Belmont Light Urge Customers to Reduce Power Usage During Peak

Photo: Turn it down!

With temperatures today forecasted to reach the 90s again, Belmont Light has a request to its 11,000 customers: Lighten up on the power, please. 

With today, Thursday, July 30, expected to be another high electricity use day, the town’s electrical utility is urging users to save energy and money by reducing electricity consumption during the hottest (or peak) part of the day, between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m.

“Every bit of electricity reduced during peak times will help Belmont mitigate rising electricity costs,” read a press release dated Wednesday, July 29, from Sagewell, Inc., the Woburn-based firm that is administrator of Belmont Light Energy Efficiency Programs.

“Nearly one-third of your electric bill is for the cost of procuring sufficient capacity for peak days and these costs are continuing to increase for all utilities across New England.” 

And Belmont Light is providing tips to reduce peak electricity consumption:

  • Adjust the air conditioning between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. and turn off the air conditioning in rooms that are not used. Adjusting the thermostat even by two-to-three degrees helps.
  • Use a microwave oven or an outdoor grill instead of a stove or a regular oven.
  • Shift laundry and dishwasher use to after 7 p.m.
  • Run pool pumps or use hot tubs before 2 p.m. or after 7 p.m. Shift other electricity use at those times.

If customers have any questions or would like advice on how to decrease peak energy consumption, contact Sagewell at 617-963-8141 or at support@sagewell.com

Net Metering Working Group Begins Under Solar Supporters’ Glare

Photo: Henry “Jake” Jacoby.

After more than 18 months of fits and starts, failed proposals and increasing acrimony, a newly-appointed working group made up of heavyweight experts created by the Board of Selectmen to craft a new solar power policy for Belmont, will kickoff its efforts Monday.

Yet even before the Temporary Net Metering Working Advisory Group is gaveled into existence tonight, July 6, at 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall, solar power advocates have called into question the group’s make up and preserved views, even hinting to the Selectmen (which also makes up the Light Board that will vote on any new subsidies) to set aside any new policy in favor of its own tariffs.

“Once the Working Advisory Group delivers its recommendation, there is no reason to believe that it puts an end to the discussion,” Vera Iskandarian of Waverley Street commented to an article in the Belmontonian.

Yet Sami Baghdady, chair of the Selectmen and Light Board, said last month the group members were “independent” and “balance” and would provide much needed guidance to the Board and public on examining technical aspects to create a right-sized pricing schedule for residential solar panel electricity production.

Under its current guidelines, the working group has a mid-August deadline to present recommendations to the Light Board.

The working group’s three voting members include:

  • Henry “Jake” Jacoby, the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, Emeritus at MIT Sloan School, a leading expert on national climate policies and the structure of the international climate regime who Baghdady called “a big policy person and someone with a big-picture view” on the subject.
  • Stephen Klionsky, an attorney with Northeast Utilities, and an alternate member of the Municipal Light Board Advisory Committee. Klionsky has a law degree from New York University and a Masters in Planning and Public Policy from Harvard.
  • Roy Epstein, a long-serving member of the town’s Warrant Committee who is an economic consultant (PhD from Yale) and an adjunct professor of Finance at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management .
  • Attending the meetings as associate members will be Tony Barnes and Robert Gallant.

The group will attempt to develop a policy which will “promote solar” in a “responsible” way, according to Baghdady.

But solar advocates have criticizes the working group’s members for appearing in past writings to lean towards a less progressive price structure for solar owners. 

Many advocates are pushing a proposal they said was evaluated by a research firm for its fairness to non-solar ratepayers. Further delays will only promote further uncertainty among solar panel installers who have effectually abandoned the town.

Approximately 20 Belmont households and a pair of commercial sites have solar panels supplying electrical power for their homes and businesses and gives excess energy back to Belmont Light.

Solar power advocates believe recently proposed tariffs which required a higher level of payment from solar owners for infrastructure upkeep while providing lower overall payment for energy they produce has stifled the growth of solar in Belmont compared to the level of activity in neighboring communities. 

Those calling for a less progressive tariff believe solar needs to pay its way without relying on excessive subsidies. 

