Lebanon staff outline solar options to cut nearly $1 million in annual electric bills; council leans toward phased approach

Kelly Hart, the city director who led the analysis, told the Lebanon City Council work session on Sept. 24 that the city pays more than $900,000 a year to Pacific Power and that solar development could stabilize long‑term energy costs.

Hart presented a range of options: a consolidated 5.6 megawatt project at the wastewater treatment plant; smaller behind‑the‑meter projects at the wastewater plant, water intake and the Justice Center; and roof‑mounted arrays timed to reroofing cycles. Hart said grants and rebates could reduce upfront costs, and she described financing tools including bonds, loans and CPACE (commercial property assessed clean energy).

Hart summarized grant and incentive opportunities she reviewed: a C‑REP (Community Resilience and Energy Production) planning grant of $100,000 (no match) and a construction grant up to $1 million with a 50% match; Pacific Power rebates (capped at $20,000); and the federal investment tax credit (the 30% tax credit). She said the city would also need to assess interconnection requirements with Pacific Power and that battery storage and resilience measures were not included in the earlier cost estimates.

Hart provided one consolidated example: a 5.6 MW wastewater‑plant project she said would have a total anticipated cost of $6,450,000 and, as she stated in the presentation, a city contribution figure shown as “10,730,000.00” after listed grant offsets; Hart noted the city does not have that level of capital on hand and outlined financing scenarios. She said a 20‑year loan at a conservative 5% interest rate could produce annual debt service near $845,000 — comparable to the city’s current Pacific Power bill — and that over 20 years the modeled savings could total roughly $11 million assuming ongoing utility escalations.

Councilors expressed interest in starting with smaller, behind‑the‑meter projects. Council discussion favored a phased approach — for example, net‑metered projects sized to individual meters such as the Justice Center, which Hart estimated could offset about 27% behind the meter or up to about 47% if a roof‑mounted system were used at reroofing. Council members raised questions about bond versus loan financing, tax credits and the importance of an engineering feasibility study to confirm interconnection costs.

Hart said next steps would include consultant‑led feasibility and interconnection studies and prioritization of solar projects during the council’s November goal‑setting session. She told councilors staff were not seeking a formal decision at the Sept. 24 meeting but asked whether the council wanted the item prioritized for goals and budget planning.

Ending: Councilors thanked Hart for the briefing; the conversation closed with general support for a cautious, phased approach and direction to return with feasibility work and firm cost estimates before making capital commitments.