Here’s the entire October Peabody Municipal Light Commission meeting: https://peabodytv.org/videos-on-demand/?vid=1366

And, here’s the link by BCNS to the interactions after the meeting was gaveled closed: https://youtu.be/O3qca_ZEokk

The Peabody City Council’s Industrial & Community Development subcommittee meets on Nov. 13 to review a Compliance Analysis by RKG Associates of Boston that promotes a Multi-Family Overlay District (MFOD). The zoning change would allow 90 acres of Brooksby Village and 30 acres on Dearborn Road to be used for a maximum of 2,336 housing units.

The 90.6 acre lot at 1 Brooksby Village Drive in Ward 4 is on the edge of an Environmental Justice area. It would allow eighteen units per acre maximum density which translates into a 1,630 multi-family unit capacity. Two lots at 0 and 7 Dearborn in Ward 5 are in an Environmental Justice area and constitute 30.7 acres that allows for 23 units per acre and a total multi-family unit capacity of 706.

The Dearborn and Brooksby sites are two of five areas analyzed. The analysis also considered: 24 acres of the Route 114 District, 30 acres of Terrace Estates and Salem Country Club’s 380 acres.

The plan would change the city’s Designated Development Residential Overlay district to a Multi-Family Overlay zone. The proposed changes will be discussed by the Peabody City Council on Thursday, Nov. 14. Peabody City Hall, 6:30pm. The hybrid meeting is also virtual. Click this link to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84324700383

Here are videos about the MBTA Communities Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iewb77s33XM&t=3s

 It took the City awhile to gain Green Community status.  In April, Peabody received $271,500 that  must be spent before applications for grant funds can be submitted. The  next grant opportunity is Spring 2025.

      At a meeting of the Committee on Energy Efficiency  and Renewable Energy on July 11, Director of Community Development Curt Bellavance explained the plan to spend the $271,500 designation grant.  He reported an assessment of city-owned buildings has been conducted and that the City worked with National Grid on heating issues and with PMLP on lighting issues.  Weatherization priorities were identified, including some low priority buildings with an uncertain future: the curent police station and high school.

      One of the higher priority buildings for weatherization work is Peabody City Hall.   The cost of the improvements is estimated at $54,000 and, of that, $34,000 will be funded by National Grid; the remainder will be paid by rhe Green Community Designation Grant.

      A lighting project to be funded is for the Torigian Life Center.  “We are trying to maximize the benefit of working with the grant funding available from National Grid,” said Bellavance.  “We believe there’s going to be a good payback on that work.”

     Another potential priority for some city buildings is heat pumps. Over the summer break, work done for schools was estimated to result in savings of $25,000.

     The Subcommittee requested Bellavance return to the council to provide updates on existing projects and grant application ideas for submission in the Spring.

https://www.mass.gov/…/map-of-current-green…/download

It was unusual from the start –  a special public meeting of the Peabody Municipal Light Commission at 10am on a Friday with the 2025 Budget the only item on the agenda.  

On a clear, sunny, autumn morning on Buxton Hill, we were pleasantly surprised when entering the room to see that bannisters had been  installed recently at the two stairways leading beyond the stage.  A ratepayer complained last month  about the lack of handicap access in the McCarthy Auditorium.

Things were  looking up.  Maybe we had turned a corner in the transparency game and we’d start sharing information.  Instead, we had fireworks  as to why they wouldn’t share  a copy of the proposed budget to be discussed, nor the amount of the 2025 budget.

All five commissioners were present.  We got the news that PMLP  reached a million dollars in sales this year, making it third in Massachusetts, and a quick Budget Action Plan summary.  Then the Commission voted, unanimously, without raising any questions, to approve next year’s PMLP budget.  At the time of the vote, the commissioners knew the total amount was $91 million, but would not share the budget number with the public.  

“How can you approve a budget to be paid for with public funds and not even tell the public how much it is?,” asked BCNS.

Eventually, the numbers were announced – after asking the female reporter several times “will it make you happy?” 

