The 2024 Climate Act: Reducing Barriers to Speed Renewable Energy Development
Green Space Vs. Renewable Energy
Massachusetts has set ambitious goals to reduce carbon emissions in the coming decades, which can only be met with the rapid deployment of renewable energy sources. Despite the political popularity of the goals—they have been embraced by the Baker and Healey administrations, the legislature, and the general public, local resistance to the development of renewables threatens to derail them.
In Massachusetts, ground-mounted solar projects and large-scale battery energy storage systems have especially come under fire in recent years, and both are critical to achieving the Commonwealth’s climate goals: Ground-mounted solar has the footprint large enough to produce clean energy at scale, and battery energy storage systems are necessary to store surges of intermittent solar, wind, and hydropower and feed it into the grid when needed. Complaints from those opposing these projects range from fear of lithium battery fires to runoff from solar panels to loss of forestland. Here in Western Massachusetts, protective of its green space and natural beauty, these concerns carry weight with residents and local governments, and highly publicized resistance to renewable energy projects has delayed or halted their progress altogether.
The tension between renewables and neighbor opposition may be more visible in Western Massachusetts, as protective of its green space as it is committed to combating climate change, but it is hardly unique to this region. Permits for renewables are rejected with increasing frequency nationwide, often due to resistance from community members and local governments.
The problem this creates, though, is that when communities refuse to allow development that is unpopular locally but necessary to the region, a “beggar-thy-neighbor” dynamic can take hold: When one community restricts unwanted developments, neighboring communities fear that they will be burdened with more than they can support and feel pressured to pass more restrictive regulations than they otherwise might. A race to the bottom can then ensue, in which local governments have every incentive to be as restrictive, if not more so, than their neighbors, making renewable energy sources increasingly difficult to site and build.
Massachusetts has faced similar problems before. In the 1950s, the legislature passed the Dover Amendment, which required municipalities to relax zoning restrictions for educational and religious buildings, even when they were widely unpopular. Over time, the law was amended to include other potentially unpopular developments, including solar installations. Recent court cases have interpreted the Dover Amendment to protect ground-mounted solar systems and the infrastructure necessary to support them. In Tracer Lane II, for example, the Supreme Judicial Court held that Waltham violated the Dover Amendment by restricting commercial solar systems to land zoned for industrial use, comprising only about 2% of its total land area, and using that zoning ordinance as justification to deny a permit for an access road leading to a solar system in a neighboring community.
Although state law and precedent provide some protection for renewable energy sources, the state legislature recognized that obstacles created by those opposing them made their development expensive, time-consuming, and too risky for many developers to consider. In response, it passed An Act promoting a clean energy grid, advancing equity, and protecting ratepayers (S.B. 2967), often referred to as the 2024 Climate Act. The Climate Act takes a number of steps to simplify and speed permitting. Permits for large projects (over 25 MWh for production, 100 MWh for storage) will be heard by the Electric Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), a state board charged with balancing the need for reliable energy production, reducing costs, and mitigating environmental harm. Centralizing decisions in a statewide body is a practice other states with aggressive carbon reduction goals have implemented to ensure that consistent, efficient decisions are made without undue influence from politically powerful individuals or opposition groups. Decisions for these larger developments are required to be decided within fifteen months. Decisions can then be appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) if the developer or opposing parties believes the EFSB’s decision was faulty. Smaller projects (under 25 MWh for production, 100 MWh for storage) will still be decided on by local boards. The 2024 Climate Act, however, standardizes the process municipalities must follow when making permitting decisions, requires a single board to issue a comprehensive permit (a similar approach that is taken to expedite affordable housing developments in Massachusetts), imposes a time limit of twelve months on decisions, and allows appeals to first be heard by the EFSB and then by the SJC. Rules are expected to be finalized and these processes in place by early 2026. Developers of both small and large projects should expect a more predictable, streamlined permitting process less susceptible to delays created by slow decision-making and drawn-out appeals.
Community groups and concerned neighbors should also take heart. The Climate Act establishes support structures and funding for community groups and individuals who wish to have input on permitting decisions, ensuring that those who otherwise may not have the means are able to participate in the process. This provision is likely to be neutral, or even positive, for developers as well. First, it expressly forbids granting funds to individual or groups who have demonstrated a desire to bring unwarranted appeals or introduce unnecessary delay into the process. Second, even to the extent those opposed to renewable developments successfully mount opposition or demand concessions, by allowing these groups to participate early in the process, it becomes more likely that clear precedent will be established, bringing predictability and certainty to the process.
Overall, the new law promises to make the development process faster, more predictable, and more efficient for developers while still ensuring local voices have input on safety and quality of life concerns. By reducing the risk of unwarranted denials, unpredictable local permitting processes, and drawn out appeals processes, the 2024 Climate Act promises to speed the production of renewable energy sources while still allowing local voices to be heard.
Written By: Gary DeYoung, Bacon Wilson Law Clerk 2024-2025.
Reviewed and Approved by: Thomas R. Reidy