Update includes rendering and proposed solar park agreement: The City Council’s lone Republican member Rick Torres is trying to build public scrutiny of the city’s proposed public-private partnership with United Illuminating that will bring solar power and a fuel cell to the city’s closed city landfill site at the west end of Seaside Park visible to Black Rock from across the harbor.
Last October, with the landfill as a backdrop, Mayor Bill Finch announced the old municipal dump will be the future home of a new green energy park, generating clean and renewable energy for the residents and businesses of Bridgeport. Finch was joined by State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Daniel C. Esty and UI executive Anthony Marone, announcing that the plan includes the installation of solar panels and a fuel cell at the long-ago closed landfill site.
According to the mayor, the renewable energy park has the potential to house solar, fuel cells and wind installations while cutting down the city’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Judging by Torres’ emails and Facebook page posting he believes the solar farm could give his constituents in Black Rock a lot of gas.
On Facebook, Torres writes “it will be placed on top of the mountain that we see from Black Rock as we look over the harbor. Along with the panels power poles wires etc. To the West of this area there will be a Fuel Cell facility. This facility will have smoke stacks and look like a high-tech power station. We have had no public meetings on this massive change. The city has failed to provide elevation drawings and it looks like we will vote on an incomplete contract. Please call into city hall and ask that this be delayed until we can have a proper looks at the proposal.”
The 40-page proposed agreement between the parties is making its way through the City Council approval process. Torres says he’s read a copy of the ground lease agreement between the city and UI that calls for a 20-year term with two five-year options.
According the agreement language “The rent will be subject to PURA (Public Utilities Regulatory Authority) approval. The City proposed annual rent of $350,000 offset by taxes on the UI installations which UI has estimated at $6,900,000 over the life of the projects). OCC and PURA objected to the City’s proposal. Therefore the City and UI are negotiating a revised rent proposal for submission to PURA.”
In an email to his council peers Torres writes he has submitted a series of questions to city officials that have not been answered.
“This project requires public support! It is unconscionable to me that we would approve such a visually destructive project without consulting with the public. We are only here for a moment in time will we mar one of the city’s great iconic assets?
Here are my questions, please excuse the Black Rock-centric questions, but it is my district.
1) I need elevation drawings and renderings
2) I need a physical map of the area with exact footprints and square footage
3) All of the contractual details
4) The benefits to Bridgeport
5) The type of power generation and who it is that gains from that generation.
6) An estimate of the lowering of property values across the harbor in Black Rock
7) How is the city prepared to compensate folks in Black Rock for the eyesore they will see?
8) Have you consulted with the Yacht Club, Captain’s Cove and Black Rock residents on this issue?
9) Can we think about a Town Hall style meeting in Black Rock and another one in the South End?
10) Has a proper environmental soil test been performed? If yes can you please submit that report to the Council. If no, why not?
11) how will we prevent the explosion of the evacuating methane gas.
12) Have any other ideas been floated for this site? If so what are they?
Until I get more info I am staunchly against this project. I hope other Council People will also agree. I am an advocate for alternate energy ideas. I think solar arrays on roof tops (schools, city hall and countless other private and public buildings is an appropriate answer. My Harborview Market has tried without success to get the state subsidy for solar (just to prove the point that I am not adverse to solar). A solar farm as they are called is visually destructive (Flat-UGLY pun intended). We must not destroy our beautiful park with such a monstrosity.”
Link to proposed solar park agreement including Torres’ notations here.
*** A few more questions that might be added, like what’s the overall cost to the city in the short and long term? What exactly does the city and U.I. gain in the long term from all of this? Where are the Benjamins coming from to get things started and to maintain in the future? Thank you Mr.Torres for asking “some of the questions” that need answering rather than just going ahead with the plan, just ’cause the Mayor and Admin say it’s good for the city! *** Thanks for not “rubber stamping” from the beginning. ***
I agree, Mojo. I’m not one of Rick’s biggest fans, but he is spot on in his critique of this plan. There is always a price to pay later when something like this is rushed through. While solar, wind and fuel cells have a touchy-feely green glow to them, the reality of their construction and installation is sometimes a different matter
Looking at the topo map above, most of this solar panel array will be facing Seaside Park. The contract also states it as being “near Seaside Park?” Try “in” Seaside Park. Are these guys serious? This will absolutely ruin the vista of Seaside Park, a National Historically designated landmark, designed by whom? Who, Mayor? WHO was it designed by?
