Company pitches floating solar on Hudson reservoir; interconnection and neighbor concerns raised

Lily, a company representative for Electricity, told the Climate Advisory Committee that Electricity is proposing a floating solar array on a city-owned reservoir in Hudson that the company has identified as the most viable interconnection site.

"My name is Lily, and I work for electricity. We're a company that specializes in floating solar," Lily said during the presentation and described the firm’s prior projects, certifications and permitting experience.

The company described the proposed Hudson array as a relatively small installation — "1.2" (as presented by the company) — sited on a reservoir the presenters identified as a city-owned water body. Electricity said the utility interconnection point was the principal technical driver for selecting that site and that it had screened other nearby parcels before designating the reservoir.

Why it matters: the project could produce local renewable electricity, provide a new revenue stream to the city through a lease, and offer subscription-based benefits to nearby residents. At the same time, committee members and residents raised questions about access, recreational use (including docks and fishing), potential construction impacts and visual effects for nearby homeowners.

What the company said

- Company background and claims: Electricity representatives said the firm has built floating arrays internationally and has pilot and pipeline projects in the U.S., and that its float components are made from HDPE, a food‑grade plastic the presenters said is certified in the U.K. Lily and co-presenter Angel said those certifications and academic studies support the company’s position that the arrays are safe for reservoirs, including drinking-water bodies, and that floating arrays can reduce evaporation and provide habitat benefits in some cases.

- Site and size: The company presented a concept for a smaller array on the reservoir (presented as "1.2"). They said the red dot on their map showed the interconnection location and that interconnection feasibility was the key site-selection factor.

- Upfront costs and schedule: Electricity said it would pay initial project costs for interconnection and permitting, which the presenters estimated at "around between 200,000 to 300,000" dollars depending on the project. The firm outlined a multi-year timeline: several years of behind‑the‑scenes due diligence and permitting, then procurement and construction in a later year (the presenters characterized construction as fast once interconnection and permitting are complete, taking roughly six months to a year).

- Lease and community benefits: The presenters proposed a lease arrangement for the water body. They said the company’s current proposal assumes a lease rate starting at roughly $7,000 per year, with a first‑year payment described as "just over 8,000," and suggested long leases of 20 to 30 years yielding what they described as roughly "$315,000 overall" across the term. The company also said the array could supply a community subscription program so nearby residents could receive discounted electricity.

Questions and concerns raised at the meeting

- Recreation and access: Committee members noted that homeowners around the reservoir use docks and fish from the shore. One committee member said the slope and vegetative cover down to the water are steep and that access is limited; the company said it had not yet surveyed the reservoir in detail because much of the shore is private property and that the company would seek property‑owner permission before site visits.

- Environmental review and permitting: Committee members asked about previous permitting in Massachusetts and environmental review timeframes. Company representatives said the review process with state regulators (they referenced MassDEP) typically took about 12 to 18 months in their prior projects and that every water body requires a tailored ecological assessment. The company said it would complete required surveys and coordinate with the town, conservation commissions and state reviewers.

- Fisheries and shoreline users: The presenters said they can work with local fishing associations to design mitigations and that they have experience adjusting siting and design to accommodate recreational use. They offered to develop public‑engagement workshops and to adapt design details if nearby residents or users had concerns.

What the committee decided

Committee members asked to continue the discussion offline because of time constraints. A committee member suggested additional research and a follow‑up meeting; Electricity provided contact information and the group agreed to pursue further review and public engagement prior to any formal town commitments.

Ending

Committee members asked the company to return with more detailed site surveys, community‑engagement plans and a clearer interconnection pathway. No formal vote or commitment was taken at the meeting; the committee said it will consider the project further at a later date and provided the presenters with contact points for follow‑up.