Link back to Harbor Development Committee page
EAC Meeting Notes: March 10, 2009; 7:15 PM
Members Present: Otto Harling; Victor Popp
Pam Hardy; John Tzimorangas
Past Minutes Approvals:
After some discussion about Brian Phillips’ previous offer to get NSTAR data on the effects of energy improvements; the February minutes were approved.
Discussion Began:
Greet Model: Russ proposed a tool he uses at work called a Greet Model which may be useful to the EAC Committee. He handed out a sheet on which he input HMLP data on fuel sources (going from 4.3 to 10 MWatt) and showed estimated GHG and CO2 reductions of 826 and 849 tons per year, respectively.
After some discussion of the numbers used, the conversation moved to whether or not the method makes sense conceptually as a way of predicting and tracking the town’s GHG and CO2 reductions.
The discussion included statements about how the HMLP cost data had dropped by 20% since it was posted, and could be updated. Otto stated that any projections should be done with financially viable alternative fuels. The relatively low cost of nuclear power was discussed, as well as the benefit of taking steps before government mandates reductions. The real costs of wind and PV power were discussed. John conveyed that HMLP energy costs are often tied into contracts; some which last for the life of a power plant. Russel stated that the objective should be to continually increase the renewables in the HMLP portfolio.
It was generally felt that the Greet Model appeared to offer the Committee at least one useable tool. John and Russ agreed to get better numbers and do a more thorough analysis of the HMLP usage and resulting gas reductions. Otto mentioned that the Greet Model should consider the fuels carefully, since for example, methane produces 20 times more carbon than CO2.
2.) The Russ briefly reviewed the renewable energy portfolio.
3.) Pam brought up the recent move of the Hingham Downtown Association’s proposal to regulate with zoning laws the types of businesses that are allowed to occupy the lower levels of the downtown area. She suggested that the Committee may want to take a position on the issue, if it relates to the towns Carbon footprint.
After some discussion, it was largely agreed that the issue did not seem to contribute as much as other items on the EAC agenda; and so, a motion was made by Otto not to discuss this issue and a vote was taken that the EAC would not discuss this issue.
4.) John brought that the Selectmen appeared to have taken the $37,000 of the $487K collected over the planned $450K for use in the schools. This money had been suggested by the Energy Policy Committee and the HMLP board in the past to be used for energy improvements. It appeared as if the Selectmen over ruled the HMLP Board’s recommendation that the money be used by the EAC.
It was agreed that this money had been the primary strategy of the Energy Action Policy Committee to fund any improvements.
It was also agreed by unanimous vote that the EAC would thus draft a letter to the Selectmen to ask why they made this decision. The letter should state that the money had been planned to be used for Source One report (funded by the HMLP) which recommended energy improvements. Russ stated that we may want to include the money may be used for the hiring of a performance contractor to review the town’s overall program.
6.) Pam mentioned that an article on the EAC was being planned for the Hingham Journal.
7.) Pam stated that the ICLEI software which currently resides on the Selectmen’s computer would require coming up a learning curve, and no Committee member felt they could take on the task of running it. Russ agreed to write a job description for a student intern who could run the software and input data.
8.) The upcoming ICLEI presentation meeting (slated for March 24, 2009 at 7:00 PM) to the Selectmen was discussed. The purpose of the meeting was discussed. Pam stated we should use it as an opportunity to restate our three prong strategy.
9.) The next EAC meeting was set for 4/7/2009 at 7:00.