Somers says 'no' to Albany over battery storage bill

SOMERS, N.Y. - “Local governments are not obstacles, they are safeguards,” says Somers Supervisor Robert Scorrano.

With that philosophy in mind, the town last week took a formal stand against proposed legislation that critics say would shift decision-making about certain types of battery energy storage systems from local municipalities to Albany.

Bills pending in the state Senate and Assembly aim to expedite the development of large-scale (over 25 megawatts) BESS by allowing the Office of Renewable Energy Siting to permit them, potentially overriding local zoning laws.

Before the Town Board voted on Thursday, Jan. 22, to pass a resolution opposing the laws, Scorrano insisted that it was not against New York’s climate goals, but was trying to protect the right to local control and, more importantly, its residents and the environment.

This resolution makes “it clear that Somers supports clean energy but not at the expense of safety, water resources, or, the big one here, home rule,” he said, adding: “Decisions that affect the community must remain grounded in local authority.”

Voting for the measure were Scorrano and Council Members Gina Arena and William Faulkner. Councilman Rich Clinchy abstained. Councilman Anthony Cirieco was absent and therefore not able to vote, although he did send a statement that was read at the meeting.

Previous Action

BESS are currently not a permitted use under the town’s code.

That change was made based on concerns about public safety and environmental protection, as well as the ability of local first responders to deal with incidents such as fires or explosions at these types of facilities.

The resolution pointed out that Somers is located almost entirely within the Croton Watershed, a major source of drinking water for New York City’s 8.5 million residents.

On top of that, the town contains several “critically sensitive environmental features,” including the Muscoot River, the East and West branches of the Croton River, and the Angle Fly Nature Preserve, which derives its name from the last remaining naturally spawning brook trout stream in Westchester.

Angle Fly’s watercourse and Plum Brook both flow into the Amawalk or Muscoot reservoirs.

According to the resolution, BESS have been shown to pose serious risks to public health, safety, and welfare, including fires, explosions, toxic smoke, thermal runaway events, and the release of hazardous chemicals such as hydrogen gases, chloride, carbon monoxide, and organic solvent vapors.

A “cursory” search of the internet reveals that there have been about 35 fires at BESS sites in New York since 2012, it said.

Four of those occurred in the past two years.

Several were in the Orange County town of Warwick, which required the evacuation of nearby schools.

The early 2025 fire at the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in Monterey County, Calif., was also mentioned. It burned for four days.

Later, tests found increased levels of nickel, manganese, and cobalt in an environmentally sensitive coastal wetland.

Besides the fact that many local first responders assert that they are not trained, equipped, or staffed to safely deal with BESS fires, there is limited public information available regarding the long-term health effects of exposure to toxins from them.

The incidents prove, the resolution claimed, that the risks are “not theoretical.”

In response to those concerns, Gov. Kathy Hochul set up the Inter-Agency Fire Safety Working Group and tasked it with coming up with BESS safety standards.

According to Scorrano, the proposed legislation did not contain requirements for funding emergency response needs.

So, what’s the town already done?

According to Scorrano, it has taken “a careful, fact-based approach to BESS” by adopting local laws that reflect its “community safety standards and environmental sensitivity.”

Furthermore, it has “monitored incidents in the state and the nation” and has “made it clear that Somers supports responsible energy policies while prioritizing public safety and the protection of drinking water.”

“This resolution continues that approach,” he said, noting that the state has “acknowledged” that many municipalities have “restricted” or “paused” BESS development due to “legitimate” safety and staffing concerns.

“Rather than addressing those directly, these bills would move decision-making away from local communities,” Scorrano claimed, adding that he wanted “to make it clear that local governments are not obstacles, they are safeguards.”

When a 116-megawatt BESS was proposed in Mahopac on a site less than 100 feet from a residential neighborhood in Somers, residents from both communities rallied.

Signs were erected, protests held, letters to various lawmakers written, and petitions signed asking the Carmel Town Board to reject the project.

In the end, the applicant, East Point Energy, withdrew its plans. The town later amended its code to ban BESS of any size.

