To the Editor:

On Oct. 8, 2025, the chairwoman of the New Scotland Republican Committee, Jessica Sardella, presented a “Draft Resolution Calling for a Moratorium” on Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) in New Scotland, together with  a “petition” to the town board. 

The petition accuses Councilman Adam Greenberg of creating “an appearance of impropriety” for voting on a law in May 2024 — over 1.5 years ago — that was unanimously adopted by the town board to regulate BESS facilities. The petition seeks a moratorium stopping consideration of applications to site battery energy storage systems in the town.

I have no objection to the request for a moratorium, but the unfounded allegations of unethical conduct on the part of the board and its members is distasteful at best.  The “Whereas” clauses of the draft resolution that accompanied the petition allege that the circumstances of the town board’s enactment of Local Law No. 1 of 2024, which is designed to regulate BESS facilities, create an “appearance of impropriety,” “potentially a direct conflict of interest,” “undisclosed influences,” and other circumstances that allegedly “warrant investigation.”

The timing and language of the petition represent a classic example of an October surprise dropped on the eve of an election. The thinly veiled language of conspiracy and “conflicts” should fool no one. There is absolutely no support for the allegations of a conflict of interest surrounding the law’s passage.

Nor was there anything secret or opaque about the origins of the law or the process in which it was enacted. Over two years ago, a renewable-energy developer, Eden Renewables, reached out to the town to explore the idea of siting a battery-storage facility near the National Grid substation on New Scotland South Road.

The inquiry in 2023 sparked a conversation that the town lacks a regulatory framework for siting and controlling battery-storage development in the town. Councilman Dan Leinung took the lead and informed the board — during a public meeting in October 2023 — that he intended to introduce a law to regulate the facilities. 

The idea was to get ahead of the issue and make certain that the town’s planning board has the tools to regulate a BESS when one is proposed. Since no application for a facility was filed, no moratorium was necessary.

Mr. Leinung enlisted the assistance of the town’s planning attorney, Crystal Peck, in drafting a law.  Using model laws developed by the state, and other local laws enacted by other towns (including East Greenbush), a draft of the law was first presented to the town board on Nov. 8, 2023. This process is reflected in the minutes of the town board.

Although dates and details might be boring, only the facts can show how wrong the petitioners are about the alleged lack of “opacity” that Ms. Sardella mentions in her “Draft Resolution.”

The town board referred the draft law to the planning board for comments. (This is the process for all proposed land-use and zoning regulations considered by the town board.) The discussion of the planning board regarding the proposed law was reflected in the minutes of the planning board meeting held on Dec. 5, 2023. 

After the planning board provided comments, revisions were made to the draft law. The revised law was then the subject of a public hearing held on April 10, 2024 and left open through May 8, 2024. As always, the notice of the public hearing was published in The Altamont Enterprise and was posted on the town’s website.

The minutes of the public hearing reflect that there were only a few comments received regarding the law. Significantly, none of the individuals who signed the petition submitted comments regarding the proposed law.

After the public hearing, the law, known as Local Law No.1 of 2024, entitled “A Local Law amending Chapter 190 of the Code of the Town of New Scotland to establish regulations regarding Battery Energy Storage Systems” was adopted by the town board at a public meeting, and filed with the Secretary of State.

There was no legal challenge to the law. Nor were there any allegations of “conflicts of interest” when the law was being drafted and enacted over a six-month period. The draft law was an agenda item every month from November 2023 through May 2024.

Mrs. Sardella’s draft resolution states that the identity of the potential developer that sparked the town to consider a law to regulate BESS facilities was “undisclosed, creating opacity  around the law’s origins and potential influences.” The petition uses the term “lack of transparency.” 

There is no secret that Eden Renewables was the first developer that expressed an interest for siting a facility in the town. (This was not the property owned by Councilman Greenberg.)

The Beagle Club, not Mr. Greenberg, is the owner of the site for which RIC is now seeking approval.  As far as I can tell, none of the signatories to the petition ever asked me, Mr. Greenberg, or any of the other town board members about the circumstances of the law’s development or inquired about potential conflicts. No Freedom of Information Law requests or any other queries.

In other words, the chair of the Republican Committee made these inflammatory allegations without asking questions or bothering to ascertain the facts. I have written this letter to set the record straight. Mr. Greenberg publicly stated that he was approached by New Leaf, another BESS developer, after the law was enacted and I have the email, dated Feb. 5, 2025, to confirm that. That is not, nor ever has been, a conflict of interest.

Now New Leaf’s project will have to follow the process for planning board approval, which requires a special-use permit and site-plan approval. Mr. Greenberg is not a planning board member, and the elected officials have no role in the process. 

If the planning board finds that the location of the proposed facility does not satisfy the criteria for a special-use permit, then the board will deny the application. It is not the town board’s prerogative to interfere with the decision-making process of our planning board.

The petition also seeks a public hearing relating to the safety and environmental concerns associated with BESS facilities. A public hearing was held on Oct. 7, and the planning board elected to continue the hearing in November 2025. The hearing will provide an appropriate forum for residents to express their concerns, and learn more about BESS facilities in general and the one proposed by RIC in particular.

Finally, the petition alleges that the town should follow the lead of other towns, including Berne, and enact a moratorium to regulate BESS facilities. The towns cited by the petitioners presumably did not have a law designed to regulate BESS facilities so it makes sense for those municipalities to stop development while they draft legislation to control siting of the facilities. 

The New Scotland Town Board, however, was ahead of the game, and anticipated that applications for battery-storage projects were on the horizon. Having enacted a comprehensive law to regulate the facilities just 1.5 years ago, the petitioners have not provided a compelling reason for revisiting the law, or for a town-wide moratorium. 

Nevertheless, I intend to keep an open mind if a cogent reason is presented. Ms. Sardella’s and the Republican candidates for town board’s unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of “conflicts of interest” are not helpful to the cause.

As John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our (her) wishes, our (her) inclinations, or the dictates of our (her) passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Doug LaGrange

Supervisor

Town of New Scotland