Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hubbardston Planning Board puts regional comments on record about state battery siting rules
Summary
The Planning Board recorded Montachusett RPC’s comments on draft EOEEA regulations (25 CMR 29) for small clean energy infrastructure, voiced concerns about short comment periods and local points of contact, and flagged environmental and procedural issues including stormwater reviews and circuit‑riding provisions.
The Hubbardston Planning Board on Tuesday placed regional comments on the record about a state proposal to regulate small clean energy infrastructure siting and permitting.
The board’s chair told members the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued draft rules under 25 CMR 29 after a recently passed state bill and allowed only a short public comment period. The Montachusett Regional Planning Commission compiled and submitted comments on behalf of the region, the chair said, and the board asked that MRPC’s submission be included in Hubbardston’s official record.
Board members said the shortened notice limited thoughtful local input. One member noted the initial comment window had been about 11 days before MRPC helped secure a brief extension; the chair said the state has posted roughly 802 pages of comments online and expects a final rule by March. "That's a big comment turnout for a limited comment period," a board member said.
Members urged clearer local coordination and stronger sequencing of technical reviews. Speaker 4 told the board the draft regulations appeared to designate the town clerk as the default point of contact for affected communities and recommended the planning board, planning chair or building commissioner serve instead so technical questions — for example on stormwater and drainage — would be handled by staff with subject‑matter knowledge. The member warned that some engineering reviews scheduled after preliminary approval could come too late to resolve major issues.
Speakers also raised environmental‑risk concerns tied to certain battery chemistries. "Battery energy backup is certainly something that has a lot of value," a member said, while urging state guidance to highlight "non‑toxic" alternatives. Another member suggested MRPC encourage technologies such as iron‑air systems, which the speaker described as using iron rather than lithium and as a potentially safer option for aquifer‑sensitive communities.
The board did not take formal action beyond recording MRPC’s comments. Members were advised the draft rule’s final text is due from EOEEA in March and that the town may monitor further state guidance and comment opportunities.
The Planning Board will continue to monitor the regulation’s progress and is available to provide local input through MRPC or direct channels the board identifies.
