To the Editor:

Recent letters from town officials assure us that the process behind Local Law 1 of 2024, the Battery Storage Law, was perfectly normal. But a timeline of their own statements and public records suggests otherwise. 

The truth shall set you free, Doug

Town of New Scotland Supervisor Doug LaGrange recently sent a letter to the Enterprise editor, “A weak October surprise cannot alter the facts,” where Doug found my concerns “distasteful at best.”  Supervisor LaGrange claims the town wasn’t approached by battery site developers (Eden Renewables) until 2023ish. Yet, his own past statements in The Enterprise tell a different story, dating back to 2017. He claims I made inflammatory allegations without facts while simultaneously noting I requested all the supporting information. So, which is it? I either made unfounded claims without asking for proof, or I asked for proof and was ignored. His love letters in The Enterprise seem to be my only response.

Why are you so angry, Adam

To Town of New Scotland Councilman Adam Greenberg — congrats on the win. You ran a dirty, yet efficient campaign, kudos. Councilman Greenberg wrote several letters to The Enterprise with me in the bullseye. I guess I should be flattered? What is that saying, imitation (or written annihilation of one’s character) is the sincerest form of flattery — or something like that. In his most recent letter, “There is no lack of transparency, only a lack of interest,” (the one where the Enterprise was kind enough to share my letter with him before publishing so he could respond) his title is telling, and one area where we do agree.

There isn’t much public interest in town government, and that could be misconstrued as a good thing. Like layers of an onion, the more you peel back, the more you start to question the who, what, where, when, and whys of it all. He, too, shares that I submitted a request for public information surrounding the Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) projects, but defends that this is all available on the town’s site. Just like all the Hilton Barn finances, right? This is not true; if it were, I wouldn’t have to submit a FOIL [Freedom of Information Law] and written request.

Councilman Greenberg goes on to claim that, if New Scotland didn’t create a battery law, they could have been “placed anywhere.” That is a blatant lie. In accordance with New Scotland Zoning Law, there is a chart of permissible uses per Zone ID. Chapter 190 of the Town of New Scotland Code “Zoning Law” did not explicitly name or define BESS prior to passing Local Law 1 2024; therefore, any requests would have been referred to the zoning board of appeals for a rigorous, case-by-case review. There is absolutely no scenario where BESS sites would have popped up everywhere.

Sitting on the town board shouldn’t prevent Councilman Greenberg from enjoying all the same rights and land usage privileges of any town resident. But not if Councilman Greenberg’s position on the town board put him in a position of influence or advantage. This all would have all been mute had he simply recused himself from crafting or voting on Local Law 1 2024. But he was too smug for his own good.

The bottom line is I never accused Councilman Greenberg of anything. I made a reasonable inquiry based on a troubling sequence of events: Developer interest, creation of a battery law, Greenberg’s vote on the law, and the subsequent leasing of his Wormer Road parcels for BESS developments.

Oh, Edie

In Town of New Scotland Zoning Board of Appeals Member Edie Abrams’ letter to the editor, “BESS law was passed before any company approached any landowner,” she claims “malicious speech” being “espoused” by myself and my fellow Republicans. She omits, however, that this was not a political hit piece. Rather, it was a widespread and apolitical concern shared by New Scotland residents about how this law was developed and passed.

Edie proclaims that no company approached the town prior to passing Local Law 1 2024. That statement is offered to reassure with confidence and insight afforded by her role on the zoning board of appeals. This directly contradicts the attached deed, memorandum of release regarding the Beagle Club property on Indian Fields Road, initiated Oct. 4, 2022, filed with the Albany County on March 7, 2023, which predates the law’s adoption in May 2024.

This, too, is publicly available information and attached for reference. Now, in Edie’s defense, there is a chance that there were no communications between the Beagle Club or RIC Energy (Beagle Club property developer) with the town as there are no publicly available records to support an inquiry in 2022. But one could reasonably ascertain that, with New Scotland’s building codes and regulations being as strict as they are, and with no zone identification for such a project in the existing Chapter 190, the Beagle Club would have reached out to the town to ensure this land usage was permissible before entering into a multi-year land restricting agreement with RIC.

