This is from Mayor Fuller’s email newsletter…
We have been considering 20 locations across Newton for new solar panels on City owned properties, including roofs of buildings and parking lots.
After a listening tour, reading comments, and more analysis, we’ve removed three proposed locations from the solar panel site list and revised the plans for three other locations.
The three sites removed from the Solar Phase 3 list were at the Countryside Elementary School and the Bigelow Middle School where solar canopies were proposed for the parking lots, and along the parking adjacent to the fields and Gath Pool facility on Albemarle Road. Substantial changes were also made to the solar designs at Brown and Oak Hill Middle School parking lots and the Auburndale Cove parking lot.
The revised plan reduces the number of trees that need to be cut or moved from the original 94 down to 28. Of those 28, 13 will be cut and 15 will be moved. 140 new replacement trees will be planted to make up for the 13 that have to be cut down.
A public hearing on the revised plan is on Wednesday, Jan. 16, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
The Auburndale Cove solar canopy layout has been revised so that one rather than six trees needs to be removed. In addition, 18 new trees will be planted in the area beyond the right field of the baseball field.
The Brown Middle School revised proposal removes a canopy originally planned close to the trees at the edge of the parking lot, placing it instead at the front of the entrance to the school. This change means only one tree rather than 20 will be removed.
At the Newton Free Library, revised plans would create approximately 32 new parking spaces and improve drainage in the parking lot. Newton’s Director of Urban Forestry Marc Welch estimates that seven of the 12 trees in the parking lot are small enough to be moved to accommodate the solar canopies. While seven trees would be cut, over 60 new replacement trees will be planted.
The Library Board of Trustees has conditionally approved the new plans. The Trustees are excited that the solar canopies proposed for the library parking lot would generate 39 percent of the library’s electricity use.
The City already has solar arrays on 12 City owned sites that generate the equivalent of 21 percent of our municipal electricity use. The proposed additional sites would bring the total of solar energy in our municipal electricity usage to 41 percent, helping to reduce the City’s carbon footprint, a key component of the City’s Climate Action Plan.
These projects not only reduce the City’s carbon footprint. They save money. Newton saved more than $650,000 in fiscal year 2018 from the current solar panels.
The solar energy companies Ameresco and Macquarie will design, finance, own, maintain and operate the solar panels. The City of Newton will purchase the energy created at a reduced cost.
The thought of solar panels at Auburndale cove is just not right.
Put those panels along Comm. Ave and at the city hall front door.
As I understand the city will sign a contract with Ameresco.
How much will the city pay for these new additions of solar panels?
What we really need are a lot more trees and a lot more new solar panels in this City. I can’t believe there aren’t many prospective locations for these devices throughout Newton that wouldn’t involve the destruction of healthy and mature trees.
Colleen — The city doesn’t have any expenses associated with the panels. They provide the land/rooftops and agrees to buy (discounted) power over the long term. Ameresco makes the capital investment, handles maintenance, captures the tax incentives, and sells the green SRECS associated with the power to others (or perhaps to us with aggregation).
I think it was Fignewtonville who called the Albemarle Road site a red herring, and he’s not the only one. I’ve had other people ask me if Albemarle and Bigelow were put on the list so they could be taken off later as a concession. Personally, I don’t count backing off on ideas that were appalling/ridiculous from the get-go as much of a concession.
I’m waiting to see the new plans for the changed sites, but aside from still removing all the Library trees, I suspect the one oak that would still be cut at Auburndale Cove is the big one by itself, the 28″ red oak. There appears to be no reprieve for the 27″, 21″ and 25″ red oaks in front of Williams School, or the magnificent 36″ red oak between the Angier gym and the Church of the Good Shepherd that is literally shading the brick wall of the gym from summer sun in the Google Street View – which is something that reduces air conditioning costs.
I hope the changes in design at Oak Hill mean the landmark 36″ red oak there will be left alone, not removed or ‘topped.’ I happy to see 20 trees will not be cut along the Brown parking lot, especially since the number apparently increased from 15 to 20 before going to zero.
Given that another important component of our Climate Change Resiliency Plan is increasing tree canopy, if Marc Welch has found 140 good places to plant ‘replacement ‘ trees, we should be keeping the trees we’ve got and planting those 140 spots. Some of these ‘replacement’ spots, such as for the Library trees, where there’s not enough room to plant all the new caliper inches, would be street trees. How will we know which new trees would have been planted anyway, but now they’re being attributed to the solar projects?
