In his June 30 rebuttal of Joe Curtatone’s earlier column on battery energy storage systems (BESS), Michael DeChiara implies that he speaks for western Massachusetts communities regarding our views of these energy storage systems [“Somerville gets it wrong on battery storage”]. As a fellow western Mass resident, and colleague of Mr. DeChiara, I would like to offer a different perspective and some additional context.
While I share Mr. DeChiara’s deep concern for our local communities, the protection of our local natural resources, and for the safety and welfare of my neighbors, I also recognize we don’t live in isolation and must all contribute to solving the climate crisis. I am concerned that if we collectively fail to quickly transition away from fossil fuels, the environmental harms and human suffering resulting from climate change will greatly eclipse any effort to maintain the local status quo. Fortunately, relatively benign renewable energy technologies like solar photovoltaics, modern wind turbines, and BESS make it possible for most communities to finally take responsibility for their own energy needs.
Because of the intermittent nature of solar and wind, energy storage does not just “make sense,” as Mr. DeChiara puts it, it is an absolute necessity. Simply stated, without adequate energy storage our efforts to de-carbonize and mitigate climate change will fail. We currently have two basic options for storing electrical energy at scale — pumped storage hydropower (eg. the Northfield Mountain facility) or BESS, each with its own issues and limitations. As Mr. DeChiara correctly noted, batteries are not risk free (is anything?), but his criticism that lithium-ion battery technology is “not ready for prime time” is belied by reality. Globally, lithium-ion batteries power thousands of individual BESS installations and tens of millions of electric and hybrid vehicles, notably with few incidents. More importantly, without offering any feasible alternatives, his broad-brush stigmatization of BESS as “too dangerous” only serves to undermine efforts to expand renewable energy and achieve carbon net zero by 2050. In short, if we continue delaying the installation of renewables and BESS while awaiting the development of some presumably risk-free energy technology, we fail.
Yes, there have been fire incidents involving BESS, with some providing spectacular headlines and images, but to date the evidence of resultant public health or significant environmental harm is sparse and certainly nowhere near the magnitude of the well-documented effects from fossil fuel extraction and use. And as with all complex issues, details matter. It is not helpful to simply cite past BESS incidents without expounding on the nature and scale of the events and presenting evidence of actual harm. Innuendo and vague worst-case “what-ifs” and generalizations do not contribute to rational discourse or good public policy; they serve only to promote fear and anxiety.
For additional context we should consider that like many new technologies, BESS designs are evolving rapidly and with lessons learned from past failures, new safeguards and precautions continue to be implemented. Since 2018, failure rates have declined precipitously and in 2024, there were only eight reported fires at the more than 1,700 BESS facilities worldwide (this represents 0.027 failures per gigawatt-hour installed) (EPRI BESS Failure Incident Database). In the U.S., three of the BESS fires that occurred in 2024 reported air and runoff water samples with toxicity levels below established thresholds (I could find no information about the fourth U.S. incident). One responder described the toxicity levels as similar to those found at a typical structure fire. While certainly not a comprehensive analysis, this information suggests the risks posed by BESS are not as dire as portrayed by Mr. DeChiara.
If we are to succeed in mitigating the climate crisis we will have to embrace change, and yes, some degree of calculated risk. But this does not imply recklessness. In your daily life you accept risk from a variety of common conveniences. Consider the risk of fire and contamination from the gasoline used in your car, or the risk of fire and electrocution from your use of electricity. Each energy resource is potentially hazardous, but with appropriate safeguards and precautions we use them with little concern — the benefits outweigh the risks. Similarly, our public policies on BESS should be based on the objective analyses of the available data and a realistic assessment of the risks posed, including the very real risks of delay or inaction. And if against all odds we do succeed in building out a robust renewable energy system and effectively phase out fossil fuels, the environmental, public health, and economic benefits will far outweigh the
potential costs.
Keith Hastie is a retired environmental scientist, lifelong environmentalist, and member of the Shutesbury Planning Board.