Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Action Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews Climate Action Plan progress, rejects PACE path and debates advocacy limits amid Mass Save cuts
Summary
Members reviewed the town’s Climate Action Plan, reported that PACE for commercial properties is not being pursued, discussed how July 2024 code changes enabled 'Climate Leader' grant eligibility, and debated whether the committee should engage in political advocacy after a state proposal to cut Mass Save funding.
At the April 22 Clean Energy and Sustainability Committee meeting, committee member Bern Kosicki reviewed the history and current status of Chelmsford’s Climate Action Plan and presented a notes scheme for ranking progress on key items.
Kosicki told the committee that the PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) program for commercial properties was evaluated and found not worth pursuing for the town because it is not popular in other municipalities and requires property title to be used as collateral. He also noted that changes to town codes effective July 1, 2024 helped Chelmsford attain Climate Leader status with the state, a designation that enabled the town to apply for grants now funding projects such as the fire‑station geothermal work discussed in the meeting.
Members discussed opportunities to coordinate the town plan with the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG) climate action plan and considered producing a one‑page summary of the town’s progress for the upcoming town meeting, a suggestion offered by Peter Spawn. Several members spoke about potential roles: Nicolas Mercier said he is interested in updating the plan and tackling discrete tasks, Jackie Zeimbekakis volunteered to work on community education and demonstration projects to support residential adoption of clean technologies, and Badhri Uppiliappan emphasized using completed work to sustain momentum.
The committee also addressed a contemporaneous statewide vote to reduce the Mass Save program budget. Members discussed how political the committee should be and how much lobbying or advocacy is appropriate for a volunteer municipal advisory body. Chris Haley added a procedural point: HomeWorks, a partner in the MassSave Community First program, holds personal sign‑up data and cannot share it with the committee; committee member Matt will provide a PowerPoint or email at the next meeting with the limited data he can share.
The committee agreed to consider collaboration with NMCOG, prepare a concise progress summary for town meeting and assign follow‑up tasks for plan updates and outreach.
