ok i'd like to call the september thirtieth two thousand and fifteen meeting of the light board to order my name is sammy baghdadi i'm the chair mark palermo vice chair of the light board is to my ri williams member is to my left we also have general manager jim palmer with this here today so let me let me start with the first item on our agenda which is the general managers report an update on the substation and transmission project  structure coming out of the ground as of next week expect to have the building weather tight by december eighth and we have equipment that is scheduled to be delivered on or about that date so we're got major g i s equipment showing up around that time and we also have the final contract signed with the substation transmission line bid that we had put out so that was signed with the court construction construction we had a kickoff meeting last week with them they're scheduled to they're working on their  and then the liquid damages kick in after that so so that's good that's where we are with it with that part we've been working very closely with and star it will be working even well and still ever source now the device emerged what changed  starts the real construction plan has to be submitted laying out the means and methods that the contracts are going to be using along the railway the timeline and that has to go through engineering and several other departments safety and and a has on there are you know in their standard review procedures so they're all the each department is obligated to turn around their comments on that  application for access to that the line to do the construction of the fitchburg line within forty five days and that we should know next week the first full week in october of his when we'll have a better idea or we can  and i think we're estimating that that contract was put out at twelve million did it come back at seven hundred million back at seventeen that's correct and then that's exhausted the reserves for the project that has me looking for more money is basically well i do think we discussed that last year i think yeah i think right now what we're looking at is you know we have a cash flow challenge but right now we're not looking for any any funding we'll be assessing that in  probably late december early january so if there is if there's a if there's an issue what we see that we were going to need authorization to borrow more we will we'll notify you by that around that time frame but the idea is that it's not going to be for the town's account know if we do need more money to complete the trenching then that will be repaid by overseers that's correct one has to correct so it's just information to have yet jim at this point at this point it's  you know coordination correct self even even though the the the contract cost more than we thought because of the challenge right or not the challenge is the time right because ultimately it's going to be  it's not exactly a follow up question but it's from something we discussed the last time there were there was some discussion that if the project wasn't energized by the the date that it scheduled that there were going to be some  penalties assessed to the town for that not happening but we just we determined that that's not the case right to there is no penalty involved in the of this i'm not aware of any penalty because that was a little bit with us ourselves but current that's correct so there is there any implication if for say thirty days pushed out in july in terms of from financing the assets and whatever i don't personally i don't believe so because we've already got a long term bond for twenty twenty six point one million right now that's already in our rates for the distribution and going to the substation portion the the assets that we went out for recently last april are  sure that i can make you aware of the risks right sure and that's not a risk that's come across my desk ok good so will will bring that back under control you know you mentioned liquidated damages kick in in in your report what is that the liquidated damages are well there's a does a deadline date get the to complete the project so they have twenty six weeks to get the to get the civil structural in the pipe of this into construction there's a construction for i mean is it standard in most conflicts they would they would be liable to us not us to that that's correct you know they can't deliver timely right and then also we were just in a meeting this week on the fire station apparently if you have a meeting and one of the conference rooms you can see outside because that doesn't you know that the wall for some reason construction the fire so there was some question about whether the certificate of occupancy was issued earlier or not issued early and you know there's a lot of detail around that but i'm just wondering you have confidence in the construction for the certificate of occupancy is something that we control  so we're you know just since we've had the experience in the town we want to you know make sure that we don't do that again and i'm sure you wouldn't be in that position but we want to make sure that we have again right yes no i understand you concerns were no there will some problems with with the building after they've had a mess and i was not concerned about the building but i am concerned about if you know happened this happens and it happens again you know we don't want that to happen again it would necessarily be   so we just need to probably you know check this c e o one time before we issue it just right you know just and i guess the other thing too to keep in mind is that it's not an occupied building you know so it's a simple very simple structure there's not a lot there's not a lot to it there's no he wouldn't have ceilings inside or anything like that like an office building would suck yes i one more question and this is not a softball question i'm actually thinking about this you've told me that you know we got the substation and then we have a number of other substations to deal with right how many do we have to deal with and really what's the next step ok well i mean after this is the right that's good no it's a good question it's  not consider that a softball question but i think to me