Under the framework of promoting “net zero carbon emissions” policies, large lithium-ion battery energy storage systems (BESS) are being rapidly deployed across the United States. This technology is seen as a key solution to replace peak power plants fueled by fossil fuels, supporting stable power supply from renewable energy sources by storing energy during low grid loads and releasing it during peak periods to balance energy supply and demand.
New York State established clean energy goals in 2019, requiring 70% of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030 and achieving a 100% zero-emission grid by 2040. The state government has invested over $200 million in commercial energy storage contracts, planning to rapidly expand storage capacity statewide.
However, as these facilities are gradually entering urban and residential areas, safety and location issues have raised strong concerns among local governments and communities. Despite developers and government regulators emphasizing that “state-of-the-art battery energy storage systems are safe,” several projects have been halted or banned in multiple locations across the U.S. due to community opposition, demanding a reassessment of risks.
The danger of lithium-ion battery fires lies in “thermal runaway” – when battery cells overheat or get damaged, they can release flammable gases and trigger chain reactions. In January 2025, a fire at the Moss Landing facility in California, the world’s largest BESS facility, caused a massive fire and toxic smoke, forcing 1,500 residents to evacuate. This incident shook the energy industry in the U.S. and sounded an alarm for similar projects in New York.
According to the latest report from the City Council, New York City’s fire and building codes, along with approval processes from the Fire Department (FDNY) and Buildings Department, constitute the main regulatory framework for battery energy storage facilities in the city.
In 2023, the City Council passed the “Yes for Carbon Neutrality City” Act, amending zoning regulations to reclassify BESS, no longer considering them as “power transformer stations.” This move relaxed installation restrictions: no size limits within manufacturing and commercial zones, and residential areas can apply directly if the footprint is under 10,000 square feet, otherwise requiring special permits.
Currently, New York City has 76 small storage facilities spread across its five boroughs. Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn each have 18 facilities, while the Bronx and Staten Island have 11 each. Staten Island even planned to build the largest battery energy storage facility in the U.S., but opposition from residents due to proximity to residential areas led to its cancellation. A similar project in the Marine Park community in Brooklyn also sparked protests due to safety concerns.
At the October 28th Fire and Emergency Management Committee hearing at City Council, the FDNY reiterated that their current safety standards are “nationally leading.” FDNY Fire Commissioner Thomas Currao stated, “FDNY represents a multi-step safety gatekeeper, and our program is widely regarded as the strongest, most comprehensive, and strictest program in the United States.”
FDNY Office of Hazardous Materials Operations Director Joseph Loftus explained that lithium battery fire characteristics dictate response strategies different from traditional firefighting methods. When batteries experience thermal runaway, using water or foam for extinguishing could lead to gas accumulation and explosion. “Our policy is to control the burning instead of directly extinguishing it because doing so might trigger an explosion. Therefore, we let them burn.”
This statement raised concerns from council members. Councilor Holden inquired, “What does the burning produce? What about air quality?” Loftus responded, stating that air quality is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency. “The fire department’s task is to try to suppress the fire and monitor if there’s any explosive gas in the surrounding area. Some fires have burned for five days, and we understand the situation of thermal runaway.”
Loftus admitted that currently, there is no technology globally available to fully prevent thermal runaway, with New York’s strategy relying mainly on device monitoring, preventive measures, and emergency evacuation plans to “keep risks within a certain range.”
Apart from safety concerns, location issues became the most heated focus of the hearing. Holden strongly questioned the city’s policy of allowing businesses to establish high-risk facilities in residential areas, even across from schools, criticizing the lack of accountability in the siting process.
He stated, “The city claims no authority over siting, relying on private developers, leaving us feeling betrayed — because they plan to construct an energy storage site right across a school with over 1,100 students. If you say these fires can’t be extinguished and can only burn, releasing toxic substances into the air, potentially deadly — would you feel comfortable sending your child to that school?”
He criticized, “This is truly a farce. No one takes responsibility for siting, the fire department handles firefighting only, the administrative department says it’s not responsible for siting, and the city says ‘we allow it.'”
Holden pointed out that the New York Power Authority (NYPA) had stricter engineering and safety standards for publicly-owned energy storage projects in upstate New York, but “private developers cannot do it and are not willing to do it.” He mentioned that engineers from the industry continuously warned about the declining safety and engineering standards of storage facilities, attributing it to “cost and profit considerations because it’s about money.”
He added that many developers he encountered lacked experience, with some foreign companies investing in BESS for the first time in the U.S., lacking construction records and safety data.
Chair of the Committee on Fire and Emergency Management, Councilor Joann Ariola, questioned the city administration: “What criteria do you use to determine the best locations? What are the siting criteria? Or is it just because ‘Yes City’ allows it?”
Elijah Hutchinson, CEO of the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice, responded that most energy storage projects in the city are selected by private developers, with the government only responsible for zoning and safety review: “We do not choose sites for private companies. We ensure they comply with all permitting processes and meet the safety requirements of the Fire Department and Buildings Department.”
Regarding why not locating in industrial areas, Hutchinson stated that site selection primarily depends on the grid layout. “Energy storage systems must be close to load centers to feed power back into the grid when needed.”
Holden queried, “Then why can the upstate facilities be ten miles away from a substation?” Hutchinson explained that upstate grids are less dense, while New York City has high area power demand, “The utility of energy storage systems depends on their connectivity with substations and the overall power distribution network, so site selection must be tailored to each location with no universal solution. Just as Con Ed places generators in the community when substations fail to maintain power rather than concentrating them in industrial areas to address substation issues.”
