Daily Hampshire Gazette – State green energy bill fails to address siting concerns

NORTHAMPTON — A Senate-passed bill that would streamline the permitting and siting process for solar and storage projects in Massachusetts would create a single permit for approving clean energy infrastructure instead of multiple local, regional and state permits, potentially helping to accelerate the state’s renewable energy goals.

The bill, developed by Gov. Maura Healey’s administration with input from lawmakers, does not change state zoning law that exempts renewable energy projects from regulation by cities and towns except to protect “public health, welfare and safety.” Keeping the so-called Dover Amendment exemption is troubling, says Shutesbury Planning Board member Michael DeChiara.

“It’s problematic because we’re being heard, but the fundamental issues of how we regulate are not being addressed,” DeChiara said, pointing out that Shutesbury, Pelham and Wendell have all had difficulty passing regulations restricting the use of solar and battery storage systems.

“Municipalities already have very limited ability to regulate matters,” DeChiara said.

The “Grid Modernization and Ratepayer Protection Act,” as the comprehensive clean energy bill is called, spells out ways to maximize building and transportation electrification and was approved by the state Senate in late June. With the House of Representatives set to take up the bill, it could be ready for Healey to sign by the end of July.

Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, said she fully supports the legislation after pushing for amendments that would require the state to encourage the installation of solar canopies on buildings or sidewalks when installing solar panels on the ground.

“The state is going to have to come up with a full range of ways to prioritize solar on built and brownfield sites, whether it’s a parking lot or a brownfield site,” Comerford said. “I’m very happy about that.”

The Senate adopted the Comerford Amendment, which requires the Department of Energy Resources to initiate a process to develop recommendations on how Massachusetts can build more canopies statewide.

Comerford said the Senate has listened carefully, especially to small communities in western Massachusetts that need protection from large projects like Wendell, where an 11-acre site is set to house an industrial-scale energy storage system.

“Western Massachusetts wants a green revolution,” Comerford said. “We just want to make sure it’s fair and honors natural and usable lands.”

Still, the Senate bill reflects divisions over permitting and siting for large green energy projects and meeting the state’s commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

DeChiara said both supporters and those who are wary of the bill’s provisions support green energy. But supporters say the climate crisis is so imminent that it’s crucial to get as many solar, offshore wind and other green energy projects up and running as quickly as possible, even at the expense of forests, fields and farms. Meanwhile, skeptics who support decarbonization efforts to address the climate crisis urge that decisions take into account potential impacts on natural resources and prioritize siting projects on land that is already developed.

In Shutesbury, where a 30-acre solar field has already been built, PureSky Energy is proposing to build five additional panels on 190 acres, potentially making it the largest in the state.

One of the flaws in the legislation, DeChiara said, is that it relies solely on the private sector to achieve the state’s ambitious goals, rather than providing financial incentives and actual money for people to install solar panels on their homes. “So much of what’s being discussed is about private-sector deployment,” DeChiara said.

Another problem is that project reviews would be limited to one year for smaller projects, and a consolidated permit would be issued or rejected by the municipality. However, for larger projects, 24 megawatts or more for solar and wind and 100 megawatts or more for batteries, a decision on a consolidated permit would be made within 15 months by the state Energy Facilities Siting Board.

“Having a threshold would encourage larger-than-reasonable projects,” DeChiara said. “Developers would rather deal with the state than with regular people who can be a nuisance.”

But the House version, led by Rep. Jeffrey Roy of Franklin, has no size thresholds, which DeChiara calls “ridiculous and really scary.”

Rep. Aaron Saunders of Ludlow, whose district includes Shutesbury, Pelham and Wendell, said he is ready to represent local interests during discussions on clean energy legislation.

“When the bill reaches the House of Representatives, I will be able to provide more detail on the concerns about local control and environmental protections in the context of the provisions included in the final Senate bill,” Saunders said.

Judith Eiseman, chairwoman of the Pelham Planning Board, shares concerns with DeChiara about the legislation.

“Protecting biodiverse natural resources that are valuable to the region and state should be the primary goal, not doing it as quickly and cheaply as possible,” Eieseman wrote in an email.

Eiseman cited a Department of Energy Resources report on the technical potential of solar energy and said that to meet climate goals, the state should start by using only sites deemed “highly suitable” for clean energy projects.

“There is no long-term benefit to be gained by destroying the forests that our rural communities have protected for years to maintain wildlife corridors, surface and groundwater resources, and other ecosystem benefits such as carbon sequestration and habitat,” Eiseman said. “Recognizing the efforts of smaller communities to limit ecological damage to protect public health and well-being is overdue.”

DeChiara would also like to see the 2023 solar installation location map used.

“If there is a loophole and there are no site suitability guidelines, the status quo will continue where developers will choose where to put large solar and storage facilities, not the community or the state,” DeChiara said.

Although communities in western Massachusetts are concerned about the location, the Senate bill was spearheaded by Sen. Michael Barrett, a Lexington Democrat, who told Statehouse News Service that decarbonizing buildings and vehicles is what excites his constituents.

“The power grid is like that. It definitely needs updating, it definitely needs renewing every 30 years. But it’s a pretty boring thing,” Barrett said.

But MassAudubon projects that as much as 150,000 acres of undeveloped land could be lost to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, which is about 3 million acres, or 60% of the state’s land area. On average, one acre of forested land stores 85 tons of carbon, while Massachusetts’s forests collectively absorb about 15% of the state’s annual emissions.

“What’s encouraging about the Senate bill is that the state has finally recognized the benefits of sequestration,” DeChiara said.

Even before the clean energy legislation was passed, the Senate Ways and Means Committee included many of the provisions Comerford championed, including a requirement to develop a methodology to assess whether a site is suitable for hosting clean energy infrastructure and a requirement that developers avoid, minimize or mitigate site impacts and environmental and land use issues.

Comerford then filed a series of amendments that she said would also benefit citizens, such as creating an Embodied Carbon Coordinating Council within the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance; introducing a safety valve in the form of a temporary authorization for municipal permits so that communities can extend contracts in cases where 12 months is not sufficient; and requiring utilities to consider technologies that improve grid performance, such as cable upgrades, to meet their transmission goals.

Scott Merzbach can be reached at [email protected].