that's easy so basically basically what we're looking at is the number one property in town that i think everybody has their eye on is for fifty concord half so realistically for us to move our facilities out of that building so that they would be you know you could use it for something that would make a decision on what you want to do we have forecast is going to be at least five years for us to get out of that building after this one is done so looking at two thousand and twenty two because of the complexity of the of the you know is that building first of this first yes we are we are developing the the master plan right now the engineering firm that we're using will have some plenary results in november school in the one outside the high school you know if i could follow up is that something you have to do in series or can you do all three awards well you know i think you would see where we would do it in in series because of the risks associated with that yourself too much of a risk and those those are not going to be sixty million dollar projects like this one you know but how much are they twenty million dollars project i think i would say you know twenty million is probably not unreasonable for the messages there's a lot of moving parts so you know thank you for that update it's a challenge and it's a challenge that we hope to meet timely and item discussion and possible vote on updated emission free renewable generation generating facility policy and buyback tariff we have here in the audience our temporary saying you know we appointed you at the beginning beginning of the summer you met very frequently throughout the summer maybe more frequently than you would have liked but it was a big undertaking and  it was a large effort and you know you have submitted your report to us which boy i would say is you know at least twenty pages not counting the  gave you a brief overview of the report about a month ago and which we described as a draft and right now i think the report is finally done and in the back of the room there might be some copies of the final final report but we  will formally tender that to you today along with some background materials that we promised in the report and we think our work is completed we did meet starting in early july i've lost track of the number of times but we might have met sixteen or seventeen times in july and august and reviewed a lot of material there was vigorous discussion there was a lot of public participation report and dispense with a lot of the detail that people can read on their own and let me also say that i learned the smore name that the light department has prepared draft tariff language which i think is great i have not actually reviewed it carefully and i don't know exactly how that draft tariff language correlates with what we put in the report but so me explain what we did and then first is the type of facility that this tariff would apply to and we suggested that it apply to all solar in so called  interconnections where the facility would have a capacity of two hundred fifty kilowatt less that would certainly cover every residential rooftop installation in town and would also include what would be moderate sized commercial facilities that exist elsewhere in massachusetts we specifically chose to exclude very large scale projects for example something on the size of the concord landfill project which is three or four times larger than that in the because the economics of those may be quite different and they could also raise technical issues that that we weren't prepared to explore at this point so but that this will cover every residential installation and reasonably sized commercial installations so presumably if one of the commercial properties young so for that group of facilities our proposal is i think fairly simple we are proposing that  so the the the mental picture to keep in your head is that a solar customer takes power from belmont light and they also can put power back to the amount of light and we are proposing that for any electricity taken from the system the solar customer pays the same price that a comparable nonce all a customer would pay then on the other hand to the extent the solar generator has excess power that they would like to sell back and not consume on site but the sell back we are proposing that they that the solar host be paid eleven cents per kilowatt hour for every kilowatt hour that they sell back to the town or sell back about my life and that eleven senses will be fixed will apply to every kolob watt hour for the next year and a half essentially worse we're proposing that the eleven cents be fixed until the end of december two thousand and seventeen  thereafter the eleven cents will adjust once a year and we proposed a mechanism to take account of significant changes in the price of electricity electricity prices go up or down significantly the eleven cents what we can adjust that will go up and down but that adjustment will for administrative simplicity will be done once a year in december and the new price will apply for the following year don't don't you agree jim well i mean it's so you're describing it as a purchase power transmission adjustment you know i think you mean we could revisit that in two thousand and seventeen sure because would this do this so there is some concern about changing it to offer there's that factory i think well i think that you want to get it right you're going to do it right so i think it from everything that i've read  what most people are doing anyhow so it's not you know it's it's a good tariff to submit to the well and once we pass the policy it's certainly at certain take thereafter as to whether the energy rates have changed significantly enough to move the eleven cents per kilowatt hour to twelve or ten so i mean there is some advantage in having a self adjusting tariff i think that might give more certainty to developers for instance that there isn't any more involvement necessarily necessary involvement of the light board in a different light board so i don't want to be country voice here jim but there may be some advantage in looking at this as a self adjusting tariff that doesn't need further light board involvement we should think but that's certainly how we