From:	Paul Foley <phfoley@hotmail.com>
Sent:	Friday, October 28, 2016 11:43 AM
To:	SREC, DOER (ENE)
Subject:	DOER Next Generation Solar Incentives Straw Proposal


RE: DOER Next Generation Solar Incentives Straw Proposal
These comments are based on the DOER slide show titled “Next Generation Solar Incentives 
Straw Proposal” dated September 23, 2016 and on my experience as a land use planner and 
citizen witnessing large scale ground mounted solar installations being erected in unconscionably 
inappropriate locations. 
First of all your slide show launches into “Objectives” without stating the goals and then 
proceeds to an initial objective which I find is the crux of the problem. In my opinion all future 
incentives should be directed only to appropriately sited locations such as rooftops, Brownfields, 
parking lots, landfills, and other already developed land. No incentives, or installations for that 
matter, should be allowed in woods, forests or open fields with the possible exception of some 
small arrays on farm fields with clear and limiting criteria that maintain the farm and the field for 
the future.
The slide show should contain facts, figures and maps that illustrate where actual growth in 
installations has occurred. Although SREC II slightly improved the incentive for large scale roof 
mounts it was still far easier and cheaper for developers to plop them down in a field or to clear a 
wood. If you remove the incentives from these inappropriate locations then, in addition to 
moving towards more renewable energy, the incentives would also go towards economic and 
infrastructure development rather than just developer enrichment. Cover the roofs of old mills 
and big box stores and then you will have achieved something to be proud of.
If your goal is clean energy then you would not be cutting trees to get there. For the last few 
years solar developers have been proposing and erecting huge scale installations in forests across 
the Commonwealth and on water resource protection lands and even in buffer zones! They 
justify it by using an Orwellian false equivalency claim that cutting 10 acres of forest is the 
equivalent of planting over 1,000 acres of trees. This “Equivalence” rationale credits the energy 
produced with solar panels as avoided emissions if the same amount of energy were produced 
using the existing dirty energy practices such as coal and natural gas. However, a tree actually 
absorbs carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxides, chlorofluorocarbons and other 
pollutants. A solar panel does not. A tree actually produces oxygen. A solar panel does not. A 
forest provides an ecosystem and habitat and filtration. A solar panel does not. The way I look at 
it solar installations that require clearing of forest are diverting the SREC/incentive capacity 
away from an actual clean energy system that could exist if solar arrays were only allowed in 
appropriate already developed or destroyed (landfills and brownfields) locations.
On slides 9 and 10 it appears that some consideration is being given to this position. However 
through experience I am a bit skeptical. It sounds good to be working with EEA staff to establish 
siting criteria for ground mounted projects but I have spent months trying to get them to answer a 
very simple question as to whether a particular piece of property is subject to Article 97 or not 
and they are either unable or unwilling to respond. Finally an Assistant AG told me only the 
courts could ultimately decide. If the DEP, the EEA and the AG cannot answer a simple question 
of whether a piece of land taken by eminent domain by a municipality for the specific and sole 
purpose of creating a well and water resource protection is subject to Article 97 or not, then the 
DOER putting Article 97 on this list does not really provide any assurance at all.
The list on slide 10 may look good but why would you ever allow installations on any of these 
locations in the first place? NHESP has allowed projects in lands mapped as priority habitat of 
state listed species. They only look at habitat for endangered species not at vital habitat for the 
not quite yet endangered species. Just this week in the news it has been reported that world 
wildlife populations have fallen by 58% since 1970. Please, do the right thing and create a truly 
clean system where installations are NOT allowed in woods, forests or fields. 
My comments are mainly limited to where these facilities go. However, it seems to me that 
developing a whole new regime based on the uncertainty of net-metering caps is an excuse to do 
what the utilities want. Why not advocate for raising the net-metering caps? In the email that was 
forwarded to me it stated that “DOER will continue to engage with stakeholders in working 
towards the final design of the program”. I am just curious as to who DOER considers to be 
stakeholders? I would hope that would be the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Thank you for your consideration,
Paul H. Foley, AICP
Marion, Massachusetts




sent from Surface
