Reservations Remain about Shutesbury Road Solar Project
Photo: Zbynek Burival for Unsplash
Report on the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, April 25, 2024
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. It can be viewed here.
Present
Steve Judge (Chair), Everald Henry, Craig Meadows, and David Sloviter
Staff: Rob Watchilla (liaison), Chris Brestrop (Planning Director)
24 members of the public were in attendance
Corey McCandless of PureSky and Attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon, Wilson represented the 41-acre solar installation and associated battery storage project planned for forested land off of Shutesbury Road. The project was previously discussed at the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting of February 20. It was also considered by the Planning Board in October 2023.
Reidy hoped that the ZBA would authorize town staff to contract with one or more peer reviewers to review the full project, including the energy storage and glare. He did not want to go into too much detail about the current plans without the input from a peer reviewer with expertise in the area. He thought that the applicant and ZBA could receive public comment at this meeting and then return on June 13 to check on the progress of the peer review. He doubted that substantive discussion would begin prior to July.
Since the February ZBA meeting, PureSky has appeared before the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission requested minor changes in the submission, and the company expects to grant approval at the May 1 meeting.
McCandless told the ZBA that PureSky has switched the battery storage provider from Powin to Canadian Solar. Massachusetts law requires that all projects over 500 kilowatts have associated energy storage. This project will provide 9.35 megawatts. McCandless said that Powin was only interested in working with projects of 100 megawatts or more. Residents had previously raised concerns about fires at Powin battery sites. When board member Everald Henry raised this point, McCandless replied that most battery fires are due to water contamination, but the Canadian Solar products “are designed not to have any sort of leakage or water contamination. […]They have a proven track record to show that that hasn’t happened, and we’re very confident that they’re safe systems.” ZBA Chair Steve Judge requested that PureSky present data on Canadian Solar’s track record when the project is next discussed. This will also be reviewed by the peer reviewer.
Other changes to the project involve altering the boundaries so that the solar panels are outside of wetland buffer zones, and the stormwater plan has been revised accordingly. The project proposes to use a screw type post to anchor the panels with minimal disturbance. Also, at the request of the fire department, the turnaround area for vehicles was moved at least 100 feet away from the battery storage equipment pad. The installation is slightly smaller than originally planned, down to 9.3 megawatts from 11; and the battery storage capacity is two megawatt hours, instead of four.
Public Comment Plentiful
David Cameron of Fleetwood Environmental Solutions, LLC in Hadley spoke of the challenges of large projects such as the Shutesbury Road Solar on forested hillsides with nearby wetlands. He submitted a detailed report to the Conservation Commission stating that management of stormwater during the construction phase is “absolutely critical.” He stressed the importance of obtaining a competent peer review.
Eric Bachrach, an abutter to the project, commented on PureSky’s “sloppy” application process during the past five years. He cited the prevalence of more potent storms with climate change and the threat to the high water table in the area.
Judith Eiseman of Pelham spoke of the erosion damage to her son’s property in Williamsburg due to poor stormwater management by a solar project adjacent to the Mill River. A suit was settled for $1.14 million because of the damage.
Abutter Michael Lipinsky noted that a newly delineated wetland area near the project entrance was not shown on the map displayed at the meeting. He also pointed out that the Planning Board had requested that Pure Sky document previous completed projects, but they have yet to do so. The company recently completed a project in East Brookfield, but Lipinski maintains that it is not comparable to the Shutesbury Road project because 50% of that area was open fields with no nearby abutters.
Lenore Bryck spoke of the importance of forests to protecting ecosystems and restoring soil health.
Scott Cashin, a biologist, spoke of a rare plant, the small whorled pagonia, being present in the area slated for construction. He added that he hadn’t seen any surveys of the project site to document the presence of rare plant and animal species, and that these surveys were needed to understand the impacts of the project and formulate mitigation.
Phil Rich, an immediate neighbor of the project, said he already had flooding in his basement from stormwater runoff and worried about worsening effects from the project.
Abutter Jenny Kalllick noted that most of the questions posed by the Planning Board last fall have yet to be answered. She also pointed to a possible conflict of interest between Reidy and WSP, a peer review firm recently hired by the town because of their previous work together on the Sunderland Road solar project. WSP was the engineering firm for Blue Wave, the forerunner of Pure Sky.
Renee Moss, another abutter, stressed the 41-acre size of the project and noted that the total size of the parcel owned by W.D. Cowls is over 100 acres. She wanted assurance that the remaining area would be protected. Stacey McCullough, a Pelham Planning Board member, cited studies that confirm the importance of forests to the soil, groundwater, and habitats. She hoped the state could meet its climate goals without clear-cutting forests for solar.
The public will have more opportunity to comment at future meetings. The project will next be discussed at the June 6 ZBA meeting.
