PLAINFIELD — The state aims to be carbon neutral by 2050, accelerating the push for solar energy — but at what cost to rural towns?
Many residents, especially those who live in the Hilltowns, are asking that question as proposals for large-scale solar arrays have poured into Plainfield, Worthington and Southampton in the past six months.
To try and answer that question and to address residents’ fears, the state last week sent an expert to the Plainfield Planning Board meeting to discuss new state regulations for large-scale solar arrays that are set to kick in March 1.
Allison Gage, the western Massachusetts coordinator for the state’s Clean Energy Siting & Permitting Division, explained that the new regulations are driven by a need to speed up clean energy development.
“This new process came about two years ago. There was a commission on clean energy infrastructure, siting and permitting, and one of our main findings was that the permitting process for clean energy was taking too long, and by 2050 the state has to be net zero,” said Gage. “So all of these regulations are meant to speed up that process.”
What the law says
One of the key features of the new process is giving solar developers the ability to file for a “local consolidated permit,” ensuring a set-in-stone timeline for towns to decide on a solar application.
For projects under 25 megawatts, applicants may file a consolidated local permit with municipalities, which requires a decision within 12 months. This is designed to give developers a “predictable” timeline, said Gage.
“So if the project needed a special permit with the planning board, if it needed an order of conditions from the conservation commission, that would all have to be done within 12 months,” said Gage.
While the new regulations are officially promulgated March 1, municipalities can start accepting the consolidated local permits on July 1. By Oct. 1, the new regulations will take full effect and need to be rolled out across the state.
The traditional route without a timeline will still be offered, but Gage thinks only smaller developments will choose it.
Additionally, projects over 25 megawatts, or those with 100 megawatts of storage — which are relatively enormous arrays — will no longer be vetted by local boards. The state Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) will issue permits for arrays of this size and determinations will be made within 15 months.
In conjunction with the new regulations, the state is also unveiling “site security criteria,” which will serve as a screening tool for site suitability. It is still being finalized.
Towns will also need to appoint a local government representative with the job of reviewing incoming applications, site suitability and what mitigation may be required.
This person may be the chair of a planning board, a person from conservation commissions, or hold other similar positions. Multiple people may also take on different aspects of that process to distribute the labor.
“The most important piece for towns to be prepared is to decide who’s going to be your local government representative,” said Gage.
Addressing fears
Gage also responded to many of the fears residents have, chief among them assuring those in attendance that local zoning bylaws will still have authority.
“The most important piece for you to know is that local zoning will still be in effect. Our regulations do not override local zoning,” she said. “So if you’re working on updated bylaws, projects that come through the local level, those still apply.”
One of the leading fears for these communities is that their natural landscape and woodlands will be gutted to make way for industrial solar. Planning Board member Kathy Filkins questioned whether there is a balance that can be reached.
Gage responded, saying that this year the state’s Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) program, which incentivizes solar arrays, updated its criteria for developments to receive state incentives. As part of these new standards, solar arrays built on forested or undeveloped land will no longer receive state aid, said Gage.
Meanwhile, the state is offering more incentives to make it easier to build on rooftops and parking lots.
Others expressed anxiety about battery energy storage systems (BESS), given their potential to catch on fire and pollute the area with waste. Adding to the stress in the Hilltowns is that the communities have volunteer fire departments and a limited water supply to counteract a fire.
Gage laid out the importance of these systems.
“Energy storage is an important part of the transition to clean energy,” she said. “They help put energy back on the grid during times of high demand. If we don’t have battery storage, we’re going to keep running the peaker plants that are fossil-fuel-powered. So that’s why there are more incentives to pair battery storage with solar, so that there’s more opportunity to have clean energy.”
Peaking power plants are specialized power stations designed to run during periods of maximum energy demand.
Some residents also don’t believe these developments will have positive local impacts for the people of Plainfield. Lapointe said that the town will receive decent revenue from the developers.
The one solar development already in town, he said, contributes some $90,000 in taxes each year through a payment in lieu of taxes system.
“They do pay a pretty good amount of taxes,” he said. “The value of these projects are millions of dollars, so they’re paying, well.”
As conversations around solar continue, Lapointe said the town needs to have good design in mind by weighing the impacts these systems have on the community.
“A project that is well designed is a project that considers the people it impacts,” said Lapointe, who has a degree in architecture from the University of Cincinnati.
Rep. Sabadosa speaks
Tuning into the meeting via Zoom was state Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, a Democrat representing Northampton and the Hilltowns, including Plainfield and Worthington. She has a growing folder with correspondence from her constituents who are worried about solar coming to their towns.
“The Legislature did make this process easier for solar arrays, but I don’t think the intention was ever, ‘lets clear cut hundreds of acres and put in large solar arrays,'” she said. “But with the way that these projects are moving forward, in particular because they’re happening on private land with the permission of the landowner, it’s been really challenging for the Legislature to respond to some of the concerns that have been raised, and some of the concerns, I think, are really legitimate.”
She has endorsed two pieces of legislation filed by state Rep. Kelly Pease, a Westfield Republican.
H4685 stipulates that no state permitting authority can approve a battery storage facility without a prior vote of approval from the municipality where it would be located. The second bill, H4689, would prohibit facilities within 2,000 feet of residentially zoned areas, schools, hospitals or other high-occupancy locations.
These would address some of the leading complaints she has heard, namely, concerns over protecting aquifers and making sure there are appropriate setbacks. She also said that fire is a real concern in her district.
“I think one thing that does bother me is the way sometimes the concerns about fire safety have been handled. I love all the fire departments in my district. These are some of the hardest working people and in the Hilltowns they are mostly volunteer … I really think that when you have people with no compensation putting their lives on the line, you do have to give them really good answers about what happens in the event of a fire.”
Sabadosa said she would be happy to have conversations with conservation commissions and planning boards in her district as they work their way through this, “sticky situation.”
“Again it’s really hard because this is private land, and if someone decided to sell their land and put up a development of houses, they could do that too and it would also change the nature of the community,” she said. “So we are in a little bit of a sticky situation, and I have a lot of empathy, particularly for the folks on planning boards and the conservation commissions who are trying to balance the interest of the community with what they are required to do by law.”