thought about it it's formulaic and it's yeah it's a simpler idea than what happens in many places where the per the rate actually changes formulaically every month because it's based on  away from all of that but i put it in but the way it's we imagined it it's really a formulaic adjustment that doesn't require any i think of liberation from i think th that's prepared for filing allows herself to just well it's that's that i'm not sure of yet because be quite honest with you the the pricing language that's in the tariff is is the recommendation from the working group verbatim so our consultant was asked to review the report review our current tariffs that are filed and you know make a recommendation and to draft the tariff in a practical manner and not you know not changing the pricing terms that have been recommended chairman if i could suggest i think we're getting a little off track here upon it i think i think we should hear the report in then get back to this because i believe the intent of the  price we're proposing an ag for only an aggregate solar capacity limit of a thousand kilowatts and the reason for that is that because this is  a new area if there is extremely widespread adoption of solar there could be issues that arise that have not been anticipated so what the purpose of this limit is to mandate a pause basically where the polite word would have an opportunity to assess if there are any issues whether of economic nature or technical nature and if there are no issues our expectation is that the one thousand kilowatt limit would be raised in a prompt manner but this is just for prudence really and two to give you a sense of what that means right now there's two hundred eighty kilowatt of capacity in belmont but more than half of that is the belmont hill school so if the remaining were be incremental facilities  residential this a blouse for a lot of additional residential capacity before this limit is reached and but we expect that assuming there are no problems the thousand will be raised to some higher level that will be in the the one eighty is in the one thousand yes yes yes so that's like a circuit breaker you know at that point we cap and revaluate yes with the and with the expectation that that process would be undertaken promptly and because actually he would be aware of the imminence a breach in the thousand kilowatts limit that process could even start in advance so once we had eight hundred start think yeah yeah is what form of compensation would be appropriate given this change from the existing regime which is referred to as full retail in that metering to the proposed are proposing that there be the potential for compensation that would be limited to individuals who installed their solar units before november two thousand and eleven and the reason for that is that is the date when the current tariff was and out of the current total solar tariff was announced and what we are proposing is well let me step back for a second the november two thousand and eleven tariff stablished the current retail net metering scheme but also said that that would that would be temporary and that would be replaced by that at least the expectation at that time was that it would be replaced by a different program called phase two that were phase two offered a buyback price that would be significantly systems before to november two thousand and eleven and what we are suggesting is that if they can demonstrate that the costs of their solar installation will not be recovered offer as much as three thousand dollars to that solar host if they can demonstrate they won't recover the cost system and the idea there was that that is that the population of host who i think economically could claim they've been harmed and the way we've thought about it is we're actually offering a significant amount of money  people who can demonstrate harm so that was the majority recommendation steve klee on ski had a different proposal which is not  to make any distinction between systems before november two thousand and eleven and systems after november two thousand and eleven but simply to continue the existing full retail  country person i know i recognize the logic of the majority position on this and my position really goes more just to administrative ease efficiency i just think it would be easier rather than to investigate the financials of the five or six customers and then look to give them a cash grant up to a certain amount it to me it was simply be easier to say let's institute this three year grandfathering period and leave it at that which i think is a fair way to do it but again that is a matter of opinion and i recognize the majority position i just think that rather getting rather than getting into cash grants it would be easier for the light department and others and avoiding any controversy about what the level of the grant might be would be just to continue the current  metering policy recognizing again and i think i mentioned this to the board last time we met that i think customers should be always be aware of the policies can change and there's always a question of whether grandfathering should be instituted i do think in this case there are some special then send special that special circumstances that might warrant it so that you know there's the four hive that had you know solar year with its before the november two thousand and eleven date so it's really impacting about fifty new installations since that i'm thinking steve's proposal the aggregate amount of money would be somewhat larger but the actual amount each individual receives will be rather modest whereas under our proposal  the aggregate amount of money will be i think somewhat smaller but the individuals who receive the amounts will receive more money but significantly more money and that person that's the decision to make thank you mr chairman if i could say on this issue i my reading of the tariff that we were provided with yesterday does not have either of these options in it in the ideas that that will be worked out separately is that's an idea think that's an internal building i think i think the approach that the department took when we were drafting the tower and with working with our consultants was the majority rules right