Even as they pointed to its shortcomings, senators on Thursday passed a proposal to streamline the permitting process for land-based wind energy projects, a move backed by the Patrick administration and aimed at incentivizing the development of renewable energy.
Supporters say the proposal will help speed the development of wind turbines that have become enmeshed in a complicated process with numerous permitting hurdles. The bill, they said, would create construction jobs and could bring down energy prices by taking pressure off the demand for other forms of energy.
“We're generating less wind power than I think we could or should be,” said Sen. Michael Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat and co-chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy.
Morrissey said he hoped larger projects, those that generate two megawatts or more, could follow a “clear path” and set of standards outlined in the bill. He noted that a three-megawatt project in Princeton has been tangled in the permitting process for three years.
The bill requires an advisory group, in conjunction with state agencies, environmental groups and regional stakeholders, to develop siting standards for wind projects. Towns determined to have enough wind resources to be suitable for development would be required to establish “wind energy permitting boards” to oversee the entire permitting process for wind projects, rather than a divided process among several local boards.
In addition, the Energy Facilities Siting Board would oversee a more rapid permitting process for wind facilities two megawatts or larger that require state permits. The bill also deems municipalities who host wind projects as meeting requirements to be labeled Green Communities under a 2008 bill that incentivized towns to support renewable energy projects.
Several supporters praised the wind bill for provisions ensuring that municipalities could refuse to host projects that don’t meet town bylaws or various criteria outlined in the bill. Sen. Robert O'Leary said the bill sets up a “rational, transparent process.”
“If a community says no, it's a no,” said O'Leary, whose district has been torn by the proposed offshore Cape Wind project.
Immediately after senators opted to pass the bill by voice vote, the Senate president’s office praised the bill as eliminating “red tape.” No senator requested a roll call on the bill.
The bill now moves to the House, which spent Thursday debating a text message ban and requiring vision tests for drivers older than 75.
Backers also said the bill has job creation potential, noting the construction jobs that could be created by a proliferation of wind development.
“It's not a panacea. But it will create construction jobs,” Morrissey said. “I wish I could tell some of my colleagues we could go further. We will try but not in this legislation. This bill is not going to solve some of the problems you raised here.
Critics said the bill does little to address the cost of energy, which has been prohibitive for some businesses and residents, and faulted the proposal for leaving out incentives for the production of other forms of energy. Businesses would create or retain jobs, they said, if energy costs were lower.
“There's no question that no matter where we go within our districts, the high cost of energy in Massachusetts is one of those things that hinders the economic progress in our state,” said Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield). “I am not sure that this initiative that we're passing today is really going to address that.”
Knapik said he hoped to have a discussion about nuclear power, saying that California’s 64,000 wind turbines produce the same amount of energy as a quarter of one nuclear plant.
Sen. Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield), who said he supported the bill, added that the cost of energy was still a drag on businesses in his region, and described how paper mills in his district laid off hundreds of workers after an energy rate spike.
“I do think that the bill before us strikes a balance for local communities to make their own decisions and our responsibility to ensure future generations that we are making decisions with their interests in mind,” he said. “No bill will solve all our energy problems.”
Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) likened the bill to the state’s affordable housing law, Chapter 40B, which he has criticized as being misused by developers. He called the bill a “40B for wind turbines,” and pressed for an amendment to allow homeowners, schools, nursing homes and day care centers to raise objections to a wind project if it cast a shadow over their properties. The amendment was rejected but Morrissey noted that a subsequent amendment, which was adopted, would address issues like “flicker,” shadows and noise.
Sen. Bruce Tarr revived Republican’s frequent critique that Democratic initiatives amounted to “picking winners and losers, saying the wind siting bill creates “synthetic demand” for wind projects.
