Because it was so much fun the first time, and because ‘No’ apparently doesn’t mean ‘No,’ we are going to have another debate on whether Library parking lots trees should be cut down to install solar carports. But that’s only part of the potential tree impact of Phase 3 solar carports.
If you are a subscriber to the mayor’s newsletter, or a 300-ft abutter to one of the sites, you’ve received a form of this notice about upcoming community meetings on December 11, 12, and 18, with a list of the 20 sites. (Blue highlighted sites would be done by Ameresco, other by Macquarie.) And it’s on newtonma.gov if you watch enough of those cycling topics that change every few seconds. But there’s no mention of tree removals, and even the Public Facilities Committee is still trying to find out what trees would be impacted. This is despite the fact that the June RFP for this project (on pg 14) asked bidders to indicate how many trees would have to be removed at each site.
V14 regulars may recall the extensive debate in 2016 when Mayor Warren proposed replacing trees with solar carports at the Library. I wrote about it on my own blog, and we had multiple threads on here (links below). The City Council ultimately rejected the plan, 15-8, with only Albright, Auchincloss, Crossley, Danberg, Fuller, Lappin, Leary, and Norton in favor.
30″ red oak at Newton Free Library
Now it’s back in a more aggressive form. The 2016 plan would have preserved trees on the southernmost berm, including the large (30” diameter) red oak. The city’s new plan is to eliminate all the island berms and reconfigure the lot to create a fourth double-row of parking, adding 16 spaces. It’s a little incongruous to hear increased parking being cited as a virtue by this administration, both at the December 5 Public Facilities meeting (audio on the city website), and the last meeting of the Library’s Board of Trustees, which I attended. I have a feeling that “induced demand” would result in those spaces being quickly absorbed by more people coming during peak hours who hadn’t been, or coming more often from other towns.
So the plan is different, but when Marc Laredo noted at Public Facilities that ‘we rejected this before — what’s different?,” Jonathan Yeo interjected “it’s a different City Council.” One councilor said, “I’m glad YOU said that, Jonathan” and a lot of people laughed. So it’s a bit like watching Republican and Democratic presidents flip back and forth on the global gag rule on abortion counseling. Except with trees, if this Council cuts them down, the next Council can’t bring them back.
Carports at the Library would need to be approved by the Trustees, and they clearly feel pressure to do so. Increased parking is enticing (though not the 2-3 months the lot would be unavailable). So is the repaving that would happen with a reconfigured lot. They’ve been trying for years to get funding for replacing 30-year-old paving in the CIP, and were wondering, out loud, when they would ever get repaving if they reject the carports.
But there are many more parking lots with potential tree impacts that are less clear. You can see my attempt to document them here. (3 versions; “better” is the best combination of image quality and file size). Aerial views of many sites show solar canopy grids superimposed over existing trees, or portions of tree canopy, or so close to trees that trees if untouched would shade the carports, and the carports would make subsequent tree pruning difficult. Albemarle Road from Gath Pool to Crafts Street is one example. A beautiful stretch of trees, in a flood zone where we need all the tree canopy we can get. Does Macquarie want to remove these trees? Drastically prune them? Who 
in the city thought this would be a good site in the first place, with mature trees on both sides of the street casting shadows for much of the day?
https://village14.com/2016/03/22/council-charters-solar-carports/#axzz5ZGC9SPbD
https://village14.com/2016/04/03/should-newton-install-solar-panels-at-the-library/#axzz5ZGC9SPbD
https://village14.com/2016/04/05/no-solar-carports-at-newton-free-library/#axzz5ZGC9SPbD
Why not put them in newton center lots? Oh, maybe because those will be sold to developers any day now….
The trees contribute to the garden part of the Garden City. As much as I favor solar energy whenever feasible, I still like having trees instead in a lot of the places listed – particularly the library parking lot and Albermarle Road. Let’s not cut our nose to spite our face.
This is the list of sites, both rooftops and parking lots compiled.
7.5 (b) k. In RFP: Indicate the number of trees that will have to be removed at each site. The contractor will have to replace eliminated trees at another location.
The Public Meetings are being held as follows:
December 11, 2018 (Tuesday), 6:30 to 9:00 p.m., City Hall in the War Memorial
Auditorium, all 20 sites will be presented.
December 12, 2018 (Wednesday), 6:30 to 9:00 p.m., City Hall in the War Memorial
Auditorium, all 20 sites will be presented.
