Town Board - Regular Meeting

emails and put where you're from.

Get back. I got ready to roll. Why waste time? We're good. What do I think disembodied voice? Do you want to do it or you want me?

I don't know who we're texting. I don't want to do it.

Radio. No, that was I hear nothing. Yeah, you're old. Huh? I couldn't see anything. So, I wish I got new glasses and I can't see with them. I bought you glasses and my puppy ate them. So, now I'm back to the ones that he's not here yet. So, I'll call the workshop to order. Okay. Yeah. The only agenda item we have is a battery storage lock. And to that, turn it over to Bridget. She put together our little

Yeah. So, um we're a little bit all over the place in terms of uh where we are in the law. So, I thought this would be an

a good opportunity to drill down on some of the big picture items where um they're that I think will be most helpful to move it forward. Uh probably the biggest one where we're everyone's the farthest apart is on the facts. So looks like uh the CAB and the planning board favor a mix of somewhere between 300 and 1,000 ft um based on use. Um the representative for the developers have advocated between being 100 150 ft um based on the it's is that the National Fire Protection Association 855 guidelines. Yeah. Um which I don't have a copy of. And uh you know I think that there's probably some type of middle ground here, but that's probably the biggest talking point at this point. So I didn't have the benefit of being at um the most recent planning board or CAB meetings to hear the the reasoning for the uh significantly larger especially thousand foot setback. So guess how do you guys want to address that or would you rather hear or would you rather jump in with some conversation of safety considerations from the

it makes sense to start with yeah we'll start with you guys I think they who wants to jump in we got so do we want are we on subtext or we let's do Let's we'll come back to setbacks because I think the considerations are probably pretty relevant to yes the question of setbacks. Yes. So I think if page three Dave and Tim Dagler or Jeff one of you guys each want to just kind of give a 30 second overview of the safety consideration. Do you have what those guys have a quick response and then Jim

Jim I don't know if you heard before you dropped on but we do have a hard stop at six o'clock so we just want to try and keep it moving. So okay um hang on let me let me turn you up just a little bit. All right.

Okay. Uh well in terms of setbacks the thousand foot is coming from at least when we looked at this law some pending legislation in the New York state I think it was an assembly and they were talk and there was a a bill proposed for a thousand foot setback. Um there's also other guidance from EPRI and so on about but it really goes to plume modeling uh where they're suggesting and I don't think it made NFPA 855 um at least plume modeling I think it was out to 500 ft or something like that but I think the I think at least where we came down I I maybe just speak for myself is that uh we we suggested this hazard mitigation analysis which is essentially um a sight specific evaluation of the of the potential impacts and it talks about smoke plumes, it talks about fire department access, uh connections and recommendations for separation distance. So I think what again I I think what CAB is saying is you need to look at each site specifically. Ideally, the applicant would provide this hazard mitigation analysis that would uh establish and justify the setbacks that are proposed in the application. The 100 ft seems a little light to to us compared especially to this thousand foot setback which I I think might have become law uh and in January 1.

I don't think so. I believe what I researched and found out was that there is a thousand foot setback for populations over a million people. Yeah. So I don't know that but that that was where we were coming from. One second Jim on the thousand foot you had.

So um when we had attended the planning board meeting their last meeting we had heard about the thousand foot and in the moment we had looked it up and it may be something that someone had proposed but there's absolutely no scheme behind it. it is not a regulation. Um I think you know New York municipalities could have a hard time with the state enforcing specific land use regulations on municipalities, right? So it like usually doesn't go either way. Um so that's not something that is either gaining traction or is enforced. In fact, uh, Naerta through their working group that established a model law for municipalities to adopt actually doesn't uh recommend any different setbacks other than the underlying zoning district setbacks. So, um, that's like a dramatic difference. One is a bill proposed by a few politicians and another is a working group that over the course of a year came together to set standards and guidance for for towns. Um, of course like a some towns feel comfortable with the underlying zoning district setback. Others enforce uh a little bit more and you see that with energy infrastructure all the time. uh we you know are generally supportive of like the hundreds 150 foot as it's consistent with what other towns have adopted when they adopt uh battery specific regulations. Um and in regards to the hazard mitigation analysis, it's kind of like that next level report that could be produced. Um, you know, if there was kind of a middle ground compromise scenario, that's something that Carson Power would be happy to provide because we think that we can defend the 100 150 foot setback as was in like the template wall that we had saw a few months ago. We think we could

defend that pretty well. Well, that would be great. I uh

I would just throw in one more thing here and then I'll I'll stop the uh this law can what's happened that now it I don't know what Carson has proposed in terms of power capacity but this law you know the town will not be able to stop a facility if say especially some newly uh Grand Island property owners on the north end of the island there with sufficient property frankly they could propose a gigawatt uh and So, I'm glad to hear that Eric believes because I I reviewed the planning board meeting and I think Eric is on the same page on it that the applicant needs is the onus is on the applicant to prove what they're saying. So,

