The approval of Jupiter Power’s proposed Oyster Shore Energy Storage in Glenwood Landing was delayed following the Town of Oyster Bay Town Board decision to extend the moratorium on battery energy storage systems for another six months.
The extension comes as town officials and numerous residents express ongoing concerns over safety standards and transparency, while awaiting finalized regulations from the state.
The moratorium, originally enacted on Feb. 27 and effective as of April 15, prevented the town from processing new applications or moving forward with any plans submitted for battery storage systems. The Oct. 15 extension aims to give the town additional time to assess the potential risks posed by these facilities, particularly fire hazards and environmental impacts, before making any long-term decisions.
In a statement, Hans Detweiler, senior director of development at Jupiter, emphasized that the company would take the time of the moratorium and the state updating the codes to increase their efforts to explain their vision of the project to the affected communities.
“The State of New York is currently updating its fire safety codes for projects like Oyster Shore Energy. Jupiter is committed to ensuring that the Oyster Shore Energy facility will comply with these regulations and is dedicated to the safety of the facility,” Detweiler wrote. “We plan to wait for the state’s code updates to be finalized and will engage in additional community outreach before resubmitting revised plans that are fully compliant. The moratorium extension allows time for these efforts to be completed.”
Deputy Town Attorney Elizabeth Faughnan, who presented the proposed extension to the board, emphasized the importance of protecting residents’ safety and the environment while waiting for the state to finalize its standards for energy storage systems.
“The state has come up with proposed standards. They were put out to the public for comment, but no new standards have been enacted,” Faughnan said.
“This town is very concerned about the safety of our residents and the environment. As a result, it is our recommendation that the town board adopt this new local law to extend the moratorium for six months.”
The proposed Oyster Shore Energy Project by Jupiter Power, a private equity-owned company, has raised concerns among residents, particularly in Glenwood Landing and Glen Head. Many fear the fire risks associated with lithium-ion battery storage systems and the town’s volunteer fire departments’ ability to manage potential emergencies.
Doug Augenthaler, a Glenwood Landing resident, expressed frustration over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the interconnected nature of the Jupiter Power project with other local energy infrastructure proposals, such as high-voltage power lines proposed by Propel.
“These projects are deeply intertwined,” Augenthaler said. “Battery storage is not necessary if you haven’t gotten high-voltage lines to feed the power, and the lines are useless without battery storage. It’s disingenuous to advertise them as separate projects.”
Despite Augenthaler’s claims, however, Propel and Jupiter Power are not collaborating on this project, officially or unofficially. Augenthaler also highlighted concerns about fire risks, noting that while the risk may be small, it is not zero.
“We have volunteer fire departments that are already straining with their memberships,” he said. “How they would respond is a serious concern.”
Joan Matthews, a Roslyn Harbor resident, echoed those concerns, emphasizing the potential environmental dangers posed by such projects. She pointed to the risk of contaminating drinking water, local waterways, and sea life in the event of a fire or chemical release. Matthews also criticized the perceived rush to approve the project before more advanced, safer battery technologies become available.
“Why are we in such a hurry to do this now? If we wait 5, 6, 7, or 8 years, there’s going to be better battery technology that doesn’t have the same fire risks,” Matthews urged. “We’re already seeing the effects of rising waters and flooding in the area. Adding a project like this, with all its risks, doesn’t make sense right now.”
One of the issues discussed during the hearing was why the moratorium could only be extended for six months at a time. Faughnan explained that longer moratoriums could be challenged in court by property owners who may argue their rights are being infringed upon.
“People have rights to their property,” she said. “By enacting a moratorium, you’re essentially saying that property owners can’t use their property as they wish, and that’s why the law allows for appeals and reassessments to see if the situation has changed.”
If the moratorium were extended for longer than six months without reassessment, Faughnan warned, the town could lose a legal challenge in court. “We definitely would not win that challenge,” she stated.
While the moratorium has been extended for now, the Town of Oyster Bay is waiting for input from the Nassau County Planning Commission, which is scheduled to meet on Oct. 22. The commission’s recommendations are expected to play a crucial role in the town board’s final decision regarding the moratorium and future energy storage projects.
In the meantime, the town has left the public record open for 12 days following the hearing to allow for written testimony from experts and additional public input. This period will also allow the town to incorporate feedback from the Planning Commission before finalizing its stance on the moratorium.
