At Monday evening’s town board meeting resident Kevin Lemaster addressed the board at the public hearing for a special use permit for AC Power 14’s community solar facility, urging the Lancaster Town Board to do more research.
The Lancaster Bee reported today:
AC Power 14, LLC, submitted a site plan to install two co-located ballasted community solar facilities on a closed landfill of 197 acres on Gunnville Road in the Town of Lancaster. The project will be on 40 acres, and the solar panels will cover 15 acres. The total project is estimated to cost $14 million.
The Lancaster Planning Board approved the site plan at its Dec. 2 meeting. The Lancaster Town Board split the vote to approve the AC Power 14 site plan on Dec. 21 for a community solar facility.
Lemaster said he submitted questions to AC Power 14 before the public hearing and said some answers he received were less than satisfactory.
“They’re telling me to do the research, and I have to FOIA [file a request under the Freedom of Information Act] the information on a project they’re bringing forward to the town,” Lemaster said, urging the board to do more research.
Board Member Bob Leary supported Lemaster's concerns saying he doesn’t believe the board should approve the special use permit until they know who the private investors are.
Leary questioned the financial benefit package associated with the project, and the attorney stated the package is in no way tied to the special-use permit, which was the focus of the hearing.
“I don’t think that we should move forward until we get some of these questions answered as to who the additional owners will be of this project,” Leary said. “I’d like to know where these panels are coming from, what countries they are being manufactured in, and I think there’s a lot of things involved in this … this is something important to all of the people in the Town of Lancaster.”
Comment
The Lancaster Bee report can but cover a small portion of what transpired at the public hearing. Lemaster did a masterful job in presenting data and statistics that on the shortcomings of solar energy regarding toxicity concerns, decommissioning solar farms, environmental impacts, and other.
Councilman Leary was equally proficient in his research and in questioning applicant representatives. Many of Lemaster’s and Leary’s questions and concerns went unanswered by the applicant with the refrain ‘this has nothing to do with the special use permit request’.
The presentation was outstanding in the data, statistics and concerns presented can be heard in its entirety on the town’s website recording:
https://soundcloud.com/user-329292372
The hearing on the 2021-03-01 town board meeting runs from 19:00 through 42:25.
A worthwhile listen – IMHO!
Solar energy savings
Although I still maintain concerns and unanswered applicant questions on the solar farm project regarding environment, decommissioning of site, panel toxicity and panel waste disposal and cost, at Monday evening’s town board meeting I commented on the misleading information presented to Lancaster residents regarding savings to be had from enrolling into this project and the Solar Simplified program.
I received a call from a neighbor who questioned whether I had enrolled in the Solar Simplified 10% energy savings program as encouraged by a letter sent to Lancaster households by Town Supervisor Ruffino. I said that I had not because I well understood the savings would not be based on the entire NYSEC electric bill, but a small percentage of that.
He was not aware of that and said the letter was misleading in not providing that information. He went on to say that the billing between Solar Simplified and NYSEG was so complex he could not determine his true savings over a two-month period, and where one statement indicated the savings amounted to $1.62. He asked me to look over all his billing statements and determine whether I could make any sense of it. I could not and told him to contact Solar Simplified for an explanation.
The local office was unable to provide any explanation and told my friend he would contact Chicago and they would get back to him by Monday. As of Monday’s town board meeting, they had not.
The town should make clear the 10%savings will not be based on total billing.
A resident spoke after me and said that she had received a $7 discount on a $43 bill and was satisfied with the program. Supervisor Ruffino interjected he was also satisfied with his solar credit savings.
Today my neighbor received the following email from Solar Simplified regarding his two-month billing:
The invoice is for the solar credits that you have received on your January and February NYSEG bills. You can verify the receipt of those on page 3 under Miscellaneous Charges on your NYSEG bills. The credits appear as a negative balance/discount in the CDG credits line.
January credits: $3.34
February credits: $12.86
10% Discount: $1.62
Solar Simplified invoice: $14.58
Please keep in mind that due to COVID related delays the farm launch in the midst of winter. As we get closer to the summer months the farm will generate substantially more power, which means more savings for you. In addition, starting this summer (NYSEG's estimated date is mid-June), there will no longer be a need to pay a second invoice as NYSEG will process this on the bill automatically.
Comment
Complex double billing, but savings over two months since the program started is $1.62.
Councilmember Robert Leary interjected that he had also looked into the savings from solar farm contracts. He relayed that when contacting Senator Gallivan’s office he was told the savings from such programs were miniscule and hardly worth the effort.
Resident Georgia Schlager addressed the board claiming $7 savings reduction in her last bill and was well satisfied with the program. Supervisor Ruffino declared he was happy with his savings but gave no dollar amount.
The program is only two months old. Would like to hear from others enrolled in the Solar Simplified program to get some idea of the savings experienced.
Next: Clean energy is not as clean as some would like us to believe.
$8.27 worth of electricity used.
$26.04 in delivery charges
$2.18 in taxes and surcharges
$36.49 Total electricity charges
-$7.54 Miscellaneous charges
-$0.32 Adjustment
$28.63 Amount to be paid
Georgia L Schlager
So you are saving so far .81 certs a month?Lee
Complex double billing, but savings over two months since the program started is $1.62.
Perhaps you'll see more of a savings once you crank up your AC over the summer.
Can you even buy a cup of coffee or 80 cents anymore?
