Jupiter Power withdraws lithium battery storage proposal over Barnes aquifer

WESTFIELD — At an April 25 noon press conference, Mayor Michael McCabe, joined by state Sen. John Velis and Community Development Director Peter Miller announced what he said would be good news for the residents of Westfield and surrounding communities.
'After months of communication and consideration, I am very pleased to announce that Jupiter Power has withdrawn their proposal for a battery energy storage site in the city of Westfield,' McCabe said.
The Streamfield Battery Energy Storage Site proposed by Jupiter Power overlapped the Barnes Aquifer, which has a recent and costly history of PFAS contamination. The project caused an outpouring from residents in Westfield and neighboring communities, who voiced their opposition to the plan at meetings and in other public forums.
The mayor said he had received a brief statement from the company that morning that also followed a recent meeting he had with Miller, Velis and Jack Godshall, chief financial officer of Jupiter Power, that he shared at the press conference.
'Jupiter Power has a broad portfolio of projects in active development across the United States, and is consistently evaluating which projects to continue to invest in and advance. While we know that the Streamfield project would bring many economic and grid resiliency benefits to the region, and are of course disappointed with the outcome, Jupiter Power has now made the business decision to terminate the Streamfield project and focus development efforts elsewhere,' the statement from Godshall read.
McCabe said he had been impressed in that final meeting with the company at how much they had listened to Westfield.
'City Council President John Beltrandi, state Sen. John Velis, [state] House Rep. Kelly Pease and I have been meeting and speaking with the company over the past few months. I am happy to report that the meetings were congenial and achieved the transparency necessary for Jupiter to come to this conclusion,' McCabe said.
Velis said before the last meeting with Jupiter Power, he had expected 'a full-on brawl. I give them credit. They listened in a collaborative manner and were cognizant of Westfield's history.'
Velis said he was also impressed by the number of emails and phone calls his office received on this matter, and the people who came together in opposition.
'I would like to thank our City Council, especially Councilors Dan Allie and Kristen Mello for getting the word out to our constituents and to those residents who answered the call and wrote letters, attended meetings and otherwise voiced their concerns to the [Department of Public Utilities] Siting Board. There is no doubt that vocal public discourse contributed to Jupiter Power's decision to withdraw,' McCabe said.
'In my 40 years in public service, I never saw an issue like this that was unanimously panned. Nobody was in favor, they were 100 percent opposed,' McCabe said.
'The protection of our City's natural resources should be paramount in all our decision-making processes and to that end we are very pleased with this development,' he added.
Read the original article on MassLive.
Read the original article on MassLive.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

an hour ago

• Politico

Senate parliamentarian greenlights state AI law freeze in GOP megabill

The Senate's rules referee late Saturday allowed Republicans to include in their megabill a 10-year moratorium on enforcing state and local artificial intelligence laws — a surprising result for the provision that's split the GOP. Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) rewrote a House-passed AI moratorium to try to comply with the chamber's budgetary rules. His version made upholding the moratorium a condition for receiving billions in federal broadband expansion funds. Both parties made their arguments before the parliamentarian Thursday. 'It's good policy,' Cruz said of the moratorium in a recent interview. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) has also defended the provision, saying it's necessary to avoid a 'labyrinth of regulation' with '50 different states going 50 different directions on the topic of AI regulation.' Though the parliamentarian delivered a victory for Republicans, a number of conservative senators including Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), have vocally opposed the provision. Hawley has vowed to work with Democrats on an amendment to remove the language once the megabill hits the floor. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and the House Freedom Caucus have also opposed the AI moratorium, with Greene threatening to oppose the megabill H.R. 1 (119) if the legal freeze remains.

Newsweek

2 hours ago

• Newsweek

Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.

San Francisco Chronicle​

3 hours ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Oakland, a city desperate for improvement, looks to charter reform for help

