Draft state siting regulations would require municipalities to adopt consolidated permitting and new site-suitability rules

Jeremy Koo of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council said Monday that draft state regulations and linked guidance would change how Massachusetts municipalities review and decide on many clean-energy projects, moving toward a consolidated application and firm decision timelines for local governments.

"I want to provide an overview of the draft regs and guidelines," Koo said, noting MAPC was interpreting — not authoring — the materials. Under the new framework, projects judged "small" by statute would be reviewed at the municipal level while larger projects would go straight to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB). Koo said small generation facilities are defined in the draft as under 25 megawatts and small storage as under 100 megawatt-hours.

The draft regulations call for a consolidated application that bundles the permits and approvals a project would otherwise seek separately. Municipalities would have 30 days to determine application completeness and 12 months to render a final decision after that completeness determination; the EFSB would have 15 months for projects in its pathway. Koo said the law provides that if a final decision is not rendered in the required time, the project receives "constructive approval" subject to common conditions set out in guidance.

The regulations also establish new pre-filing requirements. Applicants must hold at least 60 days of pre-filing stakeholder engagement, initiated by a local notice of intent, provide public meeting notices, and submit a pre-filing engagement completion checklist to the municipality. Koo said the state will require a site suitability assessment for small-path projects using a methodology in Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs guidance; projects in designated "burdened areas" instead must complete a cumulative impacts assessment.

Koo said the site-suitability score uses multiple criteria (flood exposure, carbon sequestration potential, biodiversity, farmland impact and social/environmental burdens) scored 0 to 5 per criterion for a total range of 0 to 25. He said protected open space automatically receives the maximum score and previously developed or brownfield sites generally receive a score of zero. Community benefit agreements can reduce scores by up to five points. Higher scores inform required minimization and mitigation measures; under guidance linked to the SMART program, a municipal compensatory mitigation fee could be assessed and Koo cited a current maximum of $50,000 per acre in that guidance.

Koo urged municipalities to prepare: under the proposed timetable local governments would need to adopt a consolidated local permitting review process, identify points of contact, determine sequencing of reviews among boards and departments, set permit fees, and in some cases adopt a permitting bylaw or ordinance. He flagged practical constraints, including town-meeting calendars and Attorney General review timelines that could make a Dec. 1, 2026 compliance date difficult for some jurisdictions.

Connor Rockett, Southeast Regional Coordinator at the Department of Energy Resources (DOER), answered questions during the session. Rockett confirmed the consolidated pathway applies to ground-mounted solar, onshore wind and anaerobic digestion and that residential rooftop solar is explicitly exempted. He also said DOER expects to refine guidance and intends to exempt residential battery systems in a later iteration.

On appeals, Koo explained consolidated local final decisions may be appealed to the EFSB for de novo review; EFSB decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. Rockett said DOER legal review indicates the statutory 12-month municipal timeline is not extendable by mutual agreement.

Koo identified technical-assistance resources in the draft: a proposed DOER "circuit rider" or regional coordinator program, a Division of Siting and Permitting regional coordinator suite, an intervener support grant fund at the EFSB level to help municipalities and other parties hire counsel to participate, and a forthcoming DOER model permitting bylaw. He said some permitting fees could be structured to pay for outside technical expertise to help municipal reviews.

Koo closed by urging stakeholders to review the posted materials and submit comments during the public comment windows; he listed several deadlines mentioned in the session for different comment periods and model bylaw input. He said MAPC would circulate slides and offered to help municipalities craft comments.

The session included a sustained Q&A about municipal capacity, the scope of exemptions (noting uncertainty around small accessory batteries), and how one-size-fits-all timelines could affect both dense cities and small rural towns. Koo repeatedly urged municipalities to engage in the public process and to contact regional coordinators with questions.

Next procedural steps cited in the presentation: verbal comments next Wednesday at 7 p.m., written comments due Friday at 5 p.m.; draft model bylaw comments due Nov. 14; and EFSB written comments due Nov. 7 (dates as stated by presenters).