Chuck Agosta of Bolton Road takes the floor at Special Town Meeting, Oct. 16. (Photo by Lisa Aciukewicz)
Town Meeting once again affirmed support for solar energy in Harvard, but what that means will depend on the actions of the Board of Selectmen.
The Oct. 16 Special Town Meeting passed three articles related to community solar installations, including authorizing the Board of Selectmen to negotiate a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement with companies operating one or more community solar systems in town, including the Harvard Solar Garden LLC (HSG), which has yet to break ground on land behind 285/295 Ayer Road.
A business or a collection of residents?
At issue in the three articles was whether community solar in general, and HSG in particular, should be treated, for tax and permit fee purposes, as a commercial business or more like a collection of individuals or small businesses installing solar panels directly on their own property.
After an explanation of the articles by HSG project manager Worth Robbins (who is also co-publisher of the Harvard Press), the first two passed without questions or comments.
The first instructed the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to send a letter to local state representatives Senator Jamie Eldridge and Representative Jen Benson in support of legislation making shares in a community solar energy system exempt from taxation on the same basis as if the shares were installed on individual properties, which have a 20-year exemption.
Benson and Eldridge have already drafted a community solar bill, but they decided not to file it late in this legislative session. Instead, they encouraged Harvard to file a home rule petition that would apply to Harvard alone, with the hope of enacting statewide legislation later. Former selectman Tim Clark’s attempt to amend the article to be a home rule petition was cut short when Moderator Bob Eubanks ruled Clark’s motion beyond the scope of the original article.
The Finance Committee had not supported the article because they said no such legislation existed, a view also mentioned before the Town Meeting and since then by BOS Chairwoman Marie Sobalvarro in a narrow reading of the words “support legislation.” A broader interpretation would be to support “the enactment” of such legislation. Sobalvarro told the Press that the board will consider the Town Meeting directive at its Nov. 5 meeting.
Seeking a payment in lieu of taxes
A second article gave the Selectmen authority to negotiate a payment in lieu of taxes agreement (PILOT) with any community solar group. When HSG was first organized in 2011, the 20-year tax exemption applied, but it was later withdrawn for commercial systems by the state.
On Robbins’ recommendation, the town voted to pass over an article to approve a specific PILOT agreement, as no agreement between HSG and the town had been made.
The last solar article asked the town to amend its building permit fees to “reasonable fees” by including a category for community solar that would be roughly equivalent to that for residential installations. A homeowner installing a residential system pays a flat $125 building permit fee and a $36 electrical inspection fee. Commercial fees are based on the overall project cost. HSG organizers, who originated the article by citizen petition, suggested using the residential fee structure applied in 10 kW units. For example, a 250 kW array would be charged 25 times the standard building permit fee of $125 for a total of $3,125. The same array would be charged 25 times the $36 electrical inspection fee for a residential installation for a total of $900. Under the current arrangement, half of the building permit fees go to the town’s building inspector. The rest goes to the town.
Community solar arrays subject to same restrictions as homeowners
Jack Spero of Deerfoot Trail objected to the change in fee structure. “Mr. Robbins is running the Solar Garden LLC, a limited liability company. To me, that’s a business,” he said. “This is not hanging the thing on your roof of your house. People of Harvard are supposed to support these people?”
Chuck Agosta of Bolton Road, a shareholder in HSG, had another perspective. “The same restrictions that were put on people with solar on roofs apply to us,” he said. Agosta said the electricity the garden produced can only be used as credit on the shareholders’ electricity bills.
“It seems to me this is an equity issue. I assume these people have gone to a lot of hassle to put 40 or 41 roof-top installations in one place. If we want to encourage solar installations for residents’ use, we should support this as a simple point of equity,” said Elm Street resident Billy Salter.
After the fee article passed by uncounted majority vote, Town Counsel Mark Lanza had the final word. “It is not legally binding. It is advisory.” Lanza said the Board of Selectmen, not Town Meeting, has the power to set the building fees, based on an article passed at the 2010 Town Meeting.
In response to a question from the Press, Sobalvarro said she preferred to review all categories of building fees and not take them piecemeal. She didn’t give a timeframe for that.
To retain federal incentives and state grants, HSG may have to spend 50 percent of project costs by December 31 and complete its project by June, 2014. HSG is working to understand its financial parameters before beginning construction on its solar field. Meantime, the Selectmen have the ball.
Sydney Blackwell has a 5 kW share in Harvard Solar Garden I.
