The 2024 Climate Act (An Act Promoting a Clean Energy Grid, Advancing Equity and Protecting Ratepayers) was signed into law in November 2024. The Act required the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) and Department of Energy Resources (DOER) to promulgate regulations to implement siting and permitting reforms by March 1, 2026, which apply to applications filed on or after July 1, 2026. The Act provides EFSB authority to issue all individual state, regional, and/or local permits that would otherwise be necessary for a Clean Energy Infrastructure Facility (CEIF) under its jurisdiction. As part of the reforms, the Act directed the Office of Environmental Justice and Equity (OEJE) to develop standards and guidelines for cumulative impact analyses (CIA) and required the EFSB to promulgate CIA regulations. The final regulations for the CIA (980 CMR 15.00[1]) were published on April 24, 2026. The purpose of the CIA is to ensure that projects account for existing burdens, prevent disproportionate harm, and advance environmental justice principles. A CIA is required for all CEIF seeking an EFSB Consolidated Permit as well as fossil fuel-related energy infrastructure under EFSB’s jurisdiction. The CIA process is outlined below.
CIA Process
Step 1 Identify the Project’s SGA(s)
- Specific Geographical Area (SGA) = a defined radial distance from the Facility Boundary; each Proposed Site or Route and each Noticed Alternative Site or Route has its own SGA. For example, the radial distance for an energy storage facility is 1 mile, for a substation is ½ mile, and for transmission and distribution lines is ¼ mile.
- Specific Geographical Area (SGA) = a defined radial distance from the Facility Boundary; each Proposed Site or Route and each Noticed Alternative Site or Route has its own SGA. For example, the radial distance for an energy storage facility is 1 mile, for a substation is ½ mile, and for transmission and distribution lines is ¼ mile.
Step 2 Identify Burdened Area(s) Overlapping with the SGA(s)
- Burdened Area (BA) = a Census Block Group with a MassEnviroScreen Score ≥75 (i.e., ≥75th percentile statewide) or an annual median household income ≤65th percentile statewide.
- Use the MassEnviroScreen mapping tool to determine if the project’s SGA(s) intersects any BA. MassEnviroScreen is a GIS-based tool that scores communities (0–100 based on percentile ranking) based on 30 indicators across different categories (environmental exposure, environmental effects, climate risks, sensitive populations, and socioeconomic factors; see Figure 1).
- If the project’s SGA does not intersect any BAs, no further CIA evaluation is necessary (note: stakeholders can petition the EFSB to request a CIA for an area that is not a BA).
Step 3 Identify Elevated Indicators for each BA
- Elevated Indicator = an indicator >50th percentile statewide (except for Fossil Fuel-Related Energy Infrastructure, all indicators are elevated indicators).
Step 4 Identify Disproportionate Adverse Effects
- Analyze the Project Impacts on each Elevated Indicator during construction and operation to determine whether the project is likely to cause a Disproportionate Adverse Effect and require remedial action.
- Disproportionate Adverse Effect = a net negative Project Impact that is likely to “materially exacerbate” an Elevated Indicator in a BA intersecting an SGA.
Step 5 Identify Remedial Actions to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Disproportionate Adverse Effects
- Remedial actions should follow the mitigation hierarchy: avoid → minimize → mitigate.
- Any residual impacts should not materially increase the cumulative burden on the affected community..
Community engagement is a central tenant of the siting and permitting regulatory reforms and this process is mandatory and prescriptive (see 980 CMR 16.00 for details). This formal process spans several months and includes meetings with EFSB, the OEJE, the Division of Public Participation (DPP), the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office, other agencies, Key Stakeholders, and the Community. See Figure 2 for the timeline.
During the meetings, an applicant is expected to discuss project details and design, including how the results of the CIA were incorporated into the selection of the Project Site or Project Routes. Therefore, although the CIA and the accompanying report are specific to the Preferred Site or Route selections or any Notices Alternatives, use of the CIA tools for evaluation of alternative sites and routes appears to be highly encouraged.
Regulatory Implications
- A CIA will be required early in the pre-filing process, including a preliminary CIA for alternative routes/sites to satisfy pre-filing outreach requirements.
- The CIA will factor into the EFSB’s decision on a Consolidated Permit Application and may lead to an approval with conditions or additional mitigation measures.
- Thresholds for what is deemed to be an “acceptable” CIA or what constitutes a Disproportionate Adverse Effect are yet to be determined, and this could lead to delays in EFSB issuing a Notice of Completeness for an application (which triggers the 12 or 15-month review deadline for issuing a decision).
[1] See Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting Reforms | Mass.gov
About the Experts
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.
Abbegail Reynolds, PE, Senior Engineer in the Offshore Wind Group, has over 7 years of experience permitting offshore renewable wind energy projects in the US. Ms. Reynolds was a key member of the federal permitting team for the Vineyard Wind 1 project. Through that precedent-setting offshore wind project and several others, she has acquired expertise in a broad range of environmental rules, regulations, programs, and filings including Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations, COPs, Incidental Take Authorizations under the MMPA, NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, FAST-41, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and New Source Review (NSR), among others.