Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Streier advised that the lease structure allowed Newport Partners to leverage <br /> federal tax benefits through the sale of tax credits to investors; and provides the <br /> City with a turnkey proposal, with all engineering, design, installation and <br /> financing costs covered, and the City making annual power payments to Newport <br /> Partners for electricity produced by the system at 85% of their Xcel Energy <br /> contract rate. Mr. Streier further noted that, then after ten years, the City would <br /> receive full ownership of the solar energy system at a cost of approximately one <br /> year's power payment. <br /> Mr. Streier reviewed Newport Partners' product, consisting of silicon energy <br /> photovoltaic modules, called a voyageur PV module versus a cascade system, and <br /> reviewed the advantages of this product economically, and for commercial roof <br /> top installations compared to other types of installations and maintenance. Mr. <br /> Streier advised that this was a glass-on-glass design to provide maximum <br /> durability in Minnesota winters and temperature fluctuations; and was made in <br /> Minnesota, with high efficiency cells to increase power, and be fully compatible <br /> with widely used commercial racking systems and inverters; with a thirty-year <br /> warranty, longer than the typical twenty-five year warranty for most solar systems <br /> in the industry. <br /> At the request of Chair Stenlund, and excluding the inverters, Mr. Streier advised <br /> that the warranty extended to thirty years, ten years beyond the cost projections <br /> provided in the table provided by Mr. Streier (Attachment A) showing electricity <br /> savings, down payment, and payback periods. Mr. Streier addressed the power <br /> warranty over the first fifteen years, and thereafter, and replacement cost of <br /> panels. <br /> Mr. Streier displayed examples of their product installations over the last few <br /> years, and their ballasted modular installation versus punching holes in a roof for <br /> some types of installations. <br /> At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Streier reviewed the City's upfront costs <br /> and payback period for a roof installation and/or utilizing a community solar <br /> garden approach. Mr. Streier advised that there lease was calculated based on <br /> income from the lease for overall tax investors, based on a system of this size and <br /> projected cost of$240,000 and ratios per year. Mr. Streier advised that for <br /> community solar, it had yet to be readied until details were finalized by the Public <br /> Utilities Commission (PUC), as far as what to charge, and based on whether or <br /> not those systems are fully subscribed, and whether assumptions are accurate after <br /> the regulatory process is completed. Mr. Streier suggested that, if the City <br /> decides to pursue community solar, and considers hosting it and capitalizing <br /> installation to come up with 100% from other subscribers with no out-of-pocket <br /> cost for the City, it also needed to be aware that it would receive no bill credits or <br /> energy savings itself. However, Mr. Streier reviewed other options for the City to <br /> be a host as well as a subscriber, therefore seeing bill credits for the City's <br /> investment share as a subscriber, with a return on that investment or payback not <br /> Page 11 of 17 <br />