If you weed strawberries this time of year, it pays to go carefully. Crab grass, thriving on the lack of rain and hot temperatures, invaded the beds. Gamely, the strawberries put out runners, but the plants are deeply entwined. Pull up the grasses too hastily, focused only on your goal of a weed-free bed, and you risk uprooting the new plantlets that can produce berries next year. It is possible to thwart your end goals unintentionally.
Unfortunately we see something similar in the execution of our state’s energy policy. Back in 2022 the Legislature passed an ambitious set of energy goals seeking to reduce carbon significantly, eventually overcoming Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto. The impressive goals are a stretch — reduce carbon emissions by 33% below 1990 levels by 2030 and by 50% by 2050. Some massive coordinated efforts are required to reach them.
Under Gov. Maura Healey the first sign that all was not well came with the attorney general’s rulings against communities that objected to large solar and battery installations that damaged forests or utilized farmland, based on a 1987 law saying communities could not unreasonably oppose solar. This law was enacted long before huge-scale commercial sites were being proposed. Of course it is easier for corporate installers to use nice flat farm land, already cleared. If they cut down forest, they get to sell the lumber, too. The scale and the money drove these situations. The state’s incentives worked just fine for larger corporations.
Worryingly, elements of the new bill H. 4144 (“An Act relative to energy affordability, independence and innovation”) proposed by Healey, currently before the Legislature’s Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (TUE) Committee, are the equivalent of weeding too hastily. Section 45 would rescind a 1982 people’s referendum, passed by a resounding two thirds of Massachusetts voters, that requires a statewide vote plus a functioning waste disposal site before any new nuclear facilities are sited in the state. One of the “innovations” for energy generation behind the scenes appears to be so-called small modular reactors promoted by ISO New England (Independent Systems Operator). These reactors are about half the size of existing units like Seabrook. The ISO suggests 60 of these for its New England area. Massachusetts is half the demand, so we would need 30 units across the state at a cost of around $7 billion each. These “small” units may have capital costs 41% higher per kilowatt hour than the larger units. The larger units have been closed down one by one as the “too cheap to meter” myth about nuclear has been disproved time and again. The least expensive ways to generate electricity now are solar and wind power, the very industries that our current national administration is working to kill. Since I attended an occupation at Seabrook in 1978, 47 years ago, no progress has been made on a solution to handle nuclear waste which remains toxic for 200,000 years. Mining uranium also wreaks havoc on landscapes and any humans nearby. The industry presents itself as “green” and “clean” but is neither.
For the $210 billion ISO New England recommendations would require in Massachusetts we could go in a very different direction. Consider these alternative strategies:
- Require electric utilities to upgrade their lines to the new wiring that allows higher amounts of electricity to be safely conveyed;
- Outfit all rooftops and parking lots that can hold solar panels, starting with municipal facilities, expanding to barns, storage facilities, other businesses;
- Require new construction to incorporate solar generation and appropriate size batteries;
- Manage siting of larger-scale solar and storage facilities carefully to avoid loss of forest or farmlands and to reduce hazards for human and animal populations;
- Remove barriers imposed by electric utilities such as high fees for connection, metering and delivery; confusing rate structures; and other approaches to maximizing profit while slowing our transition to renewable energy.
It’s not clear why the governor is promoting these expensive, untested reactors. Instead of embroiling us in costly and time-consuming legal battles with communities that want safe, truly renewable energy, the state should incentivize and even cover some of these strategies and get it done. Yes, the funding will be a challenge, but in the end it will save time, money and possibly our commonwealth. Even without the huge demands by the unproven AI industry, we need to expand electric capacity and reduce carbon to protect ourselves from climate danger. In our haste to make good on admirable goals, we should not sacrifice safety, common sense and community partnership.
Judy Wagner lives in Northfield. She encourages you to weigh in on H. 4144 — Contact co-chairs of the Telecommunicatoins, Utilities and Engery Committee, Sen. Michael J. Barrett (617-722-1572) and Rep. Mark J. Cusack (617-722-2030) and alert your state senators and reps to these issues.