If Edie meant to reassure residents and maintain credibility, she should avoid categorical statements unless she has reviewed every available public record that might contradict them.

Excuse me, sir

At the Nov. 5 Town of New Scotland Planning Board Meeting, Chairman Jeff Baker picked up right where he left off from the last planning meeting (Oct. 7) with his flippant and dismissive, audible eye-rolls. He raised a hand to “shhh” one resident, told another resident who was speaking that they “were done, sit down.”

But his crowning achievement, awarding him the “Resting Jeff Face” Award was when Mr. Craig Shufelt (Republican candidate for New Scotland Town Board during this past election) asked questions during the public hearing.

Chairman Baker interrupted Mr. Shufelt to remind him that “the election was yesterday; you lost.” I mean, can you believe this guy! If anything, Craig’s attendance and continued interest in the BESS meetings proves that this was not a political tactic, rather his interest as a town resident with a right to ask questions and voice his concerns, respectfully.

If it quacks like a duck

There were no false claims. All information is public, much from The Enterprise itself. I asked for clarity. Instead of providing it, officials went into full attack mode, which assures me I found something here.

The issue is not accusation of impropriety, but the appearance created by the sequence of events: developers’ approach to the town, a law is drafted, Councilman Greenberg’s vote in favor of that law, and the subsequent leasing of his Wormer Road parcels for BESS developments later that year. Together these facts create, at minimum, the appearance that the law may have been timed or structured in a way that favored private interests.

To be clear (again), neither I nor the NSGOP oppose battery energy storage systems. We unequivocally support landowner rights and the pursuit of new and reliable energy sources. Our concern is process and siting. Industrial-scale BESS projects belong on industrially-zoned land, not tucked into residential neighborhoods where they may threaten safety and property usage/values.

A wise man once said

Doug ended his “October surprise” letter with a famous quote, I have a couple quotes to pass along to Doug as well:

— Mahatma Gandhi: “The moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted”; 

— Santa Claus: “Always do the right thing, even when no one’s looking.”

A timeline of verified facts leading any reasonable person to question the sequence and honesty of our town board members.

Jess Sardella, PMP

New Scotland

Editor’s note: Jess Sarella chairs the New Scotland Republican Committee. The deed she references in this letter is posted with her letter on the Enterprise website.

In response to having told a “blatant lie,” Adam Greenberg told The Enterprise via text, “The Appellate Division, Third Department found in Freepoint Solar LLC v. Town of Athens, (Dec. 2024) that the utility standard applies to solar projects. Our assumption is that this standard will apply to BESS installations as well. And therefore we needed to regulate these systems.”

Douglas LaGrange’s 2017 references were to solar farms, not battery energy storage systems. 

Asked about dates, LaGrange provided the following BESS timeline:

— Met with Eden Renewables sometime in 2022 or 2023 about Hognested property. Cannot find correspondence. May have been solely by phone.

 — Jan. 5, 2023: Supervisor and attorney received email on “Regulation of Energy Storage (solar storage battery) Facilities”;

 — Sept. 15, 2023: Contacted by Blue Way Energy regarding BESS;

 — Sept. 29, 2023: Met with Blue Wave Energy regarding BESS;

 — Oct. 17, 2023: Dan Leinung presented town board with first draft of battery storage law;

 — Nov. 8, 2023: Battery storage law on the town board agenda and sent to planning board for comment;

 — Dec. 13, 2023: Battery storage law on the town board agenda;

 — Dec. 21, 2023: Planning board comments received;

 — Jan. 10, 2024: Battery storage law on the town board agenda;

 — Feb. 14, 2024: Battery storage law on the town board agenda;

 — Feb. 24, 2024: Contacted about a BESS project for Unionville Substation;

 — March 13, 2024: Battery storage on town board agenda and sent to both planning boards;

 — April 10, 2024: Battery Storage on town board agenda with Public Hearing;

 — May 8, 2024: Battery Storage on town board agenda with public hearing. Law passed;

 — June 13, 2024: Meeting with Eden Renewables on BESS for Hognested property; and

 — Feb. 5, 2025: Adam Greenberg received proposals from New Leaf Energy for property in East Greenbush with a note saying that they would check out his New Scotland property too [Greenberg provided The Enterprise with the Feb. 5 email from New Leaf Energy].

