ok i'd like to call to order to the light board meeting on thursday november nineteenth two thousand and fifteen i'm sammy baghdadi chair of the like board my right as mark a little the vice chair and jim williams who is a member  jim palmer our general manager and several people in the in the audience what i'd like to do is go out of order on our agenda we were first scheduled to be in executive session but rather than keep people waiting you know for forty forty five minutes why don't we i'm going to propose we jump into the policy discussion you know regarding  pricing and policy so so first thing on our agenda is power purchase agreements and you know that that was an item that we had left with we had not made a final decision on you know purchase power agreements or arrangements where customers can purchase electricity from other generators other than other than belmont light and you know my understanding is that is a form of financing mechanism you know you can either buy solar panels and pay him off  installment in installments an installment sale or you can lease the solar panels and then have an option to buy them at the end of the lease or what you could do is enter into a power purchase arrangement  to help finance the installation of the pad and and what that would mean with with that would mean is is the electricity generated by the panels would go to the installer or the electric company that's involved in the installation and then they would sell you back that energy that's generated through those panels and you know my understanding is is the the objection that at  know we were trying to understand what the concern is here and you know we want to make sure that that this tariff wouldn't provide constructive financing arrangements for projects like the wellington school ok which is the only school that can support a full array of solar panels here i'm not saying that the panels are going to be installed at the wellington school that's another discussion with the reviewed was the original draft of the what is now the september thirtieth two thousand and fifteen policy yet when we reviewed it there was language in the original policy of the previous i think it was the two thousand and eleven policy that referred to retail power for just the we count on purchase agreements and the concern at that raised with us is that is wired that generators other than belmont light or energies providers suppliers other than belmont light could sell energy directly into belmont's light service terry  that's how we got to this issue but otherwise he wouldn't of we wouldn't have known and i mean we probably would have found out in due course but otherwise he wouldn't have known so in in the papers that we're looking at now are there any other changes that have been made to where we were last time with the exception of the p p a language you know that this is the only change i think i'm just looking to see we have here but i think just for point of clarification the the language that agreements and it led had leasing arrangements in it and it had want to ship from we understood that but but if it was a system like the one that's on the hill would have allowed i'm not sure what i don't i don't think we want to go there but last time what we decided what if the new tariff which was presented on october first when and went into effect which we voted on in allowed to do that knowing that we were going to have a hearing on p s we agreed that the or we understood that the p p a on the money hill would be grandfathered so from that standpoint the the discussion was that it would've been permitted help wanted to put a solar array system on one of its buildings ok and it wants to finance it through a power purchase arrangement if the installer came and said ok we'll install it for you for free but the energy generated goes through our system and we will sell it back to you whatever energy is generated is ours and we will sell don't want that prohibited right ok but what if the installer said boy belmont hell i'm a clay you've got a lot of facilities here i will install an array on this building's roof but you have to agree to buy all your energy from me not just that energy generated by those panels and i think that's what's scaring out light but the well i think would be i think both the to the school based on a rate that they've given in the squad and that's that there is the issue right there is that you have an outside supplier of energy selling power out of rate the school doesn't get it they don't own it it's owned by the c s a yelling it goes on forever it sounds like it i mean i haven't seen the agreement but that's that's what it sounds like you know to the extent that that's the way it is right now that's done and like you said that can be grandfathered in but the general policy that delmon and other municipal fall is that they don't want to they want to prohibit the installation of facilities from set up just like that where the developer owns of the piece of equipment for ever and just supplies electricity into the into the system but if it's limited to only that electricity that's generated by that system who cares well i mean that i don't have  have we have a capacity limit on that so i think you know what jim's point was that if if if it's if it's permitted in a different way yeah then you could attract there's a possibility remote but possible that the fossil fuel the working group recommended then we found out that the p p s had been excluded and that we don't want to know where we are is we're back at the table we have the new the new policy in the new installation of solar panels throughout a different financing type arrangement through the purchase agreement ok but as long as it's limited you know it's like it's like it's like belmont  facility on their property either owns it through a lease arrangement or ultimately owns it at the end of