The Fast Track to Approval on the Proposed Solar Array: Is Pomfret Getting the Full Story?

Over the years, Pomfret has had many discussions on developing and/or selling the town-owned Murdock property at 434 Killingly Road. It's safe to say that there have been people on all sides of the political aisle against a solar array being the best use of this land.

Here are just a few old letters sent into our local papers from Pomfret residents over the years that I found in a quick online search:

I attended a Town Meeting back in March that was for informational purposes, sharing the Town's intent to pursue this as a viable option. That presentation showed panels AND battery storage, and seemingly had a totally different developer looking to take on this project. A company that a recent, former selectman works with.

Week after week, Selectman Martha Emilio would ask the other two selectmen if there had been any updates on this proposed project, but she was always told there were no updates. Now, on June 1st, the solar array discussion popped back up on a Board of Selectmen agenda, coupled with a full presentation. I was unable to attend the meeting, and as you all know by now, our meetings are not offered virtually despite us taking grant funds allocated for virtual meetings, but I was able to listen to the audio that Selectman Emilio shared.

Highlights of that presentation that you can view on the 10-slide slideshow deck, now shared on the town's website, highlight many things that give me reason to pause and ask more questions.

View the slideshow info here:

slides-titangen_pomfret_nres_solar_overview_v7.pdf

Download PDF • 1.18MB

The public materials say the Town could receive about $9.56 million over 20 years, or about $478,045 per year, from a 5 MW AC solar array with no upfront costs to the Town. It was said to be an estimate (or I say guestimated) by the presenter, just taking 10 of our highest-paying revenue sources on our grand list in town currently and doing some simple math using that and our mill rate. I believe the number deserves careful attention. It's BIG and BEAUTIFUL, and I believe it's based on the best-case assumptions with a lot of hoops to jump through to make this Pomfret's reality. I heard many "if this, then that" statements during the presentation, and we all know we don't live in a perfect world where everything goes to plan. I would like to see which other towns in Connecticut they've benchmarked our per-MW revenue against for utility-scale solar, so we can know for sure whether this estimate is realistic or a dream.

For comparison's sake, I found that Sprague appears to have a 20 MW AC ground-mounted solar facility, and on a specific budget line, they have listed "PILOT Solar Farm - $200,000" in their property tax revenue section. Doing some simple math, that's about $10K per MW per year in Sprague versus Pomfret's proposed figures of an estimated $95,600 per MW per year. That's a HUGE difference. And remember, this is on a proposed 5 MW system featured in the slideshow.

There are many caveats to this project being optimized. The developer must spend 5% of the project cost before early July 2026 to preserve eligibility for a 50% federal Investment Tax Credit. That's right around the corner from our June 25th Town Meeting. Why did we wait so long to hold this meeting after discussing this for YEARS, and again this past March???

It's calculated that the Town's projected revenue would but slashed 80% without successfully earning that tax credit.

Open space has been something Pomfret has taken pride in over the years, and something we all love. Not only that, but our open space has won us grant funds in the past. Why are we in a rush to get rid of it now? The Town is marketing this property as some unusable gravel pit when that's simply NOT true. We urge you to go walk the property and see for yourself.

I believe residents also deserve consistency. Previously, public notices and our media covered this as a proposed "solar and battery storage" project, while the latest slideshow and the town's marketing describe a solar project and do not clearly explain plans for battery storage. This shift in messaging does not give off transparency vibes to me.

Here is the discussion at last week's Board of Selectmen meeting regarding batteries:

Discussion on Batteries at last BOS Meeting

1:32

Here is my reaction video on one of the Selectmen calling those against this project a "NIMBY":

Was he sleeping during the part of the meeting where the presenter is clearly alluding to the fact that battery storage is most likely coming during Phase II???

It's also important to note that the public has a lot of fire safety and emergency planning concerns. After some volunteers had shared those concerns, the chief and our resident State Rep took to social media on the Fire Department's Facebook page to share their opinion on the situation:

These posts also gave me more questions:

Will the developer be required to fund any equipment, mapping, or additional training for Pomfret Fire and mutual‑aid departments to ensure we can safely manage a 5 MW site at this location?

Your Facebook post includes a ‘Battery Storage Protocol,’ but the Town’s June slideshow and recent website posts describe a solar‑only NRES project and do not mention batteries at all. As of today, is any battery storage actually included in the current proposal or anticipated in a later phase?

If the current application is solar‑only, why was a battery protocol included in your post? Are you planning for a realistic possibility that storage could be added later, and has that been clearly communicated to residents? (It was not clearly stated at the last BOS meeting. I will be sharing the audio on my blog this week with detailed info for residents to consider.)

Have you, as Fire Chief, seen any draft plans, footprints, or locations for potential battery containers on the Murdock site, or would any future storage proposal come back to you and the public for separate review?

You’ve said publicly that our department is ‘fully equipped, trained, and protected’ for solar panel fires. Are there any limitations or worst‑case scenarios residents should be aware of—for example, conditions under which you would choose a defensive ‘protect the perimeter’ strategy rather than direct suppression in the array?

You mentioned on Facebook that Pomfret Fire has already ‘successfully and effectively mitigated one incident at this location.’ Can you describe what that incident was, what burned, and what you learned from it that will be applied at the Murdock array?

Asking questions is NOT being a "NIMBY" or being anti-solar. I have solar panels on my own home. A 20-year lease on town-owned land is a big decision that the residents deserve to weigh in on. Our town has invested time, public money, and trust into preserving open space, and Town leaders should be willing to show every major assumption, every relevant document, and every safety and financial consideration before asking us to vote YES for this project.

Pomfret residents don't need slogans or flashy AI media marketing to convince us what the right choice is. We need the full lease terms, the full safety plan, the full financial assumptions, and full clarity about what is being voted on now versus what is slated to be added at a later date.

IMPORTANT UPCOMING DATES REGARDING THIS TOPIC:

Next Regular Board of Selectmen meeting: Monday, June 16th at 8:00 AM at the Pomfret Community Center

Town Meeting Vote on Solar Array Proposal: Thursday, June 25 at 6:30 PM at Pomfret Community School