Eric Burkman, AICP 294 Lexington St Boston, MA 02128 (616) 893-2127 [email protected]

December 3, 2020

Joan Foster Evans, Presiding Officer Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station Boston, MA 02110

Re: Tentative Decision Comments for Docket Number EFSB 14-04A/D.P.U. 14-153A/14-154A

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a Limited Participant in this case, and I do not support the tentative decision on the Notice of Project Change for Docket Number EFSB 14-04A/D.P.U. 14-153A/14-154A, the Eversource East Eagle Substation.

The EFSB should overturn the February 2020 tentative decision and deny the project change for the following reasons, summarized here and detailed below: ● Significant increase in size (+70%) from the original project to the new project; ● Inaccuracies regarding the project change in the Eversource-provided documentation and in the tentative decision; ● Increase in cost to ratepayers at the new site as compared to the original site; ● Lost property tax revenue to the public because of positioning at the new site, which is not a problem at the original site; ● Lack of consideration for specific uses of abutting parcels, instead considering only the number of abutting parcels when analyzing the project change; ● Potential e lectromagnetic disruption to sensitive emergency response and public safety equipment at the new police station and municipal buildings; ● Perceived conflict of interest and appearance of undue influence on the process by a single private entity; and, ● The project change to the new site is a w orse deal for Massachusetts ratepayers and all City of Boston residents than the original site.

1 of 5 The project change significantly expands the footprint of the original project.

The proposed substation size increased by nearly 70% (from 16,800 sq. ft. to 27,389 sq. ft). This is not only disrespectful of an environmental justice community that already did not support the initial decision in 2017, but it seems like a more significant modification of the plans than should be considered in a project change. It seems like a whole new project.

There is misinformation in the tentative decision regarding how far the proposed substation will move.

The tentative decision and other documentation provided by Eversource and EFSB state that the new site represents a 190-foot move from the original site. This is true when measuring from the original site’s western boundary to the new site’s eastern boundary.

However, when measuring from the same point on both sites - from the original site’s northwestern corner to the new site’s northwestern corner, the proposed substation actually moves about 370 feet, almost twice as far as stated in the filings.

This seemingly minor oversight is just one example of Eversource providing misleading and inaccurate information to the EFSB and to the public (whether intentionally or not). These apparent oversights call into question other details of project need, as well as accuracy of Eversource’s overall analyses.

Building on the new site is costlier to ratepayers than building on the old site.

Eversource’s own estimates show that a substation on the new site is more expensive to build than the initially-approved substation, due to its increased size, environmental remediation requirements, and other factors. Ratepayers will bear this additional cost, which is not fair given there is a less expensive viable alternative that was already previously approved.

The new site will also cost the public in lost property tax revenue by pre-empting any future improvements to the remainder of the City-owned parcel.

The positioning of the new site effectively blocks the remainder of the City parcel from future development or other improvements, because the northeast corner of the parcel will be blocked on the west by the proposed substation, and on the south by the municipal buildings currently under construction.

Because the remainder of the parcel is City-owned, taxpayers have an interest in protecting its future tax generation potential, which will be destroyed if roadway access is blocked by the proposed substation on the new site identified in the project change.

2 of 5 The original site would still allow for development of the parcel because of direct Condor St access, while also allowing access to the proposed substation on the original site via the proposed driveways and parking areas abutting Lexington St.

Eversource and EFSB justify this change by claiming the number of abutting parcels is lower at the new site than at the original site, but that does not take actual abutting uses into account.

While the number of parcels within the buffer may be similar at the new site and at the original site, the number of p eople a ffected by the new site is significantly greater because of the specific land uses of the abutting parcels.

The original site buffer abutters included a factory, municipal buildings, and some residences as identified in the analysis. These each counted as one parcel, which is a reasonable assumption given the primarily private uses.

The new site is next to a playground and park - public uses. While these still count as only one parcel in the analysis for purposes of nominally comparing “number of affected abutters,” the number of people in a p ublic abutting use can be s ignificantly greater t han the number of people in an abutting private residence or a private business.