so based on make is more of a rebate if you will than it is buying down the capital of the individuals investment so whichever direction we go it's not going to affect you well know this i don't know if we went with what steve is describing right you would you would have to is you would have to change language in the tower and if you went with what roy you know the majority ruled on that you you wouldn't affect and if you went with sammy for instance original program that we had developed which you know we didn't decide at the meeting last night were you know we went ahead and approve the design and we can go ahead and approve this tariff as submitted unless there's a reason that the board thinks we shouldn't and  i believe something should be done but i don't think we have to decide today to submit the tariff ok i'm sorry let me just interrupt and to say you know my one user but no you know to hear from steve is saying as my prior experience is a utility lawyer that tariffs are written a lot of different ways there are a lot of things you can include depends how much you how far you want to go we could include both the  majority position here or the minority position in a tariff jim is right that when we were talking about this last year there was a decision not to put in an tariff my own feeling is the more you put in the tariff the better you are because you're telling your brain as transparent as possible you're telling people what the policy is now and if there is any anything that is being grandfathered you you describe it as well so in my opinion one way to go would be to put either whether it's the majority or the minority opinion to put it in the tariff and i know i mean my line i have language for the minority opinion it's fairly simple the majority might be a little bit more complicated and you can make a decision there is a decision to be made about that my own opinion is the more you put in the tariff the more people can go to the d p you go to the website and see exactly what the policy and let me tell you what i'm getting at we want to file this before tomorrow or by tomorrow so that it takes and takes effect and there's thirty in the industry and people can start stalling solar panel well i think there is some want to delay it for yeah and i think there's a meeting in two weeks sure there is a big advantage in doing that so and that may trump some of the considerations that i'm talking about i mean getting it filed may be more important than anything else my own preference would be if you had a lot of time would not to have a separate policy and a separate tariff to put it all in the tariff because i think in fact the way we were looking at it we did look at it in the net metering working group it was all in the tariff and i have a lot of respect for jim and more years and consultants and there's different ways to look at things again just as a larger matter for you perhaps jim i mean how difficult a process i mean i i favor simplicity but how difficult a process do you think that would be i don't think it's going to be a difficult process you know and i'd also mr chairman if i may i don't think these two alternatives are the only alternatives so when we get into the discussion of you know how to treat the six or the twenty i think there are other considerations we should take in to consideration for under consideration but i don't think today's meeting is the release to do it we're going to pay for other other alternative one like what trying to only because we have  ok they were the first the david told our it was before there were all the tax credits that were out there they were the ones that are the most impacted financially the price has gone down over the years for installing solar you know these  guys paid the most so why shouldn't the policy favor those people as opposed to the fifteen others that filed after there was notice of the phase two  decide this as a policy point with further consideration liberation thank you and move forward on the tariff today just just to see you know how that calculation take place as a standardized who is the m royce finished i have some questions ok all right then the really the last topic addressed in our report is something that's outside the tariff which is how to get this  how to get solar implemented on a larger scale than it currently is and we are strongly advocating with the formation of what's called the solar rise campaign this is been done in a good number of towns around massachusetts and elsewhere where it's essentially a group buying process where towns  sign up interested customers and then approach a solar installer and get a good price from that installer and that has been done in woodburn arlington wellesley concord and many other places and the effects are very dramatic in a place like concord they were having ten to fifteen installations a year and in those the year of the solar rise campaign they had one hundred fifty and the reason for that as a couple of things there's education there's outreach there's it's just the process is made easier and the prices are lower so presumably if the campaign generates one hundred or two hundred new solar users you go to the preferred installer and they would reduce the cost of installing because they have all these customers yes you can it's almost like taking bids from installers saying we credit for solar that's quite valuable it's a thirty percent tax credit to the homeowner that legislation expires at the end of two thousand and sixteen so there's no indication that it will be renewed it might be but we can't count on that so there's every reason to get the solar rise campaign launched immediately so that people because the the system has to be switched on to qualify for the tax credit so the installations have to be completed by december of two thousand and sixteen and given lead time i'm sure we can other issues has to get started ok sure as the highlights of the report ok all right excellent you know to me it looks like the the most difficult task was coming up with that eleven buyback figure i would presume that took a lot of energy and attention can you just address how you how you came up ok and and you know the second half of my question is is that number different for small