2015-01-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

79 PACE funding for the system's construction costs; and typical prices for 80 construction and investor profit potential over time and paid by from revenues in 81 comparison to using an SPPA loan that would provide positive cash flow from the 82 start. 83 84 Additional discussion included minimal differences through any economies of 85 scale; full ownership by the City after 10 years of semi-annual payments to the 86 SPPA; responsibility for ownership of the hardware depending on which option 87 was chosen; and warranties for panels and inverters based on 100% production 88 numbers and typical degradation, estimating 80% production at 20 years. 89 90 Further discussion included typical terms for power purchase agreements at 20 91 years to allow for depreciation of equipment and a return on the investment, with 92 a profit typical at year 12 to 15; continued panel electrical production beyond 93 their expected lifespan of twenty-five years; and potential purchase of the 94 equipment at a nominal cost after e contract term expires r viding continuing 95 operations. 96 97 Discussion ensued regarding the man fa y Sundial S ; options for 98 sizing the solar arrays based on their const n costs and/or extra p wer 99 produced; preference for roof mounted install ions versus ground mounts; and 100 recognition of the competitiveness and attractiveness of the SPPA financing, with 101 consultation sought by staff from the City Finance Director on his 102 recommendations on financing the syste 40 103 104 Mr. Schwartz noted that the City Counci"pDrevi ly signed onto a Joint 105 Powers Agreement (JPA) with the St. Paul Port Authority to allow properties to 106 at money as well as other commercial entities. 107 108 er"Weir advised that the SPPA would not authorize a project unless the analysis 109 proforma found the cash flow to be positive. 110 111 At tie request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Weir reviewed the possibility of new 112 technologies and better solar panels over time that may make a current installation 113 obsolete or no longer cost effective during that twenty-five year period. Mr. Weir 114 advised that while costs had come down considerably over the last few years, the 115 current investment credit being reduced from 30% to 10% over the next two 116 years would hav ore of an impact than changing technologies on solar panels. 117 Mr. Weir further noted that some companies were just now getting involved in 118 recycling of solar panels. 119 120 Discussion ensued regarding the options to pay the City for use of their rooftops 121 or solar installations and how that was valued annually; the recycling of 122 components of the solar arrays; how and where solar arrays are connected to the 123 rooftop without penetrating the roofs and balanced by weights, typically around 124 the perimeter of the solar system; micro wiring for higher voltage based on 2014 Page 3 of 11