The “Act Promoting a Clean Energy Grid, Advancing Equity and Protecting Ratepayers” also known as the 2024 Climate Bill seeks to reform the complex siting and permitting process, while also taking steps to address environmental justice (EJ) concerns. The proposed bill is currently being developed, but must be finalized by March 2026.
The bill mandates consolidation of state, regional and local permits into one master permit and sets deadlines for the review. The goal is to encourage the development of renewable energy sources and infrastructure such as solar farms, battery storage, and new transmission lines. The bill will require state officials to develop a framework that will help municipalities and the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) assess the best location for projects, considering EJ concerns. The bill will also require early and meaningful public outreach with the community prior to obtaining the necessary permits. The proposed lead times are up to 12 months before submitting a permit for large energy projects. In addition, the bill will require that projects conduct a cumulative impact analysis (CIA), which goes beyond traditional environmental assessment and must now take into account a community’s environmental and health burdens to determine if the project would add to those burdens. The methods, maps and tools that will be used to conduct these analyses have not been released. Lastly, the bill will mandate mitigation for any environmental impact, which could be accomplished with a community benefits agreement, and could include contributions to workforce development programs or community improvement programs.
Despite wanting to reduce the red tape that is currently associated with siting and permitting of large energy projects, the 2024 Climate Bill effectively adds requirements, including potentially complex health burdens and impact analyses. The required framework that will be used to determine the best location for projects has not been fully developed and vetted, and there is little time before the draft legislation needs to be finalized. Some straw proposals have been provided and stakeholder meetings have occurred this spring.1 However, there are few details, especially related to how the cumulative impact analyses should be conducted, and how the results will be used in permitting decisions.
It is also unclear whether there will be any overlap between the in-development CIA methods, maps and tools and similar requirements for air permits. The broad scope of the CIA requirements, which go beyond traditional environmental assessment of looking at a project’s impact on air or water quality, could slow projects by making proponents analyze relatively minor pathways for potential impacts. Also, if mitigation is required, the negotiation of community agreements and financial compensation adds to the schedule and cost risk to new projects.
The expanded community outreach requirements are both an opportunity and a hazard. They provide a framework for proponents to constructively engage with neighbors, and that engagement process can identify opportunities to improve a project and can build community support. On the other hand, they give dedicated project opponents new tools to slow the permitting process. When the dust settles, smaller clean energy projects, like battery storage and solar projects, might be easier to permit, especially if they are not near an EJ community, because these projects will benefit from the streamlining of permits and set timelines for review. However, larger projects within EJ communities will likely find that they need much more time and resources to comply with these new requirements. There will be additional hurdles for new fossil fuel projects, and this bill will make it much harder to permit these facilities. Existing facilities will also have a harder time renewing permits or obtaining new permits. Lastly, the Commonwealth may be looking for projects to show creative mitigation strategies for any added environmental impacts, even if minor. If Massachusetts is looking to expand and grow the renewable energy sector, this bill is likely to make it more difficult to do so.
Overall, while the 2024 Climate Bill seeks to streamline the permitting process for clean energy projects, the new requirements could cause confusion and delays and may ultimately dissuade facilities from building in the state.
Epsilon has provided the siting board comments on the straw proposals and presentations that have been prepared to date.
A brief overview of the history of climate laws and policy in Massachusetts can be found here
1 See: Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting Reforms | Mass.gov
About the Expert
Sonja Sax, Sc.D, is an environmental health scientist in Epsilon’s Air Quality Group. Dr. Sax specializes in evaluating exposure and health risk from environmental pollutants. She has over 20 years of experience in environmental regulatory assessment, health impact assessment and cost-benefit analyses. She has managed large multi-year projects advocating for clients involved in litigation or providing permitting support. She has performed indoor and outdoor air quality investigations evaluating exposures and health impacts of airborne gases and particles. She also served as a consultant to the US EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee for the particulate matter and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. More recently she has worked on projects of all sizes conducting Environmental Justice analyses, modeling of air quality impacts and providing guidance to clients on the best approaches for addressing new EJ regulations in multiple states, including Massachusetts and New Jersey.