whatever term but the agreement is with the developer they become the owner of it's uncharted territory who knows what's going to happen because turn is that you have someone or some other energy supplier who's not allowed to own a phone a generator in bell right says ok that's you know you're letting the solar developers come in and set up their own generation systems on host property and sell energy directly into your system why can't wait and their recourse would be to go to the d p you file a rate discrimination case power purchase arrangements for financing imply that the host will at some point either own it at the end of the financing period or as i think mark just said it's the same  so that it's like a three party agreement where the actual power that's generated by the solar developer would be sold to the mint to the belmont like in this case who would then provided to the provided i mean it is you know it opens it up to pretty much allowing what the situation is with but it's smaller systems yeah it's smaller systems it's smaller so and it's limited to that say and and i think maybe that's i don't know enough but that could be a common provision in those type of agreements yet after twenty years in the own it in fact there's an option to own even developing something will it be acceptable to belmont light and i think that's why the point which is important i think you know just t you know the problem that we had was that we weren't told that the p p o s were being taken out and we were trying to make the decision on in our last meeting so we deferred you know to this to this group and what we expect released what i expected was a defense of taking the p p s out instead what we have the v a s are coming back in which is ok with me but you know there's not enough time in the world to do this ok ok let me take over a chair ok so rather than rehearsing the past what's before us now is language proposed language to allow projects like the wellington school to go forward and my question is walter what you drafted does it need a little more flexibility in other words if we take out the word finance and provided like like i did it  doesn't limit it it allows well it doesn't limit it to the extent that it wouldn't be like the willing to school trucks or that steve you just cited because you could interpret not having to own the facility for ever and that the developer would just own it and sell power the roof with the school the way steve described the structure that at the end of a certain term after school have made so many want to read what the language in the law says so we know what we're dealing with here a little bit and maybe maybe we don't want to take this up but this is a minnesota lighting plant may prohibit and that's almost like may prohibit retail sales by suppliers and electric companies to customers within the service territory of said lighting plan which is i believe our policy what we've prohibited provided however that in minnesota lighting plant may supply generation service outside its own service territory for retail purposes only if outside suppliers may provide generation service within the service territory so that's really that the statute it says if we supply outside at retail suggest that this is a legal opinion but we are kind of far away from that just in a layman's view of the language we're not don't want light isn't involved in any of these deals they're all between the owner and a third party so again that's walter is the lawyer walter indeedy of the lawyers i'm not issuing a legal dippin you know but just if you look at that language it's hard to get as a layman from point a to point b clarification mr chair you know back in two thousand and eleven when this was this was being developed at the original point in time all of these concerns were raised and at the time the thought was well we'll just discriminate you know we'll wait let a discrimination case happen and then we'll fight it ok so the language that's in here now unable my understanding of this language is that it enables the growth of soul for all of the reasons that we want and and steve just pointed out that the wellington school a does fit this model and you know also protect the franchise which was a concern back in two thousand and eleven it was debated back then as well so i think that you know gets us i think it gets us where we want to be ok look at night one word revision tell me if you object to that oh i think i'm you know i mean when it comes down to the financing when i remember back to when the net metering working group and we sat here on the thirtieth and i made the announcement that we made that change  you at the time had said well it's for financing it's a financing mechanism and that was you know that's what i heard loud and clear and i said in in that's really what steve is saying is the financing mechanism so i think the financing gets us to where we want to be and it doesn't it doesn't threaten you know us from having to you know vote go to the d p you end fight a discrimination case also i think that's where we want to go roy i know you've done a lot of research do you ok and let me just make a correction because it's been represented and repeated and repeated the net metering working group did not take a position on this issue what they did is they copied from the previously existing tariff language that already existed and revise that to take into account recommendations that were part of their charge and that retail purchasing language was just carried forward it was not meant to be a recommendation on this issue one way or another is that is that accurate roy well just to step back for a second this this issue does not appear and is not addressed in the report her is the report had an appendix the existing two thousand and eleven kyra and we said we were not drafting power of language that was not our area but that to try to the