Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
A wind facilities siting bill released by the House Committee on Ways and Means on May 18 is similar to the Senate version in many respects, but it would not include municipal representation in the state permit process or in certain appeals of local decisions.
Under the House bill, developer appeals of local board decisions would go to Superior Court, but third-party appeals would go to a hearing officer in the Green Communities Division within the Department of Energy Resources.
The Green Communities Division would also have the authority to issue state permits under the House bill. State permits could not be granted until any appeals are resolved.
The MMA is now working with House leadership on revisions that would ensure municipal representation in the state permit and appeal process.
The MMA has been working for more than two years with state officials, environmentalists, planners, wind developers and scientists to craft a bill that would govern the siting of wind energy facilities. The MMA has consistently voiced its support of the intent of the bills, which is to expedite and streamline the permitting process for wind energy facilities, but the association seeks to protect local authority in the process.
The MMA supports a Senate bill, passed in February, that would add a municipal representative to the Energy Facilities Siting Board, the entity whose function is to license the construction of major energy infrastructure in Massachusetts. The Energy Facilities Siting Board would grant state permits for wind facilities under the Senate bill.
The House bill, however, makes no mention of municipal representation in the state permitting process.
It is unclear when the House will act on the wind facilities bill (H. 4687). Forty-three amendments have been filed, including one by Rep. Denise Provost of Somerville that would mirror the Senate language regarding the Energy Facilities Siting Board.
The MMA argues that municipal representation in the state permit and appeals process is essential to ensure that siting decisions consider local land-use and development impacts, as well as energy considerations. The Energy Facilities Siting Board would have experience, broad representation (including the departments of Environmental Protection and Fish and Game), and independence.
The MMA supported language in the Senate bill that would allow “wind-rich” communities to establish a single hybrid board for local permitting, or to designate that authority to the local planning board. Communities that are not considered “wind-rich” could either create a consolidated board or keep their current panels in place.
The House bill would not give municipalities without significant wind resources the option to establish a wind energy permitting board.
The House bill would limit the local wind energy permitting board to three members, rather than allowing it to be either three or five members, at local discretion.
The House bill states that the Department of Energy Resources “shall identify governmental bodies (school district, housing authority, water district, etc.) with significant wind resources,” whereas the Senate version only mentions municipalities. The MMA is concerned that the House language could allow a school district or other agency to establish a wind siting permitting board and grant permits.