Category Archives: Energy Committee

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Medfield Energy Committee

April 23, 2013

AGENDA

7:30 pm in Town Hall, Chenery Room

I.  Accept minutes of last meeting – March 26, 2013

II. Update on MEC/Medfield Green Energy Series 2013

            Last talk was on 4/7 –EMFs and Human Health

III. Other Events

            Participation in Medfield Green Day at Town Center/Library – 5/4

            Town Meeting –  4/29

IV. PV Feasibility at WWTP site

            Any follow-up done after 2/25-site visit and presentations

V.  Progress on updating Town Energy Use and Reductions since 2008. 

            See MEC letter in annual town reports, updated school numbers, GCA documents

VI. Other Business

            Potential Future Activities –

                        GCA designation for 2014

                        Provide support to Capital Planning & Building Committee activities –                                              DPW garage; Police/Fire Station; Hospital Hill site

                        RFP for Solar PPA’s on muni sites

                        Other

VII. Set Date and Agenda for next meeting

Energy
Committee
Meeting
Minutes
March
26,
2013,
7:30
P.M.
Town
Hall
Present:
Marie
Nolan,
Emre
Schveighoffer,
Cynthia
Greene,
Charles
Kellner,
Osler
Peterson,
and
Michael
Sullivan.
Also
present
was
Adam
Graber,
Jeff
Hyman
and
Ryan
McLaughlin.
Chairman
Nolan
called
the
meeting
to
order
at
7:30
P.M.
Greene
moved
to
accept
the
minutes
of
the
February
4,
2013
meeting,
as
amended.
Kellner
seconded
her
motion
and
the
minutes
were
approved,
unanimously.
Committee
members
discussed
the
March
13th
presentation
by
Dan
Ruben
entitled
“Keep
Your
Lifestyle,
Change
Your
Footprint”
sponsored
jointly
by
Medfield
Green
and
the
Medfield
Energy
Committee.
It
was
agreed
that
there
were
many
useful
ideas
in
the
presentation,
although
some
of
the
suggestions,
such
as
lowering
the
temperature
in
the
home
to
58
degrees,
would
be
difficult
to
do.
The
next
presentation
will
be
on
April
7,
2013
at
the
Harmony
Center
and
will
be
entitled
“EMFs
and
Human
Health”.
Nolan
also
advised
that
Medfield.TV
would
be
holding
it’s
annual
“Volunteer
Appreciation
Day
and
Annual
Meeting
at
7:00
p.m.
on
March
27th
at
the
High
School.
The
library
is
sponsoring
an
event
at
the
Gazebo
on
May
4,
9:00
a.m.
–
4
p.m.,
to
inform
residents
about
sustainable
activities
and
services
available
in
Medfield.
Graber
and
Hyman
will
try
to
attend
to
answer
questions
and
inform
residents
about
the
work
of
the
Medfield
Energy
Committee.
Nolan
has
submitted
the
Committee
report
for
inclusion
in
the
Town’s
annual
report.
She
noted
that
she
was
not
able
to
find
a
contact
at
Columbia
Gas
of
Massachusetts
to
find
out
what
the
natural
gas
consumption
was
in
Medfield.
Nolan
led
a
discussion
of
the
well-­‐attended
and
very
informative
program
presented
Saturday
morning,
March
23,
2013
by
Bob
McDonald
at
the
wastewater
treatments
plant.
McDonald
had
arranged
for
three
speakers
to
make
presentations
on
photovoltaic
solar
facilities
and
also
gave
a
tour
of
the
plant
at
the
conclusion
of
the
presentations.
Nolan
had
prepared
notes
on
the
presentation
and
distributed
them
to
MEC
members
earlier.
Presenters
included:
1)
Andy
Bakanowski-­‐Mass
Dept.
of
Resource
Management
(discussed
project
management,
i.e.
installation
and
care
of
units
once
on
line),
2)
Rich
McCarthy-­‐
Innovations
Solutions
Engineering
(discussed
third
party
funding
vs.
town
financing,
what
size
solar
farm
we
could
install
on
WWTP
property)
and
3)
Patricia
Arp-­‐Mass
DEP,
SRF
program
(discussed
state
revolving
funds
for
solar
projects,
RFP
grants
and
project
management).
Various
solar
ownership
and
financing
options
are
available
for
the
town,
including
1)
owning
the
facility
outright,
2)
leasing
land
and/or
3)
rooftop
space
to
developers
who
would
pay
for
the
installation
and
sell
the
energy
generated
to
the
Town,
which
in
turn
would
sell
it
to
the
utility
and
get
a
credit
on
its
energy
bill(s).
And
lastly,
the
Town
could
also
contract
with
a
private
facility
for
purchase
of
electricity,
which
is
generated
at
a
facility
on
privately
owned
land,