Put the contraption in Steal No Point, as nothing else will ever be there in our lifetime but empty promises and at best a Walmart.
This is our city–we deserve a full citizens vote and voice in decisions that dramatically change our landscape, especially a community park and waterfront. At one time UI was spending a lot of time looking at Pleasure Beach for this facility. I would like to know the results of the study for using that property.
First of all, solar or wind turbines have been used around the world. The rest of the industrial world is way ahead of us. Interestingly enough, the world is not seeing great results with either. Mostly because it is so expensive if run by energy companies and utilities. It has proven to cost MORE money to the taxpayer if the power created goes straight into the public grid. It doesn’t ease the use of the existing generators, and certainly doesn’t lessen the carbon footprint. Add in subsidies and other freebies, and we’re right back to profiteering at its worst. Do some research. Wind or sun is not reliable enough, and all other generators will still have to work full steam ahead. Where it does pay is on a dedicated system that powers a specific entity. Then, the rewards are great. So before any type of construction is initiated, this should be investigated fully. The argument about how “ugly” it will be is a laugh. Telephone poles and cell towers were needed, but we can see soon they will be things of the past with underground installations or satellites instead. Wind turbines and solar panels will be the next vista killers, but for how long? Yes, 30 years of looking at that landfill … machines rolling all over it, stinking to high heaven, flocks of birds eating, fires and smoke constantly … fire engines stationed on top … all those years How did THAT affect property values? It’s a dump. It should be used to save or make money for the City. Whether it’s an energy farm dedicated for use by the City, or construction of something that might use the alternate energy and generate taxes, residential, even commercial, Bridgeport needs income. The City does have a very bad record of forging ahead with asinine plans, so I’m hoping the Council hears Rick Torres’ plea for sanity, but for the right reasons.
Sounds like a $400K driveway to me …
Thank you, Rick Torres, for ‘ringing the bell’ on this occasion for at least two reasons.
In the first, King Bill Finch has found a green project he can push, but what has not been stated are the costs to create, to maintain or remediate when systems fail over a period of 20-30 years, and who bears those costs. Likewise, there is no agreement on the revenues from taxes (or other sources) to the City that are agreed upon. So the King cannot ‘show us the money’ yet he terms it a DONE DEAL! In rhythm that scans with DING DONG! He can repeat it until the guns fall silent, but the police shooting range was another DONE DEAL. And obviously a $40 Million Airport project for which the City was in for only $2 Million initially has changed because of City decisions that went outside the scope of anything presented to, reviewed by and understood by the City Council in December 2012. DING DONG! DING DONG!
The second reason for Councilman Torres’ comments is the absence of comprehensive information of various types IN ADVANCE of Committee meetings or public hearings and/or City Council votes. Historically, without such information we hope all elected officials would seek in decision-making regarding their own personal funds, our City Council has seen fit too often to vote on partial or wholly inadequate info when spending or committing public money.
Torres has been courteous, deliberate and careful in his statements at the first few Council meetings. He is learning, reflecting, and asking for facts, figures and images the way those materials are used in the business world where people are held accountable, where official watchdogs have teeth and where consequences attend to poor decisions.
Think back to the CRRA agreement more than 25 years ago. The City received a PILOT that was much less than valuations would have supported in the mind of the City for what was a REGIONAL GREEN project. There are doubtless some pros and cons about this solar project. Let’s make sure all of these are vetted before calling for a vote! And let’s not ring the DONE DEAL bell prematurely, (kind of like a one-minute egg) lest a SUN DEAL ends up like a GUN RANGE DEAL! Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, you said, “Torres has been courteous, deliberate, and careful in his statements at the first few Council meetings. He is learning, reflecting, and asking for facts, figures and images the way those materials are used in the business world where people are held accountable, where official watchdogs have teeth, and where consequences attend to poor decisions.” So I guess you don’t count Rick’s stupid letter in the Connecticut Post: “This letter is in response to an economically misguided Connecticut Post editorial that celebrates the increase in the minimum wage in Connecticut.”
Ron,
You have a right to your own opinion. And you have a right not to answer questions you choose not to, without me attributing inaccurate motives to your failure to respond.
