Hartford Courant(TNS)
With regulators signaling they’ll approve a highly controversial battery farm near Salmon Brook, Granby officials are waging a last-ditch campaign to get them to reconsider based on the risk of a chemical fire that might create widespread water pollution.
Key Capture Energy appears on the brink of winning CT Siting Council approval to build a nearly 5-megawatt facility in Granby, even though municipal leaders have been warning for months that the plan creates pollution and safety risks that Granby can’t overcome.
Based on a straw poll of Siting Council members on Jan. 9, the plan is poised to win official approval in a formal vote next week.
The Albany-based energy company has said for the past half-year that its facility would be safe, and the Siting Council this month concluded it meets fire safety regulations. But Granby leaders contend otherwise.
“It is difficult to imagine a more inappropriate site for a Battery Energy Storage System facility,” First Selectman Mark Fiorentino said Thursday. “The Salmon Brook site is surrounded by a high-density residential area, is adjacent to a busy retail center, and is located on a groundwater aquifer that supplies potable water to a significant portion of Granby.”
Fiorentino issued a statement calling on Siting Council members to reconsider their support, and warning that his town is at severe risk if the council makes an error.
“The project involves clear, significant public health and safety risks that can be completely and easily avoided with no discernable impact on the state’s goals related to renewable energy and power grid resiliency,” he wrote. “The council need only follow a safety guideline it utilized just two months ago to deny similar, but smaller, BESS projects in New London and Waterford.”
Granby’s central complaint is that if a battery storage unit burns, it could create a so-called thermal runaway in which materials burn so hot that firefighters can’t extinguish them, and must instead leave them to simply burn out. During that time, toxic chemicals could be draining into a nearby aquifer or into Salmon Brook, the town warned.
But in its 33-page analysis of the proposal, Siting Council staff on Jan. 3 gave no evidence that the facility would violate fire safety standards or state health and water protection codes. Although the proposed site is within Granby’s aquifer protection zone, it doesn’t fall into any state-designated zone, the analysis noted.
In a non-binding straw poll Jan. 9, five members said they intend to approve KCE’s plan at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting, while just two said they’d vote against it. A sixth indicated strong support, but said he would need to review evidence before voting.
“I don’t care for the site myself, but I see no reason not to approve it,” said Chairman John Morissette, one of the five yes votes. “The characteristics of the site meet all the requirements. There could be better sites but this is the site they chose.”
Council member Quat Nguyen, however, agreed with the town’s objection that firefighters aren’t guaranteed an unimpeded way to reach the site.
“Should there be an emergency or fire, the current indirect access could hinder the ability of fire trucks or equipment to maneuver around,” he said, adding that he will be a no vote.
Brian Golembiewski said he’d approve the project with provisions that KCE do what’s possible to reduce operational noise and prevent tree clearing that could endanger northern long-eared bats. He also said KCE should be required to document any training or equipment it provides to local volunteer firefighters.
Several council members noted that Connecticut’s power system needs more battery energy storage units. KCE has said its project would be a benefit to the region.
“The project is located at an area on the distribution network with appropriate charging and injection capacity to allow a project of this size to operate. The project will be able to support the future build out of renewable intermittent energy in this rural area of the grid,” the company said in its application.
“The project will be able to indirectly benefit the electric system due to its availability to charge from resources that may be generating at a time of low demand and make the energy available during periods of high demand,” it said.
Connecticut gives authority to the Siting Council on matters like KCE’s plan, and town officials said they’re frustrated that they don’t have more of a voice in the matter. If the council won’t or can’t value public safety adequately, something is wrong, Fiorentino said.
“Under the state’s regulatory system, we have no authority or ability to protect our own citizens,” he wrote. “We must rely on the Connecticut Siting Council to do so.”
©2025 Hartford Courant. Visit courant.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.