which
could
be
located
anywhere
in
the
utility’s
distribution
region.
One
presenter
shared
some
considerations
that
would
have
to
be
assessed
before
selling
solar
generated
power
in
MA.
It
is
considerably
more
complicated
to
sell
electricity
offsite,
instead
of
using
it
onsite.
State
utilities
do
not
appear
to
be
anxious
to
purchase
power
from
small
solar
photovoltaic
facilities
and
can
impose
large
connection
charges.
Before
starting,
a
study
has
to
be
done,
paid
for
by
the
facility
owner
and
the
cost
of
this
study
could
run
from
a
few
thousand
dollars
up
to
many
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars.
Also
the
utilities
could
specify
the
route
the
sold
power
would
take
to
be
fed
into
the
grid
and
the
utilities
sometimes
use
this
as
a
way
to
get
the
generator
to
pay
for
maintenance
upgrades
on
their
distribution
systems.
The
feasibility
of
small-­‐scale
hydro
was
discussed
at
the
WWTP
presentation
as
several
other
MA
communities
have
looked
into
this
as
well
as
the
MWRA.
MEC
will
continue
to
research
whether
this
is
possible
at
the
town’s
WWTP.
There
is
concern
that
the
drop
will
not
be
high
enough
to
produce
enough
power
to
make
such
a
project
economically
feasible.
Schveighoffer
wondered
whether
it
made
sense
to
concentrate
on
the
low-­‐hanging
fruit;
undertaking
small
energy
conservation
projects
that
reduced
our
energy
consumption
rather
than
trying
to
build
generating
capacity.
Nolan
said
that
that
was
what
the
town
has
been
doing
and
as
a
result,
the
town
had
reduced
its
consumption
by
30%
or
so
since
the
MEC
was
formed
in
2008
and
numbers
have
been
tracked.
She
thought
now
would
be
a
good
time
for
the
Town
to
build
some
type
of
energy
generator,
whether
that
is
solar
or
hydro
or
some
other
technology,
given
installation
prices
have
dropped
and
state
incentives
still
exist.
Schveighoffer
asked
if
the
Town
could
provide
information
on
pumping
rates
for
water
and
sewer
facilities,
monthly
energy
consumption
rates
for
buildings,
and
other
information
that
could
be
used
with
the
billing
information
collected
on
NSTAR.
This
information
could
then
be
used
to
evaluate
how
further
energy
reductions
could
best
be
accomplished.
Kellner
said
that
he
could
provide
such
information
on
school
buildings,
as
he
had
been
keeping
track
of
it
for
several
years.
He
will
get
that
information
to
Sullivan
for
circulation
to
the
rest
of
the
Committee.
Graber
and
McLaughlin
volunteered
to
prepare
charts
and/or
graphs,
based
on
the
information
collected,
showing
what
has
happened
to
the
Town’s
energy
usage.
This
information
by
building/use
was
collected
by
the
MEC
a
few
years
ago
but
should
be
updated
to
the
current
year.
An
energy
baseline
inventory
of
municipal
buildings,
vehicles,
street
and
traffic
lights,
with
a
DRAFT
energy
reduction
plan
(20%
over
5
years)
was
collected
and
prepared
previously
by
MEC,
as
it
is
a
criteria
to
be
a
MA
Green
Community.
Nolan
informed
the
Committee
that
Paul
Hurd,
the
Executive
Director
of
the
Housing
Authority
had
resigned
to
accept
a
full-­‐time
position
with
the
Winchester
Housing
Authority.
She
wondered
what
would
happen
with
the
efforts
of
the
Housing
Authority
to
reduce
its
energy
consumption.
Sullivan
will
contact
Housing
Authority
Chairman
Roberta
Lynch
to
get
an
update
on
the
Housing
Authority’s
plans
on
hiring
a
replacement
and
on
proceeding
with
its
energy
conservation
initiatives.
Graber
passed
around
a
paper
from
the
Rocky
Mountain
Research
Institute
on
energy
reduction
strategies
for
members
to
take
a
look
at.
Greene
mentioned
that
the
Institute
makes
its
research
papers
available
on-­‐line
free
of
charge.
The
Committee
discussed
what
the
goals
of
the
committee
should
be
going
forward
and
will
continue
that
discussion
at
the
next
meeting.
The
next
meeting
was
scheduled
for
April
23rd
at
7:30
p.m.
The
Committee
will
ask
the
Selectmen
to
appoint
Graber
and
McLaughlin
to
the
Committee.
Hyman
would
like
more
time
to
consider
whether
he
wished
to
be
appointed.
On
a
motion
by
Kellner,
seconded
by
Schveighoffer,
the
Committee
voted,
unanimously
to
adjourn
the
meeting
at
9:00
p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Michael
J.
Sullivan

