Laserfiche WebLink
125 <br />126 Mr. Drake sought the experience of the PWETC related to solar gardens to -date, <br />127 with Chair Stenlund and Vice Chair Cihacek providing a recap of past <br />128 presentations, and the continued interest by Roseville residents in energy choices, <br />129 whether through partnering or making investments; and the full support of the <br />130 PWETC toward those efforts. Reports also included submission by the City for <br />131 grants to place solar arrays on City rooftops and those of community schools as <br />132 well; along with a roof -mounted photovoltaic assembly (PVA) for the City itself to <br />133 purchase through a phased, city -shared system; and several church groups in the <br />134 community making it part of their organizational of s as well. <br />135 <br />136 For the benefit of newer commissioners, Mr. D°r°1llallllke provided a basic overview of <br />137 solar gardens, potential players involved in a solar garden project, how it worked <br />138 with Xcel Energy Programs and a third rty operator primarily running the solar <br />139 garden with the utility approving t rden, tracking energy production and <br />140 providing credit for subscribers. <br />141 <br />142 Mr. Drake reviewed drivers behind solar gardens; 2013 policy enabling Xcel <br />143 Energy's community solar garden, federal investment tax credits available at 30% <br />144 through 2016 and then falling to 10% in 2017 and impacting subscription rates, and <br />145 customer/community member demand potential. Mr. Drake advised that no <br />146 projects had yet been approved in Minnesota, with a hearing scheduled in the next <br />147 few days at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), with one of the engineering <br />148 questions being how much solar the energy grid can handle, and once the limit was <br />149 reached, latecomers would be stuck with the cost to upgrade the grid, with those <br />150 costs very unrealistic for most participants. <br />151 """iiilllllllll <br />163 <br />164 Mr. Drake further reviewed advantages in such a collaborative procurement process <br />165 for the RFP, providing better subscription pricing due to larger scale and pools <br />166 highest quality subscribers; faster entry into the solar garden market; reduced staff <br />167 time with a standard subscription agreement to developers for easier comparison; <br />168 and creating opportunities for local governments of all sizes and increased <br />169 community impacts with a twenty-five year contract. <br />170 <br />Page 4 of 16 <br />