Jim, how about just quickly before we dive deeper into the the setback issue? What about um safety concerns that cab has? Well, I think the safety concerns are predominantly around the potential for fire hazards. The um there are toxic gases uh emitted in these battery uh fires. They're they're they're not necessarily similar to a structure fire as was discussed at the planning board meeting. There are toxic gases, heavy metals, explosive gases in this plume that need to be addressed. And I I think that uh the the requirement for the hazard mitigation analysis uh just sounds too reasonable. Uh especially if if the potential for these larger facilities, like I say, I you know, people are putting in gigawatt battery facilities here. They're huge. And when you when you see the photos, I I look, I'm a neopight here, but when you look at the photographs of these facilities, they're generally in the middle of nowhere. So the safety thing is fire and there's ecological impacts as resulting from fire. I think the moss fire they found part I mean there's particullet associated with these battery fires and they end up either in the water or on the soil. I know there's been testing done after the fact. Um, but I uh I haven't seen any studies to see the specifics.

Go ahead, Dave. The thousand foot was brought up the planning board by one of the members. This got Okay. Um, we talked heavily about um setbacks where some of them showed up in some of the fire. Greg found something. Yeah. So for clarification, 1,000 ft comes from the newer inter agency safety working group. Then one other note in my research that EPA recommends 330 ft res. Yeah, that's true. I have a EPA document, right?

So I know I know for the facilities have got to be close to where they can get into the grid. I don't know where those locations are. I understanding from solar there's not very many. So where does the residential lead to those locations? So we're talking about a setback, but that might not even apply. I mean, I tend I'll just give my two cents. I think our setbacks are on the light end. I don't think they need to be a thousand feet, but I think

I'd like to see them a little further back from well everything. state New York state guidelines are one month to tier one uh tier 2 and three being less but 250 to 750 foot setbacks on large scale projects like Jim was saying kind of matters a setback based on based on the scale of the project and it also says here two typically 100 to 200 foot setbacks but So it identifies each each system should have a different setback obviously.

That would be by your tiers tier. Yeah, your tier two board talked about tier three and four not being allowed residential at all. Right. That that makes sense. That's up to 700 plus setbacks. That would limit some of your setback issues. Kristen has something to add.

Yeah, the in terms of the best there's tier one through three for the solar there's one through four. And so the tier three are considered large scale utility funds um installations and that's I believe what the two uh proposals are. They would both be for tier three facilities and um so yeah it's already been stated that the EPA document talks about setbacks of at least 330 ft depending on the site. And I know we have limited time here um and we've already spent a bit of time now on the number for setbacks, but that is only one of numerous um considerations in terms of site suitability. So, I don't know, you know, how this meeting is going to run or what the what the plan is, but uh the number that you attach to setback requires issues when you're talking about sites for hunting for this installation.

It addresses schools and hospital by 500 to,000 ft as well. So, I mean, you brought up safety. The planning board was mostly talking about operational data as they were operating to submit some operational data and to follow your your uh New York Fire Department, your 2025 fire code. What did you guys I tend to agree with them about kind of the Yeah.

making sure that we have some kind of confirmation that they're operational and if not as soon as they're nonoperational that they're decommissioned or moved. So, and that's I mean that's a standard component of like your law, right? If if the system isn't operational for six months, I mean that's that's like every wall kind of has something similar to that effect. We we would be able to provide operational data that attests that the battery is functioning.

And just to kind of like round out the comment and setbacks, if I may, this special use permit authority is, you know, broad subjectivity. you're determining whether the use fits with the character of the area. We are doing our best to kind of like make a case as you guys give us a pathway through a permit. We feel really comfortable with putting together a whole package that defends it and you guys could still deny us on the basis. But if you were to say something like a 700 foot setback, it would be hard to find a property within the zoning districts that makes sense for this use where you can actually be 700 feet from a property line. I mean, you're looking at like a vacant farm field zoned industrial with nothing in the center. Uh, that makes it like really difficult out of the gate to put an application before you guys without immediately a variance and not having standing the typical process.

Just real quick, just for everyone's uh space constraints of these projects, we're proposing a 5 megawatt system or potentially two five megawatt systems. the gigawatt was two is 200 times a stage. So that those are very different scaled uh of situations that you're looking at. It's a variety of different technology as well. You said there's one one trailer component per megawatt. So it'll be like five it depends on the configuration. I think you're zone six per system

and it's about 10,000 square feet that we're talking about per five. I mean, I'm more concerned with the setbacks from residences and schools than I have property lines, but that's just my two cents. So, I definitely want to see the setback from an OC structure. Yeah. Can they hook in a grid by the schools? I'm just looking. It's in there. I don't know. I mean, they they won't do it if there's not an interconnect. If there no interconnect, they're not they're not going to be able to do it. So, so forgive me. I don't remember these numbers. on top. But um what are our our setbacks on solar? Um if it's

