57°
GRAFTON, Mass. — Grafton may tap into cheaper electricity from a proposed solar panel farm in Rutland in an effort to reduce overhead costs in town-owned buildings.
If the Board of Selectmen moves forward, this would be one of three projects the town administrator considers.
Joseph S. Fitzpatrick, from Tyngsboro-based DG Clean Power LLC, presented a plan in December that would allow the town to purchase the electricity. The plan could save taxpayers $120,000 the first year and $4.3 million over 20 years, he said. The plan is called net metering.
The agreement would be billed through National Grid, which would credit the entire 13.5 cent per kilowatt hour rate, said Fitzpatrick, a former secretary of energy for Massachusetts. DG Clean Power would bill the town for 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour, bringing a 4 cent per kilowatt hour savings. A 3 percent escalator would be built in over the 20 years, he added.
Since Rutland does not have a large electrical need, Grafton could benefit by buying the excess, Fitzpatrick said. The site will generate about 400 megawatts of electricity, he said.
But under state guidelines, net metering is capped at 3 percent of National Grid's total output, he said. If Grafton wants to act, a decision must be made soon, Fitzpatrick said. The Rutland solar farm construction, he said, will be completed by the end of the year.
Selectmen did not vote or discuss how much electricity the town might purchase. Town Administrator Tim McInerney said he hoped a decision can be made by March.
McInerney has been a proponent of net metering plans. Two additional sites — on the Follette Street Water District site and in Northbridge on the South Grafton line — are in the works. The electrical savings to the town could be $130,000, McInerney said in an October interview.
Comments (12)
These town "savings" seem to be based on a $ rate that is set above the prevailing market rate. It's sort of like a 70% savings sale, where the product is marked up before it is marked down for all those "savings".
This is not a good economic deal for the town, and the 3% annual increase contract, ensures that it never will be.
I wouldn't enter into a contract with a firm unless we do the due diligence of the company and the track record of their management. I do not have enough information on the details but if they are relying on Tax Credits from our government, there is a risk of them not receiving them and then what. I am reading a Barrons article right now saying how vunerable the Solar industry is right now because they are functioning on government subsidies that will dry up this year.
The other point is that I would not enter into a long term contract. The 4.3 million in saving for 20 Years is absolute fiction and fantasy based on outrageous assumptions. Say that in the next five years they develop fuel cells that would be able to power buildings and the cost of a Kilowatt will come down to 5 cents. If this were the case according to their logic, the town would be losing millions of dollars for not waiting on this. Point is we should not enter into long term contracts with companies in infant industries that cannot sustain themselves on their own.
Another risk is the possible unleashing of the fracking for Natural Gas. We could be the next Saudi Arabia of Natural gas with the fracking technology. This abundance would make Nat Gas so cheap that it would kill the solar industry.
I would like these questions answered by our TA and to see if he has even though about this.
There is a 30% Investment Tax Credit for the cost of construction, then accelerated depreciation for the asset. Because the Town doesn't pay taxes these are not open to them. The town is currently paying about .15/kWh so the .09/kWh is well below the current cost and constitutes the savings. The escalator is because the developer wants more money as time goes on and the assumption is that the cost from NGrid will go up as well, so you keep the spread from the cost of the Power Purchase Agreement and what the utility is charging. Because MA has virtual net metering the solar array just has to be in the same ISO load zone.
Also, the Town of Grafton can't install panels on the top of its buildings as it is not eligable for the $.02 production tax credit. It would have to contract the installation to a developer - kind of messy.
Maybe First Colony Group could do the installation. They are after all, a developer.
We are not paying another town, we are buying the electricty from the developer under a Purchase Power Agreement. The $.09 rate is somewahat above market, but acceptable due the relatively small size of the project. I question why there is an esculation clause, since we are would be paying slighly above market.
Why are we not adding solar panels to the tops of these buildings. Why pay another town for power when we could generate our own for our own use?
Thank God it would come from Rutland, We wouldn't want any dangerous solar panels traveling over our roads to be installed down by the railroad tracks.
"Savings" or "credit" from Federal Gov't to
support the industry?
Maybe they should consider propane instead.
So the TA is still considering solar power? I thought Follette Street was already sealed up, or at least that was the impression I took away from Town Meeting with the TA and certain members of the BoS hoodwinked the "yea" voters with that preposterous financial plan to give the TA central air in his town office. Nice work Tim...earning yourself another A+ while you drive that huge Suburban back and forth to your home on the Cape at our expense.
Our expense? You mean to tell me we subsidize the gas that the TA's guzzler uses up in commuting back and forth from the cape?!!? Wait, don't answer that, it would only upset me further as I am on the hook for the $8/day in toll charges, $10/day in parking charges, and $8/day in fuel costs to commute to and from my private sector job in Cambridge every day. Somehow, the public sector can afford these luxuries even though they don't have any money unless it's taken from us first.