Concerns Surface Over Battery Storage Proposal at Former Vermont Yankee Nuclear Site
A Texas developer's proposal for a large battery storage system at the former Vermont Yankee nuclear site highlights a sizable list important considerations.
VERNON, VT – A preliminary proposal to construct a large-scale battery energy storage system (BESS) at the site of the former Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, first reported by Vermont Public, has brought a host of serious questions and unaddressed risks to the forefront. The Texas-based developer, PowerTransitions, is in early discussions with NorthStar Group Services, the current landowner, to potentially lease about 140 acres for the project.
While described by Vernon Planning Commission Chair Jim Pinkerton as a “back-of-the-envelope” idea, an in-depth analysis of the proposal reveals critical concerns about public safety, the developer’s experience, and the unique, long-term nature of the Vermont Yankee site.
A Developer Under Scrutiny: Limited Experience and a History of Failure
At the heart of the proposal are questions surrounding the developer, PowerTransitions. The company’s stated goal, according to its website, is to transform retired power facilities into “modern, resilient energy infrastructure campuses.” However, a closer look at its recent history reveals an “experience gap” that warrants careful consideration.
Focus on Fossil Fuels: Despite its clean energy ambitions, PowerTransitions’ most significant recent acquisition, according to a September 2025 company press release, was not in battery storage or renewables. Instead, it involved purchasing a 226-megawatt portfolio of two natural-gas fired power plants in New Jersey and Massachusetts. While the company states it aims to redevelop these sites with battery storage in the future, its current operational portfolio is rooted in traditional fossil fuels.
A Precedent for Failure: More critically, PowerTransitions has a recent history of failing to execute a nearly identical BESS project. Public records from Blue Lake, California, show that in June 2025, the Blue Lake City Council terminated an agreement with PowerTransitions for a 20-megawatt battery storage system. The project, much like the one proposed for Vermont Yankee, was intended to redevelop a defunct power plant site.
The Blue Lake failure stemmed from two major issues:
Commercial Collapse: PowerTransitions failed to secure a power purchase agreement—a buyer for the electricity—making the project financially non-viable.
Community Opposition: The project also faced significant local pushback over concerns about BESS fire risks and potential environmental contamination.
This direct, recent failure in a comparable project raises serious red flags about PowerTransitions’ ability to successfully navigate the commercial, regulatory, and community hurdles necessary for a large-scale battery storage development, particularly one as sensitive as the Vermont Yankee site.
The Permanent Hazard: Nuclear Waste at Vermont Yankee
The Vermont Yankee site is far from a typical industrial redevelopment opportunity. It is, for all practical purposes, a permanent high-level nuclear waste storage facility.
The site currently hosts 58 dry casks containing all the spent nuclear fuel from the plant’s 42 years of operation. While it’s easy to assume this waste is temporary, the reality, according to federal records and policy experts, is grim:
The U.S. federal government’s program for a permanent geologic repository for this waste has been a complete failure, with no active or funded pathway forward since the Yucca Mountain project was defunded in 2010.
The Department of Energy missed its legal deadline to begin accepting this waste over a quarter-century ago in 1998.
This means the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in Vernon is a multi-generational, effectively permanent radiological hazard. This enduring reality profoundly complicates any industrial development on adjacent land.
An Unprecedented Safety Scenario: Batteries Near Nuclear Waste
Placing a large-scale BESS, with its well-documented fire and explosion risks, next to a nuclear waste storage facility creates a novel and deeply concerning safety scenario.
Battery storage systems, primarily using lithium-ion technology, are prone to a phenomenon called “thermal runaway,” a rapid, uncontrollable chain reaction within battery cells. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and safety organizations like the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), this can lead to:
Intense, high-temperature fires that are notoriously difficult to extinguish with traditional methods.
Explosions caused by the release and ignition of highly flammable and toxic gases.
Plumes of hazardous chemicals, including hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen cyanide, posing severe risks to responders and local populations.
The standard emergency response for a large BESS fire often involves a defensive strategy—letting the unit burn out while protecting exposures. However, this strategy becomes profoundly complicated, and potentially untenable, when the primary “exposure” to be protected is an array of high-level nuclear waste casks.
This co-location creates an unprecedented, dual-hazard environment. A major BESS incident could:
Compromise access for security personnel and regulators to the ISFSI.
Damage critical monitoring and security infrastructure for the nuclear waste casks.
Create an emergency response nightmare, requiring coordination between hazardous materials teams, firefighters, and nuclear security personnel who would be operating without established protocols for such a combined threat.
Conflict with Vernon’s Vision for the Site
Beyond the safety and developer concerns, the proposal clashes with the Town of Vernon’s proactive planning for the Vermont Yankee site. The town, according to its municipal website, completed a comprehensive Site Restoration and Redevelopment Plan in 2021. This community-driven vision outlines preferred future uses for the property.
This is critical because NorthStar Group Services, the landowner, has a binding commitment to the community. As affirmed by NorthStar CEO Scott State in the Vermont Public report, the company intends to facilitate redevelopment that is “preferred by the town of Vernon.” The PowerTransitions proposal is an external, developer-initiated concept that must now demonstrate alignment with, or justify a deviation from, the town’s pre-existing, carefully considered plan.
Next Steps
This project is far from a done deal. Its “back-of-the-envelope” status means it is at the very beginning of a long and complex regulatory journey that will proceed on two main tracks: local and state.
1. The Local Track: The Town of Vernon The developer, PowerTransitions, must continue to engage with the Vernon Planning Commission. The commission’s primary role will be to determine if the project aligns with the town’s 2021 Site Restoration and Redevelopment Plan. The town’s plan and its support—or opposition—will be a critical piece of evidence in the state-level review.
2. The State Track: The Certificate of Public Good This is the most significant hurdle. To be built, the project must receive a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) from the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC).
Formal Petition: The developer must file a formal, highly detailed “Section 248” petition with the PUC.
Public Service Department Review: The Vermont Public Service Department (the office of Commissioner Kerrick Johnson, who was mentioned in the initial report) will review this petition on behalf of the public interest. It will analyze the project’s economic viability, grid benefits, and, most critically, its safety and environmental risks.
Formal Intervention: The CPG process is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Town of Vernon, regional planning commissions, and concerned residents can formally “intervene” as parties. This gives them the right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make legal arguments about the project’s risks and its failure to align with the town plan.
The Final Decision: The PUC will ultimately weigh all the evidence—from the developer, the state, and the town—to determine if the project, with all its compounded risks, serves the “general good of the state.” This is where the project will either be approved, approved with strict conditions, or denied.