At the Nov. 5 planning board meeting, Chairman Jeff Baker did not specifically say to Craig Shufelt, “The election was yesterday; you lost.” The larger context follows.

Shufelt, referencing the proposed project, questioned if the planning board was “doing what is best to fit appropriately in the community.”

Baker responded, “Within the constraints of the law that’s been presented to us, where it’s required to be on a seven-acre site, has all of the landscaping and controls that are in there. We apply those standards to make sure that it’s within the community. We don’t make up the standards from whole cloth or what we wish for it. We work within the laws that are presented.”

Shufelt then said, “You fed into what I’m going to say now. With all the folks that are in this room tonight that have been so thoroughly outspoken tonight, thoroughly outspoken in the last planning board meeting, showing a ton of respect to you guys as the so-called decision makers. To what degree does the community have a say just because something is a law and an amended law and a flawed law at that? 

“Meaning tier one, tier two systems, this is a tier three, they only mention minimums versus maximums as far as capacities go. So there’s some law issues there that could be or should be looked into further. 

“But to what degree do you decide, the five of you, that these folks matter? And what they’re saying back to you, the residents, back to you, back to the town board in essence as well, to make you look at us as short-term and long-term residents forever, families, history, etc. 

“And you say, ‘Damn, are we doing the right thing right now?’ And how does that fit in with the quote unquote New Scotland way and the plan of which you’re setting a precedent. You could ignore the Wormer Road location all you want right now, but you’re setting a precedent.

“And I, having spoken personally with a number of residents in the Feura Bush area, their idea of a cozy main street and reduction of speed limits and some crosswalks in there. This doesn’t fit into that plan whatsoever. So that’s really the safest, easiest question without me getting confrontational, because I don’t want to do that. But to what degree do you listen to all these guys?”

Baker responded to Shufelt, “We listen to you by taking your comments into account. I think Cindy [Elliot] made some good comments that I'm going to address when we finish the public hearing. We take your issues into account and how you believe it'll impact your properties. We take those concerns, we compare them to the standards and the law. And then we issue a decision where we have to balance everybody’s interest, the interest of the Beagle Club to develop their property, the interest of RIC Development to pursue their project. We don’t choose where things go. We evaluate them and where they are. 

“How does this process all work and does it go back to your views? Mr. Shufelt, I don’t think I need to remind you we had an election yesterday.” 

Shufelt responded, “Yes, sir.”

Baker said, “You didn’t win.” 

To which Shufelt responded, “No, I didn’t.”

There were then shouts of “Irrelevant” from the public. 

Shufelt then said, “Mr. Baker, I’m here as a resident.”

Baker said, “The question presented [by Shufelt] was: How did your views get addressed? It gets [addressed] by where the laws are in this town and what the people of the town want the laws to be as manifested by their elected representatives. You have made incogent arguments for changing the law that you felt [was] not properly developed, did not have the criteria that you thought should be there … The issue was raised and litigated through the election season. We have the law that we have now. We have to apply it, and we’re applying it the way it is. And that’s how we take into account everybody’s views. 

“We can’t ignore the law. I can’t tell you and I can’t tell the Beagle Club that they don’t have a right to put in an application. And if the application meets our standards, we will apply it. This is the first one we’ve had. We are faced with unique issues on how to address the uncertainties about safety … We’ve looked at every potential issue on this.

“I’ll tell you, this is a low impact project. These are small structures. They will not be noticeable by anybody around you. We are going to make sure, and again, we’ll be going back and looking at it, that there are no noise impacts to anybody. We may require more landscaping. Certainly I will address some of [Cindy Elliot’s] site-distance issues.

“Those are the standards. That’s what we apply to everyone else, whether you’re putting a gas station somewhere, [or] a supermarket.”

The conversation continued with others jumping in, but with no comments related to the election.