I’m also unclear on who will ultimately pay the cost of buying and planting new trees, or moving existing trees. Will it be the vendors Ameresco and Macquarie, who according to the RFP were supposed to be responsible for replacing caliper inches? Or if financial arrangements or not final, will the cost end up getting passed back onto the city even if Ameresco and Macquarie write the checks to a tree company? Or will Marc’s guys who are pretty much flat out with current workload, be moving and planting trees on overtime, or not doing something else? What happens if the new/moved trees don’t survive?
Also, Jack mentioned SRECs. There aren’t SRECs anymore. That system expired and has been replaced by SMART, which you can read about here: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/solar-massachusetts-renewable-target-smart-program#general-information-
The metering requirements link ( https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/11/20/SMART%20Metering%20Requirements%20111918.pdf )explains some of the changes, and has some very interesting wiring diagrams such as illustrating ‘behind the meter’ vs not behind the meter. There are still RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) and the EDCs (Electric Distribution Companies, i.e. Eversource for us) hold them for ‘the duration of the tariff’ according to this page. (If we were buying back RECs or SRECs that we were generating, that would seem like double counting!)
I haven’t been following this issue closely but I am aware of the fact that the library proposal has been particularly controversial. When I read this ….
This sounds like a win-win. But can folks who’ve been following this closely explain the downside? I’m not being flip here. Just trying to understand.
So we are not buying, we’re leasing? When the lease is up, what other company is going to want to come in and operate degraded solar panels?
Having attended the last two meeting of the Library trustees where they discussed this, I would not describe any of them as “excited” by the electricity savings. I would say reactions ranged from pleased, to underwhelmed, by savings that were projected to be $24,000 per year. The strongest feeling I observed was concern about how to deal with the loss of the parking lot for two months of construction.
I think it’s misleading to suggest that this project will improve drainage. Maybe permeable pavement will improve drainage. But 1) they could remove the current asphalt and put in permeable (which has maintenance issues because you can’t let it get clogged up) without removing any berms or trees, and 2) as Josh Morse pointed out, if the water table gets as high as the pavement, permeable pavement doesn’t do any good because there’s nowhere for the water to go down.
The trustees were also told that a limiting factor in high rainfall situations might be the diameter of a drainage pipe under Homer Street draining the Library side into the City Hall lagoon side. If that’s the case, permeable pavement in the Library lot wouldn’t help, but putting in a larger diameter drainage pipe could, and again, that’s something that could be done independent of whether or not trees are removed in the parking lot.
If anything, removing the grass berms and removing the trees is going to result in more flooding in heavy rain situations, because trees intercept and retain water. Even in winter without leaves, the trunks, branches and twigs are holding some water. We should be doing what’s consistent with the Climate Change Resiliency & Action Plan – adding more trees in all the empty spots. And not increasing paved surface. And I would plant trees closer together than standard street tree distances, to increase water absorption and more closely resemble the forest that the parking lot once was. (See George Mansfield on how the berms and trees were a compromise at the time the Library was built, between people who wanted maximum parking, and people who wanted no trees cut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egp9wfbWt_g )
Funny how the number of added parking spaces has magically increased from 16 to 32. Are spaces now shrinking in width? Or the aisles? It seems this administration will say and do anything to get these carports. What’s next? ‘And you get a car! and you get a car!’
Rather than adding spaces and paved surface, how about better managing the spaces that are there? Stop the City Hall employee parking in the lot, and stop the parking in the Library lot by people taking the bus, which I did not know about, but Library employees have observed. I also suggested to the Library trustees setting up a webcam overview of the parking lot, that would allow people to check the Library website and get an idea of how full the lot was, rather than driving to the Library and finding the lot full.
It sounds like the first time solar panels idea was brought up the only thought was chop down trees and now the second time more thought has gone into the process. Why didn’t the members of the committee think about tree moving and saving trees at the first presentation.
As far as the library, there are many things working against the parking lot and why can’t we have a comprehensive plan now? Why tear up the lot now for the panels and not correct the drainage issue. Many people when doing construction at home, decide to fix a few things that are interconnected at the same time, so that they save on the cost of bringing in heavy machinery twice.
Do the solar planning and the tree planning and the drainage issue all at the same time so that the residents only feel the pain of renovation once. The parking lot is jammed during weekends, and especially during snow season when many spots are taken up with snow banks. AND, all the city cars that park there! Lets take on the library parking lot with a more global lens and not just a solar lens.
