Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Jeffrey N. Roy
The Honorable Richard M. Haggerty
The Honorable Bradley H. Jones, Jr.
The Honorable Michael J. Barrett
The Honorable Cynthia Stone Creem
The Honorable Bruce E. Tarr
State House, Boston
Delivered electronically
Dear Chair Roy, Chair Barrett, and Distinguished Members of the Clean Energy Siting Conference Committee:
On behalf of cities and towns across the Commonwealth, we are writing to express a municipal perspective on the many provisions outlined in the clean energy siting bills approved by the House (H. 4884) and the Senate (S. 2838). We appreciate the work of the House, Senate, and Administration on steering the Commonwealth’s focus on the clean energy transition. From the statewide emissions limits for 2050 adopted in 2022, to the Commission on Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting (CEISP), and the legislation under current consideration, your work is transforming vision into the reality of our clean energy future.
The proposals before you include a significant number of policy provisions that we know cities and towns will celebrate. To start, we appreciate the proposal to establish a site suitability methodology to avoid, minimize, or mitigate social and environmental impacts of clean energy infrastructure (CEI) siting. We applaud the inclusion of guidance on community benefit agreements (CBAs) to support municipalities with model language and practice as they consider permit application impacts, community needs, and navigate the CBA processes. We believe that the creation of a public participation office to support intervenors and a CEI dashboard to track and share information and progress throughout the clean energy transition will be powerful tools to foster engagement and encourage public investment. We also appreciate the proposal to clarify and simplify electric school buses and supply equipment procurement practices for municipalities. And lastly, we appreciate the appointment of greater municipal representation to the Energy Facilities Siting Board and the forthcoming Department of Energy Resources regulatory process. The appointments will enrich the perspective of the board responsible for decisions on the largest energy projects in our Commonwealth and help to ensure that new processes mandated for municipalities are more likely to work. Thank you for including these many proposals that support municipalities and acknowledge the essential role municipal government plays in our clean energy future.
We deeply appreciate the Legislature’s careful consideration of the many interconnected issues that slow timely review of clean energy projects both at the state and local levels over the past several months. As a member of the CEISP, the Massachusetts Municipal Association had the opportunity to emphasize the invaluable role municipalities — and their local boards and commissions — have played in the siting of clean energy thus far. Many cities and towns continue to seek out new opportunities to host solar, wind, battery storage systems, and other energy resources in their community, and wish to make this a faster, simpler process for all involved. With this context in mind, we offer several points for your consideration.
Reconsider Mandated Local Consolidated Permitting
The MMA remains concerned about the proposed mandated consolidation of small clean energy infrastructure siting and permitting and the inevitable conflict this mandate would cause among residents across the Commonwealth. Our members welcome clear guidance on health and safety implications of CEI infrastructure as well as legal boundaries for municipal authority and clarification of key definitions. They further welcome opportunities to find efficiencies in processes and reduce administrative burden. However, a consolidated process may not be possible in many cities and towns and would impede community buy-in for any forthcoming projects.
Adopting consolidated local permitting, as a mandated course of action in all 351 cities and towns, threatens to derail clean energy infrastructure efforts by causing unnecessary push-back among residents and advocates that are both committed to our environmental goals and desire inclusion in the decision making process. Municipalities will be on the front lines responding to this inevitable reaction to the loss of local decision making authority.
A concern frequently raised as an ‘issue’ of the existing CEI local permitting process are unnecessary delays due to local permitting providing for multiple opportunities for public comment, feedback, and appeal. This critique purports municipalities as roadblocks to climate action and progress towards our clean energy goals. However, this position fails to acknowledge the responsibility and mission of local governments: to protect, serve and represent the best interests of their residents. Public hearings and comment periods on projects that will be sited in a community for decades to come are an essential part of municipal governance. Further, municipal level “appeals” are virtually nonexistent and existing timelines for local approvals are almost exclusively reasonable and any delays are occurring during the formal appeals process in which municipalities are not involved.
We know that careful review at the local level makes projects better — this is a foundational cornerstone of all public policy work. While it is true that sometimes appeals surface in relation to CEI projects under municipal jurisdiction, municipal governments themselves are very rarely the appellants. In many instances, conflicts and concerns around appeals signify a lack of consistent, easily accessible and trustworthy information about the clean energy transition. This gap leads to misunderstandings and misinformation having the potential to disrupt a project’s progress.
The misconstruction of the municipal process as the reason for the lack of progress on clean energy goals is unfair and unfounded. Over the past fourteen years, 295 communities representing more than 89% of the Commonwealth’s population, have opted into the Green Communities Designation and Grant Program, thus agreeing to a requirement to adopt an expedited review process for clean energy projects and manufacturing facilities. When given a choice to support clean energy, with the right incentives and support to build public confidence in such a decision, the cities and towns of Massachusetts will opt in — Green Communities proves this.
This is why we have strongly encouraged the development of a similar program to Green Communities to include municipal engagement when developing the framework, and financial incentives to municipalities who opt into the program. The legislation before you proposes the development of project standards and guidelines, and staffing support through the new Division of Clean Energy Siting and Permitting. No other incentives are paired with this mandate. We urge you to consider the reality that municipalities will be forced to participate in this consolidated process without compelling incentives or significant engagement thus far in the ideation process. Cities and towns need flexibility and agency to best meet the needs of the community as a whole — an opt-in process would provide this. If the final bill provides a mandated process, cities and towns will desperately need flexibility to make adjustments and respond to the unique situations and circumstances of individual projects.
