Mount Pleasant Bans Battery Energy Storage Systems Citing Safety and Health Risks – Yonkers Times

Report on the Prohibition of New Battery Energy Storage Systems in the Town of Mount Pleasant

Introduction

The Town of Mount Pleasant has enacted legislation to prohibit the development of all new Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). The Town Board unanimously adopted this measure on September 9, following a period of moratorium and extensive public consultation. The decision is rooted in an assessment that BESS facilities present significant risks to public health, safety, and environmental integrity, thereby conflicting with key principles of sustainable development.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The town’s decision to ban BESS facilities directly supports the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by prioritizing the well-being of its citizens and the protection of its local environment.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The primary objective of the ban is to safeguard the community from health hazards associated with BESS fires, such as the release of toxic chemicals like hydrogen fluoride. This proactive measure protects residents from potential respiratory and other serious health issues.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: By preventing the installation of BESS facilities, the town mitigates the risk of toxic runoff from potential fires contaminating local water bodies, including the Saw Mill River and adjacent wetlands, thus preserving water quality for both human and ecological use.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The legislation enhances the safety and resilience of the community. It protects critical infrastructure, including local schools and the Westchester Medical Center complex, from the unique and severe dangers posed by lithium-ion battery fires, ensuring the town remains a safe and sustainable place to live.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The Town Board’s action exemplifies responsible and accountable governance. The decision was made through a transparent process involving public input and careful consideration of expert guidance, demonstrating the institution’s commitment to protecting its constituents’ welfare.

Key Factors Influencing the Decision

The resolution to implement a permanent ban was based on a comprehensive evaluation of multiple risk factors. The following points were central to the deliberation:

1. Public Safety and Health Risks: Official guidance, including a July 2025 safety brochure from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), highlighted the “very real dangers presented by BESS facilities.” The potential for fires to release toxins into the air and water was a principal concern.
2. Emergency Response Capabilities: Concerns were raised regarding the capacity of local emergency services to manage BESS-related incidents. It was noted that local volunteer fire departments often lack the specialized training and equipment required to effectively combat complex and prolonged lithium-ion battery fires.
3. Environmental Protection: The proximity of potential BESS sites to sensitive environmental areas, including rivers and wetlands, posed an unacceptable risk of contamination. The ban serves as a protective measure for the local ecosystem, aligning with goals for environmental sustainability.
4. Expert and Official Commentary: Statements from officials, such as US EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, reinforced the perceived risks of siting BESS facilities in densely populated areas, citing the resource gaps in local emergency response as a critical vulnerability.

Conclusion and Implementation

The new legislation, which takes immediate effect, formally prohibits the siting and construction of any new Battery Energy Storage Systems within the jurisdiction of the Town of Mount Pleasant. This policy underscores a commitment to prioritizing community safety and environmental health in alignment with global sustainable development principles.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article’s central theme is the protection of public health. The Town Board’s decision to ban BESS is explicitly based on the determination that these facilities “pose disproportionate risks to the public health, safety, and welfare of residents.” The primary concern cited is the potential for fires to release toxins, which directly impacts human health.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• The article directly connects the potential failure of BESS facilities to water quality. It states a primary concern is that a fire could “affect… water quality at neighboring properties” and specifically mentions the risk to the “Saw Mill River, adjacent wetlands.” This highlights a clear link to the goal of protecting water resources from contamination.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The town’s action is a form of urban planning and disaster risk management aimed at making the community safer and more resilient. The ban is a preventative measure to protect residents and critical local infrastructure, such as “local schools, and the Westchester Medical Center complex,” from the environmental and safety hazards posed by BESS fires.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article describes the functioning of a local government institution (the Town Board) making a responsive and protective decision. The process involved a “moratorium and considerable public and official deliberation,” and the decision was influenced by warnings from national bodies like the U.S. EPA. This demonstrates local governance in action, addressing safety concerns and acknowledging the capacity limitations of its emergency services.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article’s focus on preventing the release of toxins and hazardous chemicals like hydrogen fluoride from potential BESS fires directly aligns with this target. The ban is a proactive policy to prevent such contamination and the resulting health impacts.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The concern that a BESS fire could release toxins affecting the “Saw Mill River” and “adjacent wetlands” directly relates to this target of preventing chemical pollution in local water bodies.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected… caused by disasters… with a focus on protecting… people in vulnerable situations. A large-scale BESS fire is a form of technological disaster. The town’s ban is a disaster risk reduction strategy designed to prevent such an event and protect its citizens and sensitive institutions like schools and hospitals.
• Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality. The potential for a BESS fire to release toxins that “could affect air… quality” is a key justification for the ban, aligning with the goal of maintaining clean air in the community.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article highlights that the decision was made following “considerable public input throughout this process,” indicating a participatory approach to governance that is responsive to resident concerns.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Implied Indicator for Target 3.9: The article implies an indicator related to the prevention of pollution incidents. Progress can be measured by the “Number of incidents of hazardous chemical release from energy storage facilities within the town,” which the ban aims to keep at zero.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• Implied Indicator for Target 6.3: The article implies the need to monitor and protect specific water bodies. An indicator would be the “Prevention of chemical contamination in the Saw Mill River and adjacent wetlands from industrial sources,” which is the direct outcome of the enacted ban.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Mentioned Indicator for Target 11.5: The article explicitly mentions the adoption of a disaster risk reduction strategy. The indicator is the “Adoption and implementation of a local disaster risk reduction strategy,” which in this case is the “new legislation” that “takes immediate effect, blocking the siting and construction of new BESS facilities.”

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Mentioned Indicator for Target 16.7: The article mentions the process of decision-making. An indicator is the “Existence of mechanisms for public participation in local legislative processes,” as evidenced by the statement that there was “considerable public input throughout this process.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: yonkerstimes.com