Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-27-SLC-minSustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of Meeting of May 27, 2025 A meeting of the Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC) was held on Zoom and at the 201 Bedford St 2nd floor training room. A quorum was present throughout. Members Present: Cindy Arens (chair), Todd Rhodes (vice chair), Andy Joynt, Rick Reibstein, Dan Voss, Kavitha Venkatesan, Lin Jensen Members Absent: Celis Brisbin, Paul Chernick Staff Present: Maggie Peard Other Attendees: Alan Levine, Ricki Pappo, Mark Sandeen, Joe Pato The meeting was called to order at 6:07 pm. Approval of past meeting minutes. The minutes of April 22, 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. Other updates: - Todd commented that new Sunday service will begin for MBTA and more frequent service (every 30 mins). - Cindy commented that Gov. Healey is promoting a new Energy Affordability, Independence & Innovation Act. The committee might decide to make comments on its content. - Rick commented that he works with an American Association of University Professors that is trying to support popular MA state legislature bills as a response to Project 2025. Kavitha commented that LexCAN’s advocacy group is careful to pick and choose the most impactful bills to avoid diluting the focus. - Cindy suggested we use AI notetaking for the purposes of SLC meeting minutes. We will review them in tandem with written notes and decide on how to proceed. SustainabLY Not present. Sustainability and Resilience Officer Updates Capital Projects & Solar Canopy Integration Policy (CSIP): Maggie is making progress on incorporating further edits and suggested changes. The idea is to try to pass the CSIP this summer so that we can begin utilizing it for planning purposes in the coming year. Waste Reduction Task Force (WRTF): We completed a waste bin survey that will inform some of our recommendations. Maggie showed some slides of lessons learned. 1,400 households were surveyed between March and May 2025 (12.5% of households served by weekly curbside trash and recycling collection). Over 98% put out 2 bins or less (81% are using just 1) and 82% were 48 gallon size or less. Arlington and Woburn are switching to pay-as-you throw and are considering bin sizes larger than 36 gallons. The estimated average household produces 38.4 gallons of trash per week. On average households that put out compost bins generate 8.3 fewer gallons. The plan is to bring changes to the Select Board in June to propose a first pass at changing the waste regulations to begin with reducing the bin limit from six to two. We need to think about how exceptions are made for exceptional situations. SLC may want to make a specific recommendation of bin limit. There is a pilot to integrate food waste composting with our yard waste at Hartwell. Black Earth will bring Lexington food waste to Hartwell and use some of Hartwell’s ‘brown’ organics for the compost processing. There will be a payment to the Town and a discount on the curbside food waste pickup service. Community First Partnership: Lexington has been awarded this grant from MassSave, which funds an Energy Advocate (20-25 hrs per week) and has a mandate to target specific groups (low-income, etc.) We had 14 applicants, 4 of whom will be invited to interview. Andy will assist in the interviews. All In Energy administers the program on behalf of MassSave. BEU-D Reporting Update: The deadline is nearing for reporting and there are still many entities that have not reported. Developments at the EPA may threaten the software used to support data collection (in Lexington and beyond). Clearly Energy is an entity that we (and the state) might utilize to keep and report energy data from building owners. Lexington CCA for Low income solar benefit integration: We have proposals from developers and Maggie will next meet with Town counsel and Paul Gromer to review. MVP 2.0 and Hazard Mitigation Plan The Town is beginning work on MVP 2.0.This is due for an update as it unlocks funding for resiliency projects. The Town is doing a combined planning process for these plans with an RFP out for a consultant. There is an effort to expand the plan to incorporate more outreach and emphasis on the social side rather than just engineering. Climate Leaders Grant Planning Lexington has been accepted as a climate leader and is now able to qualify for large grants. Municipalities certified as Climate Leader Communities are eligible to receive funding from two separate grants. The first, the Decarbonization Technical Support Grant, is designed to provide communities up to $150,000 to hire vendors to produce recommendations and engineering design documents for one or more clean energy projects at municipal facilities. Climate Leader Communities are also eligible for Decarbonization Accelerator Grants, which provides up to $1,000,000 for projects that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from municipal operations. Eligible projects must align with the community's Climate Leader Municipal Decarbonization