Recently, I was invited by our state representative Mark Anderson to testify before the Connecticut combined House and Senate Energy and Technology committee. The objective was for me to provide technical information on utility-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems, BESS. This is the technology that both Key Capture Energy and other developers are attempting to install in our valley. I was there in support of Anderson’s attempt to add a statewide moratorium on further battery development until studies can be completed on BESS impacts for Connecticut’s cities, towns and villages. My presentation focused on two primary topics.
First—Connecticut is being overrun by developers gobbling up large amounts of land for BESS projects with plans to construct a combined total of +6,000 megawatts of generating capacity. This massive buildout is far in excess of the state’s goal of 1,000 megawatts. Since all these projects are seeking to interconnect into the New England power grid, the electric energy they produce does not have to remain in Connecticut and therefore can be sold to utilities throughout New England. Anecdotally, developers have commented that Massachusetts is their primary target market.
The planned location of these BESS projects within Connecticut demonstrates an issue of disproportionate distribution of sites on a county basis. Seventy-two percent of the 6,000 megawatts of proposed BESS sites are concentrated in just three counties, Hartford, New Haven and New London. During my testimony the two cochairmen of the committee didn’t appear to want to hear anything on this topic. Interestingly, their counties were among the lowest for planned sites with Middlesex at 6.4 percent and Fairfield at 7.2 percent.
Second—Lithium batteries are highly concentrated energy storage devices that have been known to experience thermal runaway, a euphemism for fire and explosion. In all probability such an event would necessitate the evacuation of workers and residents to a safe location. Our cities, small towns and villages do not have sufficient staff, training and equipment to handle a thermal runaway. A much larger number of fire fighters, police and EMTs would be required to control a fire than most municipalities have at their disposal.
In concluding, I added that the state permitting process needs to be more cognitive of environmental issues and that developers should provide evidence of insurance or bonding to cover costs associated with cleanup.