Link back to Harbor Development Committee page
EAC Meeting Notes: Jan. 9, 2009; 7:15 PM
Members Present: Otto Harding; Brian Sullivan, Victor Popp
Pam Hardy; one member of the Public identified as Carol Valentine.
Past Minutes Approvals:
November and December minutes were approved.
Discussion Began:
Pam started off by suggesting she would like to propose a “soft” plan to the town. Otto suggested we go with a “realistic plan,” which shows them how to get there. Pay stated that ICLEI has goals that are realistic.
Pam suggested we create a timeline for implementing changes. Russ asked if other towns have similar targets and programs. Otto stated that other towns have not done well after they get the “low hanging fruit.”
Pam produced the ICLEI targets, but also said that ICLEI had no data on results. She said that Burlington VT went backing time and looked at past improvements data on buildings which existed. They also did projections which are just that---projections.
Otto suggested: 1.) that Micro co-gen by Honda through a firm called Climate Energy Inc. in new England uses and industrial piston engine running on natural gas or propane can produce 1 to 2 KW, 5 KW hrs; and the heat is used for space heating getting an overall efficiency of 90%. National Grid will kick in #3K subsidies and the break even is 10 years. HMPL to do incentives with national Grid for Hydronic Boiler replacements in a new building.
2.) If you have heat, use the waste heat to preheat the boiler system.
John and Otto then suggested a pilot program by HMLP. Honda gets a 5 year warrantee which is not very good. The warrantee could be extended by HMPP or an insurance company.
The cost of the unit was reported to be about $20K. It can run all night. Without heat, the efficiency is 23 %, not 90 %.
Can power hydronic, warm air, electricity, with but no absorption cooling in summer?
Pam said we should study further. HMLP, % of homeowners, BTU savings. Otto stated that residents would need to pay for these. There are 6 in Braintree, and we should talk to the town that fostered usage. A pilot program was suggested where HMLP or Nstar may subsidize.
Otto also mentioned a Buderus system which is reported to be 98% efficient.
Pam went to discuss a prioritization worksheet which she has from ICLEI. Russ stated we still need a goal and that some research was needed to get one. He also suggested that we have specific strategies with realistic goals for each one.
Pam stated that one example would be insulation. This is an area we could study.
Otto stated that Washington State had low cost power and funded improvements.
Carol, the public attendee stated that she had a list of windpower volunteers who could get involved to reduce the carbon footprint.
Russ suggested that the specific areas we could look at the changes to the footprint then set reasonable goals for residential and commercial. The group recognized that in 20 years, most of the heating systems in town will be replaced since that is the life of these systems.
Brian said he could get residential data on what works, paybacks, customer feedback on products such as bulbs and heating.
Russel stated that he felt the High School project was too small and that we should bundle the programs to include the entire town, Police, Fire, Schools, all Town buildings.
Brian stated that a 700 KW system would cost $50 to $60 K.
Victor agreed to investigate the energy audit program offered by HMLP. How may have had them and what data is generated on the town by the audits. Are commercial residents audited? An infrared camera was purchased by a private group called Sustainable South Shore to do audits.
Brian mentioned programmable thermostats as a way to save energy. Commercial is the best venue, and includes computer controlled energy management systems.
Russel stated that the town’s biggest potential savings lies in its buildings. Since no capital outlays are possible, performance contracting is bets option. Source One report implementation.
Brian stated that Jeff has numbers non-Hingham traffic on route 3 (federal reduction numbers). Pam stated Jeff had greater numbers than ICLEI. ICLEI had 88,000 tons including rte. 3.
Russ increase portfolio at HMLP; hydropower doesn’t count; invest in renewable energy projects; get renewable energy credits; investigate cost/benefits for different power types. Russ agreed to take this on and to see if HMLP rebates and to see if commercial energy audits are available. Otto suggested sequestering carbon is an option being used.
The next meetings were planned for Tuesday, 2/17/2009 at 7:30 and March 23, 2009 at 7:30.
