Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-22-SLC-minSustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of Meeting of April 22, 2025 A meeting of the Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC) was held on Zoom. A quorum was present throughout. Members Present: Cindy Arens (chair), Todd Rhodes (vice chair), Andy Joynt, Lin Jensen, Rick Reibstein, Dan Voss Members Absent: Celis Brisbin, Paul Chernick, Kavitha Venkatesan Staff Present: Maggie Peard Other Attendees: Tina McBride, Charles Hornig, Joe Pato, Paul Gromer (Peregrine), Mark Sandeen, James Mcauliffe (Solway), John Iredale (Solway) The meeting was called to order at 6:03 pm. Approval of past meeting minutes. The minutes of March 18, 2025 were approved as written. Comments from residents; emails to committee mailbox; new business. There were no new emails to the Sustainable Lexington Committee email mailbox. SustainabLY Not present as they are on April vacation. Lexington CCA - Low income solar benefit integration update Paul Gromer from Peregrine Energy Group presented to us on Low Income Community Solar. The basic structure includes a contract between a solar developer and the municipality. This new flow is presented in the diagram below and is newly allowed under state regulations. Dan asked if the regulations are for just low income at this point because the incentives are highest for low income projects. Paul said the discussion is mostly around low income but that the rules are written broadly and could apply to any residents but the benefit would be spread across a larger base of customers and the benefit would be so small as to not be noticeable. Paul said that it shows up simply on your electric bill and there is no money handled by Lexington. Dan also asked who is paying First Point Power (FPP, the supplier) the shortfall of funds from the discounted rate. It is Eversource that pays the shortfall through the SMART incentive program via an escrow account held by the Town. Rick asked what issues might come up in the contract discussions. Paul said it should be pretty simple aside from the length of the town’s commitment to the developer. The developer needs to show that they have a mechanism in place to provide this benefit for 20 years. However, the town may not want to commit to this for 20 years. Andy asked who sets the requirement of 40%. This is set by the state. What if we get more low-income customers or they use more energy? Or what if the solar projects under produce and earn less SMART incentive? A smart approach would be to build up a cushion of incentives before starting the program such that the likelihood of underperformance or significant increase in low income customers should not cause a shortfall in the benefit. But this is possible. Does First Point Power need to get on board? Yes, they need to agree to amend the existing contract and are willing to do so if there is no risk to FPP. Cindy asked if some of the potential projects are existing projects and Paul said they are operating projects. For customers on the existing low-income rate, they would not need to do anything to initiate the discount. Cindy also added that we could consider rethinking the buckets for the aggregation. Paul said we will look to start discussing the RFP for the next contract around spring 2026. Lin asked what variables could change in this example. Paul said they are realistic based on current conditions but could change based on project size, low-income customer pool and electric usage. Maggie added that the qualification to be in this pool of customers is the same qualification for other Eversource rates. Mark commented that this is a much better opportunity than predatory retailers. Route 2 Median Solar Project John Iredale and James Mcauliffe of Solway are originally real estate developers who pivoted to solar. They presented the potential opportunity for solar on Route 2. They played a video to highlight the opportunity, which indicated no building cost to the state and 20 year rental payments to the state. 60+ foot wide medians are needed for the type of solar that was shown and there are 400 miles of state routes in MA that meet this criteria. MassDOT and DOER have authorized Solway to pilot a section of Route 2 that crosses Waltham St. It would be a 5MW development. They are applying for interconnection rights with Eversource. The project would be part of the SMART program. One change that was made was allowing the “canopy” adder. Andy asked what obstacles there might be. It began under the Baker administration and conversations with DOER and then the highway department, who had a big issue with it primarily for safety reasons. Then COVID presented a disruption to the process. Turnover at the highway department led to progress there. State land offers quicker permitting than town-level permitting. The more difficult issue is getting the utilities to move forward on the energy impact study. Dan asked if the highway department would object to using the median at this site because it could be used for expansion of the roadway. John and James explained that the project will be designed for a 20 year life and thus the highway department could have the opportunity in the future to take the land back. Mark mentioned important aspects of development: site control (which they have), interconnection agreement (applied for, but has not yet started the impact study), statement of qualification for SMART (they have not done this yet - Mark flagged some changes are occurring in the program), financing (expected cost of $20-25M, developers have lots of experience raising funds in solar and commercial RE). Rick suggested that we look at power line strips next as a potential for solar. Cindy made a motion that we compose a letter to the Select Board in support of the project and it passed