Battery Storage

Kingston BESS Update: Why We Still Need Time to Get This Right

by

By Rebecca Martin

When we first wrote about the need for a temporary moratorium on new Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) applications in Kingston, the goal was to give the City time to understand this emerging technology and get our zoning right before a project arrives.

That need has become clearer given what we are now seeing in the neighboring Town of Ulster, where now three very large BESS projects are being proposed in close proximity to Kingston. Imagine being a small town board suddenly having to manage three major environmental review processes under an outdated zoning code that doesn’t account for large-scale battery storage. That means making consequential decisions while still trying to understand the technology, the risks, and what the community needs. Kingston has an opportunity to avoid that predicament by taking the time to establish the right framework before a project arrives.

The City’s Zoning Working Group, following the recommendation of the Climate Smart Kingston Committee, has advised the Common Council to amend Kingston’s zoning code to address BESS. Notably, a member of the Working Group questioned whether the Common Council itself has the expertise needed to craft a BESS ordinance. That concern should not be dismissed. Getting this right will require the City to first identify the critical questions that must be answered, engage the appropriate independent experts, and develop a thoughtful, well-informed path forward.  That takes time.

Why does this matter?

Battery storage is an important part of the clean-energy transition. The question isn’t whether Kingston should support energy storage. The question is how—and where—we should allow battery facilities to be built.

Lithium-ion battery storage presents safety considerations that are different from many other types of development. Batteries can experience thermal runaway, which can produce intense fires, release flammable gases, and, under certain conditions, create explosion or deflagration hazards. Fire-safety standards for BESS address fire propagation, separation distances, ventilation, testing, and emergency response—and those standards continue to evolve.

That matters when we’re talking about facilities in or near densely populated areas. Kingston needs to understand what those standards mean for our geography: setbacks from homes and businesses, emergency access, water resources, firefighting capacity, emergency-response plans, and the potential cumulative impacts of multiple facilities in the region.

A Familiar Problem: When Developers Define the Zoning

Although the circumstances aren’t exactly the same, there is a useful lesson in what happened in the Town of Ulster in 2018. When GlidePath proposed its Lincoln Park Grid Support Center, the developers argued that a large power-generating facility could be treated as a “utility company structure” under the Town’s existing zoning.

The zoning code did not clearly define what that term meant or distinguish conventional utility infrastructure from a privately developed power plant. That ambiguity became a major point of contention and ultimately prompted the Town to revisit its zoning—but only after the community narrowly avoided a serious mistake, thanks to the sustained and determined work of local advocates who fought to stop the polluting project.

A Moratorium Is About Time—and Public Process

If a BESS project is submitted before Kingston amends its zoning, the developer will be judged under the zoning in effect when the application is filed. Kingston could then find itself debating how to regulate a complex project after it arrives, rather than establishing the rules in advance.

A temporary moratorium of at least six months would give the Common Council time to understand Kingston’s particular assets and vulnerabilities, consult qualified experts, and establish a thoughtful regulatory framework that could be ready in the new year.

We tried to move that conversation forward and shared a draft proposal, along with concerns behind it, with several Council members, including Sara Pasti, Michele Hirsch, and Marissa Marvelli.

But the proposal never entered the public process. Our request was not placed on a committee agenda, so the public never had the opportunity to explain the proposal, answer questions, or hear Council members publicly consider and debate it.

That is where gatekeeping becomes a problem. The public owns this civic space, and committees should provide a meaningful place for residents to bring forward ideas and engage their elected representatives. If an issue cannot reach a committee, where is the public supposed to have that conversation? Three minutes of public comment at a Council meeting is not a substitute for meaningful public deliberation.

Council members may ultimately decide that a moratorium is not the right approach. That is democracy. But the public should at least have the opportunity to make the case.

When One Door Closes…

Although the Council process did not provide a path forward, we looked for another avenue. Because the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) advises the Common Council, we brought the conversation there. In advance of the CAC’s recent meeting, we spent hours speaking with members about why Kingston should thoughtfully consider how its zoning accommodates BESS before an application arrives.

Unfortunately, when the possibility of a moratorium was raised, the Council members we engaged were not able to bring our concerns forward in a meaningful way. We were not asked to attend the meeting to explain the proposal or respond to questions directly.

Questions were also raised about the rationale for a moratorium, including comparisons with the Kingston Climate Smart Committee’s position. But different advisory bodies have different roles and areas of expertise. The Climate Smart Committee’s work on clean-energy policy does not necessarily address the specific zoning, land-use, infrastructure, and public-safety questions Kingston must consider when developing rules for BESS. Those questions deserve to be evaluated on their merits and with the appropriate expertise.

