The Concord City Council recently approved a solar field near the Hall Street wastewater treatment plant, which will displace 15 of 39 acres currently used for farming in the city. Proponents of the project have offered reasons that ranged from financial to environmental.
First, they claim it makes economic sense to pursue the solar project, because the city will be able to purchase the electricity it generates at a fixed rate for the next 20 years, which is generally the lifespan of solar panels.
Of course, though, the price of that electricity will be higher than the city currently pays.
Although I appreciate the council’s interest in ensuring against future rate spikes, they are hedging with taxpayer and ratepayer dollars as the solar installation will be heavily subsidized through federal and state funds.
The project is also dependent on New Hampshire’s net metering law, which will allow the city of Concord to sell surplus solar power back to the grid at a rate greater than market prices. The excess cost of the electricity generated by the city’s solar field, however, is then passed on to all electric ratepayers by their utility. This is a cost-shift.
While Concord reduces its electric bill, it simultaneously contributes to increased rates for its residents and the residents of other municipalities in the utility’s footprint.
The installation itself is funded through a state grant from the Renewable Energy Fund, which is made up of payments by electric service providers required to meet renewable power mandates.
In essence, the state requires a utility (Unitil in the capital region) to purchase higher-priced renewables, such as solar and wind, and when the utility doesn’t meet its mandated quota, it must pay into a fund that proliferates even more solar power projects adding to a vicious cycle of increasing electricity rates.
The city council is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Second, as reported in this paper, a city councilor said that the solar project is important for “symbolic reasons,” because the capital city should be “a leader in moving us to renewable energy sources.” This is an awkwardly inconsistent argument to make.
It suggests that the proposed solar project is good because it has a limited impact on the environment. However, the chairman of the city’s own Conservation Commission, whose mission it is to protect, promote and develop the natural resources of Concord, raised concerns about the location of the project, its impact on agricultural land, and its potential conflict with the city’s master plan.
I wonder if the owner of Green Gold Farm, who leases agricultural land from the city to farm and will lose much of it to this project, appreciates the symbolism.
Like several other municipalities pursuing solar projects, the city council thinks it has stumbled upon a good deal and free money. Unfortunately, nothing is free. The city’s $1.7 million electric bill will be paid one way or another. As a resident, if I’m not paying for it with my property tax dollars, I’ll be paying for it in my own electric bill if this project is completed. What’s the difference?
New Hampshire has the fifth-highest electricity rates in the country. Solar generated electricity is not economical, and the policies enabling solar projects help only to perpetuate higher rates and cost shifting from one ratepayer to another.
Towns and cities don’t like it when the state shifts costs to local governments, but in this case Concord doesn’t seem to have a problem playing that game with electric ratepayers in this city and other municipalities paying the freight.
If each city and town in New Hampshire played this game, there wouldn’t be enough ratepayer money to go around. Concord’s taxpayers and ratepayers should be skeptical and proceed with caution.
(Jamie Burnett is a small business owner and resident of Concord.)