From the Medfield Energy Committee’s David Temple (originally in the New York Times on 4/2/13) –

Slide Show

More Than Just Green

Tenants have already begun moving into the six-story Bullitt Center, in advance of its grand opening on Earth Day, April 22. With the final touches nearly complete on the 50,000-square-foot office building at 1501 East Madison Street, at the edge of the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, its occupants are about to embark upon an unparalleled — and very public — experiment in sustainability.

Once settled in, they will be guinea pigs in a $30 million living laboratory distinguished by its composting toilets, strict energy and water budgets and a conspicuous lack of on-site parking. To earn its environmental bragging rights, the Bullitt Center must complete a rigorous one-year certification process called the Living Building Challenge, which requires both water and energy self-sufficiency, among a list of 20 demands.

Provided that the building clears a few remaining regulatory hurdles, all its water will be supplied by rainwater collected in a 56,000-gallon cistern before being filtered and disinfected. A rooftop array of photovoltaic panels, extending beyond the building like the brim of a graduation mortarboard, will produce an estimated 230,000 kilowatt-hours a year, hopefully just enough to break even for a building that is 83 percent more efficient than the city’s typical commercial site.

The project’s backers, led by the environmentally minded Bullitt Foundation, hope to demonstrate that a carbon-neutral office space can be commercially viable and aesthetically stunning without saddling its occupants with onerous demands. And they are determined to make their strategy and performance so transparent that it can be easily copied.

Instead of tucking the mechanical and electrical rooms out of sight, for example, large plate glass windows will showcase the engineering, while quick response codes tag points of interest so tourists can use their smartphones to learn about individual elements, according to Chris Rogers, the chief executive and partner of the developer, Point32.

A kiosk in a double-height exhibition space will also let visitors access real-time measurements like the building’s indoor air quality, energy consumption, photovoltaic power production and water levels. The Bullitt Center, in fact, will be one of the planet’s most closely monitored commercial buildings, allowing managers to single out energy hogs down to the level of individual plugs, said Robert B. Peña, an associate professor of architecture in the Integrated Design Lab at the University of Washington.

If the building is still the highest-performing one of its kind 10 years from now, said Denis Hayes, president and chief executive of the Bullitt Foundation, the experiment will have failed.

The Living Building Challenge’s imperatives go far beyond those of the better-known LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification. Its yearlong vetting process is designed in part to avoid the embarrassment suffered by some LEED certified buildings, where seemingly efficient buildings have proven to be much less so after the buildings have been completed and undergone energy audits.

While a number of states, counties and municipalities provide tax credits and fee reductions for LEED structures, only a few municipalities have followed suit so far for the newer Living Building Challenge. Nevertheless, proponents say that avoiding energy and water utility bills for 250 years, the expected life span of the Bullitt Center, offers its own compelling financial incentives.

The Living Building Challenge has 143 registered projects in 10 countries. Its process is so demanding, however, that only three buildings in the United States have been fully certified so far; the largest of those is an eighth the size of the Bullitt Center.

 So much potential energy savings has already been wrung out of the building in its construction that nearly half of the expected electricity use will depend on what’s plugged into the outlets. Every tenant will be expected to abide by strict annual usage budgets or pay for overages, but extra-fine electrical circuits and detailed outlet metering can help diagnose problem spots down to, say, a malfunctioning printer.

(Page 2 of 2)

Mr. Hayes is keenly aware that the building’s success depends upon its attractiveness to tenants, and his development team is promoting several distinctive features, including the fact that it may be the first heavy-timber midrise building erected in Seattle since the 1920s. The timber and steel frame uses native Douglas fir certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. The exposed wood ceilings on the 13-foot-high upper floors also contribute to an airy loftlike feel, with exposed steel cross braces and 10-foot-high windows that maximize daylight.