If the proposed solar canopies reduce energy costs so much, why hasn’t the private sector (mall owners, office complexes..) embraced them to reduce energy costs of there facilities? Many have treeless parking lots that are exposed to the sun for a majority of the daytime.
Are there any municipalities or business in the area that already have these solar canopies installed? Have we gotten any feedback from them regarding cost savings, weather issues (think about the snow fall several years ago on flat roofs) and vandalism?
I have no problem with solar on public buildings. Most of the installations are out of site, out of mind, out of reach.
Why don’t we just cut down all the trees on the Commonwealth Ave berm and put up canopies? While we are at it, build a protected bike lane underneath those canopies that can be used year round.
Perhaps Newton should instead require new commercial properties above a certain height to x % of their electric usage be powered by solar. This would be more scalable solution.
If they were really serious, Newton could provide interest free loans or discounts on property taxes for residents who place solar panels on their homes.
@Greg, my main concern with solar canopies at the library is aesthetics. The library is part of the historic City Hall/War Memorial complex, with grounds designed by Frederick Law Olmstead to conform with the natural landscape. The library was designed in a way to be modern while still integrating with this overall design concept. The solar canopies would just be jarring, and would detract from the overall natural landscape design of the city hall complex, in my opinion. They would be equally inappropriate in park settings, like Albemarle, where natural beauty is part of the appeal.
Having said that, there are many other places in Newton, both publicly and privately owned, where such canopies would be appropriate. Many large parking lots that aren’t adjacent to historic or natural sites would get an upgrade visually with an attractively designed canopy.
I don’t know enough about the economics to comment if they would be worthwhile, but I’ll take the Mayor at her word that they are.
The site across newton north parking lot is going to look like an eyesore where it is an open field at this point. I get making parking solar investments in large isolated parking spaces surrounded by industrial or commercial property, but in the middle of a major residential get together spot!!
I am a resident across the lot and the view from one and two levels up will particularly be disgusting
Thanks Jack Prior for your update.
What is Newton’s financial cost over 20 years?
Will Newton for certain sell the excess energy?
What if today’s energy costs are less than solar and improve
their carbon foot print?
I’m just glad they remove the panels along Albemarle Road!
Speaking as a sympathetic observer from Watertown: Urban shade trees are vitally important in myriad ways. Increasing solar generation capacity to replace fossil fuel use is urgently important for the city and the planet, but the destructive local effects of removing healthy shade trees far outweigh the energy benefits of replacing them with solar canopies.
Municipalities should instead fast-track solar installation by incentivizing developers and private homeowners to add solar to their roofs. Watertown’s Town Council has unanimously approved a zoning amendment requiring commercial developments of more than 10,000 square feet, and residential developments of ten units or more, to install solar collectors. See the article below for some details.
http://www.watertownmanews.com/2018/12/03/watertown-first-community-in-state-to-adopt-solar-requirements-for-projects/
To stay below 2degC for the duration of this century alone with no guarantee of preventing further increase beyond such a devastatingly high average global temperature, firm science consensus holds we in USA and other OCED nations must achieve voluntarily (because no other nation’s laws make us magnificent doers) ~80% cut in our CO2 by 2030 & Zero CO2 energy by 2035-40.
We are ignoring completely this science-backed urgent warning! Our young people are being sacrificed to keep CO2 polluter privileges we don’t need. We can not ‘green’ or justify the use of fossil fuels now. OK more solar panels in open locations, Mayor Fuller please! We have to generate safe clean electricity paid for by consumption of that electricity that everyone needs each other to use.
We should be talking about how to urgently build safe clean electricity works at scale matching our consumption – as we now have safe roads water and sewage works, airport, public schools and universities, long long list. Our kids are in grave grave danger of losing the lives ahead of them. It’s our responsibility to protect them while we can and with each other’s help.
More solar – doesn’t mean where there are trees now. But to argue a solarrray on a school parking lot is too ugly when our kids lives ahead of them are right now blocked by our cumulative carbon dioxide pollution? Many of them are asking for our help? They’ve given us enough, please let’s give them Hope, Charity, Tolerance and Community.
@Library and Auburndale Cove: During the last attempt to install solar panels at the library, the City Council overwhelmingly voted down the request with the main reason being aesthetics and the historical area around City Hall, that also includes the library and the Newton Cemetery. Were this a private developer and not the city, I highly doubt this proposal would pass through the Historical Commission’s review process.
Since the main reason for rejecting the first proposal has not changed, I will again take a leading role, working with my colleagues, and work to seek other more appropriate solar locations, and leaving the historic City Hall/Library/Cemetery to be green!