December 18, 2018 (Tuesday), 6:30 to 9:00 p.m., Newton Free Library, Druker
Auditorium, this meeting will focus only on the Library Solar Parking Canopy.
If the city is able to replace those trees, why not plant new trees AND leave the old ones standing? Are we seriously going to cut down healthy trees in the name of sustainability?
Although I support energy alternatives to fossil fuels, and I would like to see solar arrays on other city properties, the Library parking lot never made sense to me. For one thing, I learned from one of the consultants that because of the trees on the south side that are on Newton Cemetery property, these solar panels were not really going to produce as much energy as they would in a spot with more sunlight, especially in winter when the Sun is lower in the sky. Angier School’s parking lot, for instance, would be an ideal location since the parking lot is in the sun most of the day all year. But I doubt you will find much support for cutting down the trees in that parking lot on the City Council. In light of the foregoing (no pun intended), it always appeared to be more about politics and PR than sustainability to me. And increasing impermeable surface with heat retaining asphalt while cutting down shade trees (not to mention increasing the number of parking spaces) just doesn’t make sense if sustainability is the primary goal. But, whatevs.
Not only trees will decrease energy production, but the orientation and angle of the solar panels is far from suitable. They tout green energy but avoid to state how much was the cost and what is the annual energy. In MHO is a waste of money.
You guys are reading my mind!
@Rick Frank, yes, I suspect that’s probably the reason at Newton Centre. And perhaps also at the Richardson Street parking lot, which was on the RFP list, and where I was very worried about losing the two thriving Princeton elms in the center island. Apparently it was not an attractive enough site to the bidders – too small and/or too many trees (probably the mature trees on the west side of the lot), but that lot was also on the “Housing Strategy” hit list.
@Marti, I agree, let’s not cut off our nose. I’ve always felt there was an element of self-flagellation in the idea that we don’t deserve to keep our trees, and are inconsiderate if we don’t cut them down to add solar panels.
And thanks for posting that excerpt of from the RFP. Ameresco, to give them credit, mentioned trees in the Technical Proposal portion of their bid in explaining why they were not bidding on certain sites. But I did a text search of the Macquarie PDF, and literally no mention of trees, just a lot of “sTREEts”.
And by the way, I would debate the idea that it’s “the contractor” replacing the trees. That’s true when a developer doing a teardown cuts down trees and has to pay for replacement inches under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. But here the city is a party to the contract, and the vendor has, or will, factor the cost of replacement trees into the negotiated financial terms of the contract. You know how the actual burden of a sales tax falls partly on the buyer and partly on the seller, depending on the relative elasticities of supply and demand? Here it’s the city pushing to do this project, so what’s the elasticity, and who’s actually absorbing this cost? I’m not sure.
@Newtoner, yes, if we’ve got places we’d like to put those ‘replacement’ trees – and that hasn’t actually been figured out yet, based on listening to the Public Facilities discussion – let’s plant those trees anyway. Even the high-density-development-fixated MAPC says tree planting is an important part of our Climate Change Resiliency & Action Plan. It’s bizarre to me that we would cut down trees voluntarily and say it’s okay because we’re replacing the linear inches. We should be doing all we can to preserve our existing canopy and plant additional trees where possible.
Tree canopy makes cities feel cooler. Besides the trees we’ve already lost, we’ll have to make up for future losses that we can anticipate from a warming climate, just to stay even on tree canopy. There was just a report about forest tree loss in Rhode Island attributed to climate change. Here in Newton, we’re losing trees from extreme storms, and periods of drought, compounded by stress from winter moth (and gypsy moth caterpillars when we have dry springs). And we’ll lose a few hundred ash trees to EAB. Once the idea of cutting down the Library trees is hopefully put to rest, I’d like to see all those empty spots filled with large-maturing shade trees, including some sweetgums and tuliptrees that are suitable for hotter summers. And more London plane trees, which are an urban-tolerant tree all over the world. And oaks, which the MAPC report says will become more abundant in forests as the climate warms. If we can get the bull’s eye target off the Library lot, I’d be willing to finance that myself.