EAC Meeting Notes: March 10, 2009; 7:00 PM
Members Present: Otto Harding; Russell Heissner, Victor Popp, Pam Hardy, and John Tzimorangas.
Past Minutes Approvals:
After reading minutes: Russ and Pam discussed how Brian can get Nstar data. Russ said we wanted this to ensure realistic data, starting with residential. Brian had said he could get lots of data.
John: people do not always follow the recommendations given to them for improvements after audits. So we do not know the effect of these improvements.
Pam said we can make assumptions, based on an estimate of the percentage of people who make improvements.
January minutes were approved (untyped).
Discussion Began:
Russ stated that he did a GREET model which outlays carbon emissions based on data on the HMLP website fuel sources. Going from 4.2 to 10 MW on renewable fuels brought GHG reduction f 826 tons per year, and CO@ down by 849 tons per year.
John, we need to know if this method makes sense conceptually. Should we decide if this works for use of the group?
Let’s use 2008 as a base year actually to see what would happen on a KW basis. Forgetting the numbers for now, we need to decide if the method is an acceptable way for us to monitor changes?
Otto questioned whether the 2 MW of wind power is realistic as wind energy will not be as economical anymore as of December.
John: the costs have dropped about 20% so we need to redo the evaluation.
Pam: 2 MW is reasonable in the next fie years.
John said wind will never be cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear. Otto stated he wants realistic, financially viable options for the taxpayers.
John stated we should start before mandates from the government begin.
Otto wants capital and trade numbers to demonstrate feasibility. PV is a waste of money, which could be better used elsewhere.
Russel and John agreed on the concept of not including wind if it is too high a cost.
John already has contracts with existing plants that need to close or expire. These are life of the unit contracts.
Russ: we continually try to increase the renewables in the portfolio as time goes on.
John and Russ agreed to get new numbers using the GREET method. Otto pointed out that methane is 20 times more than CO2 carbon equivalents CH4 vs. CO2.
The group reviewed the renewable portfolio by Russ.
Pam suggested we discuss taking a position on a new Zoning by-Law change related to the Commercial and Retail character of rentals in downtown Hingham. She said we as a group should weigh in on the subject. She felt there may be potential energy consumption ramifications of this proposed changes to the downtown area.
Otto made a motion not to discuss this issue, and John seconded it. Victor agreed that it was likely to have small effect on carbon footprint compared to other savings.
John Tzimorangas brought up the subject the Electric Light Board had an excess in funds to give to the Selectmen. The funding expected was $450K, but $487 K was available. The $37 K of excess funds were recommended by the Board to be used for energy improvements. He also reported that the Selectmen had decided to use these funds for other purposes. The HMLP was not in agreement with this decision. The Quincy issue with Honeywell was discussed at the meeting, although this was not deemed to be the reason for the Selectmen’s decision.
The energy action committee voted to write a letter to the Selectmen asking them why they did not go with the Board’s recommendation.
It was suggested that the $37K in funding could be used for Source One recommended improvements, and/or hiring a consultant to work on performance contracting.
The EAC agreed to write a letter to the Selectman, with a “polite tone” asking them to state why they made this decision. Russ Heissner reported that this funding was planned on as our primary strategy.
Otto suggested we vote on the tenets of the letter, and also that if focus on why the measure was voted down; what uses we could find for the money and recommendations for performance contracting with associated payback periods.
John said that we would need an investment grade audit in order to get to a position where we could enter into a performance contract.
An article for the Hingham Journal on the EAC was getting done, and Russ suggested it match our letter to the Selectmen. Russ also stated he would write a job description for an intern to run the ICLEI software which was currently loaded on the Selectmen’s computer. Pam stated that she felt it would be difficult for here to learn.
A discussion was had regarding the ICLEI Presentation/meeting with the Selectmen for 3/24/2009 at 7:00 PM. It was largely agreed we would not discuss the funding matter with them at that time. John questioned the purpose on the mission of the ICLEI meeting. Pam said it was to reiterate on our three prong strategy.
The next EAC meeting was set for 4/7/2009 at 7:30.