Comparing the number of abutting properties should not be valid for the purposes of considering this project change, because several hundred people may use the abutting public park (adjacent to the new site) on a given day, whereas only a couple dozen people may use the abutting industrial parcel (adjacent to the original site) on the same day.

Though the number of abutting parcels may be similar, the number of affected people is much higher at the new site than at the original site because of the change in abutting uses.

The new site may disrupt emergency response and sensitive public safety equipment.

An initial argument against the original site for the proposed substation was regarding electromagnetic interference with Channel Fish Company’s fish processing equipment, particularly metal detectors that identify stray fish hooks and other metals in food products.

While Eversource has claimed that electromagnetic interference from the proposed substation is low, the metal detector interference at Channel Fish Company was one of the considerations for moving the proposed substation from the original site to the new site.

This should now also be a consideration at the new site, with potentially sensitive emergency response equipment housed within a suite of new public safety buildings directly adjacent to the proposed substation. In fact, police departments also use metal detectors that can experience electromagnetic interference like those at Channel Fish Company.

3 of 5 Eversource has repeatedly been asked by community members to provide an emergency management plan and other information related to this concern, but to my knowledge still has not done so.

Eversource and public agencies have created the appearance of conflict of interest, and have allowed a single private abutter to unduly influence the process over the needs of many other private abutters.

There is the appearance of coordination between the Channel Fish Company, Eversource, the City of Boston, and the EFSB, outside of the existing public process for this siting, as is suggested by this timeline of events which are separately identified in the tentative decision itself. The sequencing of these events brings up several key questions regarding whether this project change was conceived in good faith.

Why would the City of Boston issue a Request for Proposals for moving the proposed substation from its original site to the new site, three days prior to the original site being approved by EFSB? ● November 28, 2017: City of Boston issues Request for Proposals for moving the proposed substation from the original site next to Channel Fish Company, to the new site next to the Condor St Urban Wild. ● December 1, 2017: EFSB approves original site for the 16,800 sq ft substation.

Why would the City of Boston and Eversource swap the original site for the new site seven months before the Notice of Project Change is filed with the EFSB and announced to the public? ● March 14, 2018: City of Boston Public Facilities Commission approves swapping the original site for the new site. ● July 25, 2018: City of Boston conveys the new site to Eversource, and Eversource conveys the original site back to the City of Boston. ● November 15, 2018: EFSB announces the project change.

How did Channel Fish Company submit a letter of support for the project change ten days prior to the project change being announced by the EFSB? ● November 5, 2018: Channel Fish Company submits a letter of support for the project change. ● November 15, 2018: EFSB announces the project change.

At the very least, these p ublic agencies prioritized one private company over many more private residents and two significant public uses (American Legion Playground and the Condor St Urban Wild). At worst, they did this via a closed-door deal, apparently including the following assurances: ● City of Boston agrees to swap the parcels; ● Eversource is assured that EFSB will approve the project change;

4 of 5 ● Channel Fish Company drops all community organizing against the project, including promotion of opposition to the project; and, ● Public agencies assure Channel Fish Company that the proposed substation will not abut their factory.

While I understand that it’s not unusual for public agencies to work with large abutters to build support for a project, I think it’s h ighly unusual for that to result in City-owned real estate changing hands prior to public notice of the change. This is especially the case for a project that had already become very contentious, and the obfuscating of the process is a further indication that the public agencies were not leading the public process in good faith.

From an unobjective standpoint this project change is a bad deal for all City of Boston residents and for Massachusetts ratepayers.

Even setting aside the failings in public process and the justified, deep distrust in this community of Eversource and the EFSB, approving the project change will result in a costlier project for Massachusetts ratepayers and lost property tax revenue opportunity for City of Boston residents (as detailed above).

On these two points alone, the EFSB should overturn its February 2020 tentative decision.

Sincerely,

Eric Burkman, AICP

5 of 5