Bill Sponsorship

New York State Senate Bill S5506 was primarily sponsored by Sen. Brian Kavanagh (D–27th District). It was co-sponsored by Sens. Patricia Fahy (D/WF–47th District), Robert Jackson (D/WF–31st District), Rachel May (D/WF–48th District), and Christopher Ryan (D/WF–50th District).

It is intended to amend public service and labor law regarding the siting of BESS and is often referred to as a “fast-track” permitting process.

Its sister bill in the Assembly, A8378, was sponsored in the 2025–2026 legislative session by Assemblywoman Dana Levenberg of Ossining (D–95th District). Assemblywoman Karines Reyes of the Bronx (D–87th District) is also listed as a sponsor.

Introduced last May, it was referred to that house’s Committee on Energy.

Sponsors say the legislation’s primary goal is to help the state achieve its ambitious goal of installing six gigawatts of energy storage by 2030.

That represents about 20 percent of the state’s peak electricity load.

The target was announced in 2022 and formalized in 2024. It supports the state’s mandate of a 70 percent renewable energy supply by 2030 and aims, supporters say, to bolster grid reliability and resilience.

It is a key component of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

Reasons cited for the proposed legislation also include streamlining the permitting process, which varies by local jurisdiction and slows development, and reducing investment and development risks for major BESS projects.

Council Comments

Councilman William Faulkner said he supported the resolution not only for the reasons Scorrano mentioned, but because he felt the proposed law would be “a direct violation of home rule.”

“New York supposedly is a home rule state, and towns are supposed to be able to control their own destinies. It doesn’t seem Albany’s going to let us do that in this case,” he said.

Faulkner also asked the town’s attorney, Michael Towey, if the town had the “option” of saying it didn’t want to abide by the ORES law should it pass.

“If the state wants to coerce us into abiding by its laws, it has the power and authority to do so,” Towey responded.

Agreeing with the resolution’s wording, Arena said people need to take the risks involved with BESS “very seriously.”

“The Warwick unit went on fire again, I think, within the last month,” she said, referring to the third such incident at the Convergent Energy & Power facility since 2023.

“I really think we need to have safeguards,” she said, adding that “obviously the home rule factor is a big part of this.”

In his note to the board, Cirieco said that he supported the town’s opposition to the proposed legislation because it “would dilute home rule, particularly as it relates to the expansion of the power of the ORES and the proliferation of BESS facilities.”

While acknowledging that “the future is in alternative energy,” Clinchy said that no one should just be able to put a BESS facility wherever they want.

Local folks have to be consulted because, he said, who “knows better” than they what a community needs or can safely handle?

But what if no town wants a BESS? “Well, that becomes a conundrum,” Clinchy intoned.

“If you’re going to store energy to increase the supply in the future and reduce costs for energy, that’s a good thing. If you’re going to put it in an inappropriate place that somehow changes the character of the town, that’s a bad thing,” he elaborated.

Talking of home rule and the need for clean energy, Clinchy noted that they were “two competing ideas that are valid and good.”

It was for that reason that he felt the need to sit out on this particular vote, even though he thought Scorrano and the resolution had summed things up “fairly well.”

Whether they’re reasonable or not, concerns about BESS are “understandable,” Clinchy said, adding that last year he had attended a conference of the New York State Association of Towns where he made a statement about BESS in light of the fact that, at that time, “the project up in Baldwin Place was cooking.”

“I said you’re not going to get too far with this if you can’t convince people this is a safe way to do it. People consider nuclear (power) now to be safer than this,” he said.

“I don’t blame them, but you’ve got to make sure you’ve done the studies, gotten out in front of the issues, and convinced town boards that it (BESS technology) is safe,” Clinchy explained.

The resolution will be sent to Gov. Hochul’s office, Sen. Kavanagh, the state Senate and Assembly, and all “relevant state and regional representatives” with the intent of urging them to “reject or substantially amend Senate Bill S5506 and Assembly Bill A8378 to preserve local control and prioritize public safety.”

No one disagrees that “something has to be done” about the energy crisis, but Scorrano said he truly believes that folks are “putting the cart before the horse when it comes to a lot of this stuff.”

“I just think having a resolution forces Albany to go back and do better,” he said.