For these reasons and more, we urge you to reconsider mandating a change to local processes and instead create a consolidated local permitting framework to be adopted by each city and town as a local option.
Additional Municipal Priorities
As you review the differences between the House and Senate versions of the clean energy siting legislation, we recommend careful attention be paid to the following elements:
Expand Protections for Municipalities Subject to Constructive Approvals
We urge you to expand protections for municipalities that may require deadline extensions for constructive approval due to good cause. There are any number of unforeseen circumstances that may contribute to the need for an extension to the 12-month constructive approval deadline for small clean energy projects. From extreme weather events to unexpected deaths or illnesses, to cyber attacks and beyond, municipalities need an opportunity for deadline extension. We advise allowing municipalities to extend deadlines for good cause at the discretion of the Director.
We also urge you to support language of the amendment adopted by the Senate that would create a safety valve should a municipality be subject to a constructive approval given an applicant’s failure to respond to information requests. Municipalities will need guidance and opportunities for extensions to the 12-month timeline when circumstances outside of municipal control delay important information from being shared with the multiple municipal boards and decision makers. Despite a municipality’s good faith efforts to provide a fair and thorough review of a project, many situations including unanswered information requests and last-minute revisions could stress municipal resources and their ability to make a decision within the strict timeline. We recommend including language in the final bill that provides for additional flexibilities for municipalities subject to constructive approval to help avoid this default and rigid automatic approval.
Clarify the Definition of Local Government
Passed as an amendment to the Senate bill, we urge you to carry forward an updated definition of local government as it pertains to the proposed consolidated local permitting process. This clarification ensures that a chief executive officer of a municipality will ultimately be responsible for coordinating the municipal process that may involve numerous municipal governing boards. Without this fix, legal review may interpret the municipality to be the local legislative body, adding logistical hurdles within a 12-month rigid time frame. Chief executive officers are best equipped to manage the many individual decisions and permits that would be consolidated into one final approval. We recommend employing the amended definition of local government passed by the Senate.
Support the Expansion of the Municipal Fossil Fuel Free Building Demonstration Program
Since this policy surfaced in conversations surrounding last session’s sweeping climate legislation, the MMA has advocated for this program’s gradual expansion. Municipalities continue to stay closely tuned to program developments and the experiences of the first communities who have taken the necessary steps to participate. Interest in expanding program participation highlights the growing desire of municipalities to opt into programs and initiatives that meet their community’s wishes and align well with their clean energy goals. We urge you to approve this request which compliments statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Support Electric School Bus and Charging Infrastructure Procurement Clarifications
We fully support the clarification and simplification of electric school bus and supply equipment procurement practices for municipalities found in both bills. Confusing and misaligned procurement processes for vehicles and charging infrastructure should not be a barrier for municipal and regional school districts’ ability to convert school transportation fleets. This important provision helps clear the way for EV adoption for public fleets and could easily be expanded to include fleets beyond school buses. We strongly support inclusion of this important procurement language in the final legislation.
Support the Modernization of the Bottle Bill and Deposit Return System
Modernization of the bottle bill fulfills the legislative fix recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in its 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan while updating the program to the fiscal realities of our present day.
The five cent deposit, which has remained at the same figure since the law became effective in January of 1983, no longer incentivizes as many consumers to return bottles. It is imperative that this bill carries forward this common-sense update to the bottle bill, to expand the scope of eligible bottles and raise the deposit to ten cents. Invigorating the deposit return system would be a great step forward to spur longer conversations on urgent solid waste and recycling issues that are impacting municipalities and their bottom lines. We urge you to support the provisions that would update the state’s Deposit Return System as adopted by the Senate.
Oppose Drought Management Provisions
Language adopted by the Senate as an amendment proposes to preempt local authority over water resources and restrictions when drought conditions are experienced, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA). This proposal is unnecessary as the Governor currently holds the statutory authority to impose water restrictions in emergency situations and can employ every state agency, including the EOEEA, to require action to address water shortages. Additionally, drought conditions do not impact all water supplies the same, nor do all droughts impact a region’s streams or groundwater wells equally. Municipal governments and water districts are deeply concerned about the long-term sustainability of water resources and need flexibility to meet the needs of residents while responsibly managing their own water supply. Please oppose this preemption of local government and unnecessary expansion of water management regulation.
Summary
We thank you for your close attention to the many priorities of clean energy infrastructure stakeholders that have been raised over the past several months. As you know, municipalities are a key partner in ensuring our clean energy future and we value your attention to our input.
We urge you to keep these concerns and priorities of local government in mind as you look to finalize this important legislation. We look forward to continuing to provide valuable insight into municipal needs and processes in any forthcoming regulatory conversations and beyond.
If you have any questions or desire further information, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me or MMA Legislative Analyst Josie Ahlberg at jahlberg@mma.org, or Legislative Analyst Adrienne Núñez at anunez@mma.org at any time.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO