Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves $2 million DRC solar project despite senator's objection over ROI and federal funds
Summary
The board approved Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's $2 million solar panel project, which the agency said uses non‑GRF funds and could yield a seven‑year ROI; Senator Kahler registered an objection citing taxpayer concerns and federal funding as still public dollars.
The State Controlling Board approved a $2 million request from the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to install solar panels across institutional facilities, despite an objection from Senator Kahler who questioned the project's return on investment and use of federal funds.
Joe Gruber of the department presented the item. Carrie Ryan, DRC’s chief financial officer, told the board the contractor estimated a seven‑year return on investment once the panels are installed and that the project will be funded from the department’s internal conservation account rather than the General Revenue Fund. “The 7 year ROI was what was given to us by the company that is performing this,” Ryan said. She said the funding comes from an account populated by electricity rebates and other conservation savings; DRC’s 2025 electricity costs were noted as over $17 million across about 450 buildings.
Senator Kahler pressed the math and noted that two separate 30% federal tax credits were anticipated, observing that even after credits the annual estimated savings of about $150,000 would take many years to recoup the gross outlay. “Where do you get the 7 year ROI?” he asked, arguing that the use of federal reimbursement remains taxpayer money.
DRC responded that the project is non‑GRF and is expected to reduce electricity costs across institutions and that additional federal incentives could further improve payback. The board approved the item with an objection from Senator Kahler recorded in the minutes.
The board did not change the funding source; members recorded the objection but allowed the agency to proceed with its planned procurement and installation schedule.
