LEOMINSTER — The Leominster City Council convened on Oct. 14 for a public hearing on Petition 15-26, a proposed zoning amendment that would allow battery energy storage systems in the city. The petition was filed by Planning and Development Director Elizabeth Wood on behalf of the planning board.
Councilor At Large Susan Chalifoux Zephir, who is also chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, opened the hearing by noting that Wood was not present because the planning board’s own public hearing on the matter had yet to take place. That session is scheduled for Oct. 20, she said.
Councilor At Large Claire Freda was the first to speak, voicing strong opposition to the proposal. She described large-scale battery facilities as “dangerous” and said the city should not adopt any new zoning language until the state issues clear regulations.
“There are challenges everywhere. There are no regulations in place yet,” Freda said. Later adding, “This is dangerous stuff….But the biggest problem is that the state is mandating it. The community can turn it down, and the state can still say, ‘Well, we want it there anyway.’”
Councilor At Large Thomas Ardinger agreed, citing fire safety concerns and environmental hazards linked to similar projects across the country.
“This is something I would never support in the city under any circumstances. It’s too dangerous,” Ardinger said. “They’ve had a fire out in California that burned for days…These batteries are not safe—they’re a hazard to the community.”
Representing Blue Sky Utility, a U.S. subsidiary of Israeli-based Nofar Energy, Charles Jenkins, who told the board he has an office in North Andover and met with Wood prior to attending the hearing, spoke next to explain the purpose and safety of the proposed systems. Jenkins said the facilities store excess energy from the grid and release it when demand spikes, helping stabilize energy supply and support renewable energy expansion.
“What this does is gather during the day excess that comes off different sources in the grid, stores it in the battery, and then when you have a peak demand response necessary, instead of starting a fossil fuel generator, you pull back off the battery and into the grid,” Jenkins said.
When asked by Councilor Freda is he was speaking with Wood because he already had some sites in mind, Jenkins said that Blue Sky Utility has “a few sites in mind already,” adding that “some of them are under lease already.”
Councilor Freda said she’s concerned not only about the city ordinance, but that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) hasn’t even regulated it yet.
“My concern isn’t just the city ordinance, it’s also that the DEP hasn’t even regulated it yet,” Freda said. “And so I mean that makes it a lot more serious in my book that the DEP is still trying to catch up with their older regulations for smaller battery storage. I mean there’s nothing to regulate for us to even come up with a decision, you know when there’s no regulations in place.”
Jenkins replied stating, “So, we can try to speak to that as well and see what actions are in play right now and report back to that. I’ve also I’m thinking to get in touch with the state fire marshal and have them weigh in on the on the the materials that we’ve assembled for the local fire chiefs just to see if we can get some kind of overarching consensus on the general fire safety questions.”
Jenkins told councilors that Blue Sky Utility was taking a cautious approach to site selection and was committed to ensuring any potential project in Leominster would meet strict safety and environmental standards.
“We’re trying to be very thorough,” Jenkins said. Later adding, “We’re very acutely aware of what’s a good site—you don’t want to put it in a place where you are going to put anybody in harm or harm the water supply, or wetlands, or anything of that nature. So, I think we’d like speak with Miss Wood on Monday about that and see if we can find some kind of middle ground.”
Following Jenkins, Shannon Boyce of 21 Jungle Road LLC addressed the council. Boyce said her company owns property in a mixed-use district and requested that such zones be included in the proposed amendment to permit battery storage facilities there as well.
“I think it’s a little early for us to really be able to ask anything,” Chalifoux Zephir said to Boyce. “But when Ms. Wood—after the Planning Board on Monday—when we continue our public hearing, that would make sense for you to come back then.”
The committee decided to keep the public hearing on Petition 15-26 open and continue it to a later date, likely November 10, since the Planning Board had not yet held its own hearing or made a recommendation.
In short, no action was taken on the zoning amendment that night. Councilors agreed it was premature to deliberate without the planning board’s input and opted to revisit the matter after its October 20 meeting.
