District receives solar feasibility update; consultants propose phased pilot with 66%–85% offset scenarios

Consultants presented a multi-site solar study that modeled four candidate locations and three financial scenarios for the Keystone Central School District and recommended starting with a phased pilot to test ground-mounted arrays before expanding.

Melissa Wingenfield, a project lead from the consultant team, told the committee the firm analyzed Central Mountain High School, Woodward Elementary, Bucktail High School and Liberty Curtain Elementary for rooftop and ground-mounted arrays and calculated districtwide electricity use at about 4.0–4.7 million kWh annually. ``The largest site being almost two thirds or three quarters is your Central Mountain High School at 68%,'' Wingenfield said, describing load distribution used in the models.

Why it matters: consultants said solar could reduce the district’s energy costs over the long term and that available utility rebates and the federal investment tax credit (about 30%) improve project economics. The team presented three scenarios that would offset roughly 66%, 75% and 85% of district electricity, with estimated 30-year savings of roughly $5.3 million, $6.0 million and $6.8 million respectively under $0 upfront cost power-purchase-agreement (PPA) models.

Site and technical notes: the Central Mountain proposal included a large ground-mounted array sized to offset Central Mountain High, Central Mountain Middle and Mill Hall; Woodward options included either a ground-mounted array or a combined roof-and-ground array, though consultants warned that replacing a roughly 15–17 year-old roof could add $600,000–$1,000,000 to costs. Bucktail’s roof was estimated at about 299 kW, offsetting about 95% of that school's usage; Renovo Elementary’s roof was excluded due to age (about 17 years) and an estimated $1 million reroofing cost.

Board discussion and next steps: several committee members urged a phased pilot — Liberty Curtain and Renova High School were mentioned as leading candidates for a Phase 1 — and asked consultants to refine why some rooftop options were not recommended and to re-run economics for alternate layouts and land constraints. Concerns included roof life, future reroofing costs, potential wetlands and local land uses; consultants said they avoided wetland areas in layouts and that split rooftop arrays raise interconnection complexity.

Financial model: the consultant described PPA scenarios with no up-front capital and multi-decade savings; they also noted that if the district later needs to replace roofs beneath arrays, removal and reinstallation costs would likely fall to the district under a PPA and should be included in risk assessments.

Consultants agreed to provide follow-up materials explaining site choices (including athletic and facilities buildings that were reviewed), refined cost estimates, and additional layout alternatives for the committee’s review before the board decides whether to proceed to an RFP or phased pilot.