You too, Ted! I just missed your comment because it appeared while I was writing mine. :-)
Julia. Thank you for posting this and for your subsequent comments. Everyone in Newton should know that Julia Malakie’s name is synonymous with the planting of trees throughout the City. She acts very much in the spirit of Johnny Appleseed, more than a century ago. I can only speculate as to how many trees she has been responsible for planting here, but it’s a huge number. Everything she says here is accurate and on point. She’s one of this City’s foremost environmental and ecological champions.
Rampant deforestation is currently contributing almost 18% to climate change pollutant buildup on the planet and this is only going to get worse with the new Brazilian President’s threatening to massively ramp up development and clear cutting of trees in the Amazon basin.
Newton’s 2nd draft “Climate Vulnerability Action Plan” lists intensive tree planting as one of the most effective measures the City can do to mitigate direct and indirect effects of climate change. And it just adds so much to the quality of life here. We should be planting more trees instead of destroying any that are healthy. Find areas in the City for solar panels that don’t compete with our tree population.
Thank you, Julia! Let’s plant more trees!
I hope every new construction ( Northland, Washington St, Beacon St) will be required to have solar panels on the roof or above parking spots that do not have tree shade.
But then, I am also wishing for required underground utilities from now on!
Doesn’t the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan talk about the importance of trees and the benefit of having tree canopy?
There was a lot of work done to convince enough Councilors 2 years ago to vote 15-8 to retain the trees at the Library parking lot, and seek to place solar panels in other more appropriate locations. The area of City Hall, the Library, and the cemetery are historic and should be maintained as they are, and in fact should possibly be enhanced with additional trees.
I’m more than disappointed that the Mayor’s office, not agreeing with a Council vote taken with a clear mandate, has now resubmitted the solar request hoping that the new Council members will vote to destroy the pristine nature of the area. Once again, I will take the item to the Council and ask the Mayor to take the Library off of her solar panel list. (I discussed this with the Mayor several months ago)
A believe it or not: The solar advocates say that scientifically the solar panels are better for the environment than trees? That may be true, scientifically, but really who believes that?
Please note that we need your support to take this off the list!
From an environmental benefit point of view, the strong case was made last time that the benefit from the panels offsets far more than the number of trees to be cut down (150?). Many more trees are saved than cut down, but they are elsewhere.
On the other hand, to our earlier discussions on green accounting, note this statement in the notice: “These sites generate about 4.4 million kWh of solar energy which is the equivalent of 21% of our municipal electricity use. ”
This is an impactful amount of power, but from a Green accounting point of view, this solar power is not being produced “for” Newton and doesn’t increase our percentage renewable energy.
This green aspect of the power from Newton’s solar panels is being sold to other entities buying the SRECS from installer associated with the power generation. We get discounted power due to the SRECs and other credits, but it is technically not fully green. There are others seeing their 4.4 million kWh of usage as being renewable.
I personally don’t see a problem with them in the library. They will provide shade and snow cover to cars and reduce AC requirements to cool them down as well as give us cheaper electricity and ultimately we will use the “green” aspect ourselves in the later years of the panel’s life when incentives are reduces and/or as part of municipal aggregation.
@Jim stated “The solar advocates say that scientifically the solar panels are better for the environment than trees? That may be true, scientifically, but really who believes that?”
Regardless of whether you prefer trees or solar panels, the science of global climate change is a matter of fact, not of opinion. We need to all be working off of the same facts and trusting the experts if we want to accurately weigh the benefits of each.
Bryan, environmental scientists disagree on many things – one being which gives the greatest benefit – trees or solar panels. Basically it depends on where they are.
All this new Planning is for more parking. Why? Our Mayor
insists Newton drivers ought not to request more parking but
instead walk, bike or find transit options.
Why is she cutting down trees for an extra 16 parking spaces?
Could somebody explain to me why we are agonizing about filling Newton parking lots with solar panels when they would work better in the empty expanses of Arizona? (I am not joking; I would rather pay to put them where they work best). What is the point here–optimize energy efficiency or erect local monuments to declare how very environmental we are?
And while we’re at it, who is paying for this? State or Federal government? I mean, the City is deep in debt so maybe we shouldn’t be spending money on a controversial plan to cut down healty, carbon-absorbing trees.
Thank you, Julia!
Dear City of Newton: Please install solar panels where there are NOT trees. One suggestion: All along the north side of the MBTA train line adjacent to the Mass Pike. Yes, it’s true that the City does not own that land, but our efforts should be toward getting the panels installed wherever they will have the most positive net impact. All along the train line: A few miles of unobstructed, south-facing land with no trees and no other conflicting use.
