In Tewksbury, the proposal for a lithium-ion battery energy storage facility near the Emerald Court over-55 development has sparked significant concerns. Residents recently met with Michael Judge, the Undersecretary of Energy for Massachusetts, to discuss the project and address their apprehensions.
Emerald Court residents have formed a Steering Committee to coordinate their response to the proposed facility. Although Governor Maura Healey was invited to the meeting, she sent Judge in her place to speak with residents for an hour in the Magnolia Community Room.
Judge provided an overview of Massachusetts’ energy storage policies, explaining the role of battery storage in achieving the state’s climate and energy reliability objectives. According to Judge, these systems can reduce electricity costs, lessen the need for new infrastructure, enhance grid reliability, and facilitate the integration of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Judge cited the 2016 “State of Charge” report, which revealed that about 40% of electricity costs occur during peak usage hours. Battery storage allows for electricity to be stored during low demand and used during peak periods, potentially lowering overall system costs.
Since the report’s release, Massachusetts has set a target of 1,000 megawatt-hours of energy storage by 2025, and currently hosts over 6,000 grid-connected battery systems, totaling around 350 megawatts of capacity.
Judge discussed recent legislative changes to the state’s energy facility siting and permitting process. A law signed in November 2024 aims to streamline permitting while enhancing community engagement, environmental justice, and public participation.
Key changes include mandatory community engagement, a public participation division to assist residents, and an intervener funding program offering up to $150,000 for municipalities and community groups to hire experts.
Judge emphasized that the Tewksbury facility is in the early permitting stages, with no final decision made. Even with a zoning exemption, the developer must secure multiple state and local permits, including environmental and public safety approvals.
Residents expressed strong opposition to the site, citing its proximity to homes, schools, businesses, and care facilities. Several emphasized that their issue is not with clean energy, but with the location. “We oppose the site. We do not oppose clean energy,” said resident Peggy Schleicher, citing public health, environmental impacts, and risks to vulnerable populations.
Concerns about transparency and safety were prominent. Resident Dawn Sheehan criticized the developer for altering key proposal details without clear communication. Sheehan noted that the company initially presented one battery model and capacity, but later documents showed changes. Residents only discovered these changes after hiring costly independent experts.
Worries about air quality and toxic gas exposure were also raised, particularly regarding hydrogen fluoride and carbon monoxide during battery failures or fires. Residents questioned the adequacy of modeling and testing, especially in real-world conditions.
Speakers disputed developer claims that certain gases would be “consistently non-detectable” beyond 100 feet, citing data showing carbon monoxide dispersing further, which raises concerns about first responder safety and emergency staging areas.
Residents also highlighted the lack of shared emergency response and evacuation plans, particularly with many elderly and mobility-limited individuals nearby. Tewksbury resident Christine Chesbrough noted the community is being asked to accept significant risks without clear emergency management information.
Judge stated that emergency response plans and health protections are required in the permitting process and will be reviewed in future proceedings. He encouraged residents to voice concerns during hearings and through intervener participation, noting that state agencies must consider public safety, environmental impacts, and site suitability.
A public FAQ on fire safety, health impacts, and environmental concerns is available on mass.gov, updated in December.
The Town of Tewksbury is an intervenor in the process and has hired its own experts for guidance. The project, on private land and not town property, requires state-level permitting through the Energy Facilities Siting Board. If approved, it will seek local approvals. More information is available on Tewksbury’s official website at https://tewksbury-ma.gov/953/Proposed-Battery-Energy-Storage-System-B.
Original Story at homenewshere.com