Pittsfield ConCom Denies Southeast Battery Energy Storage Proposal
PITTSFIELD, Mass.— After several continuations, the Conservation Commission has denied a battery energy storage system on Williams Street.
The Conservation Commission voted against a Notice of Intent application from Brattle Brook, LLC for the construction of a BESS at 734 Williams Street, which proposed work in the 100' wetland buffer zone.
Abutters have consistently expressed safety and environmental concerns about the project. At the ConCom's May meeting, Councilor At Large Kathy Amuso pointed to the company's reported track record of no fires and said, "There's going to be one, and we just hope it's not in Pittsfield."
"I know we're here for the wetlands, but overall, this project is not safe, and it is a wetlands area. It is a residential, commercial area, and if something happens there, we are all going to be affected, the whole city. And you received over 300 signatures against this petition. They were signatures from people throughout the city," said Amuso, who lives on Alfred Drive.
"…I think we have to listen to everything that people have said, and it's not a ‘Not in my backyard.' It's really, this isn't appropriate for Pittsfield in a residential area."
The councilor noted that even if she wasn't an abutter, she would be there speaking against it.
A BESS stores electrical energy during periods of low demand to be used during periods of high demand. According to the NOI application, the project consists of a "modular arrangement of rechargeable batteries with sophisticated support control systems that regulate the charging and discharging of electricity."
Chain link fencing and a 12-foot sound wall were proposed to secure the area and prevent sound pollution.
"These systems provide numerous benefits, including enhancing grid reliability by balancing supply and demand, integrating renewable energy sources into the grid more effectively, and reducing reliance on fossil fuel-based peaking plants," it reads.
"BESS installations can provide backup power support during outages and generally support the transition to a cleaner, more resilient energy system."
The last hearing was continued so that the developers, BlueWave, could delineate bordering vegetated wetlands that were identified. Engineer Jesse O'Donnell reported, "A little over a week ago, our wetland scientists arrived on site to delineate that wetland, and the plans have been updated to reflect that wetland."
The battery infrastructure and associated stormwater swale were moved 15 to 20 feet to the west to avoid impact on the newly identified wetland.
"We find that this layout fits the needs of the project and incorporates, implements the feedback requested from the commission," O'Donnell said.
Kristin Smith of Brookside Drive asked the commission, "How is that to say, in five more years, the wetland is not going to expand even closer to those pads and everything else?"
"I find it kind of amazing, and hopefully they're taking it into account when they're building out this project that the last time, well, two meetings ago, we met there, there wasn't even a wetland there, and now, all of a sudden, there's a wetland there," she said.
It was pointed out that the proposed work is close to the protected area, Commissioner Jonathan Lothrop expressing, "You don't have much room for error here." There were also concerns raised about erosion controls, to which the applicants said are mapped out in detail in the original document that was submitted, and seemingly insufficient spill containment measures.
"I feel like we do have some level of responsibility to ask you as the applicant to come up with something that if, God forbid, you wouldn't be able to contain it," Lothrop said.
Tags: conservation commission,
