Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
Dear Representative,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the MMA sincerely appreciates the work done by both the House and the Senate to pass versions of Comprehensive Wind Energy Siting Reform, giving you the opportunity to craft a final measure that can provide long-overdue technical assistance and statewide standards for wind siting for cities and towns across Massachusetts. However, we are writing to express serious concerns with the draft that will come before you this week.
Rather than appoint a conference committee to iron out the differences and present a consensus bill, the branches will be exchanging drafts to reach agreement. On Friday, July 23, the Senate further amended the House bill, H. 4886, and substituted new language. While the Senate amendment addresses some issues of concern to municipalities, which we appreciate, many major issues remain, and we ask you to reject the Senate’s latest version and fix the problems outlined below.
First, earlier drafts of the legislation added a long-overdue municipal voice on the Energy Facilities Siting Board and that provision was a key reason why the MMA was able to support the framework passed by the Senate last year (S. 2660). Until now, the EFSB has had no representation from the municipal sector. A municipal representative would ensure that the EFSB considers impacts on land-use planning and municipal development, as well as energy considerations.
However, H. 4886 and the latest Senate amendment prohibit the EFSB’s municipal representative and the representative from the Department of Fish & Game (DFG) from participating in any non-wind matter. We strongly oppose this restriction. There is no compelling justification for splitting the board, and the addition of DFG and a municipal representative to the board was one of the earliest agreed-upon provisions of the legislation, was publicly acknowledged as a key element of siting reform, and the addition of DFG and a municipal representative was critical to early support of the Act. We therefore respectfully and urgently ask that you restore the language regarding the board’s composition such that DFG and a municipal official with land-use planning experience shall be full participants on the board irrespective of whether the board is reviewing a wind project or any other jurisdictional energy facility.
Second, H. 4886 and the Senate amendment are significantly flawed because the drafts would allow developers to file incomplete applications with cities and towns, and the clock would start ticking on the application process. This is unacceptable, because there is no way that community officials can make decisions based on incomplete information and insufficient submissions. The time period should commence only when a complete application is filed. To do this, subsection (f) should be changed from “within 120 days from the filing of the application” to read, “within 120 days from the date the applicant is informed the submitted application is complete.” Local officials are only looking for the same authority that the state has – in other sections of this same legislation the state’s siting process before the EFSB only starts after the EFSB informs the developer that they have submitted a complete application. There is no justification whatsoever for this double standard, especially since allowing incomplete applications at the local level would only serve to stall and delay siting decisions by forcing denials due to inadequate applications.
Third, the MMA has supported and continues to support wind energy siting reform legislation that would maintain strong local control over wind facility permitting by using a responsible streamlined permitting process that maintains local flexibility. The MMA strongly supports language in H. 4886 that gives local municipalities with significant wind resources the option to establish the wind energy permitting board. H. 4886 states that, “A local government with significant wind resources may establish a wind energy permitting board” – this has been changed to “shall” by the Senate amendment on Friday. We ask you to restore the House language in the final bill.
Fourth, many parties have been voicing concerns about the lack of clarity regarding when construction can commence on a facility. We strongly support the language embraced by the House in H. 4886 that states that before construction of a wind energy facility can commence an applicant must first obtain approval from the local siting board and obtain a building permit. The Senate amendment strikes this language, opening the door for developers to attempt to commence construction before the local process is complete. We ask you to insist on the House language. Similarly, we ask you to restore language struck by the Senate amendment that would clarify that local or state permitting authorities can revoke any permit for failure to perform as prescribed by the permit. This should be seen as standard language to include in the final bill.
The MMA and its member communities support the need for clean, reliable energy production to ensure a future of affordable, abundant and clean energy for the citizens of the Commonwealth, and our association has been working for more than two years with local officials, state officials, environmentalists, planners, wind developers and scientists to craft legislation that would govern the siting of wind energy facilities.
The MMA looks forward to informing our members that the final bill adopted by the Legislature will fully protect local home rule and local interests as part of a reasonable and balanced approach to the expedited process of siting of wind facilities throughout the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the draft that will come before you this week must be improved in order to meet this standard. Please reject the Senate amendment and embrace the changes outlined above.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director