2014-09-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

172 have much impact on demand charges as community solar systems are not 173 measuring demand against production, and if impugning demand in an applicable 174 retail rate, the business gets credit on a per KW basis, which was much more 175 attractive for commercial versus residential customers, and gave them an 176 advantage. 177 178 Public Comment 179 Sara Barsel (and Randy Neprash),1276 Eldridge Avenue 180 Ms. Barsel asked if a municipal facility installed solar on their roof, would it be 181 considered commercial or a different category. 182 183 Mr. Ross responded that it would depend on which of the different roles came 184 into play for developing a community solar system, just like other types of 185 developer as previously referenced: whether the City serves as the developer, 186 builder, financier, customer, or host; but clarified that the role was defined by 187 subscriber not by the location of the system. 188 189 At the request of Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Ross confirmed that, under the tariff, 190 different rates applied depending on the type of subscriber on the same system, 191 with a minimum purchase required under State law per subscriber, theoretically 192 equivalent to one solar panel per customer, and treated as if on your roof whether 193 you were a commercial or residential subscriber. 194 195 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Ross clarified that the City could serve in a 196 regulatory role if private individuals or companies (e.g. developers) in the 197 community chose to install solar systems without City involvement, or the City 198 could be more involved to make things more streamlined, or any other role as 199 previously identified. As noted by Member Seigler, if the City did not become 200 involved and allowed solar installations, they could essentially be giving away an 201 asset if a system was installed on their roof. However, as noted by Mr. Schwartz, 202 under that scenario, there would also be no cost to the City except for installing 203 the system, with Mr. Ross pointing out that the onus of anything on the solar 204 system would require a subscription manager or an agreement put in place for 205 roof maintenance or replacement (e.g. depreciation and tax credits going directly 206 to the developer), but providing a revenue stream for the City as host. 207 208 Member Seigler questioned if it would be prudent for the City to give a public 209 building roof away, as a potential asset, if the private developer would make a 210 profit from it versus the City. 211 212 With the entire solar energy field forging new ground, Mr. Ross noted the many 213 options available, but the need for a process and established standards for 214 community solar systems, as not only local vendors and in-state developers, but 215 vendors from other states and/or countries, tapping into this opportunity. While 216 many of those companies have experience installing the solar systems, Mr. Ross 217 opined that the other trick was to establish how well the solar systems would be Page 5 of 15