Ariola expressed dissatisfaction, criticizing the lack of oversight by the city, allowing energy storage stations in residential areas to become an “opportunity for corporate profit,” without conducting environmental impact assessments or providing relevant safety studies as evidence.
As the questioning intensified, tension rose at the hearing, with Ariola and Elijah Hutchinson engaging in a heated exchange about “climate justice.”
Ariola questioned, “Since you represent climate justice, what is the environmental impact of lithium-ion battery fires? Is there any research showing the effects of these fires on the environment?”
Hutchinson replied, “I will refer the question back to the fire department.” Ariola continued to press, “No, I want to talk to you about your climate justice. What does a battery explosion release? Why do you have no issues with this?”
At this point, Deputy CEO of MOCEJ Kathleen Schmid intervened, emphasizing, “We have clear climate goals – carbon neutrality by 2050, 100% renewable energy source. These batteries are crucial to achieving these targets. We will work with the Fire Department to establish safety regulations and response measures.”
Ariola did not back down, stating, “You can’t even provide me with a case study. This is in a residential area! You have not conducted an environmental impact assessment, nor do you know what chemicals will be released into the air. Children are learning across the street, you need to deploy hazardous materials teams to handle these matters.”
Hutchinson once again deferred to the fire department, stating, “I will refer this issue back to the fire department.” Ariola criticized the city administration for continuously passing the buck to the fire department, failing to address community concerns directly. She concluded by citing the Spring Creek pollution incident in Queens as an example of why she distrusts their assurances.
During the public testimony segment, several climate and labor organizations expressed support for the plan, viewing it as a crucial step in New York’s energy transition. Climate and labor advocate Faisa Azam from the Align organization stated that lithium-ion battery storage systems are not just technical infrastructure but a means to “truly benefit all communities through climate action.”
When asked if she would allow an energy storage station in her own community, Azam unequivocally answered, “Yes.” She mentioned that her community is currently building a storage facility adjacent to a little league baseball field, stating, “I support it wholeheartedly because it can replace heavily polluting peak power plants, giving children cleaner air to breathe.” She shared that her child had suffered from asthma, making her believe that energy transition is not just a climate issue but a “necessary action to safeguard family health.”
Daniel Chu, a senior energy planner from the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, also from the environmental justice field, stated, “Our goal is to end the long-suffered power plant pollution burden on the city’s most vulnerable communities.” He believed that the older gas equipment poses a higher risk of leaks and is harder to maintain than battery energy storage systems, saying, “Every day we pay the price for aging infrastructure – just like the MTA.”
Chu mentioned his recent visit with state fire officials to a long-running storage facility located across from two schools, which received broad support and encouragement from the community. He expressed his belief that these systems are safer and more forward-looking than our existing power infrastructure.
However, several residents and community representatives from Queens expressed strong opposition during the hearing, believing that the city and developers overlooked safety, transparency, and public participation, putting residents at unnecessary risk.
Jasmine Lawrence, a homeowner in St. Albans, Queens, stated their home is only about ten feet away from the proposed storage facility, facing a veteran hospital, with a school just two blocks away. She emphasized the absurdity of this proximity, citing potential explosions or thermal runaway at any moment, asking how children could peacefully sleep in such circumstances.
Lawrence mentioned that the developer sued her and her husband to access their property for construction for a period of 12 weeks to 12 months. She clarified that she did not oppose clean energy but against having a “potential time bomb” placed at the doorstep of residential areas. “These batteries are only safe when they’re ‘not on fire,’ until they catch fire. There’s no evidence that they will be safe in the next 20 years.”
Andrea Scarborough from Addisley Park shared the concern that the construction of the energy storage facility has brought anxiety and unease to the community. She pointed out that New York State had three lithium battery storage fires within the past year, with the East Hampton fire causing water contamination. She cited a Clean Energy Association report from May, indicating a significant rise in security flaws in storage systems, including a 2424% increase in system-level defects, a 28% increase in fire detection and suppression system flaws, and a 15% rise in thermal management system defects.
“This means more fire alarm failures, sensor reaction delays,” Scarborough said, “When these flaws combine with profit-driven enterprises, the risks only grow.”
She believed that developers often based siting decisions on cost minimization rather than safety considerations because being close to substations could reduce wiring and access costs. “We have become victims of them saving expenses.” She urged the City Council to pass Resolution 0966-2025, setting a minimum residential setback distance of at least a thousand feet for all urban storage facilities.
Former State Assemblyman and current Chairman of a civic organization, William Scarborough, also questioned the imbalance in the current regulatory framework. He highlighted that current battery energy storage projects did not require going through the ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure) but only needed approvals from the Buildings Department and Fire Department, leaving residents with almost no involvement in decision-making or the ability to raise objections.
“For liquor stores or marijuana dispensaries, the city enforces a 500-foot distance rule,” he said, “But there are no setback requirements for battery farms capable of causing explosions, which is just unreasonable.”
Scarborough cited a recent report from the risk management firm BakerRisk, stating that there is currently no design capable of entirely avoiding the risk of thermal runaway. Therefore, “placing these facilities next to residential homes is irresponsible.” He emphasized that residents are not against clean energy but demand policymakers to “prioritize safety” by ensuring siting in industrial areas or locations far enough from homes, schools, and hospitals.
“We want a balanced solution,” Scarborough said, “Promoting green energy is acceptable, but people should not have to live in fear.”
As the nearly three-hour hearing concluded, Chair Ariola announced her intention to push for legislation requiring future BESS facilities to be located far away from residential areas. She emphasized that this is not just about energy but also about who is listened to and who bears the risks.