Manager Joe Anastasia begrudingly shared the amounts : Expenses of $80,609,000 and $11,382,930 in Capital expenses.  

Anastasia also outlined a summary of Action Plans connected with the budget. He called IUI “the number one thing we can do to help our customers.”  IUI helps ratepayers to invest in state-of-the-art technology for their home – “without taking on debt, no credit checks, no matter if you’re a renter, and no matter if you are to move soon. The consumers’ obligation is paying a monthly tariff that sums to no more than the savings in energy costs afforded by the new measures.” IUI, Inclusive Utility Investments, is a program of CET, https://www.cetonline.org/iui/ .  

Other Action Plans related to the PMLP 2025 budget include:

• Continued building renovations
• An onsite battery energy storage facility that will shave peak power
• Critical infrastructure updates
• Continued Cyber Security efforts
• Ongoing power contracts to improve the city’s  carbon free presence,  PMLP initiated three such contracts in 2024.

Anastasi said that he would provide a copy of the approved budget as soon as it is prepared.  Chairman Raymond Melvin said the budget would not be provided until it is finalized  – likely at their November meeting (11/12) .

You may watch video from this morning’s budget meeting courtesy of BCNS and PAT volunteer Ron Smoller.  Peabody TV (peabodytv.org) will post the Commission’s full meeting next week on cable access.

Our grid operator @ISONewEngland claims to be increasing accessibility for ratepayers, but is holding their ONE annual public board meeting at a hotel where  @uniteherelocal26 workers are calling for a boycott. Making us choose between participation and #WorkersRights – not a good look! Watch the statement from @FixTheGridNE and @NoCoalNoGas [https://www.facebook.com/share/v/o1HU6ekpk1nre4jc/]. #WhenWeFightWeWin #solidarity #climatejustice

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/o1HU6ekpk1nre4jc

PMLP Manager Joe Anastasi and the Peabody Municipal Light Commission were excited by the Inclusive Utility Investment (IUI) program presented on Sept. 26 by Ashley Muspratt, CEO of the Center for Eco Technology. (Video presentation starts at 5:20 on PAT Video of PMLC 9/26/24 – https://peabodytv.org/videos-on-demand/?vid=1334) The Town of Ipswich is rolling out a pilot of this program soon.

An Inclusive Utility Investment program is sometimes known as a tariffed on-bill program.

Core Tenets of an Inclusive Utility Investment Program include:

Utility Investment at the meter that avoids new customer debt, and the tariffed cost recovery charge remains with the meter, not the customer.

Site-specific energy and cost savings estimates that ensure modeled energy savings provide an accurate estimate on which to base the cost-recovery charge, see best practices for how to do this in consumer protections.

Positive cash flow: The tariff requires that the cost-recovery charge be lower than the estimated energy bill savings on an annual basis.

Well-designed Inclusive Utility Investment programs can help address important utility program needs and customer barriers including:

Need for Greater Savings: One major challenge utilities face as they adjust their energy efficiency portfolios to meet savings goals from more comprehensive retrofit measures (i.e., HVAC, water heating and related building shell measures) is achieving the volume they need to drive savings at scale. Established Inclusive Utility Investment programs have demonstrated that customers are much more likely to move forward with offers compared to debt-based offers, therefore increasing uptake of impactful retrofits and utility savings.

Availability or Access to Capital: More than one third of Americans report being unable to pay for a $400 emergency with cash savings, and 51% have subprime credit according to the U.S. Federal Reserve. Inclusive Utility Investment programs provide the up-front capital to move forward with retrofits that many Americans cannot afford or either cannot or will not finance through a loan. Credit checks are not necessary under this model. Participants assume no new debt. Some programs have used bill payment history to assess eligibility or identify customers in greatest need. The investment is made by the utility, and both the utility and the customer benefit from the upgrades, with cost-recovery from energy savings. If well designed and properly implemented, customers will pay less on their utility bills overall than before the upgrades (absent altering their usage habits or adding new load).