The CAC was also told by its administrator, Julie Noble, that the Executive Administration would veto any BESS moratorium. While she may have insight into the administration’s position, a potential veto should not substitute for the Council’s own consideration of the issue or the public’s opportunity to make its case. Before deciding whether a moratorium is appropriate, Kingston should have the opportunity to fully consider the questions, hear from residents, and understand what it needs to know.

A Moratorium Gives Kingston Time to Do the Work

A temporary moratorium is a legitimate planning tool—one that a handful of municipalities right here in Ulster County have used to give themselves time to understand BESS and establish local rules.

The Laws & Rules Committee discussed creating a task force within the next 30—and potentially 60—days to examine BESS rather than pursuing a moratorium.

But they miss the point of a temporary moratorium. A moratorium doesn’t replace the work of a task force—it gives the City time to do that work without a BESS project arriving while the rules are still being sorted out.

A project could be submitted tomorrow, next week, or while the task force is getting organized. A temporary moratorium would give Kingston the time to establish the task force, bring in qualified experts, review its zoning, and develop protective standards without interruption.

That’s good planning.

Take Action

Call your Kingston Common Council member. Ask them to pause BESS applications by supporting a temporary moratorium of at least six months so the City can review its zoning, bring in qualified experts, and develop thoughtful, protective regulations before a project arrives.

 

Before a Battery Energy Storage Proposal Arrives, Kingston Has an Opportunity to Get it Right

by

By Rebecca Martin

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are becoming an increasingly important part of New York’s clean energy transition. As these facilities are proposed throughout the state, communities are being asked to make decisions involving complex issues related to zoning, land use, public safety, emergency response, environmental impacts, and long-term planning. 

Kingston has not yet received a BESS proposal. That gives us an opportunity to prepare before a project arrives.

We have drafted a temporary moratorium on new BESS applications for consideration by the Kingston Common Council.

This is not a ban on battery storage. It is a planning tool that gives Kingston time to understand this emerging technology, engage the public, seek appropriate expertise, and develop regulations that are thoughtful, legally sound, and protective of the community.

It also allows the City to develop a strategy for engaging with BESS projects outside Kingston’s boundaries. While home rule limits the City’s ability to regulate neighboring municipalities, Kingston can establish how it will participate when regional projects may affect our community members, emergency response systems, infrastructure, or the environment.

At the recommendation of Climate Smart Kingston, the City’s Zoning Working Group is asking the Common Council to review local laws and determine what changes may be needed to address BESS. Kingston’s current regulations were not written with utility-scale battery storage in mind. Updating them requires careful consideration.

Battery storage is a rapidly evolving technology. While Kingston has talented staff, the Common Council should not feel obligated to rely only on existing resources when specialized expertise is needed.

Many municipalities are consulting fire safety specialists, engineers, planners, environmental professionals, and attorneys with BESS experience. We should do the same. Outside expertise can help ensure Kingston’s policies are technically informed and protective of our community.

The State’s model language and guidance are useful starting points, but they are not a substitute for local planning. Kingston has unique neighborhoods, infrastructure, environmental resources, and public safety considerations that deserve careful evaluation, and the Kingston Common Council should take the time that is needed to create an approach that supports clean energy goals while ensuring projects are designed to protect the community. 

Without a pause, a developer could submit a proposal before Kingston has completed its review or updated its laws. Once a project enters the approval process and SEQR begins, the City’s ability to use a moratorium or establish new standards specifically to address that pending project is no longer available.

The result could be years of conflict over a specific proposal before Kingston has first decided what standards should guide these decisions. Instead of creating a thoughtful framework in advance, the City could find itself responding to a project under existing rules that were never designed for this technology.

Communities like the Town of Ulster are already navigating three different BESS proposals and the complex questions that come with them. Kingston has an opportunity to learn from those experiences and prepare before facing the same challenges.

Take Action

With the Zoning Working Group’s incoming recommendation to review Kingston’s zoning code and local laws for BESS projects, the Common Council should consider a 6–12 month moratorium as a reasonable and responsible step while the City develops a thoughtful strategy. This time would allow the Council to engage the public, determine what expertise is needed, seek outside professional assistance where appropriate, review zoning, safety, and emergency response considerations, develop protective standards, and establish a process for regional engagement.

The goal is not to stop battery storage – it is to ensure that if projects move forward, they do so with careful planning, strong protections, and community confidence.

