Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floating Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Packed hearing on floating solar at Campfield Reservoir centers on water‑quality and safety concerns
Summary
Project proponents said the proposed floating solar array would require no city capital funding and pledged monitoring, decommissioning bonding and a stop‑gate; residents and some commissioners pressed for independent local reviews, contingency planning and clearer answers on worst‑case water impacts. The public hearing was left open to July.
The Planning Commission spent the bulk of its June 9 meeting on a continued public hearing for a proposed floating photovoltaic array at Campfield Reservoir, led by the Ecological Citizens Project and Working Power. Jason Angel, co‑director of the Ecological Citizens Project, and technical leads from Working Power and D3 Energy presented the project and fielded extensive questions from commissioners and residents.
Jason Angel summarized project benefits and financing: “There is no city taxpayer funding that is a part of this project to build it, finance it, operate it, maintain it,” and he said the proposal is “structured to deliver $1,000,000 of electricity bill savings to directly to Peekskill households” and to create “a $1,200,000 Peekskill food sovereignty fund.” The applicant team emphasized that floats and panels are certified PFAS‑free and that the selected float technology (the Cielitaire system) has been deployed on drinking‑water reservoirs abroad.
Commissioners and residents pressed the team on water‑quality risks, microplastics, panel fires, and emergency contingency plans if an incident required decommissioning or reservoir isolation. Stetson of the EPC contractor described design and monitoring measures and said the floats are HDPE and “UV stabilized, to not degrade for the life of the project.” He and Cassidy Robinson, the environmental permitting consultant, referenced peer‑reviewed studies and an Arcadis third‑party review the city has engaged. Commissioners asked the project team to coordinate with the city water superintendent and Arcadis and noted the need for a stop‑gate and a decommissioning bond (the team cited an estimated removal cost of about $175,000).
Public commenters were split. Some urged the commission to proceed for water‑saving and climate reasons; others said the benefits (projected savings and the food fund) were modest in scale compared with the city’s single‑source reliance on the reservoir and urged exploring alternate sites (rooftops, parking canopies). After lengthy testimony, the commission left the public hearing open to July to receive further information from the water department and Arcadis and to allow additional public comment.
