Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Microgrid topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Microgrid design would power South Whidbey community center gym; installation estimated at about $1.6 million

South Whidbey School District Board Workshop · March 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Designers from Cascadia Renewables told the South Whidbey School District board that a microgrid sized for the Langley community center could power the gym during outages, offset roughly 30% of annual energy use, and has an estimated install cost of about $1.6 million; the plan requires a reroof and additional funding beyond the $250,000 feasibility grant.

At a South Whidbey School District board workshop, designers from Cascadia Renewables presented a feasibility design for a community microgrid at the Langley community center that would power the gym as a resiliency hub during outages.

The board heard that the proposed photovoltaic system is sized at 138 kilowatts with a 100‑kilowatt grid interconnect and paired with a 250‑kilowatt peak battery system offering about 1,252 kilowatt‑hours of storage. "We chose the gym as the location this resiliency hub would power," said Josh Miller of Cascadia Renewables. "It's a large facility that could house quite a few people and has locker rooms, showers and cafeteria space." Miller said models show the system would offset roughly 30% of the site's annual electricity consumption and 75–80% of daytime summer demand.

The study was funded by a $250,000 Department of Commerce feasibility grant that covered site assessments across 11 candidate locations and narrowed three finalists, including the community center, the Island Fairgrounds and St. Hubert Church. Joan Green, project manager for Energize Langley, said the $250,000 covered planning and community outreach only; construction funding would require separate grant applications or other sources.

Miller described safety and monitoring measures: module‑level rapid shutdown, web‑based performance monitoring for operators and classroom use, SolarEdge inverters, Hialene panels with 25‑year warranties and commercial LFP batteries with 15‑year warranties and integrated fire protection. "This system would be configured in resiliency standby for the gym, and it could be reprogrammed later to participate in utility programs if those become available," he said.

Cost and site readiness were central issues. The design team's middle‑cost estimate for the full installation (solar, battery, a new main distribution panel and all electrical work) was about $1,600,000. Miller cautioned that Commerce grants fund renewable equipment and installation but do not pay for building upgrades, generators or plumbing and kitchen refurbishments; the community center's white membrane roof is more than 20 years old and likely needs replacement before a rooftop array is installed. Dr. Clifford emphasized that the district's original feasibility authorization limited the district's financial commitment to staff time and grant‑application support.

Board members asked whether ground‑mounted arrays had been considered because some buildings are older and masonry; Miller said third‑party structural reviews found the candidate roofs meet current code, and ground mounts would substantially increase cost and land use, reducing grant competitiveness.

A resident, Rufus Rose, asked who would own the infrastructure and whether the district or the city benefits most. Miller replied that grant awards would go to the community center entity; because the district owns the building, the installed fixtures would technically become district property. He added that, based on the site's demand profile, the system as proposed would not generate a surplus large enough to sell back power to the utility.

On operations and maintenance, Miller described simple annual panel cleaning and a required battery maintenance contract to preserve warranty coverage; the team plans to include maintenance‑cost estimates in the final feasibility report. He also said Cascadia Renewables is working with Puget Sound Energy on potential future commercial battery incentive programs.

Next steps: the presenters said the board should receive final feasibility reports in the next two to three weeks (early April) and noted a community presentation on March 18 covering all three sites. If construction funding is secured, the team estimated a 12–18 month procurement and installation window, with roughly two years from planning to an operational resiliency center.

The presentation closed with board discussion about funding strategy, capacity for grant writing and timing; no formal board action or vote occurred.