Does Kingston Have the Resources to Safely Regulate Battery Storage Systems?

by

The Climate Smart Kingston Commission is proposing recommendations to help the City of Kingston prepare for lithium-ion battery energy storage systems, commonly known as BESS. These recommendations include updating the city’s Comprehensive Plan, revising zoning and permitting rules, and organizing training for first responders and municipal officials.

At the center of this effort is a major zoning question: Kingston is being asked to update its code to allow lithium-ion battery energy storage systems within city limits. On paper, this is presented as a straightforward planning update meant to align local regulations with New York’s clean energy goals. In practice, it raises a more difficult and often overlooked issue—whether the City of Kingston actually has the staff, technical expertise, and institutional capacity to write zoning code for this type of industrial infrastructure in a responsible way.

Zoning decisions like this are not just administrative updates. They determine where high-risk, high-complexity facilities are allowed to locate and under what conditions. Once those uses are written into the code, they become part of the city’s long-term land use framework and are difficult to unwind.

Wherever one lands on BESS as part of our future energy system, the real question is whether Kingston’s planning and zoning volunteers and staff has the expertise to responsibly regulate battery energy storage at all, or whether it is being asked to manage technical risks that exceed its capacity.

Follow along:  Kingston Zoning Working Group and Climate Smart Kingston

Public Comment Period Opens for Alcazar (TerraGen) Battery Storage Project; Public Hearing Scheduled for February 23

by

On February 5, 2026, the Town of Ulster Town Board began a 60-day review period for the Draft Scope of Work for the Alcazar Energy Storage System Battery Project proposed at the Coleman High School site at 430 Hurley Avenue. This action initiates the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) scoping process, which assesses potential environmental impacts and identifies ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. Written comments may be submitted any time prior to March 10th at 5pm (when the public process for the scope closes) to the Supervisor at ul**************@*************ny.gov or in-person to the Supervisor at Town Hall.

A public hearing will be held on Monday, February 23, 2026, at 6:00 pm at Town Hall in Lake Katrine. Comments made at this session become part of the official record for the project and will be considered in shaping the scope of the environmental review.

This stage of the SEQR scoping process is the time to evaluate whether the studies proposed so far are adequate or incomplete. Scoping determines which environmental issues must be studied in detail before the project can move forward. Community members are encouraged to review the Draft Scope of Work carefully to identify what is missing, what needs further study, and what questions remain unanswered.

Community members may wish to comment on issues such as:

  • The impacts of siting the project next to a residential neighborhood

  • Whether alternative locations or site layouts should be studied

  • Potential impacts on environmental justice communities

  • Fire safety risks and emergency response planning

  • Impacts to water resources

  • Light and noise pollution

  • Traffic and transportation impacts

  • Effects on local wildlife and natural resources

Community members are encouraged to place their concerns on the record at the February 23 public scoping hearing, and may also submit written comments through the end of the 60-day scoping period.

We also have prior experience with the SEQR scoping process, including helpful materials from an earlier project. While the project itself was different, the scoping process is the same, and the lessons learned still apply. Resources from that effort include a video and PowerPoint presentation explaining SEQR and the scoping process, prepared for the Lincoln Park Power Plant Project, as well as draft scoping comments submitted by residents and coalition partners. That process also included a public comment brainstorming session, which helped community members think through their concerns, identifying missing studies and prepare effective comments for the official record.

To find all studies relevant to the scoping process for TerraGen/Alcazar:

  1. Visit Town of Ulster Public Information page
  2. Scroll down to find “Large Scale Proposed Projects”
  3. Click on “Alcazar Energy Storage System, LLC”

 

Questions and Answers Regarding the Scoping Session

If the public wishes to send written public comment for the record on 2/23, what time will it have to get into by on that day?  Would they send those comments to you at this address?
Written comments may be submitted any time prior to March 10th at 5pm to the Supervisor via email or in-person to the Supervisor at Town Hall.

Does the 60 calendar-day scoping process end on April 6?  Just flagging that that is Monday following Easter Sunday.  It wouldn’t hurt to have a little more time so folks aren’t having to jam over the holiday weekend.
The public has until March 10th at 5pm to submit written comments on the draft scope. The 60-day reference in the Town Board’s February 5, 2026 resolution relates to the maximum timeframe within which the Lead Agency, upon receiving a draft scope by an applicant,  must adopt a final scope under 6 NYCRR Part 617. That 60-day timeframe is not the length of the public comment period itself.

