Provision in new state climate law attempts to give communities more say about where substations can be built
Electrical infrastructure at the retired coal-fired power plant, Brayton Point Power Station, in Somerset in 2022. With Massachusetts' new climate bill, local groups will have more of a chance to have a voice at the table in decisions where energy infrastructure is built. SIMON SIMARD/NYT
Decisions about where to locate energy facilities like power plants and substations can have a major impact on a community’s health and well-being. But in Massachusetts, those communities have rarely had a seat at the table.
The problem: It can cost tens of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers and expert witnesses to influence the process, and unlike energy utilities, community groups can’t recoup those funds from ratepayers.
That David vs. Goliath dynamic is poised to shift, thanks to the recently passed state climate bill, which includes the creation of a new fund to provide community groups and environmental justice organizations with up to $150,000 in grant funds from the state.
“This is really a new chapter for energy in Massachusetts,” said Energy and Environment Secretary Rebecca Tepper last week.
Advocates worry environmental justice neighborhoods are being saddled with this infrastructure, taking away open space and exposing residents to risks such as fire, while wealthier communities that are more able to push back are spared.
For John Walkey, director of climate justice at GreenRoots in Chelsea, the new fund is a game changer. Ten years ago, before he was involved with the environmental organization, he recalls learning about an energy substation planned for his community of East Boston. He signed up to participate in the proceeding but said he was at a loss. “Everything was in legalese, and I really had no clue — where do I have chance to comment? What’s the process?”
Once he started working at GreenRoots, he said they were able to find an attorney who would take on the case pro bono, but that it was so involved it “wore him to down to a nub.” Eventually, the Conservation Law Foundation took up the cause.
As the executive director of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, Tepper said she often saw firsthand how some communities lacking resources were surprised to first learn that energy infrastructure was coming into their neighborhood and then that they didn’t have the funds to meaningfully fight back during the state proceedings that oversee such decisions.
So, when the attorney general’s office began bringing interested parties together to do something about it a few years ago, “We knew we really wanted to do things differently,” Tepper said.
The new funds will be available to groups or interested parties that have an official role in a state proceeding and can demonstrate financial hardship. The money will also be available to public entities such as a city or town, a regional group that covers a wider area, or tribe. Municipalities with a population of less than 7,500 people won’t have to prove financial hardship to qualify.
The program will be funded primarily by application fees related to energy permits and a small assessment charged to ratepayers through their utilities.
Communities can also use the funds to advocate for compensation for allowing energy infrastructure to be built there. An agreement could result in lower electricity bills or other benefits.
“Impacted communities have always been at a disadvantage in advocating for their rights and needs,” said Caitlin Peale Sloan, vice president for the Conservation Law Foundation in Massachusetts. “One program won’t solve all of those structural inequities, but it’s an important step forward.”
The regulations to support the new program are expected to be completed by spring 2026. After that, a total of $3.5 million in grant funds will be made available annually. From that, each applicant can receive up to $150,000, with a total of $500,000 available for each case.
Roughly 16 other states have similar programs. Lawyers from the Massachusetts attorney general’s office said that in proposing the state “intervenor” program, they were able to learn what has worked in those states and what hasn’t.
In California, for example, groups petitioning against the location of energy infrastructure have to cover costs upfront but are repaid once a case is finalized with an order. That’s hard for community groups, who might struggle to access those initial funds. Massachusetts will not carry the same requirement.
Looking ahead, Kyle Murray of the Acadia Center said the new program is critical for addressing historic hardships for average people and small cities and towns. “This funding is critical to put these participants on an even playing field and ensure that their voices are heard.”
––––––––––
Sabrina Shankman can be reached at sabrina.shankman@globe.com.