MGE pitches shared-solar plan to Monona; committee weighs buying renewable energy credits to meet 2030 goal

MGE representative Matthew Mata told the Monona Sustainability Committee on April 2 that the utility has Public Service Commission approval to add roughly 50 megawatts of new clean generation and is seeking local partners for a new "Shared Solar for Business" program.

Mata said two near-term projects — Pine Hill Solar (Cross Plains) and Six Mile Solar — would each be about 6 megawatts AC with roughly 23,000 shares available per project and expected generation near 12,000 megawatt‑hours for Pine Hill. "This is where we are looking specifically for partners in our local business community to help us do this," Mata said, describing the offering as the sale of renewable energy attributes rather than ownership of arrays.

He explained how the program operates: participants buy the renewable attributes (RECs) tied to the local project; MGE would retire those RECs on behalf of the purchaser and place a line item on the municipal bill for the share of production. "Every thousand kilowatt hours that MG generates, we retire that one REC with an organization called the Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System," Mata said, offering to support third‑party audits if the city requires them.

Mata quantified what Monona would need to reach 100% municipal electrical coverage from RECs: roughly 2,844 shares (each share ~500 kWh/year) to replace about 1.4 million kWh of municipal consumption. He presented two purchase structures for an initial five‑year term: an option with a smaller upfront O&M contribution (~$14,000) plus an annual premium (the presentation example showed about $17,000/year), or a one‑time larger upfront payment (Mata cited an illustrative $100,000) that eliminates the annual premium during the five‑year contract.

Committee members pressed on differences between buying local RECs through MGE and buying credits on open markets. Mata said the local offering ties REC retirement to projects sited on MGE's distribution system and that MGE’s retired RECs come from its own generation rather than market purchases. He also noted market constraints: "When I've approached private sector about this I'm hearing one very common set of feedback — political winds are changing, we're really pulling back from sustainability," he told the committee, explaining why local utility purchases matter to keep a multi‑phase pipeline moving.

Members asked for comparative scenarios. Mata gave a high‑level DIY estimate: an on‑site system to generate the same 1.4 million kWh/year would cost roughly $1.5–$2.25 million and need about 55,000–75,000 square feet of unobstructed roof. "It's not apples to apples," he said, but the comparison showed the REC approach can be materially less capital‑intensive in the near term.

The committee did not vote. Members asked staff to return with three scenarios showing cost and budget implications (full REC purchase, hybrid REC+city‑owned build, and full DIY installation), and to coordinate those scenarios with upcoming departmental budget inputs and the mayor's timetable. Several members noted the timing pressure of budget season and suggested requesting a scenario analysis before committees start their budget deliberations.

Next steps recorded in committee discussion included asking MGE for tailored scenarios (Mata offered to return with 75% or 100% examples) and having staff (city administrator and relevant departments) provide department‑level cost inputs so the committee can make a budget recommendation.