Can the public provide comments to you right up until the final day of the scoping process?  What time do those need to be delivered by on that day, and do those comments all apply to the record like those delivered on the 23rd?  What is the difference?
The public has until March 10th at 5pm to submit comments on the draft scoping document. The public cannot provide comments right up until the final day of the scoping process. Written public comments received after the public scoping session and before March 10th will be treated the same as the comments received at or before the public scoping session on February 23, 2026.

Will members of the public be allowed to speak, or is the session for written comment only?
Members of the public can speak, with a timer set to three minutes per speaker.

Will questions be allowed or just statements?
This will not be question-answer period, but expressions of what you believe is an environmental impact to be studied.

Who will be taking the comments?
Representative(s) of LaBella (project planner) will be present to receive comments, along with the town board.

Update on the Terra-Gen Battery Storage Proposal – Positive Declaration Issued

by

By Rebecca Martin

Last night (October 2), the Town of Ulster Town Board, acting as lead agency, voted to issue a Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) for the proposed Terra-Gen battery energy storage project. This important step formally acknowledges that the project may have significant environmental impacts and requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Two motions appeared to be cast during the meeting. The first was for the board to approve the Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) resolution (see page 50 “meeting documents”) —contingent on a letter from Terra-Gen’s attorneys stating they would not sue the Town over the decision or to table it.  The second was to formally adopt the resolution.

We were surprised the Town chose to pass the resolution during a workshop meeting—without setting the public scoping period—despite public requests for a 90-day comment window. Typically, both actions occur together during a regular legislative session, as scoping is automatic with a Pos Dec. We’ll have to wait to see how the board handles this at the next Town Board meeting. Still, we appreciate Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck’s leadership and the thoughtful questions he raised—especially in contrast to continued misleading statements about legal risk that have caused confusion and delay.

For months, Supervisor James Quigley publicly claimed that issuing a Pos Dec could expose the Town to legal action. As recently as the September 25 meeting, he responded angrily to a resident request for a Pos Dec and a 90-day scoping process: “I’ll call for a Pos Dec right now, and then we can get sued.”

These repeated warnings were not only misleading—they were legally unfounded. A Pos Dec is a routine requirement under SEQR when a project has one potential significant environmental impact. It does not oppose or block a project; it merely initiates a full environmental review. Suggesting that complying with SEQR invites litigation misinformed both the Board and the public and fostered unnecessary fear around fulfilling a basic obligation.

For those who continue to claim that issuing a Pos Dec would appear to be a result of public pressure: if you read the Town’s own resolution, you’ll see it explicitly identifies the potential impacts that the public has been raising for months (see page 50 of “meeting documents”). The record shows that the Town recognized the same environmental concerns the community has long voiced—proving that the decision was based on substance, not simply public outcry.

In fact, during last night’s meeting, Terra-Gen’s attorney Rob Panasci (Young/Sommer LLC) said that the company does not oppose the Pos Dec. When directly asked by Van Kleeck whether Terra-Gen would sue over the decision, Panasci responded:

“We’re not suing. I don’t know if there was some implication of that? We wouldn’t be able to sue you if you issue a Pos Dec.”

Despite this clear statement, the Board still insisted on a formal letter from Terra-Gen confirming no lawsuit would be filed—an unusual and unnecessary step that underscores the months of misinformation from the Supervisor and the town’s legal counsel.

Ironically, it was later stated on the record that Terra-Gen preferred a Pos Dec be issued sooner rather than later—exactly as SEQR intends for a project of this scope.

The next step is the public scoping process, which defines the content of the Environmental Impact Statement. We expect the Town Board to outline the scoping process and address the community’s request for a 90-day public comment period at the next town board meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 16.

Town of Ulster Town Board Workshop: “Positive Declaration” in SEQR for Terra-Gen Lithium-Ion Battery Project

by

(click on image and turn to page 50 to review the resolution for a positive declaration in SEQR)

By Rebecca Martin

Tomorrow, the Town of Ulster Town Board will hold a workshop to discuss the next steps in the environmental review of the proposed Terra-Gen lithium-ion battery storage facility — a large-scale battery storage project that has drawn both interest and concern from the community.

At the heart of the discussion is the issuance of a “Positive Declaration” under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process (see page 50 to review the resolution). This means the Town Board could (and it should) determine that the project may have significant environmental impacts, and a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required.

What Is a Workshop?

A workshop is a working session where the Town Board meets to discuss issues in greater detail, but no formal decisions or votes are typically made. Unlike regular Town Board meetings, workshops are more informal and play an important role in preparing for major decisions.