those are pretty aggressive. Yeah, but that's for visual. That's more visual. I understand it's apples and oranges. I get that. But what do those numbers look like? Just so we can talk. Let me pull it up. Put me on the spot. I can't remember. I don't think it was quite that much. I think it's like I think it was road front. It was a lot road frontage. It has to be sign. It's a It's a deep Again, that was that wasn't safety impact. That was Yeah. Um 500 ft from the ice back of this property. So I think Yeah, we got in a fight about that right there. But I if I also remember right, we were we were about distance to a occupied structure

versus the panels. And that's kind of the number I was really was eluding me. And I think that number maybe is relevant here. I think I think we're talking a solar field. Yeah. But there's a number that maybe well just for the rale there the rationale was you didn't see it and here's you don't want it too close to your house for very different. Yeah. Yeah. It's different but I just visual a lot different than has. Yeah. But we had some aggressive numbers on the back side. I thought you seeing these new battery systems that are not toxic. I'm trying to

and again I remember there was some there's no reported incident happening um soil air and water have been tested after the fact of the fire being in down um and there being no heightened levels of toxic which is a pretty high testing that I during the burn. Uh I know that you know the chemicals fairly well, but the toxic uh pollutants that are of concern are very unlikely if not impossible to actually be created in situation.

Yeah, if I didn't bring the sheet with me, but in uh from chemistry standpoint, somebody brought up a a compound at the can't remember what it was.

Yes. Thank you. Hydro um in fact though that is a chemically possible possibility just through pure chemistry it doesn't work in the real world there's too many variables it doesn't get produced um I don't have the chemical reaction stuck with me but what we're also proposing is the boss fire was brought up that was a a lithium cobalt type battery those aren't used anymore more and that system was set up and actually a lot of things in the industry have been learned from that. So the battery systems that uh we're proposing and I'm assuming you guys are as well are lithium iron phosphate but they're a completely different chemical reaction. Ron, what are the type batteries we're talking about today?

Um uh starts with a G. Is there technology where there's there's a whole slew of battery technology military grade technology and there it's we went to association of towns they discussed them and we just had a guy in here today discussing um totally safe 400t from the road I'm almost 400t 500 ft from any inhibited That was very struck. 400 road which was brought up from side

50 ft from all adjacent property lines farther than 400 ft from the road 200 ft from a property line from 500 ft from a residence 400t from a road. It's not chemical. 500 ft from property school different use but those we just see that the rockstar battery okay with those five times faster is an issue how far

it's so they're over there's a fire sink where there's a fire hydrant or do you want them set back where they can't part of that though Don't put it out with water. So, well, but they go around the outside so they don't spread and if it's way in the back, it's going to be harder to do that. So, just spitballing the other part of that though with most of the house back, right? You know what I mean? So, and that's that's the primary goal, right? When is that that's probably okay if you want to use those numbers. I mean, just as a talking point. Yeah. Is that here or do I have this do I have no idea? I have no idea. I'm looking at the solar that's already been adopted. I don't know what if you got a step back Chris.

No, but we're talking about types of batteries. I I don't know what a new draft of the best law looks like, but I don't There is there isn't one yet. Okay. The old one doesn't um correct me if I'm wrong, Richard, but I don't think the old one specifies that we would only allow lift. it I don't think it limits it. There's like four or five different kinds. I guess I I don't want to build anything like that into a law because every time a new type is developed have to go and reise the law. We should focus on

if I can make the mechanisms only approval one. I mean, here's the thing. When you get into an application for a specific project for a specific battery, the all of these are very relevant issues under seeker review. And because we can't in drafting a law identify, you know, every possible issue we can set all the law is guide is guard rails, right? saying this is the minimum. These are our minimum standards and then you do your site specific review when you have an actual application and you're going through the seeker review process and you have an application to look at and you're looking at things like what type of battery is this? Is this you know okay so the setback is let's say it's 200 feet because that's just what's in here but so it's 200 feet. All right. Well, this is, you know, this kind of battery and we don't feel, you know, for public safety reasons that that is sufficiently set back. So, there could be an an increase in that setback given the constraints of that property. Or if you know the property is industrial on one side and residential on the other, you know, do you allow a smaller setback on the industrial side in order to create a larger buffer on the residential side? So, those are things that happen that we're not going to solve in the drafting of the law. No,

but can be solved through the project specific review, sightsp specific review. Um that this law does not foreclose that kind of review. It's this is just so when you know applicants are coming in to the town, they're saying okay so this is the bare minimum we have to meet and obviously you know they're spending a lot of money. They're not you know they've got to do their own evaluation before it ever gets to us to look at. But, you know, I think we're getting a little bogged down in the sight specific things that are more that are more appropriate for an individual project review. And I just want, you know, Carson Power and RC Energy are participating in this process as stakeholders. They do not have pending applications at this point. They have held off while we go through this process.

