City councils in Easthampton and Holyoke have unanimously passed resolutions opposing the siting of a lithium battery energy storage system, or BESS, project over the Barnes Aquifer in Westfield.
The project, called Streamfield Energy Storage, is being proposed by Jupiter Power, a Texas company with similar storage sites across the country. It has sparked growing unease among locals due to its proposed siting near the aquifer where Westfield, Easthampton, Southampton and Holyoke draw their water, as well as fears surrounding the potential of long-burning lithium fires at the site, which could release harmful chemicals into the air.
The Westfield City Council already passed a resolution in opposition to the project in December. That same month the Southampton Select Board issued a joint letter with the Planning Board calling for further planning before the project moves forward.
“BESS failures are such a frequent occurrence that the Electric Power Research Institute maintains a database of BESS failure incidents, whose consequences pose a very real potential threat to our environment, first responders, and residents,” the Easthampton resolution reads. The resolution also describes this technology as “relatively new” and “rapidly evolving,” contending that “there is not a well-documented history of the impacts of these projects on local communities.”
Jupiter Power hopes to build the storage system on Medeiros Way in northeast Westfield, near Barnes Air National Guard Base. It would be a 200-megawatt, utility-scale battery energy storage site connecting to Eversource’s nearby Buck Pond substation. The company expects to spend $170 million on the project, and aims to begin construction in 2026 and wrap up in 2027.
This facility would store excess energy produced through renewable power sources like solar and wind, so it can be sent back into the grid and utilized when demand spikes. Battery energy storage systems, or BESS, have been lauded as a relatively new way to expand the capabilities of green energy, and a state clean energy bill passed last year streamlined the process for permitting these projects as a way to meet climate goals.
Through this new legislation, companies like Jupiter Power can seek overrides to local requirements in order to get projects in the pipeline faster. Municipalities where those overrides are proposed don’t get much say in what gets built where.
Representatives of Jupiter Power previously told the Gazette that the proposed project utilizes several layers of protection designed to prevent fires and protect the aquifer. But these precautions have not done enough to quell the fears of local residents and politicians.
“The smoke from a fire like that would get trapped and likely poison a good bit of the land between Westfield and the Quabbin and Greenfield, impacting our only water source,” Easthampton resident Kathy Wauczinski said at a recent City Council meeting.
Easthampton councilors thanked Wauczinski before voting their resolution into action on April 16, as many of them had not known about the vast implications of the project before her advocacy.
“I did not realize to the extent of how troubling and damaging this could be,” said councilor Brad Riley, recognizing Wauczinski.
Councilors Jason Tirrell and James Kwiecinski also thanked Wauczinski for speaking up at their meetings, and urged audience members to educate themselves on the proposed project.
“This affects everybody,” said Tirrell. “We can agree and disagree a lot on a lot of things, but this affects every single person within earshot of me right now.”
Council President Salem Derby voted in favor of the resolution to “put the breaks on” the project, but also noted that “there’s a bigger issue here.” That issue, he said, is the current “climate emergency,” caused largely by the fact that humanity is “addicted to fossil fuels.” Derby said he would like to see the amount of energy put into the opposition of this BESS project directed toward the abatement of fossil fuel usage.
In Holyoke, the night before Easthampton passed its resolution, city councilors expressed similar concerns about the project.
Councilor Meg Magrath-Smith noted that the proposed technology is relatively new, and initially didn’t raise much concern because of a lack of information about the risks of these projects.
“Now there are a lot of concerns starting to happen because now we have enough of these facilities, people are starting to recognize patterns in these fires occurring,” Magrath-Smith said.
Subsequently, councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos noted the dangers of years of increasing reliance on batteries, which can be hazardous even on their smallest scales if improperly disposed of — which they often are. A battery project of this size brought him to issue a warning.
“We need to wake up,” he said. “This is highly dangerous, and the ones that are really going to pay for it are our children’s children.”
The upcoming public state Siting Board hearing for the Streamfield project is set for April 29 at 6:30 p.m. The virtual hearing can be accessed via Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84632716786 or by calling (646) 558-8656 and entering the webinar ID 846-3271-6786.
To provide oral comments during the public hearing, email Yonathan.Mengesha@mass.gov providing a name, email address and mailing address by noon on April 29.
Written comments must be filed by email or email attachment to both dpu.efiling@mass.gov and donna.sharkey@mass.gov no later than May 13 at 5 p.m. The email must specify the project’s docket number (EFSB 25-04/D.P.U. 24-151), the sender’s name, title and phone number, as well as a brief description of the document.
Comments must also be sent to the counsel for the company, Shane Early, at searly@sheppardmullin.com.
Alexa Lewis can be reached at alewis@gazettenet.com.