Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CUSD 300 staff recommend solar power‑purchase agreement for six schools, cite 20‑year locked rate
Summary
District staff recommended using a power‑purchase agreement (PPA) to install solar on six district roofs, estimating a 4–5¢/kWh locked price for 20 years versus ~9¢ now and noting no upfront cost but raising questions about roof replacement and advisory‑firm selection.
Doctor Williams recommended that CUSD 300 pursue solar through a power‑purchase agreement for six district buildings, saying a PPA avoids upfront capital costs and transfers system management to the vendor. "My recommendation is is for us as a district to move into the solar realm using a PPA," Williams told the board, saying typical PPA proposals he has seen lock energy at roughly "4 to 5¢" per kilowatt‑hour for 20 years compared with the district’s current rate of about "9¢ a kilowatt hour."
The proposal would engage an advisory firm to run an RFP; Williams identified the firm in the meeting as Nenea Energy and said the district would pay the advisory firm $10,000 to run the RFP and review responses. Williams said the district would not pay system maintenance or repairs while the PPA is active because the PPA vendor manages the equipment, and that at the end of a 20‑year term the system could become the district’s property or the district could hire a manager. "If we choose, the board chooses not to move forward with the winner of the RFP, then our only cost then to Nenea is $10,000," Williams said.
During public comment, resident Mike Tennis cautioned the board that roof preventive maintenance and eventual roof replacement add material costs. Tennis said annual roofing preventive maintenance can add "10 to 20%" and estimated that reroofing the six buildings with solar could add "over $2,000,000" when replacement is required; he asked whether those replacement costs were included in the proposal’s estimated $8,800,000 energy savings and urged consideration of larger engineering firms for a full feasibility validation. "Whether those firms were considered when recommending engaging Nania Energy for $10,000 in advisory services is unclear in the proposal," Tennis said.
Board members asked technical and contractual questions about roof life, vendor obligations for panel replacement and equipment removal, and the district’s long‑term options after the PPA term. Williams said staff targeted roofs that are "five years and under" to minimize near‑term replacement risk and that under a PPA the vendor typically replaces failing panels at no cost to the district. He said the district will return to the board with RFP results and any recommended contract award for formal approval.
Next steps: staff are finalizing RFP scope and expect to solicit proposals quickly; the board will consider the RFP winner and any PPA contract at a future meeting.
