Recent Battery Energy Storage Facility Developments

The following recent developments in New York State highlight ongoing safety, land-use, and emergency-response concerns related to large battery energy storage systems (BESS)

TOWN UPDATES

1/19/20261 min read

Warwick, NY – Lithium-Ion Battery Storage Facility

During the December 2025 fire, Orange County HazMat conducted air monitoring around the Warwick BESS site focused on immediate public health thresholds.

  • Monitoring detected hydrogen cyanide near the facility at levels reported below federal exposure limits, with downwind monitors showing no exceedances at the time.

  • Officials and reporting later acknowledged that the monitoring was limited in duration and scope and primarily designed to detect short-term exposure risks.

  • Community members and environmental advocates raised concerns that the monitoring may not have captured all hazardous byproducts of a lithium-ion battery fire or potential longer-term exposure impacts.

  • Requests were made for additional and independent testing, including extended air sampling and environmental (soil and water) analysis.

Holtsville, NY – Savion Energy Battery Storage Facility
  • A proposed Savion Energy battery storage facility in Holtsville was denied a required variance by Suffolk County.

  • The denial was based on plans to store large quantities of petroleum-based fuel on-site to power backup generators.

  • These generators are intended to run cooling fans during power outages, which developers state are necessary to prevent battery overheating.

  • County officials determined the volume of flammable fuel exceeded local safety and land-use limits.

  • The petroleum storage tanks and fuel requirements were not disclosed during earlier phases of the project review, raising concerns about incomplete initial disclosures.

  • Energy storage experts have noted that similar backup power and fuel storage systems are likely required at other large-scale BESS sites to maintain cooling during grid failures.

  • Following the variance denial, the developer initiated legal action challenging Suffolk

  • County’s decision.