SOUTHAMPTON — A peer review of a large solar array and battery energy storage system proposed for farmland off Pleasant Street above the Barnes Aquifer has flagged numerous gaps, from fire response to water supply protection.
Solar giant BlueWave of Boston in January announced plans to construct the 5.49-megawatt agrivoltaic solar array and accompanying battery energy storage system, or BESS, on farmland owned by the Bashista family at 43 and 53 Pleasant St.
The array would have nearly 10,000 panels raised high enough to keep the hayfields in production underneath. The project would also include two lithium ion phosphate battery units, each about the size of a parking space.
Among the review’s findings, the project’s emergency response plan doesn’t address how water that comes into contact with the batteries would be managed in a fire. The review also notes that town bylaws don’t define a hazardous substance and recommends the board make that call. The applicant says no hazardous materials would be used on the site.
The Barnes Aquifer supplies Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton and Holyoke. Westfield City Councilor Kristen Mello told the Southampton Planning Board at its Oct. 7 meeting that the project would be the only battery storage system in the state built over a water supply.
“They don’t have any BESS over any aquifer, anywhere. They haven’t done this over somebody’s water supply, anywhere,” Mello said emphatically. “Your water supply, our shared water supply, should not be the guinea pig … you need to call in the state.”
A previously proposed BESS system in Westfield was withdrawn after months of backlash from residents.
The Planning Board also heard from residents against the project, including Jeff Brodeur, who lives on Pleasant Street. Brodeur ticked off numerous complaints, mainly expressing his feeling that the town is not equipped to properly review the complex project. He stopped himself after a few minutes, saying “I gotta sit down.”
In addition to comments from residents, the board also heard from Chris Chamberland of Berkshire Design Group, which conducted the peer review of BlueWave’s application, along with BlueWave representatives.
The peer review process is not fully complete. Berkshire Design Group submitted its initial comments, and Weston & Sampson, the applicant’s engineers, provided responses. Berkshire needs to submit another round of comments.
The board continued the public hearing to Nov. 5 to give Weston & Sampson time to respond further and to contact the town building commissioner to get involved. There were several questions regarding zoning determinations that the commissioner may help answer.
Berkshire Design included more than 30 initial comments for the peer review broken down by categories, including hazard mitigation and emergency response, water supply protection, zoning bylaw compliance and more.
“We’re going to flag areas where there’s a decision that the board needs to make that’s not an objective determination,” Chamberland said. “Then flag any potential conditions that the board might consider as they move towards final decision.”
Solar surge
BESS and agrivoltaic solar system proposals have become common for rural farmland in Massachusetts.
BlueWave already has a different BESS solar project fully permitted in Southampton at Bashista Orchards on East Street. That project is separate from the Pleasant Street farmland owned by Stephen Bashista and his son, Ron, relatives of the orchard’s owners. The East Street project was permitted in 2024, but construction has not started.
Also in the region, two proposed developments in Worthington remain stalled in meetings. Another development in Plainfield, which includes 23 acres of solar panels and a BESS, received approval in December following a months-long saga during which residents objected.
Gov. Maura Healey visited Worthington late last month, where many residents shared frustrations about the lack of regulations on such projects.
As for the Southampton project on Pleasant Street, residents vocalized worry over noise levels, a lack of state oversight on these kinds of systems and overall negative quality of life impacts, besides concern over potential impacts to the aquifer — particularly if the system were to catch on fire.
The peer review recommends that the Planning Board specify what qualifies as a hazardous substance, since local bylaws don’t make that distinction, and depending on that decision, it recommends the applicant include a list of potentially dangerous substances used in the system.
Currently, the project claims no hazardous materials would be used on the site, but resident Kaitlin Rooks, a member of the Board of Health, wants further oversight.
“I’m not an expert in how the chemicals in this BESS box could potentially infiltrate water, and I just want to say I also think it’s important that we consult with state experts,” Rooks said.
In the case of a fire, the peer review says that the project’s emergency response plan does not address managing water that comes into contact with the BESS. The applicant’s response included in the review says it would be the owner’s responsibility, the Bashistas, to coordinate with emergency response to implement any site assessment or cleanup.
Fire Chief Richard Fasoli previously spoke at the Planning Board saying that if the system was to catch on fire, firefighters would not use water to extinguish it and would let it burn out. As far as BESS fires go, there is not significant data showing a trend that they are prone to catching fire. The only recently reported event occurred in August, in Douglas, where a BESS was observed smoking.
Plans progress
The project has taken considerable steps forward since it was first discussed publicly at the Conservation Commission’s Jan. 5 meeting. The commission ultimately moved the project to the Planning Board after approving the wetlands delineation. They also had their own peer review completed for the delineation, completed by R. Levesque Associates of Westfield.
Members of the Conservation Commission said that the aquifer was in the Planning Board’s purview. Brodeur said any part of the application that the commission did not evaluate needs to be addressed by the Planning Board.
“The entire peer review, everything that doesn’t have to do with wetlands because that’s the only thing the Conservation Commission even considered, that needs to be addressed here,” Brodeur said.
Planning Board member Robert Riggs asked “would BlueWave consider doing this without the BESS?”
Mike Zhe, BlueWave’s senior project director, said that the two BESS pads are a part of the application and current zoning allows for it.