On Auburndale Cove: Same goal to maintain the historic beauty of the area, and yes the parking lots could be improved.
This solar proposal is a fantastic idea. To me, parking lots are ugly–including the one two doors down from me at the Newton Free Library. It’s a parking lot.
What a great idea to add an environmental feature to parking lots across the city. No forests or forested areas will be negatively impacted. Globally, perhaps they will be improved in a small way through Newton’s adoption of a green energy solution.
If Newton residents truly want to lessen the carbon foot print
then stopp using air conditioning. At least use it only when absolutely necessary. AC is the worst method of global warming.
Actually Colleen I believe the best thing Newton residents could do is to support dense, smart growth, transit oriented development. Can we count on your support?
Greg, I support what you propose so long as the dirty fossil fuel electricity is not used for it. Our young people have their necks in a noose tightening with every ton of kWh of dirty electricity we use. The atmosphere is chocked full already, we can’t green emissions! The science is firm on this point.
Now we pay for and operate the dirty generation of electricity. We can admit this is wrong, and go build clean safe electricity at scale of our consumption. We’ll pay for it by our consumption. Like water, sewer, roads, schools, airport…. Our young people are counting on us in a go no go decision with expiration soon. The best American science says go. For our kids, and their families it has to be go.
Lawrence,
There was a study that cited air conditioners as a major contributor to global warming. If we can ban leaf blowers, then why not AC?
It’s a health problem for the elderly.
I think everyone should ( fill in the thing that you like ).
I may not even do it myself, but everyone else should.
I’ve driven a hybrid car since 2006. Has everyone?
Back when I was still an alderman, I was fortunate enough to visit an affordable housing project the City of Boston funded which were “energy positive” homes. The builder used a combination of solar collectors, insulation, and sustainable design to actually produce more energy than they consume.
At RIT, where one of my daughters is earning a mechanical engineering degree, the college has built one of the greenest buildings in the world.
Newton could do this. And the city could require all new construction to meet these standards. And I wish I had fought for this. Because I believe that doing so would achieve far greater results than merely retrofitting parking lots and public buildings with PV panels. Because Lawrence is right. The noose is tightening for our children and grandchildren if we don’t get going. Like, yesterday.
Energy efficient buildings and many other developments certainly will go on! There isn’t a closed system, and certainly not a lifeboat analogy at all. So many different kinds of advances we can continue making. But we have got to stop combustion of fossil fuels. Professor Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University and a leader in designing California’s brilliant progress toward renewable energy, has emphasized our biggest hurdle is stopping combustion. It’s not greenable in any pragmatic sense! Why not move right away to building renewable sourced electricity generation to meet our consumption? We are devastating our families by generating dirty electricity to meet our consumption – paid for by our consumption. The NewtonPowerChoice program is very much backward facing, crippled by reliance on the dirtiest source of electricity and widespread irrational belief we’re greening it by buying inexpensive RECs that do not reduce how much fossil fuels use is required for kWh consumption in Newton.
Rick,
Its interesting to note that before AC’s were available, homebuilders designed homes to have tree canopy shade and “basement to attic” cross ventilation.
.. but realistically its not going to happen.. I wonder what kind of hydro power we could get from the Charles…
Ceiling fans go a long way to reduce the need for AC
By the way, quite a vocal and unhappy group at tonight’s Newtonville Area Council meeting. And, every one beware: the radical changes to the current zoning plan are city wide not just Washington Street/ Newtonville. Your property values may be at risk.
Unfortunately this debate, like many others, is devolving into who among the comfortable, upscale suburbanites who now predominate in Newton is the bigger hypocrite. No one wins.
Ted, you are right. Those comfortable with belief they’re greening their shale fuel electricity are not winning. Those net-metering their electricity account to physical solar panels in their utility load zone but still on same grid as everyone else, are not winning. Those not cognizant of this existential matter are not.
Our kids don’t have their future anymore (awful one we’re making for them) because we are hypocrites and worse, we don’t care enough about them to build the safe clean electricity works at scale of our consumption. So we can protect them! Instead we are largely building to scale of our consumption – shale fuels electricity. Is this easy or what?
This is just like preWWll when urgency to respond to a chaotic threat was debated among hypocrites of that time. But the ones sinking our ships then were NAZI and today it’s us. Would you change? I will. Let’s go!
Sorry, did dawn on me that Ted’s remarks were about Newtonville discussion.
