Neither of the solar agreements on Monday’s City Council agenda got a vote. Both went to the Subcommittee on Conference on motions by Councillor Todd Taylor, along with the revolving fund that would hold the money, after about 20 minutes of questions in which City Manager Fidel Maltez put numbers on the program that were not in the packet.
We described the two deals before the meeting. The first is a pair of 20-year agreements with BWC Merriam Brook, LLC and Blue Meadow Brook, LLC under the state’s SMART solar program, which would send money through the city to low-income households in Chelsea Electricity Choice. The second is a contract of up to 30 years with 978 Solar Development, LLC, a New Leaf Energy subsidiary, under which the city buys net metering credits for its own buildings at a discount.
What the City Manager said
Maltez said Chelsea Electricity Choice, the city’s electricity aggregation program, “has saved residents $3.8 million” since it launched in June 2024. “That is not fluff. It is not hypothetical. It is actual savings that went to residents and it went to businesses right here in Chelsea.” In June the city’s own accounting put the figure at about $3.19 million.
On the 20-year agreements, he said the solar panels “are not in Chelsea. They are elsewhere in the Commonwealth,” and that the state program requires a municipal aggregation plan like Chelsea’s to pass the benefit to low-income residents. “They are giving us those credits and we are then handing them to Eversource. So we don’t touch any money.” The letter estimates the benefit at more than $400,000 a year for 20 years.
Councillor Deron Hines asked how a resident gets it. Maltez said there is nothing to apply for. Any Eversource customer enrolled in Chelsea Electricity Choice who is already on Eversource’s low-income discount rate “will receive this automatically off your bill. So there is no paperwork required, no signing up required.” Eversource sets the eligibility, he said, through programs such as fuel assistance, MassHealth, emergency assistance, public housing, Head Start and veterans’ benefits. “That is not something that we dictate.”
Councillor Manuel Teshe, a condo owner, asked whether a building with several owners enrolls as a whole. Maltez said most Chelsea condos have their own meter and their own bill, and each account decides for itself. Teshe said the deal “very much reads too good to be true type of thing,” then added, “I don’t see anything wrong going on here. So I’m in favor of it.”
The working poor
Councillor Giovanni Recupero used nearly all of his speaking time on who is left out. “There’s people in this city that don’t qualify as low income. They don’t make the money. So they’re not benefiting anything,” he said. “There’s many people in our city that, I say it again, don’t qualify for low income, but they’re poor.” He said he had raised 13 children and “nobody ever gave me anything,” and that the state should “change the system where it also helps the working poor.” He said he would vote for the agreements anyway: “It doesn’t matter because it really doesn’t help everybody. It only helps a particular bunch.”
Why it went to committee
Taylor said the council was seeing the agreements for the first time. “I really do not like to vote on things that are just put up for us. The proper procedure would have been to send this to a subcommittee and then ask all these questions there instead of belaboring all this on a communication,” he said. “If somebody asks us about this, we actually have the information that we can relay to our constituents instead of, you know, oh, here it is, we’re going to vote on it. I’m sorry. This is not enough.”
Council President Roberto Jimenez-Rivera answered that the council’s rules allow a same-night vote and “we have followed proper procedure,” but took the motion. No one objected, and the 20-year agreements went to the Subcommittee on Conference by unanimous consent.
When the 30-year net metering order came up, Taylor moved it to the same subcommittee. Recupero objected. He asked Maltez whether the contract was for the city’s own electricity. Maltez said yes: “for instance, the electricity bill to run the city hall.” Recupero: “So what is the point of sending it anywhere if we save money? Why not vote on it now? … He already answered the question.”
Taylor: “We have our due diligence as councillors to oversee what the city manager is doing, and maybe he says it’s a good deal or whatever, we want to have the particulars so we can make sure. This is all part of our legitimate oversight process … It’s not enough for the city manager to just come up and make a statement. With all due respect.”
Hines asked how the deal came about. Maltez said both contracts had been in the works for months, both needed state approval, and this one is “more standard”: a solar developer with a field elsewhere sells its credits back to the utility through the city, and the city keeps 10 percent. “If our bill is $1,000, we get 10 percent off.” He put the savings at $1.2 million over the life of the contract. With no objection to Taylor’s motion, the net metering order followed the first two to the same subcommittee, and the two revolving fund orders went with it. The clerk noted that the fund takes two separate votes when it comes back, one to authorize the account and one to amend the city ordinance.
What was not asked
Two of the questions we raised before the meeting did not come up. The revolving fund as drafted caps annual spending at $250,000 while the administration says the program will bring in more than $400,000 a year; nobody asked where the difference goes. And the 978 Solar order authorizes up to 30 years while the company’s own FAQ in the packet says its contracts run 20; nobody asked who holds the option on the last ten. Those are now questions for the subcommittee.
The referral came back to bite later in the evening. When the council took up the request for a Chief Economic Development Officer, Hines said the council had just moved “a proposal to save people electricity on their bill to a subcommittee, stalling that process,” while preparing to approve a new hire on the spot. Taylor said he took “umbrage” at that and there was “no intention to delay anything for poor people.” That item went to the same subcommittee, 5 to 3. The subcommittee has no date yet.