First Cost: When coupled with rebate and incentive programs, Inclusive Utility Investments can lower and, in some cases, may eliminate financial barriers that prevent customers from investing in energy efficiency upgrades. Programs operating today leverage existing rebates from other programs, if available, to help lower first cost. Homes with high energy usage and high energy intensity (high energy use per square foot) are most cost effective for this model and typically see the largest reduction in up-front and overall costs.

Mistrust & Complexity: Customers often do not trust the energy or monetary savings claims of trade allies who they perceive are motivated to close a sale. Consumers can be overwhelmed by the complexity of contracting. Exposure to high-pressure upselling and poor installation quality are major barriers that deter customer investment in efficiency improvements. To address these barriers, Inclusive Utility Investment programs ensure that adequate consumer protection protocols are in place to prevent participating Trade Allies from claiming inflated savings and to ensure high quality installations on 100% of jobs.

Split Incentives: The model can effectively address a common barrier to decarbonization efforts in rental properties known as the split incentive between landlords and tenants. Because the upgrades and cost recovery are tied to the property and energy bill respectively, rather than an individual, it only requires agreement from both parties to initiate, and the benefits are realized by both parties the renter who pays the bill and enjoys the improved comfort and the landlord benefits from the improvement to the property and tenant retention.

Underserved Sectors: Another challenge facing efficiency and electrification programs is making sure that all customer segments tap into program offerings. This is particularly challenging for low- to moderate-income households and renters, which make up about 36% of households. Some Inclusive Utility Investment programs prioritize marketing and outreach to these customers, targeting high energy users with high-energy intensity. Many utility efficiency programs offer additional incentives and services for low- to moderate-income households, so it is important that customers are notified they may be eligible to take advantage of no-cost upgrades and services, providing contact information so they may pursue those options first. Inclusive Utility Investment programs are not a substitute for grant- based, free home weatherization programs because they typically cannot serve households that are curtailing their energy use or have homes with structural or health and safety issues that prohibit investment in upgrades until they are remediated. Coordinating (also referred to as braiding or stacking) available incentives and services can be particularly valuable to serving underserved sectors. Programs operating today leverage existing utility rebates, philanthropic grants, and free offerings such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, if available, to help lower costs and eliminate co-pays.

The EEA Office of Energy Transformation recently launched an effort to plan for the decarbonization of peaker plants. As the state transitions to an electrified energy and transportation system powered by renewables, how do we avoid becoming more reliant on peakers instead of less? Hence, the focus on Decarbonizing the Peak.

What could that mean for Peabody and its 3 peaker power plants in Ward 3? Will the Peabody peakers be used more often as the state transitions and what is required to decarbonize them?

In 1971, Gen 1, an oil-fired gas turbine aircraft type 20 MW generator was built at the Waters River station by PMLP. It was changed to gas and oil before PMLP and ISO-NE de-listed it from the ISO’s Capacity Market in March 2022. The reason: “In addition to less CO2 emissions, the biggest health benefit of taking Unit 1 out of service is lowering NOx emissions in and around Peabody by approximately 70%.” It will close in 2026.

Statement-from-PMLP-Regarding-Waters-River-Unit-1-PDF https://pmlp.com/DocumentCenter/View/131/Statement-from-PMLP-Regarding-Waters-River-Unit-1-PDF?bidId=

Will we maintain our link to the grid (grid tie) so as to be able to use it to bring offshore wind onto the grid or brought back into service when a dirty peaker plant is converted to renewable energy and/or storage facilities? Is there a cost to maintain grid tie?

The second peaker at the Waters River station is a 33 year old second dual fuel (gas and oil) generator with a power output of 48MW, Gen 2. The noise control for the new peaker was performed on Gen 2, as required by the DEP.

Completed in 2024,the 60 MW MMWEC Gen was first proposed in 2015. It will burn gas,oil and hydrogen.

With the planned closing of the city’s oldest generator, the new, more efficient MMWEC Gen will be called on in lieu of Gen 1. How much will the new MMWEC Gen be called upon, in lieu of older plants in the state in addition to Gen 1, due to its improved efficiency?