Since you don’t get around much anymore, allowing the healing process to complete on one or more ailments, I thought you and other OIB readers who do not attend the CC meetings might be happy to know about my Council person’s demeanor.
Maybe one of these days you will decide to meet or to answer questions I ask of you. However, I am more interested in the practical issues that face our City Council than arguments about who is favored or penalized at any time of a job cycle by a minimum wage law change. That is not on any City calendar of which I am aware.
You are pretty good at asking questions. Do you have any for your Council persons regarding anything? Forgive me if you have posted some I have forgotten. What are your hot-button topics relative to City projects, personnel or finances? What answers have you been getting? Time will tell.
Remember this, the UI will do anything to keep that coal-burning plant! No matter who it kills.
Way to go, Green Mayor!
The letter Rick posted sounds like more Republican do nothing and complaining about everything letter like we have in congress. The production of electric power with the use of solar panels is a benefit to the environment with less CO2 gas emission from burning coal to produce electricity that would harm the environment. It also lessens our dependence on foreign oil and coal for the production of electricity. His houseboat with no motor moored in the middle of Black Rock harbor is more of an eyesore than any solar array would be.
In response to these two questions: “1) I need elevation drawings and renderings 2) I need a physical map of the area with exact footprints and square footage,” maybe the city could hire Dr. Seuss’ illustrator to present to Rick an even more simple description than the one already given in the city’s proposal.
The installation of green solar projects around the city of Bridgeport is a good start for the city in the production of environmentally clean electric power. It’s a lot cleaner than that coal plan.
moneymorning.com/2013/03/14/heres-the-cold-hard-truth-about-solar-energy/
Not really. Solar panels do not make that much electricity. They would have a hard time paying for themselves, never mind upkeep and installation. Especially here in CT. There is another problem. Say at some time in the future 50 percent of our electricity comes from solar. This is all fine and dandy. Then a sudden storm comes up and the skies go dark. The electric company now needs to suddenly, and without warning, double its output. It also need to maintain the capacity to fulfill all the needs of the consumer all the time regardless of how much electricity is being paid for at any one time. The consequences are the cost of electricity will skyrocket. This will make solar more attractive to more people. This will lessen the demand for fossil fuel-generated electricity and lower the number of people paying for electricity from conventional suppliers. This will drive up the price of electricity. Return to step one. Even when it is sunny and all the electric needs are being meet by the panels the power plant will still need to run. The start-up time for the plant would be too long to kick in if a sudden cloud passes overhead. The problem will be no one is paying for all the fuel that is being used when the electricity is not needed. Okay you say, we could have batteries in our basement. Now you have to look at the environmental impact of making, keeping, maintaining and disposing of all those batteries. Plus the cost. What if your house catches fire and your basement is full of batteries? Depending on what type of batteries they are, your yard or neighborhood would be a toxic wasteland.
Solar companies are fueling their own industry by creating this problem. The government is also subsidizing it. This subsidy is the only thing making solar financially viable until the problem stated above starts to take off. Then it will be self-sustaining and irreversible.
Jim,
You are a practical man. Rick has asked for numbers regarding revenues, costs as well as details of the physical installation that may seem contrary to some of the contractual terms. If such a project were to come to a community where you were paying taxes, wouldn’t answers to those issues be important to you?
And your familiarity with Dr. Seuss may be appropriate if your breakfasts include “green eggs and ham” in the near future. Time will tell.
So, James Louloudes, are you saying you would welcome a renewable energy park in view of your living quarters in Westport?
Yes, I would love to see more solar installed on every house in Westport and the rest of Connecticut.
www .bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/01/05/solar-power-helps-preserve-simple-life-mount-saint-mary-abbey/LTh4RozqPmohi1dE8GzLjL/story.html
Even the nuns are doing it.
This is from the story Some of the candy at the gift shop.
Jonathan Wiggs/ Globe Staff
Some of the candy at the gift shop.
“The sisters worked on the power-generating project with Kearsarge Energy, a Watertown-based company that developed and now manages the 40-acre solar farm. Since the nuns live a life of simplicity, devoted to prayer, they didn’t want to be responsible for the details of the complex project.
Franklin will use power generated from the solar panels to provide an estimated 80 percent of the electricity used in town buildings and schools. The town will also receive payments in lieu of taxes for the land where the solar panels were installed, and use credits for electricity produced by the farm to offset some of its other energy costs. In all, the town will receive about $300,000 a year in payments and energy savings, said Town Administrator Jeffrey Nutting.”