Roadmap and prioritize reducing fossil fuel combustion, energy use, and costs. Potential funding areas include renewable energy technologies like solar and heat pumps, energy storage, and other strategies that support decarbonization efforts. Other Updates High School Project: SMMA proposed long span solar (over drive aisles) over two parking lots but two parking areas closest to the building. SMMA has been asked to revisit these updates and make an effort to maximize solar and present this to the PBC and SLC at the meeting on May 29. SMMA is trying to achieve net zero through their model, which some feel is optimistic about the energy the building will consume and the power that the solar array will produce. Those who are skeptical about the modeled results point to the example of Hastings, which has consumed 30+% more energy than was modeled. Solar production also has downsides in the event that we cannot build as much as we want if there are unknown obstacles. Further, there is no downside to maximizing solar because it generates further positive cash flow. Alternative proposals for locations for solar may make up for production but may cost more. Further, we are not fully covering the energy cost of the school when we calculate a ‘net zero’ school. A ‘net zero’ school is typically defined as one that offsets its carbon. We still will have other energy costs in peak/delivery charges. There is an argument from the architect and others that solar canopies on a certain portion of parking negatively impact the aesthetic value of the approach to the school. Rick Reibstein suggests that SLC puts out a statement supporting more solar on site. Dan Voss suggests we state that we should be targeting a net zero school on an economic basis, which relies on examining a range of potential outcomes for energy use (given that we know the limitations of the modeling). This would constitute appropriate compliance with the IBDP. We could also make the point that some “make whole” solar proposals will be more costly. We could also make the point that the more solar we put on the project, the less storage we need on site (which saves on costs). We can also emphasize the point that the solar cash flow pays for itself on day one and produces positive net present cash flow. The Committee voted for Cindy share a statement that advocates for maximizing solar, including over all parking lots making the following points: 1) The building design must follow the IBDCP, which indicates the requirement to maximize onsite renewable energy production given each building's respective site and site use, while minimizing energy use and operational costs of Town buildings. This means doing more than viewing this building as an offset to the carbon impact of the building. That would in a sense represent the minimum according to the policy. To more fully realize the policy, we must maximize solar for the highest economic benefit by looking at the potential positive net cash flow of more solar as a means to offset total direct operating costs of the building. 2) Lowest cost solar makes the most sense (cheapest is on the ground or a roof or parking canopy vs. a canopy over a grandstand or canopy seats) 3) The more solar we have, the less storage we need which holds down costs and vice versa 4) We need to size for greater than the modeled energy use. We need design margin given the known limitations on the energy use modeling and system design production. 5) Comfortable shading is a benefit we are seeking. There is an SBC meeting to discuss solar on June 2. Todd raised the point that there is a tension between higher property taxes associated with a more costly building project (and therefore higher debt exclusion) contrasted with the crunch that the town’s operating budget will be under if we do not maximize solar (which could increase the total price tag). Hanscom Area Towns Committee There is a meeting on May 28 to discuss the update to the new jet hangar proposal at Hanscom. The update is that there is a new potential tenant for one hangar that the governor seems to support. The potential tenant is Merlin Labs which is working to develop autonomous flight. Rick raised the salient points of our past statements and noted that there has been a change to the MassPort charter requiring the agency focus on greenhouse gas emissions and impact on local communities. The developers are now issuing a notice of project change to attempt to gain exemption from the need to complete the supplemental DEIR before moving forward with the renovation of one existing unused hanger for Merlin Labs. This is not acceptable given the significant risks to the Burlington and Bedford water supply. We need to reemphasize the point that the full project hangar expansion is well in excess of the announced potential tenant and the developer ’s consultant is seeking avenues to meet perceived demand for more air travel. Cindy recommended that the next meeting be held on May 29, hybrid with PBC. There will be another meeting likely on the fourth Tuesday in June. The meeting adjourned at 8:51. 4.