Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County Solar Committee recommends further study of small array at jail site; RFP deferred
Summary
A Solar Committee presentation recommended a pilot 100 kW array adjacent to the county jail that could generate roughly 150,000 kWh and save about $22,000 a year; commissioners did not authorize an immediate RFP and asked staff for more work and stakeholder outreach.
The Carroll County Solar Committee presented an estimate for a small rooftop/ground‑mounted solar array on county property and recommended further study rather than immediate solicitation of bids. Gordon, a presenter who prepared an estimate from Revision Energy, told the committee a 100‑kilowatt system — about 230 solar panels sited south of the jail — would generate roughly 150,000 kilowatt‑hours a year, about 20% of the jail’s electricity use, and could reduce that facility’s annual retail power charges by about $22,000.
Gordon said a larger, 1–1.5 megawatt array (5–8 acres) would have delivered greater economy of scale but was impractical now because the utility (Eversource) would not compensate the county for exported power under the county’s third‑party supply arrangement and because the site’s service lines have only about 200 kilowatts of spare capacity. “Not being compensated for it is pretty much of a showstopper,” Gordon said.
The presenter outlined costs of $325,000–$420,000 before incentives and noted the federal investment tax credit (30%) would reduce that bracket to about $228,000–$294,000 if the project meets the eligibility rules and an initial 5% project expenditure is made by July 4, 2026. Using conservative assumptions, Gordon estimated a mail‑simple payback of roughly 14.7–19 years before the tax credit and about 10.3–13.4 years after applying the 30% incentive. He gave an example of a Community Development Finance Authority loan (15 years at ~3.75%) that would produce annual payments roughly similar to the projected annual power savings.
Committee members and staff discussed siting next to the jail, trenching to the meter for net metering, coordination with stakeholders on location, and the risk that some foreign‑origin products might be excluded from federal incentives depending on forthcoming guidance. The committee chair asked whether an RFP could be issued quickly; staff said they could prepare one. One commissioner summarized the group’s view: the small array “is deserving of further work and attention,” but he advised doing additional analysis before issuing an RFP. No formal procurement contract was awarded and the commission did not adopt an RFP at this meeting.
The committee recommended: further engineering and stakeholder outreach; preparing an RFP for pricing and design only after resolving interconnection, contract, and stakeholder issues; and monitoring the federal incentive guidance and CDFA financing terms.