I wonder if this is a Litmus test for where we are potentially heading towards with the 3000+ high density development units in the pipeline, and associate zoning related projects too!
I agree with Michael, we should reduce our Carbon Footprint by planting more trees which eat carbon dioxide
If as Ted HM says the library spot is not going to produce that much energy due to factors surrounding the site then why are we thinking of taking down trees to use this site. Also agree with Michael let’s not set up these carports as a symbolic monument. I would much rather see trees than these visually unappealing carports. Find areas that make sense don’t try to create ones by cutting down trees. Also on the add’l parking sometimes it is hard to find parking at the library but I also see city vehicles in that lot taking up spaces.
So we cut down the trees, and meanwhile here’s a non profit I do pro bono software development for
Somehow cutting down trees to put in solar panels is like a Dilbert cartoon
http://www.greenstand.org
Why not put solar panels on the roof of the library?
IMHO, earmark all money otherwise to be spent on buying, installing, maintaining and subsequently replacing depreciated solar panels, on tree plantings throughout the city. And let private investment cover the expense of solar panels to be limited to visually and environmentally appropriate places — but for the city to replace trees with solar panels, is absurdly ridiculous!
I think I shall never see a solar pane3l as lovely as a tree.
Indeed, until ( the solar panels are on the roof tall), I shall never see a tree at all.
@Bob and Rick: We sang that poem in my Weehawken elementary school chorus!
I am a big fan of rooftop solar. The panels on my roof, which just barely meets the requirement of 80% exposure, generate more energy than we need, even with an electric car and electric dryer soaking up energy. At tonight’s meeting, the leaders of Newton’s solar energy initiative declared that the roof of almost every Newton school will eventually have solar panels. That beats cutting down trees as school buildings generally have nearly complete exposure. Aesthetically, panels on the library roof and on City Hall wouldn’t bother me at all. Panels, in my view, are attractive!
Check out the Wegman and Chestnut Hill malls. They would need to purchase precious little energy from Eversource if they installed solar panels. I don’t see any panels by the malls though the buildings have 100% exposure.
Here’s hoping that the city removes as few trees as possible in this otherwise noble and important endeavor to avoid burning fossil fuels and adding more CO2 into the atmosphere thereby .
Yes, at Albemarle Road Macquarie says they would have to remove 26 trees.
Based on last night’s presentation, pretty much all the trees I predicted were at risk would be removed. Ten trees at Bigelow, 6 big red oaks at Auburndale Cove, the yellowwood at Mason Rice. There’s even one I didn’t anticipate, a tree at Angier that’s so tall it would shade part of the roof panels part of the time. Macquarie would want to prune the magnificent red oak at Oak Hill M.S. that somewhat shades the parking lot. I suspect that would basically be topping it — not something you’re supposed to do to trees. There’s one site that’s not happening for now – Countryside parking lot, which apparently the city wants to have available for an upcoming construction project.
Aesthetically, the proposed removal of trees along Albemarle Road to install solar panels would destroy a vista that has existed for generations. Cheesecake Boulevard, which is now called Albemarle Road, was laid out in the late 19th Century on both side of the Cheesecake Brook. The boulevard was lined with trees on both side of the brook to create an “allee,” which is a formal path or roadway running through a park, bordered by a line of trees. Over the years, the city has maintained and replaced those trees, which provide shade in Spring and Summer and beautiful foliage in the Fall. Thus, it makes no more sense to install solar panels along Albemarle, which is used for both active and passive recreation, than at the Waban Hill Reservoir, which was recently purchased and restored for use as passive recreation with Community Preservation Act funds.
What is more astonishing to me, however, is that the location of these solar panels are immediately adjacent to a baseball field. The glass panels that protect the solar panels themselves (which are very fragile) are prone to being damaged by hail, rocks and baseballs. To me, that’s just stupid.
Omg you must be kidding. The creek is already ruined by the bricks “channeling” . The trees along a brook keep the water temperature down which is necessary for water critters live in the water. I’ve got an idea – use the carriage lane along commonwealth Ave for solar panels and stop picking on the less wealthy neighborhoods for the greening projects. I’m getting really fed up with the way the turnpike was clear cut, and now we’re talking about cutting down trees to put in solar panels? Are the Councilors aware at how ridiculous and insane this sounds? Regardless of whatever CO2 equations you come up with, it doesn’t matter: it feels insane and once more people find out about it you won’t hear the end of ridicule from the right and the left.
