Last week Rep. Adrian Madaro testified before the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy in support of his new bill, H.3336 An Act Relative to Energy Facilities Siting Reform.
Madaro’s legislation aims to address environmental justice, climate, and public health by reforming the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) and provide greater protections for environmental justice communities through a more robust public process.
The EFSB has been under fire for voting in favor of Eversource’s plans to put an electric substation in East Eagle Square in East Boston despite widespread community support.
The Conservation Law Foundation recently filed an appeal in court of the state’s decision to grant Eversource a license to build the substation, arguing the community process was woefully inadequate.
“I am grateful for you giving me the opportunity to testify on an important issue impacting my constituents, and many others in the Commonwealth,” said Madaro. “I was motivated to file this legislation after seeing the process unfold firsthand in my own district of East Boston. Several years back, a new high-voltage electrical substation was proposed for a plot of land sited on the banks of the Chelsea Creek in East Boston. From the beginning, residents felt there were serious issues with this plan. Located immediately next to a highly frequented public park, and adjacent to the largely working-class, immigrant community of Eagle Hill, the site of the proposed substation is in a flood plain with a record of flooding from the creek during storm surges. In light of these issues, opposition to the substation from the community was both immediate and near universal. Led by community organizers and grassroots organizations, residents fought the substation through every step of the process. Ultimately, like all energy projects, the process reached the Energy Facilities and Siting Board, an organization little-known or understood by average residents.”
Madaro said it was clear that the process was not designed with the community in mind.
“We faced numerous hurdles with the EFSB concerning notification and outreach to the neighborhood, lack of language accessibility, and inaccessible meetings,” said Madaro. “The process our neighborhood experienced was one designed to meet minimum thresholds, to tick off boxes, and not to truly engage the community and listen to its voice. Whether through obscure notification, lack of translation services, or meetings that were hard to attend, there were many pitfalls that limited accessibility to residents, and may have led to some never even hearing about the process at all. It is only thanks to tireless efforts from activists in the neighborhood, who did their best to make up for these gaps, that many residents were able to attend meetings and voice their concerns with the project.”
Madaro argued in his testimony that when an entire community, an environmental justice community at that, voices its opposition to a project that will only compound the environmental burdens and risks to residents, and is unanimously rebuffed, that is a clear indication that the process is neither representative nor accountable to the populations it most directly impacts.
“In fact, we found that most EFSB decisions receive overwhelming support by the Board, regardless of the host community’s position,” said Madaro. “This speaks to a significant flaw in the siting process, whereby residents feel like their concerns are not heard, nor even factored into the decision making process.”
To address these issues Madaro said his legislation makes several important reforms at the EFSB.
First, it adds environmental justice, public health, and climate to the Siting Board’s responsibilities, ensuring these critical factors are weighed when making decisions.
“It would require improved community engagement prior to filing for environmental or Siting Board review of a petition to construct a generating facility or an oil, gas, or substation facility,” said Madaro. “The bill would also mandate a cumulative impact assessment and an environmental justice impact statement before approval of any electric generating facility or oil, gas, or substation facility, and would prohibit the approval of electric generating facilities or substations if the environmental justice impact statement shows that they will result in public health or other harms to environmental justice populations.”
Finally, the bill lowers the thresholds for what generating facility projects are subject to Siting Board review from 100 megawatts to 35 megawatts.
“These reforms will improve the functions of the EFSB, making the siting process more accountable to potential host communities, and more responsive to the priorities of environmental justice, climate change, and public health,” said Madaro. “The EFSB has recognized the need for such changes, launching a public process on updating their rules and regulations. While I appreciate these efforts, the provisions of this legislation will be more comprehensive and will encode these protections into law. Although this bill will not reverse the process that happened in East Boston, it will take the lessons we learned from this experience, and the many that came before, to ensure that future energy projects are sited equitably in communities across the Commonwealth.”
While Co-Chair of the Joint Committee, Sen. Michael J. Barrett, raised some concerns regarding the bill at the hearing but Madaro said he looks forward to working with Barrett and the committee to address his concerns as environmental justice legislation is ultimately enshrined into law in the Climate Roadmap Bill.
“We would appreciate the opportunity to continue this conversation in partnership with you (Barrett), Co-Chair Rep. Jeffrey Roy, and the committee to work on the language of H.3336,” said Madaro.