whole process we would attempt to rewrite the tire of to incorporate the specific rate proposal that was in the report and we weren't and that was far as it went and we were not taking a position on anything else in the tire of this particular issue i have to say is it to my mind is really i can i mean we're struggling to find words to address a situation that i don't think and nobody that this in this table intends to impede solar development and the concern that's been raised about a potential discriminatory  action so even if the rooftop array was very small but if it raised the prospect of some entity coming in the same we're going to supply the whole town as an outside supplier i just that just seems like a very remote  possibility and it seems to me the tail should not lag the dog and this issue and exactly what language operates i mean listening to the discussion this morning it seems to me that when which would be a financing arrangement but at at the end of which the asset would revert to the property owner so the op at the end of the day the property owner would own the asset and then that's probably the way these things i think the language walter and d d put together allows purchased power arrangements the only question is are we in practically impractically limiting if you if you're in a p p a agreement you're not buying the equipment you're buying the power from the person who put the equipment on your roof right at the end of that period you can choose to continue buying from them or not and so then you have to think about what the person who owns the equipment would do if you decide not to buy to buy from them any more unlikely since all the government subsidies and everything would be exhausted they would abandon the equipment on your roof it to me is a false idea that you know that this equipment is going to be on the roof and it's going to be providing electricity to the person whose roof it's on that's only true if the person who's roof it's on in there's into a subsequent contract or the or the user side so i think your suggestion to change to this were provided you know opens it opens it up to a situation where belmont hill can do it again if they want to wellington can do it again if they we did want to make sure that whatever language we entered into allowed for a wellington school type p p a to go forward so that was my only concern i will say that that financing which appears in three what was the what was the what was wrong with with the language that the the the residents had had proposed what is the rationale for changing power purchase agreements to power purchase arrangements flexibility and flexibility ok just just want to make sure that it's not softening things that's going to make it it's going to scare installers away if you know there's plenty of flexibility here fell and then the second thing is in the there's a new sentence in the middle of that paragraph that says this policy applies only to power purchase arrangements for financing we're going to get rid of course financing so i don't actually recommend dropping the whole sentence because it's just it's it's really going to use a not necessary with which sentence ok he's saying this policy applies saying it's hard for just arrangements for finance seen solar if our facilities are right i think the think the reason that sentence was in there originally is because it doesn't apply to any other type of generating facility like a diesel generator that someone puts in their backyard this is limited to solar  this policy what is solar if our facility is yeah and the purpose of the policy i thought was to allow so here for facilities and what you and to the exclusion of as i said i out facility i think it i think i think understanding our policy direction yeah ok we need to rely on council to do the legal drafting ok that was in i'm ok like to hear a rationale for why it was that need to change the language which again we're just don't want you know we don't want to scare installers away the net metering group came up with proposed tariff language to address concerns raised by their report recommendations town council wrote it the residents come up with language they like working it with the installers i'm still going to look for town what was the significance of that and why separate why not just just drop that word separate that's that's not all wet in the  i mean i think we're picking felt i really don't i mean i think we're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist you've come a long way on this issue you want ok so i wouldn't  headset i'd like to see at least one of you say we're going to put solar on wellington and the way to do that is make sure that you know the language is the way to know whether a developer will accept this is to ask a developer it did have three i mean it wouldn't be all that hard to show a tariff to three competitive developers and make sure that they find it acceptable ok thank you all right let's think about mr mayor you could want to frame that because we changed the language yes jennifer page town meeting member from precinct three is this is not directly relevant to the votes that you're about to take and i think it's an important thing to think about and that is there's been a lot of discussion many references today and in the past to the wellington school but we hope that anything that we pass and agree to will be a puck a ball also to a new high school a new skating rink a new library a new d p w a new police please station because i think that it makes sense in this day and age to expect that there will be as taller panels on all of those so i hope that we're thinking big  the flexibility this will allow that flexibility ok all right then you know we will wait for our colleagues but i think we're ready to vote on this issue grandfathering the issue of grandfathering existing that metering customers and that's that