Part of tomorrow’s workshop will focus on reviewing a Positive Declaration for the Terra-Gen (Alcazar) proposal (see page 50), which is included on the agenda.

The public may provide comments at the beginning of the meeting, limited to agenda items only and three minutes per speaker. At the end of the meeting, the public will also have an opportunity to comment on non-agenda items.

About the Terra-Gen Project

Terra-Gen, a U.S.-based renewable energy developer backed by Alcazar Energy, has proposed building a utility-scale lithium-ion battery energy storage system in the Town of Ulster. The facility is designed to store electricity and discharge it during times of peak demand — a critical function for supporting the transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which produce power intermittently.

In the short term, the energy stored in the facility will likely come largely from the existing regional electric grid, which is still primarily powered by fossil fuels. This reflects the current energy mix in the area, and while it may limit the immediate climate benefits of the project, battery storage remains an important tool for grid stability and for enabling greater integration of renewables over time.

Based on the developer’s application, community members, elected officials, and subject-matter experts have identified a range of concerns, including fire risk, emergency preparedness, and the facility’s proximity to residential neighborhoods. Under SEQR, all that is required is one potential adverse significant environmental impact to justify a Positive Declaration—and several have already been identified. If issued, the Town Board’s Positive Declaration would trigger a full environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), ensuring these concerns are thoroughly examined before any decisions are made.

What Happens Next?

If the Town Board issues the Positive Declaration, it commits to a more thorough environmental review under SEQR, starting with a public scoping phase to identify which impacts must be studied. Terra-Gen will then prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), followed by a public comment period and hearings. After reviewing feedback, a Final EIS will be prepared, and the Town Board will decide whether the project may proceed.

This process allows the public and experts to weigh in on key environmental, safety, and land use concerns before final decisions are made.

It is not yet clear whether a majority of the Town Board supports the Positive Declaration. Tomorrow’s workshop should clarify who supports or opposes it, and why.

Crucially, the public should request a 90-day public comment period for scoping to be included in the town’s resolution. While the town may approve only 60 days, this extra time is essential for thorough review and meaningful input. Without this request, the town risks defaulting to the minimum 30-day SEQR requirement, which many believe is insufficient for the complex issues at hand.

What to Expect at Tomorrow’s Workshop

While no vote will take place at this workshop, it marks an important step in the process and gives residents a chance to better understand the Town’s next steps. It also signals that some of members of the Town Board are taking the environmental and safety concerns seriously, rather than rushing the project forward.

The workshop will be held tomorrow, Thursday, October 2, at 7:00 p.m at Town of Ulster Town Hall located at 1 Town Hall Drive in Lake Katrine. For more information, including the agenda and materials, please visit the Town’s Google folder.  

If you can’t make it tomorrow, you can send in your public comment to be placed on the record. Encourage the town to issue a positive declaration and 90-day public scoping process.  Submit your comments by 3:30pm tomorrow to the Town of Ulster’s Town Clerk Suzanne Reavy at:  sr****@*************ny.gov

No More Delays: Town of Ulster Town Board Must Issue a Positive Declaration for the Terra-Gen Proposal

by

 

By Rebecca Martin

Months have passed since the 20-day window to issue a Positive Declaration came and went, yet the Town of Ulster, acting as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), has not made a formal determination on the Alcazar Battery Energy Storage Project (Terra-Gen). Instead of fulfilling its obligation to conduct a thorough and transparent review, the Town has continued to request additional studies from the developer, seemingly in an effort to justify a Negative Declaration. This approach undermines the purpose and spirit of SEQR, which is to ensure an impartial and comprehensive environmental review.  See 6 NYCRR § 617.6(b)(3)

The SEQR review began prematurely, before the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) was complete. Under SEQR, the lead agency is required to review the FEAF for completeness before circulating a Notice of Intent to act as lead agency. This includes identifying all involved agencies with discretionary decisions, such as permit approvals or PILOT agreements, to ensure they are properly included in a coordinated review. Failing to do so at the outset undermines the integrity of the entire process. The FEAF was ultimately resubmitted in June, following our May 28, 2025 blog post “From Fossil Fuel To Clean Energy: The Lithium-ion Battery Project in the Town of Ulster,” which exposed significant gaps and brought critical missing details to light.

Without a Positive Declaration, the current status of the Town of Ulster Town Board’s SEQR review remains unclear to the public. With each passing month, the Town has been working with the developer to obtain studies and information to address outstanding questions, however, much of this has occurred without public transparency or involvement.