Thank you. So, thank you for that for working with us on that. Very noble. Thank you. Um, and you know, because theoretically they could put in an application and then put a moratorum in the next day and let us sit. Yeah. I mean, we can play that game, but like we're not we're not playing that game, which so we're appreciative that instead you're at the table with us being, you know, participating in a healthy conversation and getting everyone's perspectives. But, you know, these projects, we're not reviewing these two projects right now. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear about that. We're just talking about the big picture. This really is is just the big picture. We're not going to get into the nitty-gritty of each, right?

Well, it gives us some context to what we might be facing in near future, right? Because we know what 10 years is going to change and just allow and this might be a dumb question. Sorry. But uh so we set a minimum and you said, well, when we go through the secret process, we can decide, well, that minimum is not good enough. What's going to be the standard for us as the town to say it's not good enough? Well, that's what you have consultants for. I know, but we just say we don't like it and they they say, "Well, screw you. We're gonna sue you. It's in the law." Well, you can't just say we don't like it. You have reasons. But what are what actually it's been done before. Where are we going to get to those standards? I haven't liked it.

That's where instead of you can't build like the sight specific hazard mitigation analysis. Yeah, it's fine. But the law should just require one to be done but not set the framework so that when you go to get when you go to review a particular application, they've submitted that site specifically. Like we can't ever draft any law for any anything that's going to cover everything and it's going to be we go and we build in the types of batteries that are approved and next year this one's out, the next one's in. Now we got to go back and change a law and a wall. It's like a piece and the site's going to change and the environmental impacts change over time as well. Correct. And this is special. That's why it's done each time.

We can build the increase things into the special use permit. So we're always going to articulate why. And at the end of the day, no matter what we do, it may not be the five of us deciding something. Five of us are gone. The next board not only may they say to hell with we would have found differently. They can repeal this law. Like nothing we do is finite. Entertain me again. Let's say the solar, please. Little step back. Uh, I have it. 400 from the road. 400 road from a structure. Um, 500 from an occupied structure. 500 occupied structure. Um, 200 foot side setback if it's less than 400 feet from the road.

And which makes it like a gra a graduated setback. Yeah. And a 50 foot side setback after 400. 50 foot after 400. Yep. Signed. And those are based for visual impact. That's correct. Yes. I I agree. So that should be adjusted. So can I can I clarify something with their last planning board meeting? Didn't you say there was like 10,000 of these units in Western New York or not Western New York, New York State, and 26 of them have caught on fire. I think over the it was

some statistic to that. I mean it might not be a perfect math but but that's one quarter of 1%. Yeah, it's very very it's small like the relevant number to me here is is the distance to occupied structures. I think I don't occupied structure being a res. I'd rather just take occupied structure out and just leave it as structure because okay occupancy changes structures don't. Okay.

Can I just add like so for our particular property it's across the solar farm on Bedell road. There's I choose to not say that there's structures on our property because the landowner has existing facilities. By making it a like structure, the landowner is completely fine taking some Well, we can do it as a 500t from a structure not located on the property where it's being installed. So that if you want to put it right on top of your house, knock yourself out. Your neighbors shouldn't be subject to your lack of judgement. But again, that's getting specific to do that to do just a property structure not located on that property.

We shouldn't allow a person to take that kind of risk either. I mean, we we can't say, "Oh, you got a road here. It's just your stretch of road. You can go a thousand miles an hour." Personal reation on my my property. Well, but I'm just saying we got to have a standard to protect people who are more greedy than safe, right? We still have to comply with the rest of the setback requirements just to do just to your point. We kind of have something even on the property change, you know, where a house isn't going to get the least amount. That makes sense. And and the extreme is the most amount. What's the most you guys can can live with? We want to design a law based on a single project.

250. Is that like the worst guys? 300. It's it would probably invalid like we would just wouldn't be before you guys again. Uh like that is uh pretty ownorous and we are permitting projects both in towns that view this as a public utility infrastructure and towns with battery codes and that is uh bounds more than the greatest that we're seeing. the the difficulty is being over prescriptive in the code which is to Bridg's point like the difference between 499 ft and 500 what's that extra foot protecting and why not 501 it's we're trying to you know you're trying to set a figure that makes sense but you're not you know you're not able to look at it on a casebyase basis right now you don't have the opportunity to demonstrate to you why we think that is too much but if you were to pass a code with that we probably wouldn't be able to bring a project for you because we didn't meet for it.

If if I may, if I may.

So, Eric, I I hear what you're saying about it being prescriptive, but and I'm listening to this discussion. What I what I heard you say at the planning board meeting was that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate what they're saying is in fact true. And so I think this is and that's my feeling is that this setback is a function of the site. If you went out and picked a site and then decided you're going to put a 5 megawatt facility on there, then that's not that's not necessarily the order in which one might do this. One might say, I'm going to put in this facility. Here's my hazard mitigation analysis. And look at here. I can put this thing within 100 feet of an occupied residence. based on my analysis, the the idea that the in doing the research on these plumes from these fires, I I don't know the man in green there, but he said it chemically doesn't happen, but everything I have looked at says these from multiple sources says these gases and particulates and metals and acids exist. So if if the applicant was to provide a hazard mitigation analysis and prove what they're saying then that would be the idea.

