2014-10-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

585 after which actual solar developers or construction companies could be brought in 586 once the PWETC determined the best direction and what kind of realistic 587 proposals should be recommended to the City Council so they could ultimately 588 decide how best to proceed. 589 590 Mr. Schwartz reported that one finding brought from the meeting was the cost 591 reduction in solar from $10411 per KWh to $3-$5 per KWh, some of which was 592 due to tax credits, and with increased technologies will serve to make projects 593 much more feasible and justify solar as a competitor over the next few years with 594 rising energy costs. 595 40 596 Mr. Johnson presented his findings of annual City campus KWh usage and needs 597 for a 3,800 square foot area to install a 40 KWh system. Mr. Johnson opined that 598 the City campus provided a lot of space to accomplish an array, even with the 599 existing HVAC system and allowing for future additions to the solar system. 600 601 Discussion included usage per building; solar conditions; projected generation 602 over a 12-month period (e.g. City Hall building atKWh system, generating 603 approximately 400,000 KWh or half the usage req ed); and size limitations 604 based on MN credits, tax credit and the Xc rgy program and comparisons 605 to current energy costs. 606 607 Member Cihacek opined that unless the City owned a share, it could not receive 608 the full benefit of a 40 KWh system as a developer, but could as a host site. As 609 staff develops this model, Member Cihacek asked staff to provide scenarios if the 610 City served in the role of a shareholder at a minimum number of shares; 611 information on the financial analysis portion and what was needed to protect the 612 advantage for leasing space (e.g. change in insurance limits or incurring 613 construction costs to determine efficacy); and the financial payback available to 614 4the City as of twelve shareholders — the minimum and impact of that cost 615 alysis. 616 617 ember Seigler asked for additional information if the City were to lease or rent a 618 commercial rooftop (e.g. lease rates) and what the actual value of the City's 619 rooftop actually was; opining that if the City gave that area away, what it was 620 actually giving a a financially. 621 622 With discussion specific buildings and their energy production potential, Mr. 623 Schwartz reminded members that the limit was 120% of the energy use of a 624 building; with credit for KWh taken off the main bill. 625 626 Member Gjerdingen suggested looking at some of the park building roofs. 627 628 With projects planned in Minnesota — half in the metropolitan area and half out- 629 state — Mr. Schwartz advised that the goal is to find ways to make the solar 630 projects pay for themselves with larger systems versus smaller ones. Page 14 of 16