Massachusetts bets on 10 GW of battery storage by 2035

By Elena Vasquez

Massachusetts is targeting 10 GW of battery storage by 2035, with a 700 MW project outside Boston expected to dwarf every other battery installation in New England.

The plan calls for 5 GW online by 2030 and another 5 GW by 2035. Its 10 GW goal is the highest among procurement targets set by 13 states, although California already has 23 GW of installed storage.

What is driving the buildout?

The project pipeline includes:

• Jupiter Power’s 700 MW Trimount project just outside Boston, which is slated to begin construction next year.
• A separate developer one town over that closed $850 million in financing for a 250 MW battery.
• A 200 MW storage facility near the Rhode Island border that has broken ground and is expected to run by the end of the year.
• Roughly half a dozen other projects at various stages.

“Massachusetts is really a leader in this space,” said Erin Smith, energy and grid policy director for the Environmental League of Massachusetts. “We’re ahead of the pack as it relates to encouraging battery buildout.”

Batteries can charge when power is cheapest and cleanest, such as during periods of abundant solar production, then discharge during heavier demand. That can reduce reliance on more expensive, dirtier generation while reducing outages during extreme and erratic weather.

State Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahony said storage can deploy at different times to manage system load. Massachusetts also has ambitious clean-energy goals and some of the country’s highest electricity prices, giving storage a strong policy and cost case.

Massachusetts has pursued large-scale storage for 11 years, starting with the Energy Storage Initiative launched in 2015 under then-Gov. Charlie Baker (R). The state exceeded its original target of 1 GW by 2025 and reached more than 1.6 GW.

How do state policies support projects?

Three policy levers now shape deployment. The Clean Peak Standard, effective in 2020, is the country’s first program to pay renewable-energy facilities and storage owners for sending power to the grid during peak demand.

That payment adds revenue that can make a battery financially viable.

“Those credits are incredibly important to financing and developing these projects,” said Aaron Lang, a partner at Boston law firm Foley Hoag who represents several battery developers.

Siting reforms effective July 1 streamline approvals by giving the state Energy Facilities Siting Board authority over large energy projects, including storage facilities of 100 MW or more. Developers no longer have to work through separate municipal permitting processes, and the board must decide within 15 months of an application.

Smith said the change can bring clean energy, including batteries, online sooner.

In December 2025, Massachusetts selected four projects totaling 1.3 GW to advance to contract negotiations with major utilities. A second solicitation closed earlier this month with 35 bids; the state plans to announce the selected projects in February.

Jupiter Power development vice president Hans Detweiler said developers need confidence that policy will remain stable because permitting and state solicitations can take years. He said the Healey administration has backed procurements for cost-effective grid resources intended to lower consumer electricity costs.

For developers, the state now links project approval to two potential revenue paths: peak-demand payments and utility contracting. The unresolved cost sits between those mechanisms and construction.

Where can projects still stall?

Grid interconnection remains the most pressing barrier. In September, developers canceled a 125 MW battery in Tewksbury, citing $65 million in unexpectedly high grid-upgrade costs, a figure toward the low end of the emerging range.

Independent System Operator New England recently studied likely interconnection costs for several proposed projects, most of them batteries in Massachusetts. Many estimates exceeded $200 million, well above developer expectations.

Smith said New England’s older grid needs upgrades to handle incoming batteries, and the debate now centers on who should pay those costs.

Local opposition is also affecting proposals. Residents in Oakham are fighting a proposal for 180 MW of battery capacity because they fear a fire could contaminate a nearby reservoir that supplies drinking water to dozens of communities. Similar concerns derailed a Westfield proposal last year.

Todd Olinsky-Paul, senior project director for the Clean Energy States Alliance, a coalition of state energy agencies, said those fears may appear reasonable after the publicized Moss Landing, California, battery fire but do not reflect current storage-system safety.

He said residents may be hearing misinformation about environmental impacts. Olinsky-Paul noted that almost all highly publicized battery fires in recent years used technology different from current installations, while improved safety protocols have made fires less likely.

Supporters hope transparency and education can reduce objections.

Lang said the state’s policy framework is influencing developer decisions, holds promise and gives him optimism that the remaining challenges can be overcome.

What decides the next phase?

The next market checkpoint comes in February, when Massachusetts names the projects from its second solicitation. Contract negotiations and decisions over who bears New England grid-upgrade costs will determine how much of the state’s 10 GW goal moves from pipeline to construction.