If I can I just last point on this now you know on the topic of fire. I'm hesitant to go too far down this road because I don't believe that the town has a similar requirement for other industrial uses and the likelihood of a industrial fire at one of your industrial parks is probably significantly higher. So, um, while I understand the concern and that these, you know, the idea of a fire is very concerning, um, the what comes out of a fire is very similar whether it is a factory fire or a battery fire. That's not true.

Not true. That is not true. I'm not saying false things. Let's move on to the next. Okay. You have to understand one last comment is it's not it's not the what we write in this law is perception of the residents how we protect. So I I'll let you say probably is slightly less these open fire than where the bunch of workers and they there be different reasons to catch on fire. We have to create this law the unknown for our constants is the most fearful thing you can imagine. All the tinfall hat stuff will come off. won't be able to start allowing these and we have to do our best to write a law. Makes everybody I hear you, but I have to help you write a law that is not going to get you sued. Yep.

And we can't treat one type of applicant differently than other applicants when the risks are similar. But a battery storage unit is different than a factory. Depends on what kind of factory it is. Okay. But they're different. Battery factory. No. Oh, wait. That would be worse. Secret classification. What's that? Secret classification. I'll go back through the list now. We're going to get through more than one item. We never get through our list.

Um so, um the law as drafted have it as an automatic type one action. Um there has been a recommendation that we do it on a case by case basis. Um I this the automatic type one only applies to tier three facilities. I'm fine with I'm not inclined to make a different recommendation based on the concerns. See we got pass one.

Can't tier two also be the same capacity as tier three the way the views are defined. uh if you have a single property using five megawatts of power for on-site consumption theoretically, but you could have a tier a I would select to do a secret review on the tier two of that. It's just not magic. It's just not automatic, right? I mean, because a tier two would also be um a Tesla battery pack in the garage. Yep. Okay. So your classification structure

uh whether it's megawws or kilowatt hours we can list both. I mean it it's a simple math conversion.

It is not a simple math conversion. It's just a it's a function of difference between the energy capacity and the power capacity. So it's a function of how long you want to produce how much power as well as how much you're storing. this idea about seek I have to of course I've been making a bark about this the uh this is a type one action and a significance determination does have to be made the idea would be that you determine what the significant impacts adverse impacts are and you create the law to make sure that the law contains items that allow you to evaluate when a

I'm not going to have this argument with you again I'm not and we do not have enough time for this so we're not talking about this well that's my two cents as you know great noted if we would like to put both the kilowatt hour requirement and a megawatt great dual use requirements um I think it could be a conditional I there seems to be things on both sides on this I mean I think the the idea that there's going to be a dual use given the smaller footprint of these facilities is much less likely um we could make it a conditional dual loop dual use if it's an appropriate thing. That would be my recommendation. That makes sense to me. How many of these best laws have you for other towns?

10. Why don't have we seen all 10 of them? You've seen a very similar Exactly. I'm wondering why we're recreating the wheel if you already have. We're not recreating the wheel and this is very closely based off of your solar law. Um, however, there has been significantly more push back on this than I anticipated. and more push back than I've gotten in other towns. Um, and this this the law I propose is significantly more restrictive than what is the model law from uh fire safety oversight. I tried to get

um Oh, you you couldn't get a hold of her. I have lots of design space. So, um, oh my god, I think that this is, you know, best handled through an application submission and then reviewed during seeker. That's my opinion on it. But, um, and that in that way it is it is handled through the escrow. Um, I'm not saying that these aren't important issues. I'm just saying that that's where the I think that's the best way to handle it case by case basis. Is there training for included in this? I'm sorry. Yes.

Y an annual training and that's at the um Gotcha. Just don't share it. It's my just my personal notes. All right. Um, escrow structure. Uh, the current draft is 1% of the project cost. Um, the developers have proposed a flat $28,000 escrow with a replenishment trigger. Um, I mean, it's six and one half dozen. The other

Yep. What is What is a five megawatt project cost? We talk about the cost building it or the cost of permitting it. Because if it's the cost of building it, it's the cost of 1% of the cost of building building it. Yeah. Probably talk about the cost,000 $90,000. Talk about getting rid of it. Um 20% is uh 1%. Yeah. Yeah. 2,000 would be considerably higher than 1%. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. What was the cost to build it? 90,000 you said. No, no, no. That was the amount of the escrow if you're roughly assuming. Oh, I thought that's what I heard too. I heard that too. There's no way you can build.