Ted’s right re: Albemarle and baseballs, and my car has the dents to prove it ;) And beyond the aesthetics (which are important) – lots of folks sit under those trees in the summer. Parents watching baseball games, or watching little kids running around on the field… I see older folks who walk up and down Albemarle sitting on the benches in the shade. Relaxing under the car port just doesn’t have the same appeal.
People have been complaining for years about the lack of shade at the Gath Pool – why not kill two birds with one stone?
Can someone explain to me why they can’t be on rooftops?
And why not
https://www.tesla.com/solarroof
The question is not whether a solar panel will reduce carbon more than a tree. We must also account for all the carbon and other pollution it takes to mine the raw materials, produce the solar panel, ship it from China, truck it here and install it, maintain it, and replace it when it breaks. Then add all the money city spends on that solar panel that could have been spent on … more trees? Better find a different place to put that solar panel! Maybe City Council will want to float them on Crystal Lake. The fish won’t mind a little darkness.
The line of trees along Ablemarle Road is one of the nicest spots in the city. Anyone who ever spent the late evening hours at Gath pool in the summer knows that. How anyone would consider removing them is beyond my comprehension.
How about requiring solar panels and community gardens for all new developments in Newton (i.e. Northland, Washington corridor, Riverside, Newton Center) ?
Tuesday, the school committee voted unanimously to authorize the sites that are at schools without seeing the site renderings. One committee member said the committee was told there would be zero trees lost. Is this true?
Some renderings are in the presentation.
At the elementary and middle school sites, see list above in my previous comment, does adding solar panels preclude the schools being upgraded as needed particularly with the influx of school age children at the many new development sites?
At the very least, as other commenters have pointed out, Albemarle Road and the library lots are poor places to replace trees with solar car ports.
Honestly I don’t understand how the entire school committee could vote on these proposals without reading them or viewing the renderings or getting any feedback or research. It sounds rather irresponsible to me. Not one person? Do they always vote in a pack?
I was feeling pretty excited about the new blood on the school committee, but I’m feeling pretty disappointed by them right now. There’s this situation which doesn’t sit right with me. Then there was a post on the Newton Parents Facebook group where Matthew Miller polled parents about how they feel about getting rid of hot lunch at the schools. Why is that even a discussion? Instead of them working on a way to make the school lunches more palatable, this was their thought? And lastly, and while full day kindergarten is good news, communication about it was lacking. We get all of this communication where the school committee continues to hem and haw about high school start times, but I know a lot of families who would have liked to know that this was even on the table for 2019 before it became official.
Ablemarle is just a horrible idea. It almost feels like a red herring. Can someone from the city, the council or the mayor’s office justify it?
On the flip side, Newton North parking lot makes perfect sense. Just don’t take down the trees separating Walnut from the parking lot, those provide some buffer and are much appreciated.
Does anybody know how these solar arrays will get financed? If it’s via the schemes akin to SunRun or SolarCity (now Tesla), then the city could be getting ripped off. In these schemes, the service provider captures most of the financial benefits. The better way to finance solar is via a loan. Sure there is an upfront investment akin to the downpayment (equity) for a house, but in that arrangement, the owner of the array captures much more of the savings. The net present value of that arrangement is far superior, even if the internal rate of return on the solar scams is infinite.
Marti, that’s interesting. I asked at last night’s meeting if the School Committee had been told about the trees before they voted to approve. I’ll have to check my audio recording, but the answer was something like, yes, they were told some trees would be cut (and I think told inches would be replaced), but didn’t see the diagrams.
Someone from the neighborhood of Bigelow noted something I did not know since it was so long ago. When Bigelow was squeezed into their already dense neighborhood, the trees were planted as a buffer as some protection and compensation to the neighborhood. And now they’re proposed to be removed.
When the city proposed to take down many trees on Beacon Street last year, we met with city officials in the Waban Library Center to limit the damge. After a second look, the chastened officials managed to save as many trees as possible while bringing the sidewalks up to code with ADA specs. Solar power is a great cause; let’s support the effort to foster it while also urging the city to create solar sites with as few trees removed as reasonable.
