CCEF correspondence regarding SHPO The State Historic Preservation Office

01/11/11  Here are two emails of interest from after the January 10, 2011 meeting.

 

Neil, Bill and Dave:

I learned about the problem that one of King Energy's customers is having
with his rebate application, because of the State Historic Preservation
Office.  That customer is being ordered to conduct an archeological
investigation on his own land, at his own expense, because he made
application for the CCEF rebate.  I feel very sorry for that person, who
thought he was doing a good thing for his family.  From the tone of Neil's
email message, it appears to me that Neil is sympathetic to the customer,
who is certain to be harmed by this action.  Now the best thing that can
happen to him is to lose his rebate by refusing to comply with the order.

Your rebate program has the potential to help stimulate interest in
geothermal heat pumps.  It is a technology that truly helps reduce our
nation's energy consumption, save people money, and for people like me, keep
us in business.  Now the potential for doing good is disappearing quickly.
Now, I will not be able to tell potential customers that they might receive
a rebate from your program, or from the Electric Companies' programs.  I
would be foolish to ask someone to make an application to your program,
knowing that it might trigger such an intrusion on their land.

I understand that known historically-significant buildings and land features
should be preserved.  And I understand that public projects, where
significant features are suspected to be present, should be investigated.
But requiring private citizens to embark on a 'treasure hunt' on their own
land is just wrong.  I cannot be a part of it.

Please revise your program to exclude private single family homes from the
requirement to comply with any directives from the State Historic
Preservation Office.  You were successful in protecting the program from the
burdens of Davis Bacon Act.  It seems that this is a similar situation.

I am willing and eager to help you with this work.  Please call me any time
at 860 620 7452.

Sincerely,

John F. Sima III
Hydro Dynamic Engineering, LLC

 

Subject: RE: SHPO


John -

I agree completely with your views, and I thank you for presenting them
so clearly.  However, I need to make two points:

1)  CCEF will pay reasonable costs for the "reconnaissance surveys" that
must be conducted as a SHPO requirement.  We feel strongly that
individual homeowners should not be penalized because they happen to
live in an archaeologically interesting area.

2)  CCEF cannot revise our program unilaterally.  The requirement for
Section 106 review of projects by the State Historic Preservation Office
is part of the legislation that created the American Recovery &
Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the federal "stimulus" package that was
supposed to fund "shovel-ready" projects.  I have tried to make the same
arguments as you have to Connecticut's Office of Policy & Management,
which is the agency through which the federal government channeled the
ARRA funds, but they have indicated that the federal agencies involved
are adamant that the letter of the law be upheld.

I will send you a fact sheet outlining the law and the directives we
have received from the Department of Energy (via OPM).  I believe that
Congress did not fully understand the impact on small businesses and
homeowners that the incorporation of the Davis-Bacon Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act would have. 

In our case, this impact has been amplified by the fact that our
"guidelines" for dealing with SHPO were given to us long after the start
of the geothermal incentive program.  We had received 212 applications
before we were notified (on July 27, 2010) of the need to submit all
geothermal projects to SHPO for archaeological review.  Until then, we
had been told that only sites on the National Register of Historical
Places and buildings built before 1961 had to be reviewed.
Consequently, CCEF and the applicants were not even aware of the
possibility of special surveys and the attendant cost.  Even then, the
rules were not clearly spelled out.  The formal procedures for dealing
with SHPO were only given to CCEF on December 17, 2010, although the
rules for dealing with new applications were informally explained in
October.  We have been told that the process for dealing with the
200-plus project applications that were received prior to the
notification may take until spring to resolve.

It appears that it will literally take an act of Congress to repeal the
application of NHPA to residential projects.  I have been told by OPM to
stop my efforts to get relief, but I believe Congress and Governor
Malloy should be made aware of the serious obstacles incorporated into
the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act and the impact that they are
having on small businesses and projects.  Even if we can't change the
present program, if the federal government intends to incent renewable
energy projects in the future, we may be able to guide that legislation.

I encourage you to write to your representatives in Washington and to
Governor Malloy.  Only if enough people protest these onerous and
arbitrary applications of federal power will change occur.

