Developers ask council for public‑interest exemption for floating solar at city reservoir

Jason Angel, co‑director of the Ecological Citizens Project (ECP), and partners briefed the council on a proposed 1.63 megawatt floating solar array on a city reservoir and a rooftop array at the water‑treatment plant to reach a combined ~2 MW. Angel said ECP has secured about $1,400,000 in federal, state and private grants but that the remaining $150,000 of a $450,000 federal tranche is pending; he said if the federal tranche does not materialize the project could rely on lending for that portion. "We've secured $1,400,000 in federal, state, and private grant money that allows us to maximize the community benefits," Angel said.

Staff and the project's counsel described the project economics as contingent on the Con Edison interconnection study due the week of April 7; high upgrade costs could materially change the project model and the level of community benefits. Angel presented two subscriber distribution strategies under consideration: (1) a community‑solar subscription model with targeted enrollment of about 400 households (about half low‑ and moderate‑income) which requires subscription management and an estimated $900,000 lifetime subscription‑management cost; or (2) enrollment under New York State's Solar for All program, which automatically allocates credits to qualifying households in the Con Edison service area (ECP said that would reach about 2,800 Peekskill households who receive HEAP, TANF, SSI or SNAP but would dilute per‑household savings). He warned the council that the choice affects who benefits most: "The state solar for all program would distribute to the 2,800 households in the city of Peekskill that qualify for HEAP, TANF, SSI, or SNAP," Angel said, "but the energy bill savings per household would be reduced because it's spread over a broader pool."

ECP also asked the council to consider a public‑interest determination under municipal‑property doctrine because floating solar is not an expressly permitted use in the R1A zoning where the reservoir sits. Corporate counsel explained that doctrine applies to municipal property and requires a balancing test; the project team cited third‑party water‑quality review, proposed stop‑gate construction to isolate a reservoir basin, prevailing‑wage construction, provision for apprenticeships where feasible, and funding for a food‑sovereignty fund. Councilmembers asked for additional detail on the pending interconnection cost, how many qualifying households have utility accounts (some program recipients do not pay separate utilities), and whether targeted distribution to Peekskill would be feasible if the state option dilutes benefits. Staff agreed to return when the Con Edison interconnection study is received and to provide a breakdown of the 2,800 households and subscription‑management cost scenarios. No final council action was taken the night of the presentation.