BELCHERTOWN — Select Board members are split on whether to oppose a portion of Gov. Maura Healey’s energy bill that would repeal a 1982 referendum that requires voters at a statewide election to approve any new nuclear facilities in Massachusetts.
The Energy Affordability, Independence & Innovation Act focused almost entirely on reducing energy costs for residents and businesses. The state estimates a collective $10 billion in savings over 10 years by requiring the Department of Public Utilities to review and reform all charges on energy bills, cap month-to-month bill increases, improving consumer protection standards for solar customers and many other provisions.
However, some Massachusetts residents are concerned that a single line in bill H.4144 Section 45 would repeal the Nuclear Power and Voter Approval Legislation Certification Act. Cliff McCarthy, a member of Commonwealth Coalition for Democracy and Safe Energy, said the statewide referendum requires the state to release a report on a proposed nuclear power plant or low-level radioactive waste storage or disposal facilities, and seek voter approval for such projects. The referendum, which began as a citizen petition, passed by a 2 to 1 margin in 1982.
“(The referendum) does not prohibit development of nuclear power, but it rather protects our democracy by making sure that such critical decisions rest with the people,” McCarthy told the Belchertown Select Board on Oct. 6. “It guarantees that these decisions are proceeded by a transparent exchange of information and a fair discussion of facts.”
McCarthy heard the Legislature wants to fast-track the bill this fall, so he’s asking his local Select Board to send a letter to Belchertown’s legislative delegation requesting that they lobby to remove the line from the energy bill.
“It’s a good bill. It’s got a lot of good stuff in it. It’s designed to keep the cost of energy low,” he said. “This section is tucked into the bill in a place that seems innocuous and people are likely to miss it and not really care about it.”
Select Board members, however, declined to send such a letter as a group in favor of individual members sending their own letters if they choose. Some members supported efforts to protect the state referendum, while others disagreed with efforts to slow the development of nuclear power. But they all agreed that the board itself should not take a stand.
“Also, at a policy standpoint we as a board have not discussed how we are going to handle letters like this because we’re getting requests to sign policy statements and our positions on things,” Select Board member Whitney Jorns-Kuhnlenz said. “So I think it’s fine for anyone on this board to sign as an individual. I would not want to sign as a board. “
While the legislation itself makes no mention of nuclear power, Healey addressed the repeal in the bill’s introduction letter. She explains that no other energy generation source requires statewide approval, and the restriction hinders the development of small modular reactors that could “improve reliability, stabilize prices, and decarbonize the region’s power grid.”
Select Board member Jen Turner said nuclear power might be the future of energy, and she sees the state and federal governments putting more investment into this type of power. She also said that the state is working closely with researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and UMass Lowell to develop nuclear and fusion technologies and regulatory pathways.
Other Select Board members did not focus on nuclear itself, but rather the silent removal of an initiative spearheaded by citizens.
“What sat with me is her reversal of statewide referendum. I have a huge problem with that,” Select Board member Nicole Miner said.
Ultimately, Chair Lesa Pearson, member Jonathon Ritter and Miner agreed to submit a letter on their own time, while Jorns-Kuhnlenz and Turner opted against.
“Forty years ago was a different environment,” Turner said. “It’s a different environment now.”