Board Questions Peer Review Firm Hired
Brestrup reported that WSP was the only company that responded to the town’s request for proposals (RFP) for peer review of the project. ZBA member Craig Meadows said that if his company were to receive only one response to an RFP, they would resubmit it. Planner Rob Watchilla said that the town vetted WSP and felt comfortable that it has a high level of expertise in siting and developing these types of projects. He said there will be separate peer reviews for the battery storage and solar installation and for water quality. He added that the project may be too small for some of the larger firms to bid on.
Judge requested that the Planning Department look more carefully into the possible conflict of interest between Reidy and WSP, perhaps checking with the town attorney for an opinion. However, David Sloviter felt that if the planners were comfortable with the choice, the ZBA should accept that. “I don’t see anything sinister going on here,” he said. Henry agreed.
WSP will provide peer review on solar glare and battery storage. The ZBA authorized the town to issue RFPs for study of endangered species, site design, and construction phasing, and stormwater management.
Discussion of the application was continued to June 6.
“I don’t see anything sinister going on here” someone said. “Define your terms”, Voltaire said. The definition of sinister is “giving the impression that something harmful or evil is happening or will happen” and something harmful to the community and the planet in general is deforestation for solar. I’m not sure how many studies and how many concerns need to be presented and voiced before the harm this project and others like it is realized. Those trusted with consequential decisions in our communities will bear the burden of those decisions as time goes on. Their children and grandchildren will ask “What did you do back when people warned you about climate chaos?” They will be asking as more crops fail, more torrential storms destroy their homes, businesses, and infrastructure.
The forests cut down and forest soil damaged to clear the way for short-lived solar arrays are some of our best natural carbon capture entities we have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. They do it for free 24/7/365 and will continue to provide that service forever. Wake up. Your children and their children will remember you fondly for making an intelligent cautious decision.
I’m one of those neighbors cited in the article. My concerns go far beyond pervious flooding in my basement as a result of downhill runoff, or the previous and ongoing erosion of soil, flowerbeds, and my driveway that has already resulted from storm water runoff coming down the hill. There is the clearing of 100 acres of forest and trees for a 40 acre commercial solar installation, itself a major concern as noted by any number of comments made to various town committees reviewing the application, and the loss of wildlife habitat and pristine beauty. There is the risk of serious downhill runoff once 100 acres of trees are removed. Those trees drink the water; what happens to all that water once the trees are gone? There is the noise pollution and other environmental pollution that will be caused by the installation of this commercial installation, literally a couple of hundred feet from my house, directly abutting my back yard, which will last months while using heavy commercial vehicles to bring in and out equipment and materials, and the actual installation of the commercial solar array itself. There is the risk of battery fires, and other potential issues directly related to the proposed (and vile) installation. There is the real risk of loss of property value to my home and the homes of all abutting neighbors, and the neighborhood. Just the fact of having a very large commercial installation in an otherwise beautiful community is a concern. There is the eyesore of a commercial solar installation depreciating the natural beauty of the woods and the community, and despite the developer’s claims of careful and good stewardship, one only has to review other commercial solar sites to see how poorly they are, in fact, maintained. It’s already the case, and has been for years, that logging in the forest land in question has already left unsightly and unnatural piles of cut wood and large logs, just left to rot over the course of many years. There is the risk that the goal of financial profit for all involved in successfully building a commercial installation will override and overwhelm environmental and community needs. And there is the very real possibility of a peer review slanted toward the applicants,
that may not be neutral at all, despite the appearance of neutrality. Let’s not for an instant fail to recognize the reality of vested interest, even in what is intended to be a peer review by an impartial and neutral review process.
Let sanity prevail. This is a case of the neighborhood and environmentalists rallying against a project that has no place whatsoever in forested land, and in a forested community. It is the People vs. Big Commerce. I hope the town will take the side of its residents and citizens, and not yield to the pressures and risks of law suits filed by the applicants (note that Shutesbury is being sued by the very same developers – PureSky and Cowls – as they try to force the town’s compliance).
It’s a hot summer day, and this place is producing 9.3 MW, which is being used.
Thunderstorm arrives and it quickly gets dark, No more 9.3 MW (which people are using).
Battery produces 2 MW — where does the other 7.3 MW going to come from?
And just because the battery can produce 2 MW/Hours doesn’t mean it can actually produce 2 MW — I doubt it can but I’m also keeping the math simple here.
So where is the other 7.3 MW going to come from? The first half hour is critical because after that big users such as UMass can shed load, peaker plants can come on line, and the thunderstorm will be over, anyway. But you can’t *ever* try to use more than you are producing.
So unless the utility can *immediately* find the needed 7.3 MW, it’s going to have to turn off neighborhoods if not entire towns to shed the load down to what it is now producing — 7.3 MW less than it was.
I just hope that the advocates of solar realize this….