Multimedia

Slide Show

More Than Just Green

Another signature feature, a glass-enclosed stairwell that Mr. Hayes has named the “irresistible stairway,” rewards climbers with panoramic views of downtown and Puget Sound. The behavioral carrot, aimed at promoting both health and energy conservation, has been juxtaposed with the stick of a slow and less conveniently sited elevator that requires key card access. With advertised lease rates of $28 to $30 a square foot, the building is in line with comparable properties.

It helps that a group of enthusiastic early adopters has already leased more than two-thirds of the available office space. That group includes several organizations and companies heavily invested in the project’s success: PAE Consulting Engineers, the building’s lead engineering firm; the developer Point32, which will manage a 40-desk co-working space; the Integrated Design Lab, which played a major consulting role and will have both office space and a 40-seat classroom; and the International Living Future Institute, which since 2006 has run the Living Building Challenge.

The pioneering spirit resonates strongly with other tenants-to-be like Michele Gomes, co-owner and chief creative officer of Interchange Media Art Productions, a video and television production company.

Ms. Gomes and her business partner are leasing two desks on the fourth floor co-working space, a “huge move up” from her company’s current office in a windowless and perpetually cold basement, she said. Even more important, Ms. Gomes is eager to work among peers who have similar sustainability values. “To have like-minded people sharing the same space, to me that’s going to be extremely inspiring,” she said.

Intentional Futures, a technology and software-focused design and engineering studio founded by former Microsoft executives, has leased the 7,900-square-foot fifth floor. Ian Sands, a co-founder and managing partner, said the 20-employee company had outgrown its office directly beneath a local broadcaster’s helipad and was looking to tap into the creative energy emanating from the city’s bustling Pike-Pine Corridor.

Although Mr. Sands admires the decision to forgo a traditional garage, he said the lack of on-site parking, coupled with Seattle’s inadequate mass transit, could create commuting headaches for employees who live in the city’s eastern suburbs and who may “have to figure out other methods or places to park nearby because they will have to drive.”

Mr. Hayes said the decision to not have on-site parking generated “spirited conversation” during the design phase. Instead, a space about the size of a three-car garage will be reserved exclusively for bicycles, while commuting bicyclists can wash away the morning sweat in one of the rainwater-fed showers on each floor.

Steve Whitney, the Bullitt Foundation’s program officer, said he had adapted to his new work space by buying a second bike.

On a partly cloudy afternoon in early March, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Hayes, and three other Bullitt Foundation employees gathered in a glass-walled conference room in their sixth floor office to offer some admittedly biased first impressions.

Less than a week after moving from a nearly windowless brick carriage house, the employees were still amazed by the spectacular views, ample natural light and almost distracting quiet. The composting toilets, though, remained a source of curiosity even for them, and early discussions have centered on the pulse of foam that cascades down the inner rim of each funnel-shaped bowl to expedite its delivery to the waiting composters below.

Two weeks later, Mr. Peña led a tour group of corporate real estate professionals through the bowels of the Bullitt Center to check out the business end of the 24 toilets. Two rows of five bright blue aerobic composters, each the “size of a Fiat 500,” he figured, were busily doing their thing — so efficiently that the first compost extraction would not be required for another 18 months, when the resulting mulch will be commingled with other compost from King County.

But do they smell? Mr. Peña invited his tour group of 20 to inspect the boxy composters up close and determine for themselves: they did not. The aerobic process is odorless, provided that the building’s maintenance workers ensure proper ventilation and regular mixing.

Ultimately, Mr. Peña hoped the building’s novelties would become invisible as the occupants adjusted. “As much as I like to think of this building as a living laboratory, I think for the commercial tenants in this building, we also want it to be just as normal as possible,” he said.

Good Bruce Mohl article in Commonwealth Magazine on solar energy production in Massachusetts, and why it would be good for Medfield to get into municipal solar.

Energy Committee Meeting Minutes

October 25, 2012, 7:30 P.M. Town Hall

Present: Marie Nolan, Cynthia Greene, Lee Alinsky, Fred Davis, Charles Kellner, David Temple, Osler Peterson, Michael Sullivan and David Cressman, guest.

Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.