Steve Falk has been talking to people all over Oakland about his plan to make the city's government work better. Perhaps no one crystallized Oakland's problems to him better than the unidentified City Council member who said: 'In Oakland, the buck stops nowhere.' Falk has lived that dynamic. The UC Berkeley Graduate School of Public Policy lecturer has worked for 39 years as a city manager in six California cities, including two stints each in Richmond and Oakland. 'This city is more dysfunctional than any other city I worked for,' Falk said earlier this year. 'It's because of the charter.' And now he wants to fix it as a leader of the Oakland Charter Reform Project, which sounds like the nerdiest, most boring thing imaginable, but it could be one of the best fixes that new Mayor Barbara Lee and the City Council could adopt. Much of the work being discussed was explored in a 2021 report on Oakland 's government by the policy think tank SPUR. Oakland's government is structured like the federal government's tripartite system of checks and balances, which is OK for a nation of 340 million, but not for a medium-size city of 436,000 that's trying to move quickly to fix potholes and provide public safety. Under the current system, the mayor only appoints the city administrator, holds no veto power and does not supervise, evaluate or set goals for city departments. The city attorney is an elected position, which the SPUR report said blurs who they are supposed to represent. The City Council, meanwhile, doesn't select, direct, oversee or evaluate the city administrator or any department heads, leaving members and their constituents frustrated when city workers don't carry out their policy directions. Plus, as Falk wrote recently on the Oakland Charter Reform Project's Substack, 'it has resulted in high turnover of the professional city administrator (six in the last five years!), which, in turn, negatively impacts the city's budget, workplace culture, and operations.' Oakland residents aren't happy, either. Last October, 75% said the city was on the 'wrong track,' up 10 points from 2022, according to the annual survey. Council Member Janani Ramachandran told me that when her constituents ask her, 'Why can't you fill my pothole, council member?' she replies, 'Well, I'm prohibited by the charter from directing staff, and I have no authority over city administrator. I don't even have the power to fire him in my role on council.' 'Right now,' Ramachandran said, 'the buck is being passed from one part of the city to another, to another on every other issue.' Ramachadran said the need for charter reform 'speaks to the dysfunction that a lot of Oakland residents are seeing right now, and why they feel like they can't have a voice in the process.' Lee is on board with improving the charter, too, though she wants to hear from the community first. Part of her plan for her first 100 days in office includes appointing 'a task force of League of Women Voters, ethics and good government experts to modernize Oakland's Charter and strengthen government accountability.' Ramachandran told me that in the next week or two, she will introduce a resolution to create that task force, which will spend months gathering community input all over Oakland and creating a reform plan to put on the June 2026 ballot. Lee, Ramachadran, City Council President Kevin Jenkins and Falk's team met last week to discuss changing the charter. Getting voters on board will not be easy, as this can be dense, wonky stuff. City leaders will need to spend a lot of time educating Oaklanders over the next year about how changing the way city government is structured could make it work better. (It helps that this is happening during the Ezra Klein-supercharged 'Abundance' moment of the political zeitgeist, which is challenging Democratic-led cities to show that they can accomplish something beyond virtue signaling.) Ramachadran, who frequently explains legislation on Tiktok and Instagram posts, conceded that charter reform will test the limits of her explanatory abilities. Hell, talking about charter reform might melt TikTok. 'Often the problem with these kinds of citywide initiatives and ballot measures that don't necessarily reflect what the average voter knows or understands is we're not speaking their language,' Ramachandran said. 'Usually, politicians and people that write these ballot measures are talking to people already involved in politics. You know, the people involved in the League of Women Voters and the neighborhood council leadership, not the 21-year-old from down the street or 55-year-old who only votes every four years.' Ramachadran said she is keeping an open mind about what system would be the best for Oakland and will let public input be her guide. She and Falk agree that the answer isn't the current system. Oakland's system is an outlier in California. Falk said 97% of cities have a council-manager form of government. Under this system, the council sets policy and supervises an appointed city manager who oversees daily operations. The mayor is selected from among the council members and serves as its president, leads meetings and holds a vote equal to other members. The city attorney is appointed by the council, not elected, and represents one client: the municipal government. Cities including San Jose, Long Beach and Riverside employ a similar system. Falk proposes tweaking this system slightly. He calls it a 'unitary strong mayor plan' — to give the mayor some form of a veto, which likely would be one of the most contentious provisions debated over the next year. But he believes it would make the mayor and council more responsive to residents and more nimble. 'That new power to vote — if paired with veto power — would make (the mayor's position) the most powerful mayor Oakland has seen in over a century,' Falk and his team wrote on Substack. Empowering a mayor like that comes with a potential downside, Falk acknowledged: 'A mayoral veto centralizes tremendous civic power in one individual. A mayor with a veto could diminish the city council's role in policymaking and, in so doing, generate resentment among council members and community groups who feel their influence is reduced. A veto could also be abused by the mayor to block popular legislation for personal or political reasons.' But mayors in six of California's top 17 cities have veto power. That will get worked out over the next year. What is indisputable is that change is needed. As Ramachandran said, 'There's no one magic (move) here that's going to solve Oakland's dysfunction. But I really believe this is going to be a major piece to starting to break down that dysfunction.'