Senate Bill S6557

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S6557

SPONSOR: LANZA
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend to the general municipal law, in relation to prohibiting
the siting of battery energy storage system sites on Staten Island

 
PURPOSE:

To encourage the construction of battery energy storage systems with
respect to the environment and consultation with the communities in
areas where such facilities are proposed. Forbids the future siting and
construction of battery energy storage facilities, systems, and
substations of any scale and possessing any storage capacity on Staten
Island, including, but not limited to, those devoted to lithium-ion
battery energy storage, with the exceptions of those situated in indus-
trial zones and those reserved exclusively for small-scale residential
use. It also encompasses siting applications pending as of the effective
date.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
              

Section 1 of the bill sets forth the legislative intent behind the bill.

Section 2 of the bill sets forth a definition.

Section 3 of the bill amends the General Municipal Law by adding a new
section 137 to forbid the future siting and construction of battery
energy storage facilities, systems, and substations of any scale and
possessing any storage capacity on Staten Island, including, but not
limited to, those devoted to lithium-ion battery energy storage, with
the exceptions of those situated in industrial zones and those reserved
exclusively for small-scale residential use.

Section 4 of the bill sets forth a severability clause.

Section 5 of the bill sets forth the effective date and part of the
bill's scope.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Battery energy storage systems (BESSs) are emerging as new technology to
help use energy from existing sources when it is both inexpensive and
readily available and redistribute it to distribution grids during times
of peak demand when existing power grids are under the greatest load
demand and therefore supply is low and pricing is high.

Notwithstanding those benefits, blindly siting BESSs in such close prox-
imity to homes, schools, churches, playgrounds, and small businesses can
be antithetical to the goals of advancing energy-saving battery technol-
ogy and, above all, human health.

In fact, utility-scale BESSs could jeopardize human lives if they are
not handled with care.

Keeping the option open for personal, small-scale residential use is,
however, a must. There is simply a saturation of experimental technology
out in society, the full spectrum of dangers of which we are not yet
fully privy. While it is of the utmost importance to respect land uses
and respect local zoning laws, while also allowing breathing room for
innovation and industry, one must acknowledge the now-added pressure on
firefighters, EMS, and other emergency personnel who now have to put out
fires sparked by electric cars, school buses, scooters, and other modal-
ities, and that is without even introducing a BESS into the public
square.

BESSs are, above all, susceptible to risk of explosion and fires. They
can emit smoke and toxic fumes in the form of gas containing flubrine
compounds. This gas is susceptible to ignition, but even when it does
not ignite, this gas still lingers in the air and can cause permanent
eye and lung damage.

Ironically enough, such compounds are found in the class of "fluorinated
gases" (F-gases), which are man-made, and used in industrial applica-
tions, two of which are hydrogen fluoride (HF) and phosphoryl fluoride
(P0F3). They're greenhouse gases with an even higher warming potential
than that possessed by carbon dioxide.  According to the federal Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, F-gases include the "most potent and long-
est-lasting greenhouse gases emitted by human activities." Hence, it is
imprudent to blindly proliferate BESS after BESS without conducting
further research.

While preserving the spirit of innovation is a must, the costs of siting
these facilities so close to places frequented by the public are simply
much too high, in that the toll on human lives is simply too likely at
this juncture. Future blueprints must be handled with care.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2024: S.4390 - Referred to Cities 1

2023: S.4390 - Referred to Cities 1

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.