Departing Light Advisory Chair Slams Light Board, Solar Advocates; ‘Pay to Play Politics’

Photo: Ashley Brown, former chair of the Municipal Light Advisory Board. (Youtube.com image)

In an incendiary farewell address, Ashley Brown, the departing chair of the Municipal Light Advisory Board, blasted members of the Light Board – made up of the Board of Selectmen – and advocates of a progressive solar power policy in Belmont for trading political contributions and influence to advance an energy plan which would force Belmont Light consumers to pay an unjustified subsidy to a small number of “solar zealots.”

In a 20 minutes statement at his final meeting as chair of the advisory board, Brown targeted his wrath on the Light Board’s Sami Baghdady and its newest board member, Jim Williams, who “pay attention to the Light Board only when politics and campaign contributions are involved, and pay little or no attention to matters of much greater financial stakes and risks,” said Brown.

“Their actions clearly demonstrate that their primary concern is self-interested politics not the best interests of Belmont and its citizens,” said Brown, who along with fellow veteran, Robert Forrester, were informed last week by the Light Board, made up of Baghdady, Williams and Mark Paolillo, they would not be reappointed.

When asked after the meeting about the harshness of his comments, Brown said “it’s the truth. I stand by every word.”

Read Brown’s full statement at the end of the article.

Brown and Forrester, who have served on the advisory board for more than a decade, were strong advocates for a modest payment to solar power household – which number less than 20 in a town of nearly 9,000 consumers – for energy recaptured by Belmont Light while asking for payments for infrastructure and maintenance. 

Solar advocates have said Belmont is an outlier to other neighboring communities who have long held robust payments (or tariffs) to solar users – representing “pennies” to consumers while supporting alternative clean energy – which attracts solar installers to those towns. They point to hundreds of homes in Arlington, Lexington and Concord who are taking advantage of their town’s policies. 

For Brown, the debate over solar policy has been hijacked by money and politics to a degree that it will impact the running of Belmont Light, which is considered a “well-run” utility by nine of ten consumers, only four years after a managerial scandal that threatened the utility’s existence. 

Brown weighed in on Baghdady and Williams, saying “they have zero interest” on the operations of Belmont Light, noting that Paolillo has taken the time to understand electrical rate structures and the need for strong management. 

Brown claimed Williams “cut a Faustian bargain to get himself elected” in April’s town election with the support of “the solar lobby” to advocate policy that in a round about way violated a central tenant of his run for selectman, supporting an unfunded mandate to solar advocates.

Brown said Williams has been promoting “a solar tariff that was surreptitiously written by the founder of a solar company with the objective of maximizing the author’s profits by unnecessarily raising the rates of consumers in Belmont and elsewhere, and, indeed, the costs of installing solar itself.”

Since Williams’ campaign treasurer – while unnamed by Brown, public records identify as Claus Becker of Poplar Road – who was also the leading campaign contributor is a member of the solar lobby and would benefit from a progressive tariff, Brown claimed that involvement is a clear violation of “conflict of interest” laws.

The exiting chair said Baghdady has shown an “astonishing lack of decisiveness, backbone, and policy direction” as board chair, his position on solar power dictated by reading the “political tea leaves.”

Brown specifically pointed to an April meeting with the Light Board and the staff of Belmont Light, coming a month after the Light Board voted to indefinitely delay the start of a new rate schedule – known as the Residential Rate APV –which was approved by the board in December. 

Brown said Baghdady “resorted to  unconscionably berating and humiliating in public, a dedicated young women staff member at Belmont Light” (later identified as Lauri Mancinelli, Belmont Light’s energy resources manager), for “thoughtfully [trying] to implement the very policies on which [Baghdady] had himself signed off before becoming the head of the Board.”

“At no point, in this dramatic reversal of position did, did he ever offer a rationale that was based on policy, economics, or anything else of substance. It was raw, money and influence-driven politics,” Brown claimed. 

Brown was equally scathing in his view of  “a tiny fraction of customers who have been heavily subsidized by their neighbors because of a flaw in the tariffs, hold[ing] the town hostage to their demands for continued subsidies from their neighbors.”

“They have propagandized, spread misinformation, made innumerable and completely fabricated, ad hominum attacks,” in their efforts to secure a solar policy that could provide upwards of $20,000 to each solar household over a decade, financed by Belmont Light consumers. 

Brown claimed the solar advocates “turned to the traditional, and ethically suspect, methods of special interests, namely pouring even more cash into a political campaign to buy themselves a seat on the Light Board,” referring to Williams. 

