MMA letter to House-Senate regarding wind energy siting reform

Dear Legislator,

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 has been reported out by the conference committee.

On Friday, July 23, the Senate further amended the House bill, H. 4886, and a conference committee was established to iron out the differences between the final House bill and the Senate’s latest version.  While the conference committee report does address some issues of concern to municipalities, which we sincerely appreciate, several major issues remain, and we ask you to not support the conference committee bill, and address the problems outlined below by opposing the bill and sending the measure back to conference.

First, earlier drafts of the legislation added a long-overdue municipal voice on the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) and that provision was the primary reason why the MMA was able to support the framework passed by the Senate early this year (S. 2260). Until now, the EFSB has had no representation from the municipal sector. A municipal representative would finally ensure that the EFSB adequately considers the impact on land use planning and municipal development, as well as energy considerations, in all facility siting matters.

However, the bill before you prohibits 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 into wind and non-wind categories.  The addition of 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 was critical to our 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 energy facility.

Second, the conference committee report is significantly flawed because the draft would allow developers to file incomplete applications with cities and towns, even after a 30-day notice period during which developers would be allowed to complete their applications.  After this 30 days, the clock would start ticking on the local permitting process, even if a developer chooses to file an incomplete application.  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.  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 simply no justification 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.  No project should be eligible for expedited permitting without a complete application.

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” in the conference committee report.  We ask you to restore the House language 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 bill that will come before you today must be improved in order to meet this standard.  Please send this issue back to conference to address these significant concerns.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director