Mr. dePierro’s recent letter to the editor makes broad unsupported assertions to justify his and the council’s 2008 decision to reject installing solar panels at the plant at Sharkey's Land Fill, when it required a dollar-specific analysis.

In 2008 the Town Council that included the mayor held that the solar panels could wait until after the plant was upgraded. However one thing is not like the other. One thing is upgrading the plant to operate more efficiently and reduce energy needs; the other is significantly increasing energy savings with a future payback and reaping a substantial environmental benefit.

The $1.74 million rebate from the Board of Public Utilities resulted in net borrowing of $5.6 million, not $7 million asMr. dePierro stated in his letter and apparently used to reach his decision. The interest rate was 2.2 percent, half the rate that the town could obtain in the bond market.

It appears based on the analysis that a lot of energy savings were left on the table at the expense of Parsippany taxpayers. The council argued at the time that the upgrades reduced energy costs 50 percent making the solar panels unnecessary, which was rebutted by the energy expert whoprepared the financial analysis study. He stated the town had to “cut energy use more than 90 percent” to exceed the savings benefit of installing solar panels. He continued that a plant upgrade providing that kind of savings “would be hard to fathom.”  Still the council “chose in favor of upgrading the plant."

The savings generated by the panels would have begun in the first year of installation and resulted in a cumulative net benefit of between $3.8 million and $5.7 million (the amount depends on the assigned value of energy credits). At the end of the 20-year loan, Parsippany would own the solar panels and taxpayers would realize continuing future positive cash flow from the energy credits the utility company would buy.

According to the financial analysis study, if solar panels were installed in 2008 the potential annual net benefit to the township was between $283,000 and $708,000 over the five-year period. Perhaps the savings could have lessened sewer utility increases or the need to move $700,000 from the sewer surplus to the general fund.

The council’s goal should have been to upgrade the plant and install the solar panels concurrently to optimize the plant to its most efficient level in order to realize the greatest savings for taxpayers now and in the future. Based on historical data there would be little or no impact on the town’s bond rating by borrowing to do both.

Apparently the town council didn’t contemplate that putting off the solar project until 2012 when the plant upgrades are completed would result in a substantially higher cost to taxpayers without the never-to-be-offered-again $1.74 million rebate and the additional benefit of energy credits.

Mr. dePierro ends his letter by claiming comments made by my running mates Annelise Catanzaro and Tom Wyka “distorted a logical and rational economic analysis.” So far “no logical and rational economic analysis” has been provided. Without it, it appears a sound analysis prepared by experts may have been overridden by the council's often likeminded and unified decisionmaking process along party lines that once again didn’t serve the best interest of taxpayers.

Janice McCarthy