SHUTESBURY — When five solar projects were proposed that could have cleared some 29,000 trees from 190 acres in Shutesbury, town officials were left on their own to cover the costs of the Land Court litigation that followed.
Planning Board member Jeff Weston said the town got “no help from anyone” at the state level in defending the town’s bylaws. He said that was despite the state’s 2024 Siting and Permitting Law, which offers financial and technical assistance to small, rural communities, and despite Shutesbury’s proximity to Boston’s drinking water supply.
“We protect the Quabbin Reservoir, our trees filter the water for the Quabbin Reservoir, ” Weston said.
In Northfield, the Planning Board rejected plans for 80 acres of solar projects but was then sued by the developer. The town eventually reached a compromise involving some of the land, which board member Joseph Graveline said colonists once called the Little Nile because of its productive farmland.
“What are small towns like us supposed to do?” Graveline asked. “They are putting us into bankruptcy.”
Weston and Graveline were among more than 60 people from across the region and beyond who attended the Healey-Driscoll administration’s listening session on energy facility siting at the Shutesbury Public Library on Monday afternoon. Others participated online.
State officials on hand included state climate chief Melissa Hoffer, Undersecretary of Energy Michael Judge and Rick Collins, director of the Division of Clean Energy Siting and Permitting.
What they heard was significant concerns that western Massachusetts communities are being asked to meet the green energy needs of Boston and the eastern part of the state while losing local oversight of solar and battery energy storage projects for prime forests and farmland.
“We’ve endured a disproportionate amount of development pressure,” said Rep. Aaron Saunders, D-Belchertown, who represents several communities where sizable solar projects have been proposed or built.
Much of the ire centered on the state’s use of the Dover Amendment, a state law that limits local zoning of certain land uses, including solar installations. Speakers said it lets projects override the authority of cities and towns.
“Dover Amendment is a cudgel,” said Graveline, eliciting applause from those in the library’s meeting room, where almost every chair was taken.
Similarly, Janet Sinclair of Shelburne Falls, a member of Save Massachusetts Forests, said “the Dover Amendment should not at all apply to these projects.”
“We protect our forests and farmland for everyone, and you won’t let us do it,” Sinclair said.
Weston said that by removing local control, the state is creating risks. He said a single battery energy storage system can hold 111 pounds of forever chemicals, enough to pollute the entire Quabbin in an accident.
“No matter what you say, it’s not safe,” Weston said.
Judge acknowledged that the Dover Amendment does limit municipal authority and requirements that can be imposed on solar projects.
Shutesbury Planning Board member Michael DeChiara said poor site suitability scores don’t allow a town to reject a project, towns protecting drinking water are exposed to litigation and towns aren’t able to charge developers to get expertise from independent consultants.
In addition, a fire last April at Shutesbury’s sizable solar project shows that industrial scale energy should not be in small communities, with limited resources, due to risks it can pose, DeChiara said.
Judge, though, said towns can reject projects based on poor site suitability scores, though the Energy Facilities Siting Board will give any appeals a fresh look.
“We’re trying to deter projects from going to these places anyway,” Judge said.
Hoffer said stormwater regulations apply no matter the situation, and if there’s a release of pollutants, that liability can fall to the developer or the property owner.
As a longtime supporter of solar, Court Dorsey of Wendell said he’s shocked by the direction renewable energy is going.
“It never occurred to me that it would take this turn, where huge solar projects are a lot cheaper to do on new lands,” Dorsey said, suggesting that people should express their disappointment by staging a “pee-in” protest by urinating into the Quabbin.
“We want to protect the land, we want to protect the water, not just for us, but for everyone,” Dorsey said.
State Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, also attended. She said the 2024 Siting and Permitting Law was designed to streamline siting and permitting, build in meaningful engagement for local communities, and strengthen protections for the environment and overburdened communities, allowing for an efficient and responsible buildout of clean energy infrastructure.
“Clearly we have work to do; your presence here indicates that,” Comerford said.
The law sets a 12-month deadline for municipal permitting and requires local governments to issue a single decision on permit applications for small clean energy infrastructure facilities.
Yet one component, the Intervenor Support Grant Program, has not been used. Administered by the Department of Public Utilities, the program provides financial help to municipalities, organizations and individuals that lack the resources to hire lawyers and experts for Energy Facilities Siting Board proceedings.
Hoffer suggested that the law needs to be changed. “The reason you feel stuck… is because we are stuck,” Hoffer said.
Saunders pushed back, saying that the law was designed to protect communities that could stop bad projects dead in their tracks, yet instead these decisions are being reversed.
“Some of the only reasons projects move forward is because cards are stacked against a community,” Saunders said.
Judge acknowledged that the state is trying to better compensate projects on already built environments, such as roofs and parking lots, though developers are finding it cheaper and easier to take on forests and farms.
Before the session started, several of those who spoke at the meeting staged a brief action outside the library, holding signs reading “Siting Board: Hands Off Our Forests,” “Put Solar on Already Disturbed Land Only” and “Can’t Saw the Forest for the Trees.”
Sinclair said there is frustration at the loss of local control for 30- to 40-acre projects. “These are not small projects. We should not call them small ever,” Sinclair said.
Graveline contends that the Healey administration is having those invested in solar developers writing the regulations, which he said is a conflict of interest, and this region is being impacted again, like it was with the loss of four towns in building the Quabbin and the costs associated with the Big Dig Central Artery Project in Boston.
Katherine Harrelson, a member of the Plymouth-based Community Land and Water Coalition and Responsible Solar Massachusetts, was among those joining the protest.
Harrelson said state support for such projects is leading to potential deforestation and other impacts on the environment.
Lenore Bryck of Amherst worries solar projects that involve removing trees could destabilize the biodiversity that has helped to regulate the climate.
“How is imperfect technology going to replace a perfect technology?” Bryck said.