@Bruce — You basically have it correct. I can’t find a final agreement online at the moment, but basically the city provides the space and agrees to buy generated electricity at an agreed discounted rate. The provider makes the capital investment, provides maintenance, and captures the tax incentives and rebates and sells the SRECS associated with the energy generation. There is info here:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/45281/07-18-12%20Public%20Facilities%20Agenda.pdf
In this framework, the electricity consumed by Newton is not technically “green” from an accounting point of view as the SRECS associated with the installation are sold to others.
The city has no capital outlay but no reduction in city’s carbon footprint either. Some other entity is reducing its footprint by buying the SRECS.
It does support “locally produced renewable energy” by being put in place, and the cost savings on the electricity allow funding purchase of renewable energy off the grid (e.g. through municipal aggregation).
Isn’t the Library parking lot prone to flooding during heavy rain? At the very least, it’s another reason not to remove any trees from that area.
Once again I have to insist that the green space along the carriage lane on commonwealth ave be considered, along by city hall and westward. It’s wasted space ( to me it is) and has a good southern exposure. Why wouldn’t it be considered？it makes as much sense as along cheesecake brook?
Lordy, I just watched the portion of the 12/10/18 School Committee meeting where they rubber-stamped the solar carports. NewTV video is here:
https://newtv.org/recent-video/24-newton-school-committee-meeting/5443-newton-school-committee-meeting-december-10-2018
Solar starts at 1:36:00 and ends at 1:53:00.
Bill Ferguson starts off by saying that Ameresco and Macquarie brought their thumb drives if the SC wants more detail, ‘but Liam tells me you’re interested in a high level overview.’
Margaret Albright says she’s concerned about tree loss, and heat islands in parking lots. Bill Ferguson says it’s in the contracts that the companies will have to replace caliper inches of trees cut, on the property. Then he talks about the project sequestering as much carbon as 4,000 acres of trees.
And that’s it. There are questions about baseballs and basketballs and whether parking spaces will be lost. No one asks about how many trees where, or how big the trees are. No one looks at any diagrams or renderings. Note even for Bigelow, where, according to one neighbor at the community meetings this week, the trees were planted to help reduce the impact of squeezing a school into their already dense neighborhood, back when the school was built.
The ones most objectionable to me are along the park. The renderings show the sun directly overhead, but. In reality the shadow will be quite large most of the day.
Does the School Department/Committee have jurisdiction over the trees and greenspace (or even parking lots) on school grounds? I’ve heard conflicting stories about whether it is Schools or Parks and Rec.
No Library Solar
Though it is a parking area, there are many good trees on site, and many mature trees in the surrounding landscape. Those on site will be lost completely, and those surrounding the lot will be significantly obscured from view.
As it is adjacent to the Newton Cemetery the area is a sort of extension of that heavily wooded margin at the boundary of the cemetery open space.
This is also a place where both patrons and employees can enjoy the sunlight and unobstructed sky views in the lot, from the entry, and in the small green space at the west side of the building.
Canopy structures would effectively obscure much of the afternoon and evening sunlight and sky that one enjoys when approaching or leaving the building.
This is the wrong place for solar canopy structures.
As Massachusetts is a liberal state and committed to reducing global warming, its commitment to public transportation is pathetic
The number of cars which could be removed from commutes would actually make a difference.
This is simply another case of “do as I say, and not how I do”
In its current leased solar installations, it appears that the City traded off making a capital investment and some of the value streams that ownership provides against merely leasing. It is unclear how rich the contracts are for Ameresco. The tax shields provided by owning the projects are unavailable to the City since it is a public entity that pays no taxes, but they are to Ameresco. There is no apportioning of the solar RECs to the City. From Ameresco’s standpoint, the project has relatively low risk since the likelihood of default on the contract by the City is de minimus. The purchase price for power seems a bit high. It is roughly 2+ times greater than the current ISO-NE average clearing price. In addition, there is a fixed escalator of 2.5% per annum. An escalator untied to some measure of cost – O&M for the panels, the market price of energy, overall inflation – lots of possibilities, seems ill-advised. The lease arrangement only looks good so long as the City is paid full retail for the power by Eversource, which is a regulatory/legislative mandate and, thus, a risk to the City if that status should change, but not a risk to Ameresco.
Hopefully, the next group of projects will have a better risk/value proposition than these initial ones.
Just received this update from Mayor Ruthanne Fuller: