Court says Eversource can go ahead with controversial East Boston substation

By adamg on Wed, 09/11/2024 - 10:32am

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today a state energy board properly approved Eversource's plans for a substation on Condor Street in East Boston.

The Conservation Law Foundation, GreenRoots and a group of East Boston residents sued the state Energy Facilities Siting Board and Eversource after the board gave final approval to Eversource's proposed facility in November, 2022. The groups charged the board failed to properly account for potential environmental and public-safety risks in an "environmental justice" neighborhood of construction of a new substation, especially when there were alternatives, such as adding to an existing Massport substation at Logan Airport. And, they alleged, the board violated the state's coastal-protection law by approving the substation next to Chelsea Creek.

The state's highest court, however, disagreed:

We conclude that the board's decision is lawful, was supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise an abuse of the board's discretion under the provisions of [state laws on the siting of energy facilities].

Eversource says the new substation, which will connect to existing substations in Chelsea and Everett, will help it meet the growing need for electricity in the region.

Case docket - includes filings by parties in the case.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Attachment	Size
Complete ruling	141.17 KB

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Are there any “special

By Frelmont on Wed, 09/11/2024 - 11:31am.

Are there any “special interests” in the “Chelsea/East Boston/ Lynn Load Areas?”

No, of course not

By adamg on Wed, 09/11/2024 - 11:37am.

Just children and their parents and other residents.

What, you're expecting Big Evil to be resident there or something?

14 reasons for Beacon Hill to act justly.

By Frelmont on Wed, 09/11/2024 - 5:19pm.

I get a strong notion from time to time that Beacon Hill can be a tad hypocritical and the the kind of “inclusion” they best deliver on is including a substation potent with dangers and pollutants in the East Boston neighborhood site. If there was a will they’d find a way to take those “fourteen distinct regulatory requirements” -just and scientifically sound- reasons to put their money where their mouths are.

There’s fourteen reasons the company should have sold that plot.

Yes, of course they are dump a dangerous and dirty hazard in a neighborhood as opposed to the (ill-gotten) Logan Airport land.

Listening to BPR the regular contributor from Bay Windows (blanking on her name ! Sue O’Connel?) discussing the how a ME realized a suicide was actually a murder had some damning words about the state.

Also, is this project serving fluctuations in local demand, or beyond it?

You're high

By cybah on Wed, 09/11/2024 - 8:32pm.

I get a strong notion from time to time that Beacon Hill can be a tad hypocritical and the the kind of “inclusion” they best deliver on is including a substation potent with dangers and pollutants in the East Boston neighborhood site. If there was a will they’d find a way to take those “fourteen distinct regulatory requirements” -just and scientifically sound- reasons to put their money where their mouths are.

As a resident of Chelsea, I've followed this substation issue for a few years now. The lines running to the Chelsea/Everett substation from this new one are going to be run very close to my house so I have been very interested in this.

The reason why Eversource wants something there is because of its proximity to other substations. The location of where the upgraded substation at logan is pretty far away from Condor Street, so there are virtually no other options besides this location.

Look I get that Chelsea and Eastie become a dumping ground for a lot of things.. parking, waste management, salt piles, oiler tankers and such. But our power system in this area is very very old and needs to be upgraded. This new substation is one of the key elements to doing that.

This has to go somewhere in order to have reliable power in this area. Putting it somewhere else would add to the cost. thus adding to my utility bill which is already obscene. Doing nothing leaves us in the predicament we are in.

Furthermore the groups in Chelsea that opposed this, I have to question their motives. I've lived here a very long time and I've watched these groups and let's just say I don't have many good things to say about them. So I take their stances and opinions with a grain of salt.

Sometimes NIMBYism is more about self serving than actual fact.

Thank you for the thoughtful

By Frelmont on Wed, 09/11/2024 - 10:02pm.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Belmont Light got way more reliable after the substation. I see. You say power there growing unreliable. I read increasing demand to be industrial and not residential and got cynical. I also took the Logan alternative at face value- a case of all things being equal. So, you’re saying alternatives are prohibitive? How prohibitive? There’s no regulation to cap rates from capital projects? I suppose I should know. I get that distance is not a friend to power transmission. Doesn’t having a substation on that site foreclose on other aspects of growth and renewal in the neighborhood?

So, this substation is for the residents and not to moderate/ protect the grid and industrial/commercial users of the grid outside of the neighborhood like a casino, or new soccer stadium?