scale commercial are there different in residential rates versus commercial rates which if you should should it be different if the radio should be the same it's the only difference is that the generation the residential or the published rate if you will that's out there for the generation charge includes capacity so it's not it's not the l m p which is like six and a half cents for the average for last year for the  hours of nine to four when solar is producing the there are energy so i mean tying it to six point five but i mean that's just splitting hairs ok what you're recommending  rates at a rate that you all recommend but if there are three of us there might actually be three different rationales for how we all got to eleven cents tell you what the way i thought about it which is that  we were trying to balance two competing considerations one from a purely economic point of view belmont light should be paying the of what it cost for the power  and the other consideration of course is that we wanted to end up with a result where the solar host had a reasonable incentive to install the solar in the first place but thinking about it initially from  what's the value of the power it seemed to me that a pure what's called locational marginal price which is the price of generation that is published by us so it was too  low because it doesn't include transmission and it doesn't include what's called the capacity charge and those components are significant so we didn't have the time or the resources to exhaustedly study what the true avoided cost of the power was and we eleven cents is what you get by using numbers that are readily available from belmont light in the normal course where they have the generation and transmission components and the rate capacity transmission and it's probably the case that the eleven ellen p price and add transmission and add a reasonable capacity charge it could be when all is said and done that the right answer is nine cents but not having perfect information and in the wish to be conservative we put it at eleven and that in turn satisfied the criteria we had identified for making a solar investment worthwhile so we thought it was a good way to strike a balance ok thank you just jump in serious question earlier sammy it's true the eleven cents was based off of the residential break in but it does apply it applies to other customer rates as well so but most of the installations presumably would be residential rooftop i shouldn't be speaking for everyone i'm speaking for myself here so it seemed reasonable to use the calculation we did for residential lay even might apply to other rate classes as well who would have slightly different rates ok and jim said fact anyways well i think i think what what the what the working group you know was trying to do i mean it makes perfect sense what they did because to publish rates or somebody can easily calculated and roi is you know spot on with  trying to come up with an accurate number is very very difficult for this complex to put a number to it the two cent atter for you know the capacity benefits and the you know transmission benefits to the department you know it's a number right so you know would take a lot of work to actually validate that number our consultants looked at it and came up with the same exact assumptions that you know royce explained to the boys so i think that it's defensible the way they did it i it seems fair it seems like we've got a good compromise here it's easy to it's the only thing that we did made was changes i know you mention the size the size is still listed in the policy the two fifty k w roy and the as far as in the tariff we just break it out as two different interconnection requirements standpoint and then you know the pricing is the same and whether or not you have to file that on a yearly basis or you can it automatically adjusts i don't know the answer the question but you know and then i think the other one we were talking about was really like rebates i mean if you structure rebates or i consider that i considered what the majority had recommended as a rebate so i you know from our perspective from that is it's really it's much like what was proposed back in december to the board where we had a program if you will that was really an energy efficiency program that was a rebate for you know offsetting carbon you know and that's really what it was  that to me it doesn't tie it to the tariff it doesn't tie it to a policy it really comes under our energy efficiency program and we just move forward with approving the policy in approving the t with a lot of work i buy roy we can detail spreadsheet to say does how does this how would this number how does this work in terms of providing an adequate incentive a lot of time was spent on that and then out of all that we reached  describes actually the whole range of of payments to the solar hosts of the eleven cents but let me put it this way if you generate power and use it on site now you get a payment of over twenty cents from a state program so there's actually a lot of cash flows coming in and the spreadsheet that jake described puts all that together that to assess several questions if i may yes thank you one of the things that happened to us is that we get letters to the select winds mailbox and we've had several well written and respectful and logical letters sent by respected and responsible people in the community who are very concerned about this idea of cross subsidized station and  it's hard for me to say the word itself but in your report and i think you've explained it if you say the conclusions about reasonableness of the recommended tariff which i agree with that these experiments and others give the working group confidence that the proposed tariff will not discourage the growth of solar power as you describe hen belmont in will be equitable to the belmont light ratepayers and you know those are the people who sent the several letters in i just wondered if is there another comment that you can make  give those people who you know were concerned about the cost to subsidize station i think that once you take the distribution you're not painting the host for distribution that you know that goes a long way because the solar host needs