The result of the politicizing of the town’s electrical utility is when “Belmont consumers receive their electric bills they may well be paying not only for electricity, but also involuntarily contributing to a funds that Light Board members use to reward campaign contributors,” said Brown.

Belmont Light will not and cannot survive such a regime, he said, advocating that the Light Board be transformed into an independent body whose charge “is held accountable for quality of service, productivity, and sensible policy.”

The town’s government structure review committee drafted legislation in Dec. 2012 an outline in which the Advisory Board would be a separately-elected commission. While it was received with a great amount of support from the Board of Selectmen at the time, the proposal was never advanced to Town Meeting.  

“Politics, especially of the cash and carry type is neither tolerable nor sustainable in running a municipal electric system,” said Brown.

Ralph Jones, a former Light Board member and soon to be a new member of the Advisory Board, agreed with Brown that solar advocates have dominated the agenda – “swallowing up all the oxygen in the room” – so that ambitious and creative carbon reduction programs, such as a climate action plan being developed by the town’s Energy Committee “can not get traction.”

In his final statement, Forrester said the Belmont Light “brand is sound” with its finances “is much improved” since he came on board.

“We have come a long way since the time when respected citizens of Belmont were advocating the sale of the department,” he said.

But he joined Brown in criticizing “the divisive and petty issue of small time politics” in which he unfortunately found himself at the end of his tenure. 

For the handful of surprised solar advocates attending the meeting, the Brown’s “rant” was “largely unsubstantiated,” said a solar proponent who wished to speak off the record. 

In fact, Becker, who was singled out by Brown, told the Advisory Board that he hoped that each side “could see each other as opponents and not as enemies, and I do note that when we talk one-on-one, it centers on what would be good for Belmont.”

Statement by Ashley Brown, former chair, Municipal Light Advisory Board. 

The governance structure for Belmont Light is dysfunctional.  We now have two boards, the Light Board made up of the Board of Selectmen, and the Municipal Light Advisory Board composed of appointees who are well versed in business, energy policy, and in the electricity market. One board holds all the power and virtually no expertise, while the other has vast experience and knowledge but no authority. 

When MLAB was established, the members of the Light Board realized that the electricity market had become increasingly complicated and that the town needed a governance structure that included industry- and business-specific expertise. The Selectmen concluded that a board of laymen was simply inadequate to protect Belmont ratepayers and the town’s investment in the system. It created MLAB to serve that purpose, with the expectation that eventually it, rather than the Light Board, would become the governing body.

While that never happened, the members of both Light Board and MLAB collaborated very closely.  While there may have been disagreements from time to time, members of both bodies shared a common objective of acting in the best interests of the town in overseeing a commercial enterprise entirely owned by our citizens. It was a shared sense of serving the public interest, not narrow political objectives, that forged an effective oversight arrangement.

That shared dedication to the public interest has now evaporated into a highly politicized, and frankly, ethical , morass, that threatens the viability of Belmont Light. What is particularly troublesome about this development is that it has developed at a time that Belmont Light is doing extraordinarily well. A very recent customer survey indicated a 91 percent satisfaction rating by customers, the record of service quality and reliability is absolutely superb, the energy portfolio is above the state’s standards for renewable energy, even though it is not legally obligated to be in compliance, and it is managing the biggest capital project in the Town’s history on an on schedule, on budget basis.

The management team, led by [General Manager] Jim Palmer, that has been assembled is highly competent and highly motivated. Moreover, because of management’s commitment and because of the frequent public meetings of MLAB and Light Board, the operations and finances of Belmont Light are more transparent than they have ever been.  Finally, Belmont Light has developed, in collaboration with the Energy Committee and very effective demand side management/energy efficiency program, as well as in the process of deploying smart meters and a new billing system that will enable customers to use energy even more efficiently and with less adverse environmental consequences. It is a record to take pride in.

Rather than taking pride in these accomplishments, we have seen a tiny fraction of customers who have been heavily subsidized by their neighbors because of a flaw in the tariffs, hold the town hostage to their demands for continued subsidies from their neighbors. They have propagandized, spread misinformation, made innumerable and completely fabricated, ad hominum attacks, … and argued, almost literally, that the planet would not survive if their Belmont did not continue to provide them with substantial cross subsidies from their neighbors, to help them pay for their investment in highly inefficient rooftop solar panels and to unjustly enrich the vendors who sold or leased them. 