I. Accept minutes of last meeting – September 27, 2012 Minutes by Mike Sullivan were accepted.

II. Dartmouth Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Strategies Discussion with Town of Dartmouth Administrator

David Cressman, Town Administrator of Dartmouth, MA shared his experiences regarding that town’s successful renewable energy activities. He had previously been in Tewksbury. In Dartmouth, an energy committee was started around 2000 by his predecessor; the committee had significant engineering talent. The focus was wind, thinking it would provide biggest bang for buck. But around 3 yrs ago, it had become “a runaway locomotive”; they were looking at 80-100 meter turbines; that was too high, as it was in a flight path; also too close to wetlands, zoning issues, then financing. The reward looked ok, but with low confidence, only 50%, meaning high risk. At 80-90% confidence, the picture was much less rosy; plus noise concerns. Was heading for 8 MW. Switched from town-owned to a firm-owned project which would sell electricity to town. However, no wind developments ensued.

Switched focus to installing PV (photovoltaic) on capped landfill. Got town meeting approval to lease land for 20 years. By this point, there were many wind opponents who easily became solar proponents. Gave solar farm companies as-of-right in any zone in Town. Asked for RFPs, considered quality, experience, price.

Developments in the past 3 years:

• 1.8MW ConEd [ConEdison Development] in industrial park; 20-acre parcel, 10-acre plant.
• 2.6MW ConEd in residential Hicksville area, problems with residents, demanded special town meeting.
• 1.3MW Borrego [Borrego Solar Systems] on Reed Rd. Sports field, abutting residential, no problems.
• 1.4MW Borrego on landfill. Town agrees to buy back electricity at $.08 / KWH, no inflation for 20 years. Attorney General, according to 40A Sect 3, asked for consideration (?).
• 6.2MW EMI [Energy Management Inc.], “Cape Wind company” at Energy Park, paying $.099 / KWH.
• 3.4MW Borrego at High Hill.
• 6.0MW No-Fossil [No Fossil Fuel] on Fisher Rd.

Electricity consumption for Dartmouth, municipal uses only, comes to 10MW. Town is buying this electricity, meaning for municipal uses, from the developers. Buying at $.08 / KWH, credit from Nstar for $.12 / KWH, therefore net $.04 / KWH cost (?). Developer sells (? or attempting to sell?) other production to area companies, after reaching capacity of sales to town. Developer is getting tax credits; making most of their money in the first 7 years, depreciation allowance. Town is also making money from leasing the land.

To do all this, Cresman highly recommends a specialist attorney. He successfully used Mark C. Kalpin, Partner, and Co-Chair of the Cleantech and Energy Group at WilmerHale, who “has a boutique business specializing in this.”

One concern is what if the support for net metering should shift? Either then would negotiate a new price, or could break the contract after paying the “terminal value.”

There is a market for Solar RECs [Solar Renewable Energy Certificate] – investments in solar projects The “Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has carved-out a portion of the RPS Class I Renewable Energy requirement to support distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) energy facilities, as provided by the Green Communities Act of 2008” – see their website for more info at:

http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/solar/rps-solar-carve-out/

Dartmouth insisted that developers pay taxes, not PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes).  The Town now reached capacity for distributed generation.  Currently projecting ~$7 million in electricity savings over 20 years from these photovoltaic projects (compare that previously they had been thinking about ~$3 million from wind).  Projects must have a 30-foot vegetative buffer, and a 75-foot setback. There have been a couple of MA towns like Falmouth who “also got out of control in wind.”

Discussion followed about possible application for Medfield. Pete asked are there 20-acre parcels in Medfield that could potentially be solar generation energy sites? Answers:

• It will be maybe ~10 yrs until Medfield’s landfill is available.
• There are about 40 acres available behind Wheelock.
• The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is about 2.1 acres, already fenced in and remote (Marie: TGE can do a quick feasiblity assessment; Mike will talk with head of the WWTP). The price of land in Medfield is probably different because parts of Dartmouth are older strip-malls and dormant industrial areas. Medfield’s municipal electricity bill is $1.1 million / yr.

III. Report out on WWTP audit findings

Mike reported out on the results of the energy audit of the Wastewater Treatment Plant which was presented to the Selectmen and interested parties by NSTAR and its contractor Horizon Solutions on October 29, 2012.  The energy audit was a result of the town’s application to MA DOER for assistance with energy conservation strategies at the WWTP.

Mike reported that of all the 23 WWTP plants in the state, municipal and regional, that were audited, DOER concluded that Medfield’s was the most energy efficient! And we’re doing it all without state or federal subsidy or financing. Energy bill is ~$9000 / month. There is talk of new technology from Europe which might eventually allow the WWTP to be even more efficient.

IV. MEC follow-up to Town Charter and Bylaw Committee request

Marie wrote letter as discussed.

