Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Ppas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors direct staff to pursue no‑cost solar shading agreements; vendors to be asked about local subcontracting
Summary
After staff research into state cooperative contracts and a narrow federal tax‑credit timeline, the board directed staff to pursue solar shading / power‑purchase models that impose no direct cost to Mojave County and to ask vendors about opportunities for local subcontractors.
Mojave County supervisors on April 6 directed staff to pursue potential solar shading and power‑purchase models that would require no capital outlay by the county.
Staff briefed the board on options, including state cooperative contracts that some vendors offer for solar service agreements or power‑purchase agreements. Director Actton explained that under such models contractors take on construction and maintenance risk and sell power to the public agency; using state cooperative awards could speed procurement and help the county meet tight federal tax‑credit timing if a project started construction quickly.
Board members voiced a preference for a model where the private firm makes the capital investment. ‘‘I would prefer that model where the company took all the capital risk,’’ one supervisor said. Members also asked staff to seek proposals that allow local contractors to participate as subcontractors and to check whether Bullhead City‑area sites served by Mojave Electric Cooperative would be compatible with net‑metering or vendor models.
Staff said two cooperative vendors previously that walked county sites indicated interest in offering vendor‑capital power‑purchase options; staff will ask those firms for proposals that specify no direct county cost and clarify local subcontractor participation. The board emphasized speed because of a limited window to secure certain federal investment‑tax‑credit benefits if construction begins by an early July date.
Next steps: staff to contact cooperative vendors, request power‑purchase proposal options with vendor capital models and local subcontracting plans, and return proposals for board review. The board said it will not pursue projects that require county debt or significant up‑front county investment without further direction.
