🔒As CT plans for clean-energy future, 800 MW of battery energy storage is in pipeline – but projects face regulatory hurdles and delays

More than two dozen large-scale battery energy storage projects have been quietly proposed across Connecticut, and are at various stages of development, as they await state approvals and seek funding sources.

The rush of new developments comes amid Connecticut’s push to create 1,000 MW of battery energy storage capacity by the end of 2030.

Battery energy storage facilities cost millions of dollars and take years to build. When completed, they look like nondescript shipping containers, but they are essential to integrating renewable energy into the electric grid.

So far, 11 major projects, totaling about 400 MW, have either been approved by, or are pending before, the state Siting Council, an industry regulator.

Another 15 large-scale projects are being considered for a 400-MW procurement through the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), though none have been selected.

That means the state potentially has 800 MW of battery energy storage capacity in the pipeline.

Utility-scale projects will feed power to the grid; others will be used by businesses that are powering their facilities with clean energy sources.

Such storage is seen as a key component of the state’s transition to renewable energy because it allows electricity to be purchased from intermittent sources, such as solar and wind, when rates are at their lowest. Then, the energy is stored and dispatched during peak demand.

Currently, about half of Connecticut’s electricity is generated at natural gas-fired plants, which produce a constant supply of electricity.

However, as an increasing share of the state’s power comes from intermittent sources, battery energy storage will become necessary to maintain an adequate power supply, experts say.

Cost-savings play

The state Siting Council has broad authority to regulate the placement of electric utility facilities, and battery energy storage projects greater than 1 MW generally require its approval.

Smaller projects, such as a 0.77-MW battery energy storage system recently proposed at the Farmington Sports Arena, are regulated by local zoning authorities. These facilities store energy that is fed to businesses, based on demand.

There is no official count of smaller-scale commercial and residential battery energy storage systems, which are sprouting across the state.

The largest project on the Siting Council’s docket, by far, is a 325-MW battery facility, known as Windham Energy Center, on a 20-acre portion of a property at 189 Lake Road in Killingly. The developer is an Israeli company, Sunflower Sustainable Investments Ltd.

The application, submitted on Oct. 11, says the project will cost about $200 million to construct.

A natural gas-fueled power plant was proposed on the same property in 2019, but that project didn’t get off the ground after facing intense opposition from clean energy and other advocates.

The Windham Energy Center is working its way through the Siting Council approval process.

New York-based Key Capture Energy was the first to receive Siting Council approval for a battery storage project in November 2023 — a 5 MW-facility at 2 Ella T. Grasso Turnpike in Windsor Locks.

Key Capture has received two other approvals for a 4.9-MW facility at 44 Skinner St., in East Hampton; and a 5-MW facility on Village Hill Road in Stafford and Willington.

It also has one petition pending: a 4.9-MW project at 100 Salmon Brook St., in Granby, filed on Aug. 1.

Meantime, Endurant Energy, a New York City-based green energy supplier, has had five battery storage projects approved by the Siting Council. Those projects — in Meriden, Cheshire, Windsor, Suffield and Middletown — will feed commercial businesses rather than the grid.

For example, Endurant received approvals for a 4.9-MW project at 508 North Colony St., in Meriden, home to Accel International, a manufacturer of copper and alloy products; and a 4.9-MW project at 350 Knotter Drive in Cheshire, home to chemical manufacturer Olin Corp.

Some businesses are combining battery energy storage systems with solar panels or fuel cells, so they can both generate and store electricity, said attorney Lee D. Hoffman, who specializes in energy and is chair of law firm Pullman & Comley.

“I see it far less as a zero-carbon play or an environmental play, and far more as simply: how do we keep our costs down?” Hoffman said. “If I can ‘home grow’ my electricity such that it’s cheaper than what I have to pay Eversource or United Illuminating, why wouldn’t I do that as a business?”

The growth of battery storage projects hasn’t been without some setbacks.

The Siting Council recently rejected 4.9-MW and 4-MW projects in New London and Waterford proposed by Hanwha Q Cells America Inc. On Nov. 7, the council denied both projects because they included battery storage units that were within 300 feet of commercial buildings.