V. MEC/Medfield Green Winter Series on Energy Issues

• First session: January 17 at Library, 7:00 – 8:30 pm on residential energy conservation and efficiency. Can Pasi from Sagewell come to explain infrared pictures to residents and next steps? Maybe NStar Green presentation? Consider explaining how to use kill-a-watt meters in a home? Marie will followup with Medfield Green.
• Second session: February 28 at Library to focus on renewables, esp. individual homeowners’ experiences such as Chief of Police converting home to solar; Anna Mae O’Shea Brooke’s home conversion to  geothermal.
• Third session: April 7 at Harmony Center to focus on electromagnetic emissions (EMFs) from technoloical advances (including smart meters) and how they affect us.  This program is being sponsored by Medfield Green and The Harmony Center.

VI. Sagewell Mass Thermal Imaging Initiative Update

David Temple wrote an article which was published in Medfield Press Friday October 12: “Utilizing Thermal Imaging Can Save You Energy, Cash: Time’s Running Out on Free Energy-Saving Programs.”

VII. Set Date and Agenda for next meeting

Thursday, November 29, 2012.

Minutes respectfully submitted by Fred Davis, thanks for help from Marie Nolan and Mike Sullivan.

Medfield Energy Committee
November 29, 2012 Meeting Minutes

Attending: Lee Alinsky, Fred Bunger, Cynthia Green, Marie Nolan,
Pete Peterson, Mike Sullivan, David Temple, Ryan McLaughlin

1. Minutes of October 25, 2012 meeting were approved.

2. Reviewed TGE analysis of Solar PV installations of 0.7 and 2.3
acres at Wastewater Treatment Plant. Both have same payout of
11.7 years based on assumed electricity cost of $.18/kWh and a
return of $.20/kWh from the sale of REC’s. The WWTP energy use
averages 58,000 kWh/month at an average cost of $9,313/month or energy cost of $.159/kWh. Marie will have the analysis updated
using current electricity pricing.

3. MEC is collaborating with Medfield Green on a Energy
Conservation and Alternative Energy series in January and February (possibly March). The first session is January 17. Speakers include Patsi Miettinen, Sagewell president, perhaps Next Step Living, Dan Ruben (energy use reduction speaker and Director of Boston Green Tourism), and residents who have implemented alternative energy projects on their homes such as Chief Meaney and Anna May O’Shea-Brooks. Marie will contact Medfield Green about the content of Dan Ruben’s talk.

4. DOER Clean Energy Grant Program Solicitation to help
communities with planning. Mike Sullivan will send a letter of intent to DOER regarding Medfield interest in solar PV at the wastewater
treatment plant.

5. As part of the solicitation for interest in the solar PV at the
wastewater treatment plant, MEC feels it would be useful for the
potential vendors to look at other Town property and buildings and
provide proposals where feasible.

6. A December holiday get-together is tentatively planned for
December 18 or 19 at Marie Nolan’s.

f. bunger 11/30/12

Exciting and fascinating information at Energy Committee last night –

• Town administrator of Dartmouth was the guest, and he explained how that town, for a small investment (he estimated it at $35K) encouraged private third party development of seven solar photovoltaic installations, most on privately owned land, with the town reaping major economic benefits via the town entering into power purchase agreements. As a result, Dartmouth will be saving an estimated $7 m. over 20 years.  The town merely zoned to allow the PV arrays anywhere in town, and then just issued RFP’s to third parties to provide PV generated power to the town via the power purchase agreements.  Private developers then approached the town to provide the power on privately owned sites (15-20 acres) via the power purchase agreements.  The town then contracted with those third parties to obtain the PV power for 20 years at 8 cents/KWH, which the utility is required to buy at 12 cents/KWH.  The utility issues credits to the town for the PV electricity, enough credits such that the town pays for its own electric needs via those credits.  It works because the town’s long term stability  and credit worthiness is an essential element for the third parties looking to contract for the power purchase agreements – private parties in place of the town would not allow the deal to happen.  $35K invested, plus time of town officials, and it returns $7 m.  The Dartmouth town administrator left us all the documents they used to make it happen.  Mike Sullivan wants us to start by pursuing a PV array on 2 acres of town owned land next to the Waste Water Treatment Plant and questions whether we have any 15-20 acres sites on which private PV arrays could be built.
• Mike Sullivan reported that the big news from the DEP review of the Waste Water Treatment Plant energy efficiency was that Medfield was already the most energy efficient of the 23 plants they had audited.  Kudos to those running the WWTP for what they have already done for the town.