No, no. That was the amount of the escrow that we acquired. So, it's a million bucks. 900. It's like 8 to9 million for five megawatt. So, if you're doing a percent, you're talking about 80 to 90,000 we'd post. And having permanent deeds in other towns, we've never gone beyond $20,000. Welcome to Grand Island, it'll cost you more than $20,000. We're happy to replenish as often as possible. We don't want to have to chase you for money though. Yeah. Um and you don't want to have to wait for us to chase you for money while your project's pending. Yes. Or while your applications pending. Okay. So to get back to how much is a five megabyte system? 8 to9 8 to 9 million. So the escrow under the draft law would be 80 to 90,000.

Yeah. Um, you know, with that said, I think, you know, there is a a medium of a 50,000 with a replenishment requirement wouldn't be unreasonable. Absolutely. I mean, I'm sure that you guys feel differently about that, but um that was going to be my suggestion, too. It's 50. I'm glad we're glad we're on this page. Um, in the law, as drafted, there's a mandatory visual impact analysis for all tier three facilities. Um there's been a request by the developers that that be only at board discretion. Um did this come did this in your meeting? The visual impact analysis.

No. No. Okay. So um at the meeting I think they might be. Yeah. We haven't gotten that far. Okay. So I mean I think we can I have I'm of two minds on this. the visual impacts. This is a carryover from your solar law um because I did use the solar law as a model for for your battery law. So for consistency purposes um you know the visual impacts associated with a battery facility are significantly less than with a solar facility. Um so whether or not you want to require a mandatory requirement of a via I think is

burns what? Yeah, he's talking about like uh like planting what are you talking study a visual stud counts as a study like if there's trees in the way it would show here's the trees or we're going to plant trees and solar law you have to show them like you said one about 10,000 square feet per five sorry go ahead oh I just wanted to ask if there would be anything in the law I know other towns have put like heightened restrictions and also commented upon there's a whether or not stacking is allowed is that

there's a there's a 20 foot height restriction which you said get to right so for 20 foot extremely high and we wouldn't stack because you have to be able to access a cabinet and we're stacking you'd have to build

me so you can get out to at a 5 megawatt project, you're talking each one of the units is about the size of a school bus. The ones we're proposing, it's five units. So, it's about think of five school buses parked in one spot. So, they're not going to be near 20 ft. So, that comes to well, what are the height? If we try to ship them by flatbed, you don't want to have to have a low boy flatbed for shipping because there's less low boys might hit a bridge

and then you know that drives your shipping cost way up. So we try to keep them or Tesla and industry tried to keep it around 8 and 1/2 ft so that there's no special trucking permitting required. So height is not really something that is truthless uh because you don't want special trucking u permits required. So with that said we could reduce the height 12 feet I mean 10 ft. I don't want to keep you from being able to put on a slab. your solar code specify like a 15 15 foot 15 is more than enough

15 minutes and if a new Tom said if a new system comes in where the stacking is then we'll just readress the law or it'll get addressed during speaker because there are other impacts a couple years down the road we might rather see stacked up than taking up more land you very well may so other questions you eBay.

I mean, we have the labs are decommissioning the plan visual impact study, which I'm less concerned about the visual impact study for this big to get something more along the lines of kind of the hazard mitigation, which I mean I would assume most of the five megawatts it might be boilerplate other than a specific a sightspecific issue. That nice Craig mitigation analysis is not a standard deliverable. It's kind of like an olive cart like more expensive deliverable if there's particular concern. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really care how much it costs you to put it together.

We want to be sure that we're protecting our residents. So, right. I And if you want to require that, that's totally fine. I think it actually drives with what Jim was saying, which said support that we have to defend the site and the project. um just that it's often the concerns that a HMA would address are often addressed through like an emergency operating system like the special have something like that required rather than one day. Okay. I think is not as important for the bigger ones that stuff.

Okay. Um decommission security. Um right now in your solar law and um as proposed in this one is cash or letter of credit. Um there have been requests through the projects the solar projects that we've permitted in the past for a bond. Um letter of credit is what the state requires for the large utility scale projects. Bonds how does the bonding process? You would think I would know this, but they take out a bond and they pay it once and it's good forever. So they it's an annual renewal and that's what I don't really and then they get is having us be the ones to reach out.

Well, and then like every five years they um we would right now and other towns I represent. So like every five years you go back and then they have to check on the cost of decommissioning and re-evaluate. But it's the same with a letter of credit. They still have to do that. So don't don't they don't isn't your removable bond with the contract because you're rent your bond you're leasing this land correct they're protected through the actual lease agreement itself which has a ours I have a solar has it has a bond for remove for when it it's done for us we have different that's the de that's what we're talking about the decom bond would

my decommit that's right in my lease of our of our so the company that leases our property that is not common in all of that having looked at many. Yeah. I mean, it's a thing that I put in there and I have in my contract. I'm very glad that it got decommissioned properly. That is good. That's a good thing to have in the contract store. It's the same as So, we're already accepting lines of credit. We currently accept lines of credit and it's the same. Um, I mean, a bond and line of credit is not the same because line of credit, but the same process as far as having to renew it.