The International Association of Fire Chiefs guidance says that people should maintain a safe distance of at least 300 feet from battery storage units, according to the council’s decision.

Another project — Key Capture’s proposed battery farm in Granby — faces local opposition. Residents there raised concerns about the risks of a fire or explosion.

A Key Capture official told the Hartford Business Journal in January that its “technology goes through much more rigorous safety testing and protocols than batteries used in consumer electronics, but the operation is similar.”

Projects approved by the Siting Council usually bypass local zoning authorities.

DEEP procurement

Currently, none of the projects that have been approved by the Siting Council, or are pending before it, are part of DEEP’s 400-MW procurement, which drew 15 separate proposals.

Projects selected through the DEEP procurement process will be able to sell electricity to utilities at pre-determined rates, rather than at market rates. Also, they can receive payments based on whether the system meets performance metrics.

Funding for the procurements will come from electric utilities, through funds collected from ratepayers.

It’s unclear when the state will begin to award contracts, but proposed projects include a joint venture between East Granby-based Kinsley Energy Systems and Michaud Law Group of Middletown.

They’ve proposed two grid-scale battery energy storage projects, including one at 434 Killingly Road in Pomfret, the site of an unused sandpit beside a transmission line.

The second is on 39.2 acres of vacant land on Boyden Street in Waterbury.

Kinsley Energy redacted the proposed megawatt capacity of the projects from its publicly available proposal.

Key Capture is planning a total of eight energy battery storage projects in Connecticut, including the three that have already received Siting Council approval, along with three larger projects submitted under DEEP’s procurement.

They are an 80-MW facility on 25 acres of vacant land on Rutty Ferry Road in Haddam; a 45-MW facility on 4 acres of vacant property at 253 Park Road in Putnam; and a 190-MW facility at 30 Tariffville Road in Bloomfield.

Another renewable energy company, Ormat Nevada Inc., has proposed a 100-MW project, called Silk City Energy Storage, in an undisclosed Hartford location, as part of the procurement.

Other projects by various developers have been proposed in Middlebury, Enfield, Stafford Springs, Watertown, Canton and South Windsor, among other locales.

Projects selected through DEEP’s procurement will need to apply for permits from the state Siting Council as well.

State incentives

The state has been working to incentivize battery energy storage development since the legislature passed a 2021 law that established a goal to deploy 1,000 MW of storage capacity in Connecticut by the end of 2030.

To achieve that, the state created two programs: the Energy Storage Solution initiative, which will provide incentives to mostly small-scale, residential and commercial projects totaling about 600 MW; and the procurement through DEEP, aimed at attracting larger-scale proposals that connect directly to the electrical grid.

In addition to that 2030 deadline, the 2021 law also requires the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to demonstrate “quantifiable progress” in deploying 300 MW of battery storage by Dec. 31, 2024, and 650 MW by the end of 2027.

Democratic State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, House chair of the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, sees recent progress as “a pretty good step forward.”

“Since the order of magnitude of what’s in the pipeline is equivalent to our goal, I have to say that is hitting the goal,” Steinberg said.

People are concerned about the state’s energy future, he added, especially amid the spike in electricity prices that occurred this past summer. Steinberg expects the legislature will take on the issue in its upcoming session.

“On the generation side, I think we’re going to impress upon at least the committee, if not the entire legislature, that we are at a pretty critical juncture whereby we’re going to need all the energy we can get,” Steinberg said. “If data centers are going to be part of our future, we are going to have to be very creative in drawing energy resources wherever we can, and storage is going to be a part of that.”

Hoffman, the attorney, said he’s skeptical whether Connecticut can achieve its 1,000-MW goal by the end of 2030.

One key stumbling block, he said, could be the arduous process of connecting battery storage units to the electric grid.

He said the interconnection process in southern New England is challenging, with too many barriers, which will slow future development.

“The projects that have been approved, great, but other projects may be waiting longer in the queue for interconnection than they would otherwise,” Hoffman said.

The state has been slow to select proposals through the RFP procurement, he added.