Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chandler staff outline $34 million, 9-megawatt municipal solar plan; council supports next steps
Summary
Staff described a proposed roughly 9-megawatt solar program across city facilities, with an estimated $34 million project cost, $8.3 million Inflation Reduction Act tax credit, and projected annual savings of about $2 million. Work orders and guaranteed savings calculations will be completed site-by-site.
City sustainability staff told the Chandler City Council on June 9 that a proposed municipal solar program would place about 9 megawatts of solar generation across 23 feasible city sites and is expected to reduce energy costs at major city energy users.
Steven Turner, the city’s sustainability and performance staff representative, said the total project cost is a little over $34,000,000 and that the city expects to receive about $8,300,000 from the Inflation Reduction Act investment tax credit. Turner described the agreement as a 20-year arrangement; staff will complete individual work orders for each site that will include a guaranteed savings figure that accounts for potential APS and SRP rate increases and solar-panel degradation.
Why it matters: Staff said the largest single installations would be at Chandler’s three biggest energy consumers — led by the Airport Water Reclamation Facility, which would receive nearly 4 megawatts — with additional arrays at Ocotillo Water Reclamation Facility, the PECO surface-water treatment facility, City Hall, and several fire stations. Turner said installation across the sites would take roughly one year, though some sites may come online earlier.
Turner estimated annual savings “a little over $2,000,000” beginning in year one because the city plans to own the arrays outright. He reported projected cumulative returns of approximately $42,000,000 after 20 years and roughly $53,000,000 after 25 years. Staff described a savings split in which the general fund would receive about 30% of savings and utility funds about 70%; Turner and council members discussed the potential for these savings to reduce utility rate pressure.
Councilmembers asked about the effect on utility rates, project sequencing and the scope of included facilities. Turner said Fire Stations 1–3 and 5–11 were included but Fire Station 4 was excluded because it is scheduled for replacement in the city’s capital forecast. Turner closed by saying staff will complete individual work orders, at which point the guaranteed saving amounts will be finalized.
Formal action/direction: The item was called in from the consent agenda for council discussion. Staff reported next steps (final work orders and guaranteed-savings figures); no formal vote was recorded during the study session.
What’s next: Staff will complete site-level work orders, confirm guaranteed savings, and proceed with procurement and installation scheduling. Councilmembers expressed support for advancing the project.
