Mohave County weighs $16.5M solar package; board asks procurement to seek no‑cap PPA options
Loading...
Summary
Public Works proposed up to nine solar installations with a ~$16.5 million budget and projected federal incentives; after questions about ROI, warranties and reserves the board directed procurement to investigate power‑purchase agreements or state contracts that would avoid county upfront capital.
Mohave County staff presented a package of proposed solar projects on March 2, describing covered parking and rooftop arrays at nine facilities and an estimated total project budget of about $16.5 million (including contingency and construction administration). Staff said conservative 20‑year analyses—before federal tax credits—show electricity savings at several locations; when factoring projected federal direct-pay incentives the cumulative returns improve markedly.
Director Letosky explained the analysis and said the contractor’s proposals projected energy offsets between about 58% and 99% depending on site. "When you factor in the tax credits, each building will actually break even or be a positive financial decision," he told the board. Staff recommended the board choose which targets to advance and approve an initial capital plan if it wanted county‑owned installations.
Supervisors and industry speakers pressed staff on procurement models, warranty terms, maintenance costs, and differences between utility territories (UniSource vs. MEC net‑metering). Several speakers from the solar industry and local contractors urged the board to consider third‑party models that require no county capital outlay, including power‑purchase agreements (PPAs) that can capture tax incentives for the developer.
After discussion the board directed procurement to investigate whether a state contract or PPA/no‑capital model exists that would allow a third party to build and own the arrays while the county purchases power. The motion instructs staff to prioritize buildings with the best metering/net‑metering profiles and to report back, and it passed by voice vote.
Board members emphasized due diligence: one supervisor warned that federal incentives can change and asked staff to show the county’s exposure if credits are reduced or contractors miss construction deadlines. Procurement staff noted that a PPA route would involve a more complex competitive solicitation and legal review, but could reduce upfront cost and transfer some O&M risk to a third party.
No final contract awards were made; the board’s action directs further procurement research and a report back to the board before the county commits significant capital.