Buffalo Web Hosting and Graphic Design
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
Web hosting / Web Design - Signs, Banners, Vehicle Graphics
Buffalo Web Hosting and Graphic Design
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
Web hosting / Web Design - Signs, Banners, Vehicle Graphics
Hey Gorga:
It took a bit for you to understand the saving was 10% of the solar credits – like I posted earlier in an example that came directly from Solar Simplified to my neighbor:
January credits: $3.34
February credits: $12.86
10% Discount: $1.62
Solar Simplified invoice: $14.58
$0.78 in savings is a far cry from the $7 you claimed saving at Monday evenings town board meeting – immediately after I and councilmember Leary spoke on miniscule energy savings had from the Solar Simplified program.
Supervisor Ruffino interjected and stated he was also satisfied with his savings. Then again, what else could he say but support a program he advocated for in an open letter to town residents.
Enjoy your savings and crank that AC up in the summer to maybe saving $2.
Thank you for posting this outstanding and very important clarification Lee.
My wife does volunteer work with some more-elderly ladies for our church, and that summer, 2020 letter was a hot topic between them. These older ladies, some widowed, were confused by the entire letter which was countersigned by the Lancaster Supervisor; a communication written underneath what appeared to be a curious hybrid letterhead.
************************************************** ***
*******************************************
I was listening to the Town Council session on Monday and I was offended by the Supervisor's vague and subjective comments supporting such purported savings, without any qualification.
What's next, ShamWow Infomercials from the Council chambers?
LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"
Wow, you almost sound kind of like this, do you not?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Z264w9_2Q
What's next?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGbsyM5Wu5Q
Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 18th, 2021 at 10:25 AM.
LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"
Clean energy is not as clean as we are led to believe
Understanding cost savings from the proposed Lancaster solar project is but one facet of the proposed solar project that the town board should be looking at to ensure that the project sponsor answers all questions pertinent to protecting town and town resident best interests. Transparency promised by our town should be transparency rendered.
Such was not the case when at the Special Use Permit public hearing, solar project representative answered questions evasively, if at all, claiming confidentially limitations. Many of councilmember Leary and resident Kevin Lemaster’s inquiries went unanswered, where even the representatives claimed the questioning had nothing to do with the special use permit hearing.
Even though the Supervisor appears to favor this project, has three votes and where likely the the project will be approved, the town owes it to the community to take a ‘hard look’ at this project to ensure its safety and best interests are being served. Transparency and revelation on Issues like:
Project owners and investors
Site decommissioning and associated cost
Where will the panels be manufactured and panel composition
Panel waste disposal methodology
Bonding to ensure town protected against liability.
While there is no doubt solar energy can be an important solution for many of the world’s energy problems it is not a magic pill. Some studies show solar energy to have considerable environmental drawbacks – land use, water use, toxic chemicals, and solar panel disposal.
Have you ever wondered where do solar panels go at the end of their useful life?
There are not enough subsidies and regulations to help to boost the growth of solar equipment recycling. Environmentally and economically, the growth and management of this industry are crucial. This will prevent hazardous elements from going into landfills, thus contaminating nature. It will also lead more people to seek professional solutions to dispose of their obsolete or excess solar panels safely.
Without regulations about recycling solar panels, there have been several small and regional companies that engage in agreements with state or municipalities – as there was in electronic waste management. These companies got advanced fees to collect and “manage” this waste. But what most of them did was to stockpile electronic waste in warehouses and eventually file for bankruptcy leaving tons of toxic material in warehouses.
Some companies dispose of obsolete solar panels with the same approach – with little concern about hazards. Some, depending on the panel, use pyrolysis, which means incinerating. It is not very environmental-friendly for precious metals reclamation. Others strip the panels from aluminum frame and then crash glass –sending the rest to the landfills.
Unfortunately, economically speaking, solar recycling in the US is unprofitable when compared to EU countries. Right now, there are a few companies that claim they recycle solar panels, and there are even fewer of them that do it responsibly. The recycling process is not magic. The process entails dismantling the panels, then chemically separating the materials in them: glass goes to recycle; metal and silicon go to individual refineries.
An average solar module generates 2 USD dollars in aluminum, copper, lead, glass, silver, and silicon. But that is only after about 20 USD dollars per module is spent on this process. There is an economic discrepancy due to lack of subsidies and regulations; therefore, there are no big metal or electronics waste management companies going into recycling. Only about half of the states in the US have mandated landfilling ban.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 18th, 2021 at 12:48 PM.
LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"
In the past, I've switched to another supply provider. That ESCO was NYSEG Solutions for electricity supply it resulted in higher KWH rates than NYSEG itself after one year.
The same thing happened with Nat Fuel Resources for my gas supply. The rates for CCF rose above National Fuel's prices.
The solar, I know won't cost me more
Georgia L Schlager
I don't criticize anyone for their own personal choices, but I believe it to be inappropriate to use a title bestowed by the people to drum-up up business for any private entity.
I certainly do not like pitches from the Council chambers or the gallery, especially when it comes at the expense of the credibility of others.
I also do not like a developer telling village residents how to vote or how good something is for us. He supported Ruda, but was he eligible to vote for Ruda?
us village residents how to vote or how good something is for us while talking [/QUOTE]
My problem was with that March 15, 2021 back and forth between the Supervisor and a private resident concerning a product being offered to private residents by a private business, especially when it seemed to rebut the testimonies of another private resident.
You may want to make a TOWN version of this:
I wonder what your reaction would have been if Schroeder conducted himself in the exact same way from the VOL Board chamber?
Would such a sales pitch have been "E-T-H-I-C-A-L" Georgia???
Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 18th, 2021 at 05:40 PM.
LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)