Ed makes a good point here, and that very point is what lies behind the push for a smart-grid: electric utilities expect to quickly shift supply (say to another solar plant, or the other sources Ed mentions) by using smart-grid switching technology, rather than by shedding load.
Some Facts on Solar in the Forest
Re: “Review Sought of Large-Scale Solar Project,” (DHG 2-12-24)
More than one party quoted in this article cites the loss of forest carbon sequestration as a rationale for opposing a 41-acre PureSky/Cowls solar facility in the woods of northeast Amherst.
My own calculations based on recognized sources for the relevant analysis inputs give the following results:
Over a 25 year period, this proposed facility will mitigate (replace) greenhouse gas (carbon) production on our regional grid at a rate 26 times the rate these same 41 acres will sequester additional carbon. This accounts for both past carbon storage and 25 years of future sequestration by these 41 acres.
If this forested land along with another 53 acres were developed in solar by 2030, together with the current landfill (25 acres) and Hickory Ridge (26 acres) this would achieve the low end of the range (1-2%) proposed by Amherst ECAC for land permitted for solar development. Together these 145 acres of ground mounted solar should offset approximately 7% of the GHG emission reductions that the Amherst Climate Plan anticipates needing to make between 2025 and 2050.
“The two biggest threats facing our forests today are development and climate
change. All of the birds, wildlife, and coastal ecosystems we cherish in
Massachusetts are directly threatened by climate change.”
https://www.massaudubon.org
Yet the studies cited by Audubon to fuel its campaign for rooftop vs ground mounted/forest solar overstate rooftop solar capacity and ignore the resistance of many roof owners to adopting solar. Let’s protect unique habitats within the state’s 3 million forested acres but install solar as quickly as we can, providing a clean energy bridge to a future in which we’ve conquered our building and transportation inefficiency challenges. We may then consider the option of returning this small fraction of land to its forested state to assist with future carbon sequestration needs as well as reestablishing natural habitat.
For the above calculation assumptions, write jpepi@umass.edu.
John Pepi
12 Knipfer Ave,
Easthampton (formerly of Amherst and worked 23 years at Umass)
Mr. Pepi’s analysis of forest versus a large scale solar facility boils down to which sequesters or saves more carbon makes the issue of forest versus solar array seem simple. Apples to apples right? But nothing about this issue is simple. The New England forest is a young forest and has been sequestering more carbon each year so it would be hard to know how much carbon it will sequester over decades. Also no one has calculated how much carbon is sequestered in forest soils. And wetlands store 10X the amount of carbon in regular soil and there are wetlands on the Shutesbury site. So what are the real numbers of carbon storage and how can we calculate them at this site? And what are the life cycle costs of the solar array? How much carbon fuel is used to mine the materials for the panels, steel and wiring and batteries, manufacture them, transport them and then build the array –and then take the array down and recycle or dispose of it them ? And finally, if comparing forest land versus solar facility, we have to recognize that the forest is doing much more than storing carbon. “Unbuilt areas of the Town such as conserved forests and wetlands or grasslands provide the bulk of ecosystem services that residents, both human and non-human, use to sustain life. These services include water storage and filtering, habitat, food and medicine, carbon storage and sequestration, and air purification” (quote from Amherst Climate Action and Adaptation Plan) Forests are also cooling and mitigate extremes of temperature, flooding and storms, produce oxygen, preserve soils and produce wood products. A solar facility does almost none of these things. So it’s not apples to apples and it’s not simple. I suggest that Mr. Pepi read Massachusetts 2 most recent climate action plans that call for more protected forest land, farmlands and open fields. Our town climate action plan makes the same call. And please read the state’s recent solar assessment that found there are 15 to 18 times the amount of available rooftops, parking lots and other developed lands such as highways and highway medians needed for solar arrays needed to meet state goals. We don’t need to cut the forest to save it. We need the forest.
PureSky’s proposed 41 acre industrial solar facility in a residential neighborhood off of Shutesbury Road in Amherst is still under review by various boards in town. The plan is to replace 41 acres of forest surrounded by wetlands with 10 acres of solar panels. The application for a special permit was submitted to the ZBA a year ago. The grossly incomplete application has made little progress to date. In addition, it may soon be making another appearance before the Conservation Committee. You can find more information about the project at http://www.smartsolaramherst.org.
Cowl’s and PureSky recently revealed that the Shutesbury Road Solar Project in Amherst will clear cut over 6,000 trees with a 5” caliper or more in diameter at breast height. In addition, thousands of smaller, immature trees and plants with be destroyed in the cutting and grubbing process. This level of forest destruction in Amherst is unprecedented. This is not a routine logging operation conducted with reforestation in mind, The forest ecosystem will be totally destroyed and replaced with steel, aluminum, plastic, glass and silicon.
I hope that the more residents will take a close look at this proposed project and add your voices to the many other Amherst residents that are in opposition to this environmentally disastrous proposal.