Lithium battery moratorium extended briefly

The Town of Oyster Bay has temporarily extended its moratorium on lithium battery storage systems, halting the development of the contentious Oyster Shore Energy Storage project in Glenwood Landing, proposed by Jupiter Power.

At a recent town board meeting, officials voted unanimously to continue the six-month suspension originally enacted in April until a hearing can be held specifically on this issue where the board will vote on whether to end or extend the moratorium.

The proposed facility, a 275-megawatt battery energy storage system, would replace the current Global Petroleum terminal. While Jupiter Power emphasizes the project’s potential to improve grid reliability and support renewable energy integration, it has drawn substantial pushback from Glenwood Landing and Glen Head residents, who expressed serious concerns about safety, environmental impact, and the project’s proximity to homes, schools, and Hempstead Harbor.

At the town board meeting, Elizabeth Faughnan, the deputy town attorney, provided a detailed explanation for the extension.

“The moratorium was adopted by Local Law 302 of 2024 as a result of a hearing that was held on Feb. 27,” Faughnan said. “That law included a provision that the moratorium could be extended by action of the town board. That moratorium is set to expire on Oct. 15.”
Faughnan noted that the Nassau County Planning Commission, which must review the proposal as part of the town’s land use process, could not meet until after the moratorium’s expiration.

“Rather than have a lapse in the moratorium period, we’re here today to consider an extension to that moratorium for a period beginning Oct. 15, until such time as the public hearing can be held on the fifteenth, the planning commission can make the recommendation, and the town can adopt the new local law” she added.

Residents, many of whom have actively opposed the project since its introduction, welcomed the extension but remain steadfast in their objections. At the Tuesday town board meeting, residents voiced concerns about potential risks, including fire hazards, environmental contamination, and insufficient transparency from Jupiter Power.

Christine Pangeca, a Glenwood Landing resident, spoke at the most recent board meeting, emphasizing that while renewable energy was a laudable effort, it could not come at the expense of the residents of the area.

“It’s imperative to ensure that said promises do not come at the expense of our public health, safety, or environmental integrity,” Pangeca said. “Let’s wait before it’s too late, and let’s pause for a good cause; our health and safety.”

Pangeca also highlighted the potential long-term environmental risks, particularly the impact on Hempstead Harbor and Long Island’s aquifers.

“No long-term residential studies exist proving regular operations or the impact of disasters are safe for residents or sole source Long Island aquifer, communities or the environment,” she said. “In fact, studies are just commencing on the impact of lithium to drinking water, and we all know the harmful effects and environmental impacts of mining for battery metals, the toxic plumes from fires, exposures and thermal runways, along with their forever chemicals and the landfills we’ll have at the end of life for these facilities.”

Robert Mazzola, a resident of Glen Head and a representative of the Glen Head-Glenwood Landing Civic Council, called for an extension of the moratorium, citing a lack of clear information and planning from Jupiter Power. He especially emphasized the need for long-term studies on the impact of a lithium battery storage unit on people and the environment.

“I’m here to reiterate our civic organization’s strongly support an extension of the town’s moratorium on these facilities,” Mazzola said. “We strongly believe that lithium battery facilities should not be placed in any community until local towns have the time to review long-term studies that show these facilities are not jeopardizing the health and safety of our neighbors, children, volunteer firefighters and environment.”

Residents have also expressed frustration over what they perceive as a lack of transparency from Jupiter Power. Pangeca noted that the company declined to attend a recent community town hall, leaving many questions unanswered.

Following the meeting, Maggie Glynn, senior associate for communications and public affairs at Jupiter, released a statement reaffirming the company’s focus on engaging with local communities and open transparency.

“Jupiter Power is committed to a comprehensive local community engagement process for the Oyster Shore Energy project, as with all of our projects,” the statement read. “In May, Jupiter Power hosted two public open houses in Glenwood Landing and is planning another event later this year.”

The proposed Oyster Shore Energy Storage facility is part of a broader push to increase renewable energy storage capacity across New York, aligning with state efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources. However, critics argue that the technology is still too new and unproven, with significant safety risks that need to be addressed before such projects are built near residential areas.

“I think we can all agree that we need renewable energy, but the only renewable energy currently before us is not safe or clean energy,” said Christina Kramer, president of Protect Our Coast Long Island New York, a nonprofit organization focused on safeguarding the coast and local environment. “Public health and safety standard impacts are directly attributable to battery storage, including toxicity and fire risks hazards associated with large scale lithium-ion batteries can be categorized into electrical, thermal and mechanical types.”

In the previous statement by Glynn, Jupiter also asserted that the project would pose no health or environmental risk to residents, and even claimed that the new storage unit could improve the area financially and environmentally.

“Oyster Shore Energy is an ambitious clean energy project that will accelerate the clean-up of a contaminated oil terminal and, if approved, could substantially reduce current environmental risks to Hempstead Harbor,” the statement read, although it did not explain how. “The project would create jobs and increase local government revenues relative to the current oil terminal.”

Saladino and the town board voted unanimously to temporarily extend the moratorium, until such time as the planning commission and the board can make an informed decision.