They demand these subsidies even though they were already heavliy subsidized through tax credits and renewable energy credit programs, and despite the fact that  Elon Musk, the founder of the nation’s biggest solar vendor, Solar City, told the Edison Electric Institute last week that solar no longer required subsidies to compete once carbon was internalized into electricity prices, as all of new England has done. 

The debate over whether non-solar Belmont ratepayers should provide cash to solar customers (in some cases as high as $820 per year) has raged for four years. Despite the intensity, the governance system for Belmont Light remained intact and functional. In 2011, and then through implementing action last December, the Light Board made a decision that, would, over time, have phased out the local cross subsidies, while at the same time affording a seven year pay back for Belmont customers who chose to invest in solar.

In short, it would have lowered rates for non-solar customers while maintaining an attractive payback for solar hosts. At the urging of one member of Light Board, now the chair, there were also cash gifts bestowed on existing solar customers, compliments of the other ratepayers of Belmont.  Not coincidentally, several of those receiving the cash handouts, for which no economic justification was ever provided, were either contributors to his campaign or were relatives of contributors.

In a public meeting he said he was giving out the cash because the recipients were “pioneers.” That contrasted to his private statements, only minutes before, that those very same people were “bullies.”

The solar lobby, not content with getting a partial loaf, then turned to the traditional, and ethically suspect, methods of special interests, namely pouring even more cash into a political campaign to buy themselves a seat on the Light Board. 

They funded a very substantial part of the campaign of a candidate for the Board, who dogmatically supported the solar lobby’s party line in public, even though they were in direct conflict with his oft repeated opposition to unfunded liabilities and to local subsidies, and contrary to statements he made in private to members of MLAB. In effect, to get campaign contributions, that candidate cut a Faustian bargain to get himself elected.

Once elected, he tried, to have the Board adopt a solar tariff that was surreptitiously written by the founder of a solar company with the objective of maximizing the author’s profits by unnecessarily raising the rates of consumers in Belmont and elsewhere, and, indeed, the costs of installing solar itself. 

The Light Board member has also been trying to repeal a provision of the 2011 solar tariff that requires that solar generators eventually be compensated at market value rather than artificially high rates, paid for by imposing higher prices on non-solar customers. He quite explicitly advocated that non-solar Belmont customers should pay higher rates than they would otherwise be compelled to pay in order to heavily cross subsidize his campaign contributors. He has been doing so at the behest of his campaign treasurer, and biggest non-familial contributor to his campaign also a contributor to the campaign of the current chair of Light Board, who had the gall to state in an Light Board meeting, that solar pricing was a purely political matter, devoid of technical issues, in a public meeting of Light Board. That made transparently clear that his campaign contributions were intended to buy himself a subsidy, which in his case, amounted to approximately $820 per year for  the life of his solar panels, thus, probably amounting to  more than $20,000 paid entirely by his neighbors in town.

Curiously, the Light Board member pursuing the contributor’s agenda, never fully disclosed the identity of the person who provided the “tariff he provided. He also failed to disclose the fact that the “tariff” he was pushing, was written by a man whose business stood to be enriched by the measure being pushed. What is particularly striking about the Light Board member’s heavier is that he ran a campaign based on opposition to unfunded liabilities, but his first action as an Light Board member was to create even bigger unfunded liabilities by not allowing Belmont Light to recover all of its fixed costs from several of his campaign contributors.

Given the conflict of interest and the failure to disclose – that fact was also not disclosed by another contributor to the same campaign in his transmittal of the proposal to the other Light Board members in which he describes the author as a “resident” of the town, and failed to identify the fellow’s business interests, an act typical of the dishonesty of the subsidy seeking  lobby in town – that member of the Light Board should be prohibited from voting on any measure having to do with solar pricing in Belmont. His conflict of interest is patently clear, as is his links to the “pay to play” tactics of those who seek to put their hands in the pockets of everyone else in our town.

Intimidated by the outpouring of money and a false reading of the political tea leaves, as well as an astonishing lack of decisiveness, backbone, and  policy direction, the new chair of the Light Board, decided, without giving any explanation of his rationale, to retract the December decision. 

While he was unable to publicly articulate any policy reason for doing so, in private, he fulminated about the political consequences for himself if Belmont did not reinstate heavy cross subsidies for solar hosts and their vendors.

To disguise his inability to articulate any reason his complete reversal of position, he resorted to  unconscionably  berating and humiliating  in public a dedicated young women staff member at BL, later telling her “it was just politics.”