the lines to to sell back to the the utility and in also for it to wheel to their neighbors if that's what happens to the power so i think that was a big give back that you know the people who are supporting this to begin with were able to make back in may and that greatly reduced the idea of any cross subsidize station and i think you all have taken it to another level  words it's a lot more defensible can you say anything else about it you've spoken eloquently already well we we really wanted to get away from the term cross subsidy because  we didn't think it was act well i might have had a more extreme view on this than my fellow committee members i didn't think the term was helpful or even correct my smiter frankly the way i thought about paid belmont light both in the per kilowatt charge for the actress today and the monthly fee that they pay that everybody pays if the amount paid to belmont light did not cover the cost of the electricity they consume  that would be across subsidy to me ok that does not happen in this tariff here everybody is paying enough to cover the cost of the electricity plus a little bit more and for that reason i don't think across subsidy is is a concern for the solar hosts probably pay a little bit less wallace said and done than other customers towards the general overhead of the department but they're paying something and the little gap that exists we thought was compatible with the goal of encouraging solar in certainly they're being paid a lot less than they were being paid under the retail meter and there's no question that right that we thought that if there's a difference the difference is really not important for our purposes no i would certainly agree with that i think like mark said that the sixteen or seventeen times that you met within sixty days is remarkable but on the other hand i think that's what it takes to solve something like this because it was such a of puzzle and such a conundrum so thank i think we all owe you great thanks for for that effort know was there anything that material were not not even materially different is the intention of the working group in the documents that were put together yes is that are there any additional requirements that were added  you know to your i mean i think your intention was to mirror the working group and you write it was reformulated split into policy and then into the tariff into steve's point some people think some of the things should be in the tariff that are not in the tariff on the other hand the fact that the tariff is written the way it is makes it really simple because you know you get a two page document as you said you can read it in five minutes so are there any differences between what the room working group recommended and and what's in those two documents leaving out the grandfather well certainly there is there because you know the working group it's a recommendation a draft you know policy and in addition to that the tariff right and i think that's the way it was conveyed to us as well because it's not a final document so we had to have our energy consultant review it  and we also had legal review it so the only changes that that that were really i guess it would maybe be different for the size and the size sizing was not reducing the to fifty k w that was recommended it was more related to the interconnection which is more from an engineering less than twenty versus a twenty twenty k no you want me in over right that's correct you all don't have a problem with that that's pretty much that was the the that was on the sizing and the pricing remained the same we didn't make any changes to that we reviewed it of course and  you'll see that in the report but nothing glaring i think that the approach was was was acceptable practice as far as the ownership legal had advised us that the original policy that was in place allowed purchase power agreements that's been removed that threatens the retail choice of the department that's not related to their recommendation no but it's a debate going back and forth whether or not that would that would damage the effect negatively affect the stability of the department's rates because we have a retail exemption in town and you can only buy power from belmont light and i didn't agree with what was going on i had very powerful influential people telling me that this is the way it should be and they pushed it through so they could be you could defend it in court if you were  brought to court right now for our benefit just in the few minutes more that we have available before we go to public comments this is not related to  presidential that we're talking about so we can talk about this other that's correct yeah so this does and maybe jay can speak to this young little confuse so if the wellington school which is trying to put need to go to purchase power agreement which is i think the only problem is probably the way it could be done right that would not be allowed into this tariff that's correct yes no you can only buy it from belmont by would like would have to be involved with that transaction that's correct it's against the retail exemption our attorney cannot defend it people to come up with some kind of other arrangements but ok if i may you know it but i think on this point we either have to go ahead the way it is today so i think in terms of types of financial arrangements if you're going to be offered by by by the major companies from b p s leases are the types of correct yeah no i agree appreciate that with your comments about all the hard work that metering task force is done this debate unfortunately i would say is still ongoing and our solution here may five i think but i think it's high i think it was left out of the report that there are twenty four twenty one dollars twenty four published studies disagree with the value off so i think that's an important thing so thanks my name is mark robins i'm a resident of belmont first i would say i am really pleased that we have a tariff that's going to be filed today and that will allow a solar rights campaign which i totally agree with and i  happy that they working group was able to do this i would say that you know solar is about the reason why people care about solar is because of the environment the