unanimously. The letter will cc Maggie, Steve Bartha, MassDOT Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, EEA Secretary Rebecca Tepper and Gov Healey. Sustainability and Resilience Officer Updates Capital Projects & Solar Canopy Integration Policy (CSIP): Maggie presented some tweaks that have been made to the draft policy from Rec Dept, Mike Cronin, and other town staff. The CSIP outlines a path for testing solar feasibility for capital projects that are not buildings (like parking lots, paved surfaces, and parks). Some recommendations for changes to the policy include determining the source of funds for solar in such instances and some additional exemptions for certain minor projects. Rick commented that he likes how limited the language is for requesting exemptions and would like to see an expansion of that. Mark has not yet reviewed the draft in full but is interested in language that tightens up the policy language and purpose of the policy (financial and emissions reductions benefits). Maggie incorporated a number of his comments during the meeting. Mark expressed concern that some of the language creates too many outs. Cindy commented that SLC can provide more support to ensure the policy has maximum impact. She mentioned that funding and project costs are often a sticking point for Town Meeting Members and so she suggested ensuring there is a clear connection to the full lifecycle cost analysis to show the financial benefit to the town. Specifically, it should be part of the design phase so that it can be presented to Town Meeting Members. Lin emphasized some of these points as well. Dan suggested we go a little further in explaining how solar could affect the site and in what ways it is compatible or contains worthwhile tradeoffs. Maggie said she is trying to get on the CEC agenda before bringing it to the Select Board. And she’ll take another pass at updating this and can share back with the committee. Waste Reduction Task Force (WRTF): We want to understand how many bins people are typically putting out and what size. Working on a waste bin survey using volunteers to assess. Looking for more volunteers to try to canvas 10% of the town by the end of May. Rick asked if we know of a correlation between those who put out a lot of landfill trash and those that put out a lot of recycling. We hope that the survey will unveil some of that. Lin asked if it is necessary to change the number of allowable bins if we observe that most people are using small bins. Lin also had some observations around the appropriate timing of changing policy language. Community First Partnership: Lexington was accepted within this program which funds an energy advocate (25 hrs per week for three years) as an employee of the town. LexCAN was involved in the application process and will collaborate deeply. The program orientation recently took place and the job posting will be coming soon. Level 3 Chargers: There are two chargers in the parking lot that are waiting on Eversource to approve and bring power down to the stations. Elementary Dishwasher Grants: Harrington is on the verge of getting a dishwasher, thanks to Lin Jensen and Tina McBride who worked with Maggie, Whitsons, DPW and DPF. A grant from the Community Endowment of Lexington and a state budget allocation (thanks to Rep. Ciccolo) will help fund the purchase of the dishwasher, reusable plates and silverware. The process was facilitated by Amber Schmidt of Clean Water Action. BEU-D Reporting Update: There is also a state reporting requirement that is a much easier lift because the state can automatically pull the energy reports for individual buildings (goes into effect at the end of 2025). We are considering if we want to continue to ask buildings to manually pull this info and report it to Lexington. It may have a bearing on our ability to put limitations on building emissions. Other Updates High School Project: There is a lot of education being done with SMMA to ensure they understand the Integrated Building Design and Construction Policy requirements for LCCA (Life Cycle Cost Assessment), HVAC choices, solar, embodied carbon, etc. Mark presented HVAC options and their life cycle cost. He explained that SMMA typically views these options in isolation and compared them with a typical gas boiler and air chiller. But Mark argues that we must consider HVAC options in concert with solar (in terms of life cycle) and Mass Save incentives (just in terms of up front costs). Cindy commented that upfront costs are an important consideration because of the debt service burden of all the capital costs of the project due to our borrowing needs. Cindy suggested we consider taking a position on ASHP vs. Hybrid with Longspan Solar. Mark answered some further questions about the pros and cons of different systems. Cindy motioned that we make a statement to PBC that we prefer these two options to be considered and it passed unanimously. Cindy is keeping low waste in daily building use a priority in the LHS design, especially with regard to the kitchen/cafeteria. Lincoln Turf Working Group: Group has not met since the last SLC meeting. Town Meeting appropriated funds for third Lincoln field reconstruction. Working group shared a memo regarding trying to improve specifications for the RFP for the project. Town Meeting Results: Voted to tear down the central office and build fields. The Recreation Committee committed to putting natural grass there and not plastic turf. Resolution on lithium-ion batteries did not pass. Sustainable Projects funding passed and Home Rule Petition to regulate SGARs passed. Discovery Day: We need to finalize what we will present at the table and we should plan to share a table with Lexington HeatSmart. Cindy recommended that the next meeting be held on May 27, hybrid. The meeting adjourned at 9:27. 4.