The Department invites interested parties to submit written responses to the questions set forth below.  Respondents are welcome to answer any or all of these questions.  

  1. For each of the issue categories (and sub-issues) identified above, what are the best practices the Department should include in its guidance and why?  If these recommendations are reflected in existing siting provisions used in municipal, county, state or federal jurisdictions in the United States or internationally, please cite such provisions and comment on the appropriateness of including such provisions in the Department’s guidance.
  2. Should the siting guidance for WEFs differ based on location-specific factors such as population density, geographic classifications (i.e., urban/rural/suburban), and land-use classifications of the host site and nearby uses?  Should the guidance differ based on the scale of the WEFs (e.g., MW capacity or height of the turbines) or the number of turbines or total capacity of the installation?
  3. What types of stakeholder involvement and community outreach are most helpful in reviewing WEF proposals at the local level?  Cite or provide examples, if any, of municipalities in Massachusetts or elsewhere that employ such practices.
  4. Should the Department recommend to municipalities that they address WEFs through specific zoning/site plan mechanisms?  If so, which ones?
  5. To what extent are siting guidance considerations for WEFs a reflection of the existing WEF technology?  Are there technological developments for WEFs on the horizon that are likely to influence a determination of what constitutes best practices for siting WEFs?
  6. How should “successful siting” of WEFs be defined?  Provide examples of WEF installations in Massachusetts or elsewhere that illustrate “successful siting” practices.  What factors made the siting successful?  What data or other information are available to document the successful siting outcomes of such projects?
  7. How should “unsuccessful siting” of WEFs be defined?  Provide examples of WEF installations in Massachusetts or elsewhere that illustrate “unsuccessful siting” practices.  What factors made the siting unsuccessful?  What data or other information are available to document the unsuccessful siting outcomes of such projects?
  8. What, if any, provisions should the guidance include to address post-construction monitoring and compliance measures?
  9. Identify any existing regulatory standards, policies, or practices of Massachusetts state agencies that may adversely affect appropriate siting outcomes for WEFs.  What, if any, changes should be made to such standards, policies and practices?
  10. Identify any aspects of local, regional, state, and federal regulatory reviews for siting of WEFs in Massachusetts where current siting provisions are in conflict or the actions of permitting entities are at cross purposes.  How, if at all, can the guidance help to resolve such conflicts?
  11. Are there issues that should be added to or deleted from the list above?
  12. How can the Department and other state agencies involved in WEF-related policies and programs best encourage the use of the guidance to achieve the intended benefits?

 


This information is provided by the Department of Public Utilities.