Um, sort of. I mean, with a letter of credit, you're, you know, dealing with a bank, not a bonding agent. Um, but I mean, it's the difference is that, you know, the state considers a letter of credit as a superior instrument, but it is more protective than a bond. That said, you know, the likelihood that these are going to be into play is minimal. Um, but if you need it, you don't want to find out your bonding company doesn't exist anymore. The letter of credit expire also. letter of credit is is is guaranteed funds that are right but at some point the company could become insolvent and that letter of credit would be worthless right the bank's not going to loan them not so good

it's that's just with the state's preference I'm not gonna that's what I was they paid the shity bond so then the time period is bonding company still exists yeah so I mean I don't have extremely strong feelings about this one um just that's you know that's might be okay with allowing bonds too. We already have to chase the renewals for the lines of credit that the difference with bond. Yeah, I mean plenty of your fellow municipalities allow bonds for longer periods. All we have left is permit renewal frequency. Yeah. So, an annual renewal max.

Jim, can you mute yourself, please? Jim, mute myself. I'm sorry. Something was coming across you there. Thank you. Um, so permit renewal frequency, I think right now they're annual and I think that's typically that's the process right now for all your specialist permit. So I would not be inclined to change the frequency maybe for the first year because it these projects don't typically get built right away unless it's different than um the reason we did it uh yearly though is so we can inspect um screening and vegetation. I like the yearly just so that planning boards point so that every year they have to submit something showing that it's still operating. Yeah, that's fair.

Wait two years and have one that has under the credit is still up to date. Yeah. So um well and it's good while it's have to provide that and yeah to justify the special use that evidence I think typically what we yeah plan on because it's just easier to do in one shot if that's the so I think that that to me that's what makes the most sense and it creates a little extra work uh for your study but at the same time you don't have to track it for multiple years has it been one year or three years I don't know how long it's been every Yeah, I mean I'd rather provide that in certific.

So that's part of the part of it that they have to do. So part of the paperwork. Okay, we got five minutes left. So yeah, is that have you decommissioned any facility worth anything? Like if you scrap it out or Yes. Uh the majority of it is actually recyclable. Um the batteries could be reused. There's um when we provide you with like a full built out decommissioning plan.

Um we'll spell that out. The salvage value of the equipment will be used to um determine like the bond amount. But um we'll write that in and the answer is yes. if you have other uh one of the other things with the Tesla um units and I can't speak to other manufacturers is the cost of removal is included in the purchase price of that battery. Oh, when we purchase that battery we're paying upront for they come out and take only the batteries out right the rest of the facility.

Yes. So they you make the electrical disconnects I mean the battery unit's the biggest part of it. So they come take that and then what's left really is you know transformers and any any foundations or any poles that come out. So the biggest cost is already fronted by us when we purchase it. Okay. So and and the fluid in the transformer is the oil based one or the water based one. Um I don't there they use an environmentally one. I don't know what it is off the top of my head. Okay. I mean, this industry is what it says it is, they would just be replacing the batteries in 10, 20 years and not probably vacating the site anyway. You would think

it's going to be probably an ongoing industry. Change the battery and keep driving technology battery um new technology. What's in it for us? Uh in adopting a law and having them and having them uh it's a utility and you have to Okay. Um I say that's the easiest answer. Um you know there is there is there a post uh certainly agreement discuss I mean I'm not looking for excessive massive I mean certainly there is opportunity for discussion about you know pilot and host community agreements.

Okay. All right. of the host community agreement being that we have to uh provide fire protection and all that stuff discussion we could have had.

Um well I mean my understanding from you know having having heard uh similar presentations in the past is that you know the fire protection is for surrounding properties not for the facility itself. There is no fire protection of you just let it burn out. Am I wrong about that? Yeah, the cell the paint for example I brought this up the last time but even found my notes that um the UL9540A shows that you really only need a separation of 9 in and I' I've showed I don't know the name and just a graphic which I'm sure you've all seen is that a unit is a battery cell which is about six inches square by about 2 2 and 12 in. So, think of like an oversized, you know, battery for your Milwaukee drill or whatever. Put into a tray and then there's three trays put into a module and that module is put into a cabinet which has a cooling system. And each of these cells and I'm going to get the number wrong, but there's a lot of cells in there in one of these units because there's 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, about 24 of these modules. So, in one one unit. So that just figure a few thousand of these cells and each individual cell is thermally monitored so that if one of them exceeds its temperature threshold that shell uh cell gets shut off through the B battery management system. So each and this these are some of the things that were learned from the moss fire. Um the moss fire was you know a bunch of batteries put into a building. Now we have cells within a tray, within a module, within a cabinet that's cooled

firewalls within firewalls. Yeah, exactly. Which is why you don't apply fire to it. You can put out these batteries with uh a battery fire or thermal event with direct application of water, but you can't get the water there. It's within containers. Yeah. Right. Which is why you just, you know, monitor the area. at their most recent fire in Warwick um which is downstate somewhere. Um the fire uh extinguished itself in four to six hours. They were on standby. They did not use any water. No water whatsoever. They were just there just in case and it was done. Okay. Just oxygen starve.