@bugek
Interesting that our HVAC person told us that our powerful first floor to third floor “chimney effect” exhaust fan, located in our third floor ceiling, which works well to cool our house, now probably violates code because of the potential for pulling CO from the basement ( and radon gas.)
Our asbestos shingle covered house was probably sold as a fire safety feature back in the day. There seem to always be unforeseen consequences..
Bill Ferguson says there will be an update on the city website today.
I’m hoping it will include a comparison of solar output at each site, if they do site as proposed, vs doing site without messing with the trees.
And I hope it will answer unresolved tree count questions, specifically:
Which trees at each location would be cut down?
Which trees at each location would be moved?
What happens to the other trees? There are trees that Macquarie included in their removal numbers that are unaccounted for. (13 removals in mayor’s newsletter, less 5, or more likely 7 Library removals, leaves 8, or more likely 6, removals elsewhere. But Macquarie listed 1 removal at Angier, 4 at Williams, now 1 at Auburndale Cove, 4 at Pleasant St, now 1 at Brown, 1 at Oak Hill and 3 at Mason Rice which adds up to 15.)
— mayor’s email said 7 trees could be moved and 7 would be cut at the Library, but that doesn’t add up to 12
— do changes at Oak Hill MS mean large oak will not be pruned or topped in any way, or just not cut down completely?
— what other trees besides at the Library would be in the 15 moved? I only see 5 at the Library realistically movable, and none at the other locations except for 5 or 6 at Memorial Spaulding, where Ameresco listed zero trees being removed (not that I thought that was believable given their panel layouts).
— which tree in front of Brown would be cut for the new carport location?
— what’s the 4th tree at Williams (besides the three large oaks in front)?
I very much admire the process so far. The technocrats came out with a plan that, in my opinion, went too far and cut down too many trees. Many of us attended at least one of the follow-up meetings that allowed residents to air their concerns. The city came back with a needed modification of the original plan.
Gone are the solar collectors at Albemarle, and the plan at the library is undergoing further scrutiny. The number of trees to be cut down has shrunk dramatically, and more trees will be planted elsewhere.
Personally, I like rooftop solar panels best of all, and I have seen them on slate rooftops in Europe. I know, the last time around the powers-that-be raised aesthetic and structural objections to placing solar panels on either City Hall or the library. Still, I wonder….
Now, here’s hoping that the Patriots bring home the (kosher) bacon on Sunday!
Well said, Ted!
Julia, thanks ever for your efforts! The oak tree at Angier School, is it coming down? Awful. City of Newton is becoming a force for destruction of a human ‘landscape’ that past generations loved and protected. Attempts to support renewable energy use are welcome but only if sensible pragmatic attempts.
My NewtonPowerChoice opt out letter came today. It says city of Newton electricity account holders will be supplied with 60% renewable energy unless they opt out. That is sheer nonsense and is misinforming residents about low availability / paucity of renewable energy as electricity! Why do such a senseless act? I’m returning opt out letter to the address in New Jersey. Why is a company in New Jersey involved? How much is this costing residents? Too many questions! BTY, electricity off the solar installations (Ameresco and Macquarie) plans to operate on City property will be sold to the City at a discount and appear as a credit amount within City account with utility providing actual grid service to city usage. This ‘net-metering’ arrangement is also how I buy solar electricity for my Eversource account. I have saved far more money this way than I imagined I would. All residents should be able to buy clean safe electricity production, and also save money, as I do, as the City does now or will after panels are installed and owned by Ameresco.
@Lawrence, the Angier oak is no longer listed as a removal. They do seem to want to ‘trim’ the top, though. It’s unclear how much they want to trim in order not to shade the roof panels.
Tree “topping” – reducing the height of a tree by cutting off the upper branches and leaders, is bad arboriculture. It’s not good for the tree, and it doesn’t look good either.
This is a perfect example of why I’ve asked that we be told projected solar output for each site as proposed, and without messing with any trees. The Angier oak is a great looking tree with intact upper canopy. As can be seen in the Google street view, it’s in a perfect position to shade the gym wall in summer, which reduces air conditioning costs. It will only shade part of the Angier roof, part of the day, and really just in bright sun, not on hazy or cloudy days when light comes from all directions. Councilors should at least know the incremental effect on solar output before signing off of damaging a healthy and prominent tree.
Oof! ‘Let the chips fall where they may’, eh?
Tiny kW difference by leaving tree intact, will matters only to panels owner, which isn’t City. Miserably little attention spent on what is here still to protect. So many large trees were removed to make Angier ‘drivable’. Leave that one alone!