A point of discussion was the previously voted grant application, which had faced significant delays due to the lack of a dedicated grant administrator within the town. The Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (MRPC) was initially expected to assist in managing the grant application. However, the MRPC could not proceed without adequate staffing and resources from the town. The speaker expressed dissatisfaction with the timeline and execution of the project, noting that although a detailed and technical report was eventually received, it was difficult to assess its quality comprehensively. The suggestion was made to consult Rob B to evaluate the report’s viability for implementation. Moreover, concerns were raised about the incomplete energy control measures, specifically the cooling system at the senior center, which could incur significant costs. The urgency of completing these tasks was emphasized, as delays were affecting project timelines.

The conversation then shifted to outdated contracts related to the energy control measures, raising concerns about whether these tasks had been previously overlooked or resulted from a lack of action on prior commitments. Further investigation into the performance of Rise and the quality of their reports was proposed. There was a call to invite Rob B to a future meeting to discuss Rise’s performance from both a technical and administrative perspective, the usefulness of the Retro Commission report for future actions, and the potential for electrification of town buildings, which could yield additional energy savings.

Attention also turned to a non-green community grant program concerning LED installations, which remained incomplete, with no definitive timeline for its completion. Ongoing efforts related to the Spalding School had yet to come to fruition, causing concern about progress in that area. Jessica Consalvo, who had been working on the town’s master plan, was noted to be absent from the meeting. She had provided insights into aligning the energy committee’s goals with broader town planning initiatives. The committee was encouraged to review the master plan, particularly sections related to climate adaptation and energy management, as there were opportunities for editing and enhancing those components.

The speaker highlighted the importance of establishing a maintenance and preservation plan for town facilities, including energy-related upgrades. Specific pages within the master plan were referenced, where energy management was discussed. The committee was urged to recognize the limitations of a small town while aiming for measurable progress in reducing carbon emissions. Concrete data on energy savings and reductions in emissions were suggested to be documented and communicated.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the terminology used in climate change efforts, particularly the distinction between mitigation and adaptation. A participant expressed frustration with the inconsistent use of these terms in the documentation, emphasizing the need for clarity in how the town’s energy committee communicates its goals and actions to the public. The participant stated, “I have a problem with the terms of mitigation and adaptation,” and noted inconsistencies in the language used in the plan. The committee acknowledged that the current presentation of their efforts might not adequately inform the public about the committee’s role and capabilities.

The lack of a grant administrator was highlighted as a issue hindering the town’s ability to apply for funding. A member noted the financial implications of this absence, stating, “I believe it’s cost down 15 grand last year and now I can’t apply for a grant because I can’t manage it.” The necessity for better communication regarding the town’s energy efficiency initiatives was reiterated, with a consensus that the community should maintain and support the energy committee to foster progress in energy conservation and clean energy projects.

As the dialogue progressed, the implementation section of the master plan was scrutinized, particularly its alignment with the goals of the energy committee. There was a feeling that the current structure did not accurately represent the committee’s objectives, which focus on action-oriented strategies rather than merely reacting to climate change. One member articulated, “We don’t expect to change the climate by what we do here in Townsend; we are participating in a global effort to minimize risk for our kids.” The committee contemplated how to integrate their established goals into the existing framework of the master plan, with discussions about the potential for rewording certain sections to better reflect their intentions.

The implications of changing state goals regarding energy efficiency were also discussed, with the Massachusetts goal shifting from a target of 30% reduction by 2030 to 33%. This alteration raised questions about how to incorporate updated information into the master plan, stressing the importance of ensuring that the plan reflects current standards and aspirations. Members expressed a desire to see tangible evidence of the town’s efforts, specifically regarding financial savings, with one stating, “I’d like to be able to say that but I can’t because no one’s giving me the numbers.”

The need for collaboration and drafting a clear outline of the goals to be included in the plan was underscored, proposing that members write down the sequence of things they wish to incorporate. A suggestion was made to include a section reflecting the town’s reductions in climate-changing emissions and the financial savings achieved, though there was an acknowledgment of the challenges in obtaining precise data to substantiate these claims.