03-17-2025 JDA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project best approach. We also know that Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding (tax credits resulting in up to a 50% cost reduction) could make both Option 1-A and the all-electric option 2-B cost neutral from the cost base, but we understand that this is not likely for this project. The developer would either need to hold the building for five years or establish a tax entity that can take advantage of the IRA, which is not the developer’s typical business model. We also suggest that there should be strategies with cost and energy impacts shown for Equipment Loads in the two scenarios mentioned above which may get Option 1-A to or closer to the 50% reduction from MN Code in the Guidelines. c. Recommendation: The JDA should grant a waiver to allow the developer to pursue Option 1-A, contingent on the County reducing the land cost, and require the other Guidelines to be met, per this memo. The JDA should also request that the developer to do a full cost analysis of what it would take to get the IRA benefits and to evaluate both Options 1-A and 2-B through the Xcel EDA Analysis currently underway. If the IRA were able to work, the developer would hold the full benefit, regardless of which Option is implemented. Any fossil fuels must offset an equivalent amount of carbon emissions each year. 3. Renewable Energy a. Request: This waiver requests to change the requirement to providing a “PV-ready” roof in lieu of providing onsite renewable energy of a certain scale within the proposed design. The structural and electrical provisions will be incorporated into the shell building. Ryan will also work with a local solar provider to study the viability of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) solution and present the option to the tenant for consideration. We have provided preliminary calculations that demonstrate a rough estimate of 70-75% of the building’s annual energy load may be met by a maximized PV array, on the separate PDF showing total roof area available for PV after rooftop equipment, clearances, required fire access paths and perimeter safety setbacks have been incorporated. We cannot guarantee the final amount possible or whether the electricity purchase rates and terms will be favorable to signing a final PPA contract. Even though the rooftop cannot provide the 120% requested, we do not believe implementation of carports on the site to further increase generation potential would be practical or cost effective both due to the orientation of the employee parking (long axis N-S which would cause the PV to face either E or W rather than the ideal S exposure) and due to shading from the many trees incorporated into the parking areas. Carport PV is already more expensive per watt than rooftop arrays, and lower generation from these conditions further decreases the payback these systems would achieve to offset their initial costs with energy savings either if purchased or if implemented in a PPA solution.