The deed for which he berated her was that she had thoughtfully tried to implement  the very policies on which the chair had  himself signed off before becoming the head of the board. The young woman, as a result, felt compelled to resign her position, a critical loss for Belmont Light, because she was [its] central person in establishing and coordinating energy efficiency and carbon reduction programs. 

What made the [chair’s] posture so bizarre was that he took her to task for, among other things, limiting the town’s liability for flaws in privately owned solar units, for requiring performance in exchange for payment, and for documenting the size and scale of the solar units, a matter made necessary by the nature of the cash gift the [chair’s] has bestowed on solar hosts. In effect, he not only wanted to subsidize the solar hosts, but also to relieve them of any liability for unsafe operation and to pay them regardless of whether they performed. 

At no point, in this dramatic reversal of position did, did he ever offer a rationale that was based on policy, economics or anything else of substance. It was raw, money and influence driven politics. Moreover, he refused to follow a prearranged schedule of joint Light Board/MLAB meetings to discuss these matters. He made it clear that he, who by his own admission, knows virtually nothing about electricity was going to work his political agenda and would not tolerate any input from experts either MLAB or staff.  Simply stated he did not want his political objectives interfered with by anyone who knew something about the subject. In short, he was insisting on governance by the uninformed, and subject to being heavily influenced by those who opened their checkbooks to clueless politicians willing to commit themselves to the self-serving agenda of those writing the checks.

Largely at the urging of some prominent people in town, including the third member of the Light Board, the chair, looking for political cover in a storm caused by his move to rescind the December, 2014 decision, announced [at] Town Meeting that a special expert committee would be appointed to come up with a compromise between net metering and the December tariff approved by the Light Board. In effect, the chair was telling an as yet unknown committee of experts what conclusion they should reach. Subsequently, the Committee was appointed.

Obviously, its recommendations remain to be seen, and the final actions of the Light Board are not yet known. Given past performance by the two members of the Light Board, it seems highly unlikely, regardless of what the committee recommends,  there is little reason to be confident that the Light Board will do anything  other than what is politically expedient.

For that reason, Belmont residents who do not wish to pay cross subsidize the campaign contributors to members of the Light Board, who object to the toxic effects of money and politics, should make their positions clear. For two member of Light Board, politics is all that matters when it comes to electricity tariffs., and so far the only people who are lobbying are those seeking to dip into their neighbors’ pockets.

What makes all of this even a more terrible omen for the future of Belmont Light, is that neither of the two Light Board members discussed have ever asked more than cursory questions about the large substation project, never uttered a single question about gaining pool status for the new transmission line, a multi-million dollar issue for the town, nor have they ever made any inquiry into Belmont Light’s energy purchasing or hedging strategies, one of, if not the biggest procurement activity conducted by the town. They have never even asked about pricing policy and the basis on which our customers, their constituents, are billed. Neither has any experience in or knowledge of energy markets, and neither has ever expressed any interest in learning about them, and unlike their predecessors, make no pretense of exercising due diligence in the way that corporate directors are required to do. Their oversight is strictly limited to issues they find to be of political value. 

Watching their meetings, one would have to presume that the only issue of consequence is solar pricing and that that is a purely political matter devoid of substance. Simply stated, these two members of the Light Board pay attention to the Light Board only when politics and campaign  contributions are involved, and pay little or no attention to matters of much greater financial stakes and risks. Their actions clearly demonstrate that their primary concern is self interested politics not the best interests of Belmont and its citizens.

Belmont Light has been able to serve the town because it has been run on a business like, non political basis, with a sharp focus on community service. The current majority of the Light Board, are now attempting to use Belmont Light as a vehicle for political patronage and favoritism. Amazingly, they do so without regard to, or even acknowledgement of, public policy or equity considerations.

While the pricing of solar energy is a public policy issue, neither of the two Light Board members being discussed have ever shown any interest in or even articulation of a policy or economic perspective. They simply pursue a course that they think is in their political interest and which rewards their campaign contributors. 

So when Belmont consumers receive their electric bills they may well be paying not only for electricity, but also involuntarily contributing to a funds that Light Board members use to reward campaign contributors. Belmont Light will not and cannot survive such a regime. 