As advocates, we can walk through the regulations to make the case for a Positive Declaration. We are returning to the resubmitted FEAF to identify at least one significant potential adverse environmental impact that should have triggered a Positive Declaration under SEQR and required a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the start.  By reviewing the FEAF alongside SEQR regulations, we aim to show there is evidence to require a Positive Declaration and a full environmental review, despite the Town’s ongoing requests for additional studies and other efforts to move the project toward a Negative Declaration.

The significant potential impacts we have identified include, but are not limited to:

  • Potential conflicts with County plans to protect open space and farmland;

  • Potential impacts of emergency services relying solely on a volunteer fire department with limited capacity;

  • Residential housing located just 22 feet away, including vulnerable populations such as children, elders, and people with disabilities;

  • A NYSDEC-designated potential Environmental Justice area immediately adjacent to the project;

  • The need for a thorough analysis of alternatives to ensure the best environmental and operational outcomes (Alternative Site Analysis);

  • Potential impacts to wetlands, endangered species, impaired waterbodies like the Lower Esopus Creek, and historic resources.

To agencies responsible for permits or other discretionary decisions (such as deviated PILOT agreements), it is important that they have the opportunity to fully participate in the environmental review process, a right ensured by a Positive Declaration. Relying on a Negative Declaration issued by the Town may limit their ability to request additional studies or raise concerns later on without appearing to contradict the Town’s findings.

We urge the Town of Ulster to end decision-making behind closed doors and stop requesting studies without public input. The Town must comply with SEQRA by issuing a Positive Declaration and move forward with a full Environmental Impact Statement immediately.

###

Potential Significant Environmental Impacts vs. SEQRA Criteria and FEAF Page Reference 

Potential Impact SEQRA Criteria (§617.7(c)) FEAF Page
1. Land use may conflict with Ulster County Open Space Plan and Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan §617.7(c)(1)(iv)(viii) & (vi): Substantial change in land use including agricultural/open space and a major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy Page 2
2. Ulster County IDA and project (deviated) PILOT PILOT agreements are included in the FEAF because they require approval from agencies like Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs), which have discretionary authority over the project. Since these financial incentives can influence whether a project proceeds, their approval is part of the environmental review to ensure all decisions affecting the project are fully considered under SEQR.   READ “Strife over tax breaks and tradeoffs: It doesn’t have to be like this” Page 2
3. Emergency services served by Spring Lake Volunteer Fire Department §617.7(c)(1)(x): The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences (hazard to human health) Page 3
4. Stormwater changes §617.7(c)(1)(i): Increase in potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage issues Page 5
5. Impacts to nearby waterbodies or wetlands §617.7(c)(1)(i) and (iii): Impact on unique natural characteristics; wetlands Page 5
6. New demands for water §617.7(c)(1)(i): A substantial adverse change in ground or surface water quality Page 5
7. Need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities §617.7(c)(1)(i): Potential conflict with adopted infrastructure plans or unknown impacts Page 6
8. New outdoor lighting and visual impacts §617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources Page 8
9. Proximity to housing (22 feet); vulnerable populations (children, elders, people with disabilities); §617.7(c)(1)(vii): The creation of a hazard to human health Page 10
10. Potential Environmental Justice areas within proximity of the project Commissioner’s Policy 29 (CP-29) is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) directive focused on Environmental Justice. It guides how the DEC incorporates Environmental Justice considerations into its decision-making and SEQRA reviews. CP-29 requires identifying if a project affects minority or low-income communities, assessing potential disproportionate environmental impacts, ensuring meaningful community involvement, and taking steps to avoid or mitigate those impacts. The policy promotes fair treatment and meaningful participation of all communities in environmental decisions. Page 10
11. Impacts to Lower Esopus Creek, a state-designated impaired waterbody (not acknowledged in the application) §617.7(c)(1)(i),(ii) & (iv): Impacts on significant water resources; drainage/water quality concerns Page 11
12. Impacts to threatened or endangered species (Bald Eagles, Indiana Bat, Monarch Butterfly) §617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impact on threatened or endangered species or habitat Page 12
13. Impacts to a historic building or district §617.7(c)(1)(v): Impact on historic or archaeological resources Page 13

Ulster County Executive Jen Metzger Voices in on Terra-Gen Project Environmental Review

by
Protesters on Town Hall Road make their feelings known about the proposed 250-megawatt lithium-ion battery plant in advance of a Thursday, July 24, 2025, Town Board meeting. (William Kemble photo)