Best regards,


Dave Ljungquist
 
The following two testimonies were planned to be presented to the CCEF Board at their regularly scheduled and web noticed noon meeting on March 21, 2011.  These opinions are those of the speakers only and do not reflect IGSHPA CT.   At 11:50 am, it was announced that the meeting was cancelled, possibly due to snow showers, and the administrator apologized for not changing the website that morning.

Both written 3 minute testimonies were given to David Ljungquist and one for Norma Glover.  The plan is to read them into the record on March 28.  They are posted here for member info and comment.

PRIORITY FUEL, INC. IGSHPA CERTIFIED GEOTHERMAL INSTALLER

 31 Tobey Road Suite # 8,  Bloomfield, CT 06002   CCEF Public Comments March 21, 2011

            My Name is Terry Hewitt.  I am an approved Eligible CCEF Contractor here today because my drill rig is not working, while I have waited over 30 days for an SHPO decision.

            The SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) is unfair to private property owners and workers by forcing public & government rules on a residential home owner who wants to improve their home's energy use.  The requirements of going for a rebate that temporarily disable their right to make decisions on how he or she uses their land does not entice a home owner to apply for a rebate.  You ask them to wait for a decision, while their families are uncomfortable without heating or cooling.     

            SHPO rules delay jobs and inhibit a company's chances of meeting their quarterly operating goal for an already short summer season before the unpredictable winter weather sets in.

            Rebates are created to grow an industry to a level where it can sustain itself, without any future incentives.  The rules that are in place will make this rebate program fail.  The burdensome requirements create bottle necking of jobs, which will mean more layoffs in an already sluggish economy.

            When the rebate makes the geothermal industry independent, then Connecticut's higher education system can partner by knowing that their students will have sustainable jobs that can grow our middle class.

 

3/21/11   Good afternoon. I’m Peter Tavino PE a CCEF eligible contractor.  I noted no agenda was posted by yesterday, so thank you for these 3 minutes. Your February Minutes say there are plenty of applications for geo rebate but you did not note that CCEF spent under $72,000 per month for the first 15 ½ months and must spend 4 times that or $288,000 per month for 13 ½ months to finish April 30, 2012, and this at $1200 per ton, taxable, not $2000 per ton previously.  The website still says March 31, not April 30, 2012 which would have required $311, 000 per month. (note: 71,761   287, 978   311, 016)

I wonder if the plan is to let a few select contractors import the well drillers needed to quadruple the work this next year.

 

          If not, we are interested geothermal workers who would like to meet with policy makers to help.

          We asked for relief from prevailing wages but were denied.  Please revisit the geo commercial statistics showing only 6% spent so far.  As the first state in the country to run a rebate like this, it would be marvelous to spend our entire stimulus.

          One source of hope is the offering of rebate for the inside heat pump work only, currently at 40% reimbursement. ($420 per ton taxable for new residential).  If raised to 60% or 70% as it should be, to reflect true cost, we can skip the SHPO archaeologist delay, and prevailing commercial wage outside.  But CCEF would still be aligned with CL&P who reportedly told energy auditors a few weeks ago that geothermal takes 59 years to pay for itself.  My 2008 system is taking 10 years without CCEF rebate or 30% tax credit and less at $3.80 fuel oil. My latest client will be able to prove an under 5 year return as he cautiously watches his installation expenses.

 

As invited to, I was pleased to email David Ljungquist a simple 1 page application form to replace both the 19 page and 34 page forms. I await comment.

 

An obvious error in the new state health code requires an incorrect 50’ not 10’ separation of geo trench to septic systems.  I have contacted the state and CCEF may wish to as well, since it impacts the rebates.

 

CCEF is allocating management resources away from geothermal because of their larger problems with solar thermal and public sector funding of only public sector projects for fuel cells for Weston Schools, UConn and Milford Sewage Treatment, etc.  Please decouple us from those alternative energy forms, which Dan Esty said are not economically viable.

Let us help make this program more effective. Thank you.

 
Postscript, at noon 3/21, it was reported that an elementary school rebate of $300,000 is  about to be awarded, so the required monthly figure will be met for the current month.  The Dan Esty comment was in the CT Mirror.  3/23/11

 

Note that 3 minute testimony delivered 3/28 by Tavino simply updated the above.