The governance of the system must be reformed to assure competent, informed, and apolitical oversight. There needs to be a Board put in place that is run on a fully commercial basis and is held accountable for quality of service, productivity, and sensible policy. Politics, especially of the cash and carry type is neither tolerable nor sustainable in running a municipal electric system. 

As Town Delays Policy, Town Meeting Considers Solar Power Resolution

Photo: Solar panels.

Just two weeks after the Belmont Light Board – made up of the Belmont Board of Selectmen – decided to delayed the start of a payment plan for residents who use solar power, Town Meeting will debate placing a non-binding resolution on the town ballot to ask if the town should support as policy a higher subsidy to homeowners who choose the solar route.

While Sami Baghdady, the chair of the Light Board and the Selectmen, said the delay was so legal language could be clarified in the documents homeowners are required to sign, he did not dismiss the possibility the Light Board – which oversees Belmont Light, the municipal electric utility – could lead to a change in the Residential Rate APV, the new set of rates for customers who use solar panels to generate electricity which was approved in December. 

“At this point, it’s a delay. May it result in a re-evalutation of the policy? I think it might,” said Baghdady after a Selectmen’s meeting on Monday, April 27. 

The Light Board OK’d the postponement after several of the 18 residents who are entitled to participate in Belmont Light’s new program voiced concerns on understanding the legal language in the agreement including a very strong indemnity provision that needed to be signed and returned by April 24. 

“So when [the board] met (on April 22), we raised several questions regarding the packet that went out to residents that were still unresolved. So we agreed to delay the implementation. Concurrent with that, so that necessitated a delay in the filing [by Belmont Light] to the Massachusetts Department of Utilities,” said Baghdady. 

With the new residential rate delayed, Town Meeting will likely take up on the first night of the annual meeting, Monday, May 4, a citizen’s petition from a group of solar power advocates seeking members approval to place a non-binding referendum to gauge the community’s support for either the newly-created buy back pricing program or one which provides a greater payback to households using solar energy. 

Under the newly-delayed plan – which took nearly two years and sometimes contentious debates between advocates and the Municipal Light Advisory Board which drew up the blueprint – residents who install solar power would pay the standard monthly fee every household pays to be hooked up to the Belmont Light system, and a new monthly charge of about $14 for installed capacity.

The new plan also reduces the money homeowners receives as a credit for energy Belmont Light “buys back” when the solar system is generating excess energy as the utility pays for electricity over the course of the entire month, without crediting the homeowner if the electricity is generated during peak-times and how much greenhouse gas emissions they are savings.  

Solar advocates contend they should receive additional credits, (or as the utility calls subsidies) for a myriad of energy and pollution savings.

While the debate in Belmont continues, a state task force on net metering and solar power issued its own report on April 30 concluding that it did did “not support raising the net metering caps in the short term absent a long term sustainable solution.”

“Rather, we believe it is extremely important that any adjustments to the caps be accompanied by meaningful changes to the mix of incentives and proper consideration of the role of the ratepayers,” it read.

Belmont Light Asking Residents to be Prepared for Nor’easter

Here is a press release from the folks at Belmont Light on the pending Nor’easter heading our way.

The approaching winter storm is expected to bring heavy winds and high amounts of snowfall to Belmont. Belmont Light asks its customers to take the following measures to help ensure that they are prepared in case the power goes out:

As advised by the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, have enough emergency supplies available to last at least three days.

Essential items include

  • a stocked first-aid kit,
  • prescription medicines,
  • non-perishable foods that do not require no refrigeration (i.e. canned vegetables, soups, meats, or other goods; dried fruits and nuts; granola bars, cereal, and crackers; etc.),
  • a non-electric can opener,
  • water (one gallon per person, per day),
  • baby-care items,
  • extra blankets,
  • sleeping bags and
  • a fire extinguisher.

Also have fresh batteries on hand, along with a working flashlight and a portable radio or NOAA Weather Radio.

Fully charge your cell phone and computers in advance.

If your electricity goes out, call Belmont Light at 617-993-2800 to report the outage.

(Please do not report your outage via email or the utility’s website.)

Disconnect or turn off appliances that would otherwise turn on automatically when service is restored. If several appliances start up at once, the electric circuits may overload.

Remember to protect appliances and electronics from voltage instability or outages caused by storms and momentary power fluctuations. Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) systems, surge protectors, and surge suppressors will best protect this equipment. These protection devices can be purchased locally.

If your heat goes, keep warm by closing off unoccupied rooms.