was the one remaining issue that you recall the net metering working group was divided on two members said that those who installed solar panels before november two thousand and eleven could if they could show belmont like that they weren't going to recover their costs they could get a  reimbursement of up to three thousand dollars from belmont like for those costs that they could prove clean on ski approach was a little different and that just grandfathered all twenty or so current residential solar customers for a period of three years with net metering they would have pure net metering for a period of three years there is now a new williams proposal which i think would a member of the working group i'm not here as a policy expert i'm here as a member of the light board and i'm appealing for  more more consideration to be given to the existing solar providers so it with your permission i'll just go into the presentation or should we wait for march no why don't you have in the interest of time ok so the resolution is that the payback period for distributed solar generation installed before november first be preserved as originally estimated when systems were installed wait excuse me if you have to leave i know you're under i promise these two issues would take forty five minutes and i'm only fifteen minutes o some mark we're just going through this my chance for an appeal to for compensation for all of the solar providers existing so the resolution is that the payback period for distributed solar generation installed before november first be preserved as originally estimated when systems were installed the background we know november first solar distributed generators were installed under full retail net metering phase two policy was approved but not implemented in two thousand and eleven phase three policy was announced but not approved or implemented and then two thousand and fifteen we we installed the working group recommendation  so the issue at hand as i see it is that the majority working group recommendation is for capital buyback program for those insistent install before two thousand and eleven minority working group recommendation extends full retail net metering to all the systems installed before november first for a period of three years what's at stake under the eleven one to fifteen policy the production buyback is reduced from one thousand eight to eleven and this is a forty percent reduction in the buyback price which is a key determinant in the payback period for the cost of a distributed solar generation solar generation system chose when they were installed and it shows the years of service and then there's a column called savings which is the use of electricity plus as frex adjusted by name plate which refers to the generation capacity so the way to read this is that each of these systems that's  call ahead and ok all right so what what this shows is in that second to right column the savings that's what these systems have achieved using one resident's five kilowatt system estimate which is about five hundred dollars per year per kilowatt and then what you see at the on the right hand is the estimate of the current outstanding so the way to read this is if you take the first one and you note that it's been in service for six years if we extend the retail net metering which was the minority proposal they will achieve in the next three years approximately half of those savings do you see what that you know so it's forecasting that they're saying that they achieved nine thousand for thirty seven and when i say savings that's kind of you know a payback for the system so if you do another three years it would be four thousand two hundred and then at the end of that three year period they'd be left with with  with about four thousand dollars worth of investment now that has been in service for six years so another three would be nine and that would mean that that particular system would not pay back within ten years you'll see in a minute while that's why that's important and i'm not arguing that we should go beyond the three year period i'm just saying that we should extend it to everybody who used to have it yes yes i was just th everybody a chance to recover more of their their investment and then the i'm not really referring to the the working groups majority or even to steve's steve's minority recommendation because i think this decision is a subjective decision it's not something that you can get out of a committee of well intentioned hard working you know hard charging  committee members staffed by citizens but i do think we wouldn't be at this point unless we had that information so you see that point so but it's it is a subjective decision in my in my mind now  it's interesting that you'll remember that in may i was naive really trying to negotiate between the two groups and the solar provider provided me with paybacks for my system if i decided to buy it at ten cents or at fourteen cents and fourteen cents was what the citizens group was recommending and ten cents was where the municipal light advisory group stood so the payback you can see at ten cents hits in years nine to thirteen whereas if you go to fourteen it would be eight to nine so i'm just saying under under current market conditions a reasonable payback period is ten years that that's really all i'm saying so it's we're just assuming that it's a ten year payback would be would be normal because we have the evidence of my did at ten cents and at fourteen cents that shows it's anywhere between eight and thirteen so what we could do as a board which again is not driven by by calculation but it's driven by subjective decision making is to treat all the pre two thousand and fifteen tariff installations equally in terms of the expected payback in years this translates into a ten year payback period as i just said so the question is if we do this where are we and where