MEC on 11/2/17


MEC

Medfield Energy Committee

Nov. 2, 2017

 

Attending: Gerry McCarty, Lee Alinsky, Cynthia Greene, Marie Nolan, Pete Peterson, Fred Davis

Minutes by FD, MN

 

Green Communities Funds

 

Total GC grant of $148,000: $110,723 is the RISE quote for retro commissioning of Mid. Sch. & HS (Gerry will re-send that detail). We applied in May; in September, Kelly Brown at DOER asked various q’s; including how we’re going to deal with the rebate program, and what will be identified during retro-commissioning. Within a week, RISE responded; re the latter: excess ventilation, set-points, scheduling. Now we’re waiting for DOER again.

 

In the meantime, Kelly asked on 10/31: what else do we propose to do with the grant funds?

 

GM: since we’ve gotten clarification that an audit is not necessary to replace the Blake water heater,  looked at Table 4, and suggested the outdoor lighting work at Blake and Memorial School parking lots, respectively $18,287 and $16,620; totaling $34,907. RISE provided details on 10/31 for those measures, they match the values in Table 4. FD offered to scrutinize the specs; offhand recommended that the latest thinking in LEDs is to utilize dimming/controls as much as possible; this may include dimming down or turning off in a parking lot, and tuning to desired light levels.

 

This would leave $2300. The full $148,000 must be spent down before applying for next round.

  1. as to when the deadline might be for next round of funds.

 

Google Drive

LA: still un-workable; Marie: will work on it

 

Solar on Roof at DPW

Solar roof loading analysis for DPW defined as parts A, B, and C: we now have a stamped engineering report from Solect’s engineer, EAH Structural Consulting dated 11/29/17, saying “existing roof framing systems are judged to be adequate to withstand the loadings imposed by the installation of the solar panels.” Cost for this was in range of $1000. (HMTB should have done this.)

 

Solar on DPW: original design by Solar Design Associates needs to be re-done; originally it was design-bid-build, a performance specification. There were only two bidders, one didn’t meet DCAM Cert., other was very high, above the budgeted amount. Now we would ask SDA to do firm specs, and ask for base bid and design alternates to cover parts of the roof, to help ensure that we meet the budgeted amount (allotted from DPW budget _____________).

 

 

[At this point, Marie Nolan took over from Fred Davis recording the meeting’s minutes as Fred now began a discussion regarding the LED STREET LIGHTS project.]

 

 

11.2.17 continuation of notes ….

 

Light Smart Energy Consulting (George Woodbury) has offered to meet with MEC, present its report, and walk through the next steps.  FD cannot be at a fixture selection meeting so we may need Woodbury’s help for that.

 

MEC questions posed:

  • How do we reconcile the numbers between the DPRS assessment (utility report) and Woodbury’s field count?
  • Does it affect the $1 price?  No.  George is checking with Eversource on the agreement.
  • Does it change the figures we are going to get? Woodbury will take the counts and recommend substitution.  Ask Light Smart to recommend approach to deciding what wattage to choose if there is a street with several wattages (e.g. lowest or average?)

 

Bottom line – not much change in terms of energy, 11 fewer but higher wattages shown on DPRS (347 on DPRS and 333 in field).  Correct when on S2 rate (town rate), but we are on S1 (Eversource rate).

$20,000 is the maintenance.

 

Questions for Woodbury:

  • Provide an estimate for maintenance contract.
  • Where are other streetlights needed in Town such as at the Pfaff Center, Public Safety building, DPW?
  • Are you going to provide a GIS map of where the lights are?
  • What is the timeline for taking possession of the streetlights?
  • Are old documents still valid?
  • How do we tell Eversource that the count is incorrect?
  • How do we negotiate a change in our bill?   (Need to go to Selectmen when we want to enter into a contract.)
  • How do you choose light color?  Why did Wellesley choose 2,700?
  • How do you correct for glare?  (Often biggest complaint)

 

First step is to set up Woodbury attending MEC meeting. We do not want to own the lights and maintain them before the retrofit. Needs to happen together.

 

Are we doing test lights to decide on color?? Six years ago – 5,000 was norm. Since then, always been 4,000. The past year, some lights are available at 3,000 kelvins and they are still efficient as the higher ones.  Wellesley is choosing 2,700 kelvins (they found efficiency drops between 3,000 to 2,700)

 

We may end up with 4 wattages and 2 types.

Must keep good records and rules of thumb for dial settings at certain locations.

 

Personal preference – Westwood has lights that are 4,000 kelvins.  Newburyport has 3,000.

 

LED – colors will be better under lamps.

 

Lighting has to be SMART control ready.  Do not add it now as expensive .  Woodbury would not recommend controls now because of our size.

 

NEXT MEETING: DEC. 7

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s