What are the plans to decarbonize the 33-year old Gen 2?

The site’s new $75 million MMWEC Generator is operational but no confirmation is available that it is running. We cannot get an answer to our question of what the plant is burning but perhaps they’ll let us know more about the plans involving new technology that burns hydrogen and hydrogen blends. Are there plans to decarbonize the MMWEC Gen?

Once the plants are no longer running, what will be established in their place? The City’s Open Space Master Plan does not address the city-owned parcels on Pulaski Street. Since the area has been rezoned and several housing developments are planned in the vicinity, will there be trees planted to enhance life for residents. Perhaps that space could provide public access to the Waters River? Recreation & Open Space Draft Plan Community Meeting, BCNS, @ 49:48. https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo…

No Coal No Gas advocates found that “in case after case across New England, the retirement of fossil fuel peaker plants will free up valuable infrastructure that allows electricity to flow into the grid.

“These “grid ties” aren’t being used and we need them, whether they are put to use to bring offshore wind onto the grid or brought back into service when a dirty peaker plant is converted to renewable energy and/or storage facilities. We have some playful ideas to share about how we might make these obvious opportunities simply undeniable to all, including grid honchos. Finally, we’ll discuss and try out a fun but realistic exercise in which we can collectively act as a concerted economic and, literally electric, force on the grid, in a small but scalable way that has the potential to reduce or shut down peaker plants. Exciting indeed!” https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8fc6936de557d83cJmltdHM9MTcyODM0NTYwMCZpZ3VpZD0wNjIzYjcyYi0wOWIyLTZiNDktMWZlZi1hNDQzMDg2MTZhZTYmaW5zaWQ9NTE4NQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=0623b72b-09b2-6b49-1fef-a44308616ae6&psq=NO+COOAL+NO+GAAS&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubm9jb2Fsbm9nYXMub3JnLyM6fjp0ZXh0PU5vIENvYWwsIE5vIEdhcy4gV0UgU0hVVCBET1dOIFRIRQ&ntb=1

Photo of How to Decarbonize the Peak?

Sept. 2022 – Die-in at Danversport Bridge – BCNS, 350 Ma, MCAN

I recently submitted this question to the online PMLP Energy Awareness Forum: “Please tell us more about your plans to add solar panels to your property by Fall 2025. Will the panels be roof mounted? Or, where will they be placed? How much energy will be produced? Is the solar energy produced available to call on when our peaker plants are used by ISO? Is there any solar planned for the PMLP’s former Diesel plant? Panels for the old diesel plant’s new $764,000 PVC membrane roof? Are there any energy efficiency features as part of the new $533,000 windows planned at that site?”

It took a few days to receive verification of their receipt of the question, but my question has never been posted to the forum.

I did get an e-mail reply from John Maihos of PMLP Human Resources. Here is his answer – which again does not appear on the Energy Awareness Forum. “Thanks for your questions. We are researching the feasibility of adding solar panels to our property at 201 Warren Street extension. As opposed to roof-mounted panels, the space under consideration is where the shrubbery is just before coming up the hill to our office. No further details are available at this time, although it may be possible to tie this generation into an on-site battery.

“These assets would not be available for ISO New England as solar panels are not a substitute for on-call demand needs at this time.

“The windows recommended by the architectural engineers are a translucent panel, UV protected on both sides, with a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of .39 to allow natural solar heat to condition the building.”

Why is the Energy Awareness Forum not updated?

The Forum was originally a live opportunity to ask questions of PMLP administration – although our request was for involvement with the PMLP Commission. No commissioner ever attended the forum when it met live. PMLP then opted to move the forum opportunity online and posted it to the front page of their website. It is now found at the bottom of the PMLP About Us/Getting to know us webpage – three link from the front page.

Why continue with this lack of transparency? Why not publish ratepayer questions and answers as done before? Even though PMLP alloted 60 days to answer a query.

The photo is an aerial view of the former PMLP diesel plant on Warren St. Ext. It is receiving a new roof and windows at a cost of $1.3 million.