expression of and that message uses and paid for ultimately by rate payers and utilities better served by utilities who by the have who are required to buy the s rex and that is the expression of the that the massachusetts is concerned they have these that because massachusetts is concerned about the environment about carbon reduction and that is just to be clear that belmont rate payers do not contribute to s rex this is the s rex are paid for at the rate payers level in areas served by the ious so essentially what we're saying is belmont can treat energy from solar panels as just any other kind of energy because the rest of massachusetts cares enough to buy these s rex and i did that my question to you is why doesn't belmont care enough to purchase us rex or why doesn't belmont like you know light i don't blame them on light at all is why don't we tell our to have not told our utility the state has told ever source and national grid you have to buy s rex that's how that's what they did they said that you have to buy us rex ultimately it is paid for by rate payers served by the we have not told our utility to buy rex or s rex so obviously they don't the environmental concern anybody who has solar panels should say they think you to arlington watertown ratepayers thank you to belmont repairs and that i don't think is right i think belmont should be concerned about the environment you concerned about the environment you contribute to buying wrecks in us wrecks and so all this i'm very pleased with the whole process but there's another discussion to go on i never thought that we needed a net metering working group i think we need a climate change working group to really hash these issues out thank you you thank i think we  but i would argue that the that you know twenty or twenty one who are ready went now deserve some consideration because the controversy that went on for the last few years frustrated the organization of a solar rise program and anyone who goes forward now is going to get the benefit of the lower installation price so i just ask you to consider that when you think about whether do you you know give a benefit to the full twenty or just at this meeting be approved and adopted by the board and that the general manager be directed and authorized to file the tariff with the massachusetts department of public utilities and to implement the policy as adopted by the board with the understanding that there is a remaining issue that we will visit later that being how to treat the grandfathered in the power grid and the power park to undertake a belmont solar challenge campaign with the idea that with the idea that maybe through the campaign we can generate more solar users encourage educate get better pricing from installers the reason why we're taking this up so quickly after adoption of the policy in the tower of is because time is limited you know we want this to happen before the tax credit start to start expiring so we are very fortunate you know in our willingness to conduct this campaign in two ways first i think we have an energy committee with experience that can help us organize we're hoping the challenge and and you know help direct the challenge and secondly we have a person on this table who has been through a solar challenge in the past and is very experienced in this type of campaign and that's back up becky which is why i asked her to sit to sit at the table you know roger if i may i you know i've heard through town hall that if we do it in the energy committee are you subject to the open access or open mean of course so so i i'm not sure that if we do it through the energy committee that we can do it without an r f p in there is a possibility that the president group resident group can organize a campaign that the difference would be seems like there is the campaign which the energy committee is singularly not structured to do yet you know we have nine people three of which are municipal employees so you don't run a campaign such as is is needed with through a committee such as that although i think you can a pretty good job with the the weather's ation so we need the grassroots organization grass or  but the second aspect is the selection of the vendor and i think that it would be helpful and maybe even required if it was the town or bama like you actually y so i mean i think we can support we have no problem supporting the process and in providing the documents and helping you go through the process but i mean when we put our feet on the street generally you put it you have a ties of the two weeks you get you have paid staff doing this as opposed to relying on volunteers but as soon as you start talking about hiring a vendor here you're talking about a budget you know the need for a budget i mean the money's somewhere the money's got to come from somewhere yeah yeah policy i mean they already work worse but yeah i mean the the point is we're not the first how to undertake this so let's we shouldn't get the resources are out there and where having not you invited in and i sure just last week so we haven't talked to a committee about this with that disclaimer i can't imagine that the energy committee would not jump up and down and clap and say we want to work with the energy committee want to work with the light department sustainable development and anybody else who would promote solar arising  and that if you folks make that request you know we would say yes and we would i would even say that we could work with bac that program that the town so those two programs should march forward in lockstep we shouldn't promote so or to the exclusion ok both i have an energy analysis that was done two years ago and i also have a solar proposal but i have this big tree in front of my house which is on town property and lydia want me cut it down twenty eighth two thousand and fifteen i actually have a few small comments so what do we defer that to our next meeting and you know as far as future meetings are concerned how are people imagine two weeks  possible for you guys to take monday afternoon off and you know i made you do it so what interesting point you know then we're going to you know we can have we can have a light board meeting then we can have dinner you know nice dinner be nice to