in writing.

Several local speakers with industry experience echoed that view, saying overly stringent rules or annual special-use permit renewals could make projects unfinanceable and harm local renewable and storage development prospects. Kaylee FTH, a project developer with Soul Source Power attending remotely, also asked the board to remove an apparent reference to the New York City Fire Department from the draft code and to reduce an initial escrow requirement from $50,000 to $20,000.

Other speakers, including a resident who identified themself as Jin Dagler Staley, raised technical and safety concerns. Staley criticized the draft for not explicitly referencing NFPA 855 — the national standard the speaker said governs operations manuals, commissioning, inspections and other mitigation measures — and warned that certain definitions (facility area, tier thresholds) and discretionary provisions could allow projects to expand without additional review or permit triggers. “If this law doesn't include 855, there's no way you can meet it,” the speaker said, adding they would submit written comments for the record.

Developers responded in the hearing that reputable firms generally follow NFPA 855 practices even when the code language is not explicit, and one project owner present said the team intended to comply with required safety and permitting steps.

Following the comments, a board member moved to table the local law and forward the public input to planning for revision; the motion was seconded and the roll-call vote recorded as affirmative (Kilmer, Garcia, Datti, Deal). The board stated it did not expect to act on the law that night.

What’s next: The board referred the matter back to the planning department for review of the written comments and recommended edits before the board considers any revision or adoption. Public comments made at the hearing will be part of the record.