It burns out. You burn out the fuel. Um, so um, just as a statement, if we're putting non- taxable structures in our in our town that make money, we want some kind of pilot, of course impressive, but we need something. Yeah, it it's that it's the same uh section of the tax code as their solar projects. Okay. Where a pilot um is required. That was one of the things they were saying at Association of Town that they required a pilot that they would be taxed. Yeah. And not lose that tax. But it's if I've got the right draft, I've got several things here. It's already in there, right? You have it.

Um, so on the taxes, uh, the the value of a pilot for developers like us is less of a tax break and it's more of like a predictable, um, schedule of payments for the 15 year. Yeah. So, it's not like we're going to come in and pay a dollar a year. It's it's to benefit uh you folks and also us on the predictability. Yeah. Well, it's gonna it's going to benefit somebody. That's right. A couple questions. Um so, I I had one more question because I didn't completely go through this A to Z. Um what are you setting these things on? Are they just going on the ground?

Are you putting a concrete pad with a curve with retention or no or or is it just a concrete flat slab? surrounded by gravel and then you have your security fencing. So there's no like any storage facility, right? Yeah. Basically or think of a substation, you know, utility substation. You have the equipment that's got time foundations and pads and it's just surrounded by uh gravel, but there's no protection or anything like that. Okay. How would flooding affect like just off a piece question here? Like so let's just say there there's six inches of standing water around the building you didn't think would be there and it's there. Why what happens? Well, it doesn't allow moisture to get into the equipment. That's that's just

cooler. The world fire was water infiltration. That's a completely different system what we're proposing and the battery company that they have down there is completely out of business as one might expect. Yeah. Because there were three fires in two years, right? It's completely different. I know it it's it's one big battery technology. There's a lot that goes into these. Those batteries specifically at Warwick are no longer manufactured. The technology that they use down there is not made, not used. Yeah, but those are the ones that tainted your tainted your industry.

Yeah. I mean, I think part of the question is because we do have issues on the island with drainage and water. Um so I think that's you know from from the conservation environmental perspective that was question about that and then I just want to also say that it's you know from the environmental conservation perspective it's not that we're

uh I don't want to give the impression that we're against renewable technologies. It's that we're, you know, our concern is with, you know, appropriate sighting of them, appropriate buffers for for from sensitive locations and then also, you know, responsible installation and maintenance and responsible um emergency or um having those plans for if something does go wrong. So it I don't know who if anybody could speak to this like what type of um like monitoring of emissions goes on analysis in these types of battery structures and um in terms of if something does happen. you know, again, concerned about what it can do with to the environment because the these types of toxic chemicals that can get released are difficult to clean up and we have, you know, a lot of um you know, as an island, we have a lot of water related issues and concerns. So my question is about that sort of environmental emission monitoring and also if something happens, you know, who's responsible for that? Who's paying for that? You know, who's who's going to do the the cleanup and how does that

it's all part of the decommissioning plan, right?

So just to speak to your concerns, my degrees aren't in environmental science, so I understand like all the concerns that you're raising. Uh, and I don't think I'd be able to do the job if I couldn't stand behind it. Um, the systems themselves have thermal uh, monitoring 247, so they can detect any increases in temperature that would indicate that there's some incident. Um, the battery itself could self-respond, and that's why there are coolants within the system to self-regulate. In the event that um you know that the thermal conditions went beyond an allowable threshold um there's a 247 monitoring center um that would then contact key stakeholders that would be provided in like an emergency operations procedure that we would submit um which

not proprietary to your business. They're like a alarm company or something like that that you all good way to think of it. Yeah.

Right. Um and and the sequence events would be spelled out. It would be contacting key stakeholders, u getting subject matter experts on site, coordination with local fire department. Um and all of these like fire safety documents could actually be created, you know, in coordination with the town and the local fire department. Um and there is that annual training so that everyone's up to speed and it's on our dime to make sure that that's the case. in terms of, you know, should an incident happen that causes damage, uh, from like a site control perspective, we're liable, um, we carry the appropriate insurance, um, and, uh, you know, should the decommissioning bond or any shity need to be pulled, um, for site restoration, uh, we would be on the hook for that as well. And these plans are addressed in the law because part of the tier tier three in particular has specific requirements for an operations m maintenance plan, you know, emergency response plan, decommissioning plan. And so it's in those documents that will be more specifically reviewed on a case-by case basis that we can get into the meat and potatoes of what exactly is your plan, how are you going to address it, who are these people, and that kind of thing. But that's how it's addressed in the law is by requiring the plan and then the plans would be reviewed once the project is being reviewed under the law.

I don't mean you guys both had a six. Bridget's got to get out of here. You got to be in seven. So then we can I'll shut this off. Bath by seven. Not bath br second. You're backed. You get the save.