“This is a project that is industrial-scale, and not one I would want to be located so close to residential areas…I strongly urge the town to issue a positive declaration in the state environmental review process to ensure the project gets a hard look.” –  Town of Ulster pressed for deep dive on Coleman High site battery plant plan (Daily Freeman)

It’s significant that County Executive Jen Metzger voiced in on the Terra-Gen project because she brings a rare combination of local authority and deep, statewide climate expertise. As a former New York State Senator and chair of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee, Metzger was a key crafter of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) – New York’s landmark climate law that sets some of the most ambitious clean energy and emissions reduction targets in the nation. Her leadership helped shape the very policies driving energy development today. Now, as Ulster County Executive, she plays a critical role in ensuring that the local implementation of those policies reflects community priorities and environmental standards.  Her involvement ensures that energy projects serve not just the state’s climate goals, but also the long-term interests of residents – protecting local ecosystems, promoting equity, and maximizing public benefit.

There is clear precedent for this kind of engagement in Ulster County. During his tenure as Ulster County Executive, Mike Hein stepped into a controversial proposal by GlidePath  – the Lincoln Park Grid Support Center in the Town of Ulster. Initially designed as a natural gas–powered peaker plant, the project raised widespread concerns due to its fossil fuel reliance and proximity to residential neighborhoods.

Although county executives typically refrain from interfering in town-level land use decisions, Hein made it clear that the project warranted broader scrutiny. His involvement underscored that while counties should respect local autonomy, they also have a responsibility to act when broader public health or environmental impacts are at stake. Thanks in part to his leadership and sustained grassroots and environmental advocacy, GlidePath ultimately withdrew the fossil fuel elements and resubmitted a battery-only project at that time. Hein’s actions set an important example: county executives can and should weigh in when projects carry regional implications, especially when their leadership can help move development in a cleaner, more community-focused direction.

A positive declaration for Terra-Gen’s environmental review is crucial because it ensures we thoroughly examine what’s before us. If this proposal receives a positive declaration and moves into the scoping process, we are actively collaborating with experts, community leaders, and environmental planners to inform and strengthen our comments.

Should Terra-Gen decide to seek a new location for their large project, we will need a clear plan to help us envision how to engage with smaller, community-focused battery storage projects in Ulster County.

###

RESOURCES

Ulster Town Board hears from opponents of proposed lithium-ion battery plant

Take Action: Demand Positive Declaration and 90-Day Scoping for Terra-Gen Battery Project at Ulster Town Board Meeting on July 24

Community Demands Transparency in Terra-Gen Battery Project Review in the Town of Ulster

From Fossil Fuels to Clean Energy: The Lithium-ion Battery Project in the Town of Ulster

Community Demands Transparency in Terra-Gen Battery Project Review in the Town of Ulster

by

By Rebecca Martin 

A proposed 250-megawatt battery energy storage facility in the Town of Ulster is drawing increased scrutiny from local residents and officials. The project would install lithium-ion batteries housed in 14-foot-tall containers across nearly 12 acres of the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School property adjacent to the City of Kingston and Town of Hurley. There are many names being mentioned, but our understanding – based on the application submitted to the Town of Ulster –  is that the project is called the Alcazar Energy Storage Project. It is being developed by U.S.-based Terra-Gen (Vice President Mark Turner), a subsidiary of Masdar , the renewable energy company owned by the Abu Dhabi government, and funded by the international clean energy investor Alcazar Energy.  You should inquire who is who. It’s all pretty confusing. 

On June 18, the Town of Ulster hosted a public meeting where dozens of residents raised concerns about the project’s safety, transparency, and potential environmental and financial impacts at the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting, Hurley Town Supervisor Mike Boms, representing the neighboring community that borders the project site, asked important questions – something great to hear. You can listen to the public comments starting at approximately 54:42 in the audio file available in the Google Doc files linked above. 

Virtual Community Meeting Scheduled for July 2

In response to public pressure, Alcazar Energy (the project applicant) has scheduled a virtual community meeting on Tuesday, July 2 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss potential adverse impacts of the project on residents in Ulster, Hurley, and the City of Kingston.  Questions can be submitted in advance to: in**@***************gy.com .  Terra-Gen Vice President Mark Turner is expected to respond live.

While this meeting is a welcome opportunity for engagement, it would have been far more beneficial if held before the developer submitted their application, which triggered the formal environmental review process under SEQR. Early engagement could have helped shape the project in a way that better reflects community needs and concerns. 

