WESTFIELD — Before City Councilors voted unanimously in support of a resolution sponsored by councilors Dan Allie, Kristen Mello and Nicholas Morganelli opposing a lithium battery energy storage facility (BESS) on Medeiros Way in the city’s Water Resource Protection District, several officials from Jupiter Power and the Department of Public Utilities and others spoke during public participation at the meeting on Dec. 19.
On Sept. 25, Jupiter Power filed with the DPU a petition seeking individual and comprehensive zoning exemptions from the City of Westfield zoning ordinance, and approval to construct and operate two 115-kV underground transmission lines. The proposed transmission lines are approximately 1,800 feet and 600 feet long, and would connect the BESS with the Buck Pond Substation that is also located on Medeiros way.
Public comment on the zoning exemption request ended on Dec. 20 at 4 p.m. The resolution voted on by the City Council was submitted to the DPU before public comment ended.
Dan Watson of Jupiter Power said he wanted to address a few things that had been out in the public dialogue. “First, you know there’s been talk about the project providing no benefit to the city. I just want to clarify; the project plans to pay an estimated $1 million in property taxes, amongst other benefits, but we will be one of the larger payers of property taxes in the city. This is a pretty significant portion. I just want to say it’s not no benefit but of course there’s other things that the project will bring to the community,” he said.
Ellen Freyman, an attorney representing Jupiter Power, emphasized that the company has been interacting with the city over the past two years, meeting with city officials, and hosting two open houses that were publicized. “I am aware of all the community outreach, which has been extensive,” she said, adding that the team continues to be available and will come to the city any time until the DPU renders its decision.
Derek Post, fire protection engineer and a firefighter from Maryland who has been working with Jupiter Power on fire prevention also spoke. Post said his role with the company is fire prevention analysis and generating an emergency response plan. He said he had personnel attend the open house in Westfield in June, and is also willing to come before the City Council with fire prevention experts and firefighters.
Shane Early of Sheppard Mullin Law, who is representing Jupiter Power in the proceeding before the DPU, said after the petition for a zoning exemption was submitted in late September, the hearing took place at Westfield State University on Dec. 5 to receive comments from the public, who also have the opportunity to send in comments. He said Westfield has become an intervener, and will have full rights throughout the proceeding.
Early said the next step will be a trial and evidentiary hearing, at which time Jupiter Power will have to sit down and answer questions. After that the DPU will look at the evidence, which he said will take place six months or more from now, and either approve or reject the project. Jupiter Power has asked that the order be issued at the end of 2025.
Former Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski also spoke during public participation. She said she has attended most if not all of the meetings held to date. “I know that this company, Jupiter Power, is here to sell us on this project that they want to site in Westfield. They’re doing their job. Your job is to decide whether you want to buy what they’re selling. I hope that you will be in favor of this resolution or a statement to send to the DPU. You have an opportunity now to say how you will represent the people of this city,” Babinski said.
Before the vote, Allie read the resolution opposing placement of a lithium battery facility over the aquifer, and asking for immediate consideration and submission to the DPU by close of business on Dec. 20.
The resolution, which will be posted in the DPU comments at https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/DPU/Fileroom/dockets/bynumber/24-151 covered several points, including the rights of residents as granted by Article 97 of the state constitution to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise. In the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic qualities of their environment.
The resolution also refers to Westfield’s Water Resources Protection District which was created to protect the aquifer from contamination; and states that Westfield has already been burdened by discharges of hazardous materials and waste into the aquifer, including a very significant contamination of municipal and public drinking water supplies by per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Also referenced was the ATSDR and EPA indoor and outdoor environmental sampling to evaluate levels of PFAS that may contribute to elevated levels of PFAS in people’s blood, and determined that PFAS was detected in dust and soil and in blood serum.
After talking about known and past hazards of battery energy storage systems, the resolution states that the only way the DPU can approve the project on Medeiros Way is to decide that having clean energy infrastructure is more important than Westfield’s Water Resource Protection District zoning ordinance, which protects the city’s largest aquifer.
“Whereas we must balance clean energy and progress with vigilant oversight to prevent environmental and public health [risks] from emerging technologies…, the City Council of the city of Westfield is in agreement with its caring concerned citizens and hereby urges the DPU to find that the potential benefits of this project do not outweigh the very real environmental and public health risk associated with it.”
During the discussion, Ward 3 Councilor Bridget Matthews-Kane encouraged the councilors to vote in favor. While calling it “rather toothless,” she said it expressed the council’s concerns about the project. She said the Westfield Planning Board and the Southampton Planning Board and Select Board together have also written letters to the DPU opposing the project.
At-large Councilor Richard Sullivan called it “highly appropriate that this body and the city as a whole hold this petitioner accountable and make this as difficult as possible.” He also said that it is important that the city engages with the company.
“You don’t know what’s in it for the city unless you engage with the petitioner,” Sullivan said, adding that as a former secretary of energy and environmental affairs for the state, he knows that the state has the ability to come in and impose their will on this project.
Sullivan said to date, the city has done nothing to engage with Jupiter Power. “There has to be real engagement. I think the city has to take them up on that. I will support the motion here tonight,” he said, adding that while he agreed that it is “somewhat of a toothless tiger,” it does make a statement. “We have to hold the petitioner accountable. If we don’t engage, we have done nothing to get the best deal for the city.”
Ward 1 Councilor Karen Fanion said she agreed. “We have to take a stand and show our support, as well as engage with the company.” She said in discussion with Ward I constituents, where the system would be sited, “they want us to really look at this and protect our water.”
At-large Councilor Brent Bean said he was also in support. He expressed frustration that the Dec. 5 hearing was the same day as a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. “They tried to exclude us, or didn’t do their homework. The other piece — why would you pick a city that just went through what we went through on PFAS contamination on the north side,” he said.
Allie thanked everyone for their support. “No amount of money is worth the risk of endangering our town’s drinking supply,” he said, calling it a precious resource. The vote was unanimous.
Councilors also unanimously supported a motion by Morganelli to amend zoning ordinances relative to battery energy storage facilities, send it to the Planning Board and schedule a public hearing.
Morganelli said the amendment would require a special permit for battery energy storage systems in industrial zones, and make them a prohibited use in the Water Resources Protection District. “This is a brand new type of business, brand new type of energy,” he said.
“We need to add this to our prohibited businesses in the Water Resource Protection District. The company from what I understand can apply for an exemption with the state,” adding the city needs to be proactive and include this as a prohibited use. “It’s the only way we can protect this city’s water supply,” Morganelli said.