Sounds similar to the city deal with UI.
Yeah, and this deal sounds fishy. The article says 20K panels on 40 acres. Each panel makes 233kWh/yr (notice the panels are covered with snow, they aren’t making any electricity at that moment) @ $0.16/kWh (highest price for electricity end-users pay in MA), the farm will produce 4,667,000 kWh/yr (the average house uses ~11,000 kWh/yr) worth ~$750K/yr. The town expects to realize $300K/yr in credits, payments and energy savings. Some of those savings are from energy credits, lower cost of electricity purchased from the farm and cash. How much of the $300K is in actual cash? How much would the town get if they just got taxes instead of payments in lieu of taxes? If the solar farm is selling the electricity to the town at a discount it is not getting $0.16/kWh but let us say they are and the $300K is all cash. I am going the guess the town is getting $0 cash and mostly energy credits and slightly discounted electricity. The farm makes $750K/yr. The town gets $300K/yr. There is only $450K/yr (~$940/acre/mo) left for the nuns and $0 for the solar company. The nuns will not get $450K because the solar company IS going to get something. The farm is expected to make enough electricity to provide for 425 average houses and that is 80% of the city’s needs. The city has a population of 33k or 11K households. All these numbers seem really low when you are taking about ‘payback’ to the principle parties and really high when you talk about output and profits from the panels. Much like BPT’s deal, you cannot find out who gets what and how much.
Finch’s environmentally correct friends from the suburbs seem to hold sway in Bridgeport. Thanks but no thanks. Do it in your two-acre-zoned towns. You want it both ways. I’m glad you like Finch, why don’t you elect him your First Selectman?
*** Give the man a better explanation about the project and he may change his mind, no? Just ’cause the city feels it’s a no-brainer does not mean every idea is okay for that district in the long term, money wise! *** RUBBER STAMPING DAYS ARE GOING TO BE A THING OF THE PAST! ***
Here’s a project similar to the one Mayor Finch is proposing. 2.5MW solar project on a brownfield site in Stow, Mass. The project’s a great idea and should be built.
www .solarpowerworldonline.com/2014/01/main-street-power-partners-complete-2-5mw-solar-energy-facility/
Here’s a list of links on case studies of solar farms around the world. The best way to judge this project is how the rest of the world has done with building this type of project.
www .businessgreen.com/bg/news/2233450/warren-buffett-snaps-up-us-solar-farms-in-usd2bn-deal
www .solarcentury.com/uk/case-studies/wilburton-a-new-crop-for-cambridgeshire/
www .lightsource-re.co.uk/assets/case-studies/ninnis-solar-farm-3-8mw/
www .solarpowerportal.co.uk/case_studies/list
www .cleanenergyactionproject.com/CleanEnergyActionProject/Solar_PV___Photovoltaic_Solar_Power_Case_Studies.html
The gentleman from Westport seems to think the hubbub is about solar farms. I don’t think anyone objects to environmentally beneficial programs or installations. But they don’t need to be placed on our beautiful shoreline and there should be some oversight to make sure the City of Bridgeport is really getting the benefit it should from the project.
The Bridgeport shore is very majestic with its UI smoke stack. Here’s the link:
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2lLqWmfyPr110QdrI–tptjl9O_YZxmnqQsrwkIpdiO1HZfgaqw
But a solar farm will not close the power plant. It will just get more expensive to run. They will be burning coal and fewer people will be buying the electricity. Distributing the cost of the fuel over fewer people. We will still have nighttime and cloudy days. My solar yard lights have not been on for three days because it has been cloudy for a week. In Germany their solar project has increased the cost of electricity and created more pollution. Germany went heavily solar and closed most of their power plants. Now, they buy the electricity they need from Poland. Poland does not have nearly the same pollution control regulations Germany had, so the electricity is dirtier. This is what will happen here. All the good power plant jobs will turn into minimum wage window (panel) washing jobs and we will buy our electricity from Mexico. All coal and no pollution control regs. It is not a bad idea, just shortsighted. Like when we found out it takes more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol from corn. We are not really saving anything. We are actually making it worse.
So let’s add more eyesores since there is already one. Fine logic.