Backtrack on SEQR: Concerns Emerge Over Review Process

On May 15, the Town of Ulster declared its intent to serve as lead agency for the project’s environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). However, this step was taken before confirming all involved agencies were properly identified in the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).

Under SEQR, any government agency not listed in the EAF can be excluded from the review process, even if they have decision-making authority over permits or financial incentives.

The Town is now completing Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the EAF, steps often reserved for the end of the review process just before issuing a Negative Declaration (a finding of no significant impact). 

This project clearly meets SEQR’s legal threshold for issuing a Positive Declaration, which requires preparing a full Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and initiating a public scoping process. The scoping process is vital for public input, and to identify and evaluate potential significant environmental impacts, such as battery fire safety, emergency response, and other risks. Under SEQR, the presence of just one potential significant adverse impact is enough to trigger a Positive Declaration.

A Positive Declaration also ensures the public can formally shape the scope of environmental studies, keeping the process transparent and accountable. While SEQR customarily allows for a 30-day public scoping period, given the size and complexity of this project, the public should advocate for an extended 90-day scoping period to ensure sufficient time for review and input.

For a simple explanation of SEQR, read “The SEQR Cookbook” a process overseen by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The process requires state and local government agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions (the project) during their decision-making process.

PILOT Concerns: Who Pays, Who Decides?

Community members should use the July 2 meeting to ask critical financial and procedural questions. Chief among them: Does Terra-Gen plan to apply for a Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) agreement through the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA)?

If so, why is UCIDA missing from the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)? SEQR requires that all involved agencies be disclosed at the outset, and omitting UCIDA could exclude tax-related impacts from the formal environmental review.

Even more significantly, if the PILOT deviates from New York State’s standard PILOT schedule – as many large energy projects do – then the City of Kingston Board of Education should likely be listed as an involved agency, since school districts are entitled to approve or reject deviated PILOTs.

In addition, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) may also be involved if public energy incentives are sought. A 2019 PV Magazine article identified over $8 million in NYSERDA incentives initially offered to a previous developer (GlidePath) for a nearby site, though smaller in scale (25MW).  Whether those incentives are still available or being pursued by Terra-Gen remains unclear and should be addressed.

Strategic Siting: Are Standalone Batteries the Best Fit?

Critics point out that battery storage projects this large are most effective when co-located with major renewable energy generation, such as large wind farms. Terra-Gen is already developing:

Yet this proposed battery facility is not located near any such generation. In Ulster County, we have been focused on developing more local solar farms, but they are intermittent and typically consumed on-site, meaning there’s little excess to store and shift during overnight hours. Without a viable renewable energy source to pair with, some question the value of a large standalone battery facility in the Town of Ulster (and especially lithium-ion) if they rely on fossil-fuel-generated grid electricity during peak times.

Take Action

Before moving forward, the Town of Ulster should send the EAF back to Alcazar for revisions to include all relevant agencies such as potential UCIDA, the City of Kingston School District, NYSERDA, and others. The Town should then issue a Positive Declaration under SEQR, recognizing the clear potential for significant environmental impacts, and approve a 90-day public scoping process. These critical steps guarantee a thorough environmental review, meaningful public involvement, and proper consideration of all impacts. SEQR’s effectiveness depends on strict adherence to these requirements to protect the community’s health, safety, and well-being.

Key Questions to Ask Terra-Gen

  • Will Terra-Gen apply for a PILOT through UCIDA? If yes, why is UCIDA missing from the EAF?
  • Since the project site is within the City of Kingston School District, which would be affected by any deviated PILOT impacting school tax revenues, why is the school district not listed as an involved agency in the EAF?
  • Why are other likely involved agencies like NYSERDA omitted? If Terra-Gen is pursuing grants, subsidies, or renewable energy credits through NYSERDA, why are these programs and the agency not disclosed in the EAF?

Questions for the Town of Ulster as Lead Agency

  • Under SEQR, a Positive Declaration must be issued if there is potential for even one significant adverse environmental impact. Given the scale and nature of this project, isn’t a Positive Declaration clearly warranted?
  • Will the Town commit to a 90-day public scoping period to provide the community with adequate time and opportunity to shape the scope of the environmental review and ensure all concerns are fully addressed?

The SEQR process may seem intimidating at first, but if you break it down into smaller steps, it’s actually quite easy to understand. If you have any questions about how it works, I can try to help. Feel free to call me at 845-750-7295.

We support battery storage and want to see more renewable energy in our community, but it must be done correctly. Your voice matters. Keep working with your elected officials to ensure transparency, accountability, and a thorough environmental review before this project moves forward.

Relevant Information