If you use alternative heat sources such as a fireplace, woodstove, etc. always make sure you have proper ventilation. Keep curtains, towels, and potholders away from hot surfaces.

Stay indoors during the height of the storm.

Blowing winds – both before and after a blizzard – are cold enough to cause frostbite, and snowdrifts may hide dangers children might otherwise see. Stay indoors where it’s safe, and warm!

If you have to travel in an emergency, try to take someone along with you and be sure you have an emergency kit for your car that includes a flashlight with working batteries; a first-aid kit; blankets or other bedding materials; extra clothing; non-perishables; bottled water; a selection of basic tools like a pocket knife, screwdriver, wrench, etc.; a tow rope; and sand, mats and/or tire chains to help with traction.

If you see downed electrical wires, do not go near them. Report them to Belmont Light immediately. Treat all downed wires as if they are live. Never attempt to move them or touch them with any object. Remember that downed wires can be hidden by snow, tree limbs, leaves, or water. If a power line falls on your car while you’re in it, stay inside the vehicle and wait for emergency personnel.

Should you have any questions or need to report an outage, please call 617-993-2800.

Saturday’s Power Outage Left 2,000 Belmont Light Customers in the Dark

The Christmas lights went out to about a quarter of Belmont homes on Saturday, Dec. 13 as a large-scale blackout hit the town.

According to Becca Keane, Belmont Lights’ executive assistant and communications coordinator, the outage, first reported at 12:51 p.m. on Saturday, was related to an energy supply issue from NStar, the town’s wholesale power supplier.

The issue resulted in a loss of distribution out of one of the three Belmont Light substations. The resulting drop in power caused outages to nearly 2,000 customers, said Keane.

Before long, Belmont Light’s field and engineering teams had the problem under control with power restored by 2:20 p.m.

“The shortest outage lasted approximately 1 hour, 10 minutes and the longest approximately 1 hour 35 minutes,” said Keane.

“We don’t anticipate further service interruptions and the issue was not caused by Belmont Light’s system,” she added.

Light Icing Monday Night/Tuesday AM; Then the Deluge for Belmont

First ice, then lots and lots of water.

No, it’s not the first steps in making a cocktail but the spate of nasty weather – ice, rain and wind – Belmont residents will face for the next day and a half.

At 3:21 p.m., the National Weather Service issued a Winter Weather Advisory that begins at 7 p.m. tonight, Monday, Dec. 8 until 5 a.m., Tuesday, Dec. 9 that will result in a minor accumulation of ice and snow on roadways and sidewalks.

The conditions will result in “slower than normal travel” due to the slippery road conditions.

“Drivers should allow extra time and be especially careful on bridges and overpasses,” the NWS suggests.

By Tuesday morning, heavy rains – between one-and-a-half to two inches with some areas receiving up to four inches – and strong winds will arrive for most of the day with the likelihood of flooding and street ponding (when water pools at low points in the roadway, generally as a result of inadequate drainage or improper grading) in areas around town. The winds, steady at 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 50 mph, will cause some trees and branches to fall and may lead to power outages.

If you power does go out, call Belmont Light at 617-993-2800. Do not call 911 unless it’s a true emergency.

The heaviest rain and strongest winds will occur during the evening rush hour on Tuesday.

Nor’easter on Thanksgiving Eve. That’s All You Need to Know

To hear and read the forecasts being bandied about for tomorrow, Thanksgiving Eve, one would believe the Boston region is teetering on the edge of the apocalypse due to the anticipation of the dreaded Nor’easter.

“Nor’easter Likely To Bring Thanksgiving Travel Chaos to Northeast” shouts the headline from a national broadcasting corporation.

“Expectations for an approaching nor’easter have shifted, threatening up to 4 inches of snow accumulation as far east as Boston” warned a big Boston daily newspaper.

“Thanksgiving storm: Hour-by-hour snowfall!” announced a local television station.

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate!

With so much information being dispensed on this weather “event” – check out your twitter account to see how all encompassing the storm has become – it appears that, yes, it will be stormy Wednesday afternoon.

The National Weather Service, as of 3:14 p.m., today, Tuesday, Nov. 25, issued a winter weather advisory from 7 a.m. Wednesday until 7 a.m. Thanksgiving as snow is coming into the area.

But an advisory is issued when the accumulation is expected to be “light.” And the latest information is that Belmont can expect to receive between three to six inches with a trace of ice.