we are that two of the existing systems will pay back in the next three years if we continue retail net metering for those accounts all except all except the two low capacity installations will still be inside a ten year payback which is ok in the  variability will affect this outcome but it's important to note that asterix expire ten years after installation so it seems to me that there's a lot of momentum for this ten year number in terms of the fair of fair pay and i also wanted to say that i initially preferred a permanent grandfathering just because i think that you know if you make a commitment for a system you have to estimate your payback etc etc but it seems reasonable that it could be a step back to the ten year payback because the structure organized to ten years even when i got my bid for my system which i can put in reasonably it still was between eight and fourteen years and if we allow net metering for the to address specific issues and they worked hard and they worked for months and they had many meetings over the summer and they didn't impressive job and they came up with a recommendation on this issue on the grandfathering the existing solar customer issue you know they were unanimous in their recommendations on every point except this point and you know i think i think at the last you know meeting i expressed a preference towards honoring the recommendation of the majority of the committee because that's the way committees work you know they they they make decisions  majority as i look at this issue to me there is a principle here and i perfectly agree with the principle ok and the principle was you know those people who installed solar panels after november two thousand and eleven knew that there was a coming down the line and and that would have eliminated you know face to complete net metering yet they nevertheless charleston stall solar panels so it's at their risk they knew they knew the risks and i and i perfectly understand that the other practical side of me says this issue is probably such a small issue dollar wise ok for  and you know i am the one who a year ago more than a year ago you know commended those people for being the pioneers you know in belmont so in what steve had suggested as well and so i think in order to move forward with our soul rights campaign and sort of put these issues to bed i would at last when i said and i'm leaning towards a majority recommendation but i think based on which and from just talk about i move forward you know in focus on other matters of that we should go with the minority the issue is that roy any comment or since you were chair of the working group and i don't want this to be i don't want this to be  message that the sport is not right that does not appreciate the hard work and recommendations of the working group or any group we put together to make recommendations so that's fine if the if three years and that's also fine ok and i think the one person who's really affected is mr hart tony and and i think he supports the three year grandfathering would you please come to the mike because you know you're the one customer that's affected both ways in my mind you know identify yourself by now so hard to me and i guess precinct two three nine one pleasant street i pod by solar panel so as you probably know up in two thousand and six i'm not even i don't see my thing on that list my cost was sixty five thousand for five that means only as a double present value which you fellows were doing at some reasonable interest rate that probably comes out to more like six thousand dollars in my mind if you were doing the majority recommendation but i think that's fair to add this language we're going to need to we're going to need a language to put into this tower filing so that it's because going to be in this violence right so i don't know how much time and i want you guys on the spot but we're going to group report as outlined within that report dated august thirty first two thousand and fifteen which reads residential so post would sign interconnection agreements before the effective date of the recommended tariff will continue to receive retail  electricity delivered to the belmont light distribution system for three years from the effective date ok manumitted for three years from december first two fronts from the summer first two thousand and fifteen ok second second all in favor yes daryl king precinct one i've raised this issue with a working group i've sent letters to the board of selectmen raising this issue in the past and it's fallen upon deaf ears apparently there are people who lease panels as myself who do not get the tax breaks and do not get s rex and are not in this chart because we didn't buy them where leasing them the only way for someone who is leasing them to get a good return on investment is with full net metering that's what we depend on to talk to the folks at solar city who are my provider they're the largest provider of leases in the state and they won't they looked at the new tariff and said it won't make sense to do leasing because the paybacks not there so i was asking for a separate ruling on lisa's not just for myself because as such just about the money but going forward leases are the only way for people who can't afford to buy or finance a race ok would you get in for what's your suggestion my suggestion would be to put leasing in a separate category and provide full net metering for it forever and maybe well maybe appropriate of ten years or a period of the lease which is typically we want an option a policy you're there for three years  industry is changing monthly and you know there's nothing to preclude us from looking at that in the future right thank you very much i just wanted to raise the issue i mean  you all right that said i think we have gotten over our largest policy questions for today we do have an executive session so i propose we go into