The state has also undertaken a series of procurements aimed at securing large-scale storage capacity. In December 2025, Massachusetts selected four projects totaling 1.3 GW of capacity to move ahead to contract negotiations with the major utilities. A second solicitation received 35 bids before it closed earlier this month; selected projects are set to be announced in February.
Together, these actions create a climate that storage developers can rely on, said Hans Detweiler, vice president of development for Jupiter Power, the company behind the 700-MW Trimount project just outside Boston, where construction is slated to begin next year.
“Moving through permitting and state solicitations takes years, so developers need confidence that the policy framework will remain stable over that period,” he said. “The Healey administration has consistently supported a procurement process that brings cost-effective resources to the grid to reduce electricity costs for consumers.”
Even with all the state’s efforts, however, barriers remain. Perhaps the most pressing is the cost of interconnecting major projects like these to the grid.
In September, developers canceled plans for a 125-MW battery system in the town of Tewksbury, citing the unexpectedly high cost — $65 million — of the upgrades necessary to hook into the grid. And that number is on the low end. Grid operator Independent System Operator New England recently completed a study of likely interconnection costs for a number of proposed projects, most of which were battery developments sited in Massachusetts. Many of the estimates topped $200 million, “quite a bit higher than developers anticipated,” Smith said.
“We have an older grid here in New England, and it genuinely does require some upgrade costs to accommodate the influx of batteries,” she said. “How to allocate grid upgrade costs is going to be a debate.”
Many battery proposals are also running into ardent community opposition. Locals in the central Massachusetts town of Oakham are fighting a plan to build a 180-MW battery system, pointing to the risk of fires, which could contaminate a nearby reservoir that supplies drinking water to dozens of communities. Last year, similar concerns helped derail a proposed project in the city of Westfield.
These fears may seem reasonable, especially in light of highly publicized battery fires like the one in Moss Landing, California, but they do not reflect the reality of storage system safety today, said Todd Olinsky-Paul, senior project director for the Clean Energy States Alliance, a coalition of state energy agencies.
“It’s something new. People are nervous about it,” he said. “They may be hearing misinformation about possible environmental impacts.”
Battery boosters are hopeful that transparency and education can help blunt these objections. The battery fires that have made headlines in recent years almost all used a different kind of technology than those used in current installations. Safety protocols have also improved over the years, making fires even less likely.
Despite these potential hurdles, the state’s commitment to easing the way for battery developments bodes well for the future, Lang said.
“The policy framework in place is certainly having an influence on bringing developers to Massachusetts. It holds a lot of promise,” he said. “I am optimistic that the challenges can be overcome.”