Rain will start around daybreak and change over to a wintry mix of snow and sleet by mid-day and into the afternoon before changing to snow in the evening. It will be heavy at times and windy – from the north averaging 15 to 20 mph with gusts up to 40 mph –before tapering off on Thanksgiving morning, just in time for the annual Belmont-Watertown football match at 10 a.m., this year at Harris Field.

So be careful when driving on untreated roadways or on suspended roads – like bridges and overpasses – and sidewalks.

If the lights go out, call Belmont Light at 617-993-2800. 

So here is your take away for tomorrow’s nor’easter:

  • It will be snowy tomorrow especially in the evening and at night.
  • It will take much longer to travel on Wednesday so you’ll be on the smartphone to hear the latest from your family member/friend as they are stuck in an airport or on the Mass Pike.
  • You’ll need something essential for the Thanksgiving meal and will be driving through the storm anyway.
  • Where are the snow shovels?

With Wind Advisory in Effect, Outages In the Mix

With the National Weather Service issuing a wind advisory for Belmont and eastern Massachusetts that will last until 6 p.m. on Sunday, the chances climb a branch or tree will fall across the power wires that supplies your abode.

If the power does go out, those effected should call Belmont Light at 617-993-2800.

Belmont Police and Fire departments said residents should only call 911 for true emergencies.

New Electrical Substation, Transmission On Line for Spring 2016 Launch

After listening to Belmont Light General Manager James Palmer at public meeting Tuesday, Sept. 23, the best way to described the work to bring on line a new electrical substation and laying out a transmission route through town is “hunky-dory.”

Since being approved by Special Town Meeting in Feb. 2012, the town-owned electric utility proposal to meet the town’s increasing power requirements has been steaming along right on schedule, Palmer told a meeting of the joint meeting of the Belmont Light Board (made up of the Board of Selectmen) and its Advisory Board held at the Beech Street Center.

“Progress has been made, and we are hard at work to have this project up and running by the Spring of 2016,” said Palmer.

While the multimillion dollar project will effect everyone who turns on a switch in their home or business in Belmont, only a handful of rate paying residents showed up for the presentation which reviewed the steps taken so far by the utility and some of the challenges it could face in the future.

Since 2012, Belmont Light has moved on finding a location for the substation and obtaining the property, clearing regulatory hurdles and laying out the best route for the new electrical lines after securing easements and state approval.

“As you can see, we’ve made great progress in a short amount of time,” said Palmer.

The new Belmont Light substation. (credit: Belmont Light)

The new Belmont Light substation. (credit: Belmont Light)

Palmer said the project’s most noticeable accomplishment can be seen at the substation’s new home off Brighton Street on Flanders Road. The building that was once the home of Crate Escape, the dog day care business, has been demolished as the location is being readied for construction.

The town issued a Request for Proposal to build the $5 million, 10,000 sq.-ft. structure with bids due by Oct. 31 with a contract awarded soon afterwards.

“These are huge milestones,” said Palmer.

The new substation – which will house a new 115-kV single loop transmission line – is being built in partnership with the regional utility NSTAR. Rate payers will be on the line for $26.1 million in long-term bonding.

While out of sight, the transmission line bringing power from the substation to homes and businesses is also proceeding, although at a much slower rate. While Belmont Light will lay the line on the south side of the MBTA/Fitchburg commuter rail line, the utility will need to coordinate with the MBTA, which currently has a construction project at the site.

“This could impact our schedule,” said Palmer, saying it’s doubtful both projects could simultaneous work “side-by-side” at the same time.

As part of meeting the project’s regulatory requirements, Belmont Light made an initial presentation to ISO-New England, the independent, non-profit regional transmission organization that operates New England’s power grid and oversees the wholesale electricity market.

“If the project is deemed a benefit to the surrounding communities, which it is, then the cost of the transmission lines will be shared regionally,” said Palmer.

When asked by Slate Street’s Roger Wrubel if a positive ISO response to Belmont Light’s presentations would save either Belmont Light or NSTAR money, Palmer said both entities would benefit in the cost cut.

Moving forward this fall, Palmer said the town has issued a RFP for the transmission lines, and new major electrical equipment will be purchased along with the substation’s contractor named.

And while changing market conditions could increase the cost of construction, Palmer said he believes the contingency set aside in the budget will sufficiently meet any future “surprises,” said Palmer.