Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison district hears solar feasibility study; board to send RFP to Finance & Facilities
Summary
A consultant told the Madison Board of Education that on-site solar (rooftops and carports) could offset about 90–91% of district electricity, with upfront purchase estimated at roughly $5.3–5.5 million and a payback near five years; the board agreed to refer an RFP to its Finance & Facilities committee for further action.
Adam Taylor of Tala Energy told the Madison Board of Education that an on-site solar program covering rooftops and carports across the district could, in theory, offset roughly 90–91% of the district’s electricity demand, with the high school alone approaching full on-site offset when rooftop and carport arrays are combined. Taylor said the firm had modeled site constraints — roof age, upcoming roof replacements, HVAC locations and footprint limits — and used new roofs and carports where appropriate.
The consultant described two main procurement paths. Under direct ownership the district would pay upfront (Taylor estimated about $5.3–$5.5 million in capital), recover roughly 30% via the federal investment tax credit, and see payback in about five years with cumulative positive cash flow over 30 years. “If you were to purchase, own and operate all of the solar … it would be in the range of $5.5 million out of pocket,” Taylor said. He added that a properly phased ownership project could preserve federal support if the district spends a defined percentage of project costs before the July 3 safe-harbor deadline.
The alternative is a power purchase agreement (PPA). New Jersey limits public-entity PPAs to 15 years; the PPA provider would own and maintain the arrays and sell electricity back to the district at a reduced per-kilowatt cost. Taylor said sample PPA modeling produced an estimated rate near 3.4¢ per kilowatt-hour and projected electricity savings of about $4.3 million over 15 years under that scenario, while noting final PPA rates depend on scope, carport versus rooftop mix, and escalators.
Taylor warned of timing pressure tied to the federal tax-credit rules. He recommended safe-harbor procurement steps (for example, buying panels through a shared-services contract) to preserve the longer implementation runway, and said the district can phase sites if certain roofs or additions are not yet available.
Board members pressed on scale and procurement mechanics: whether the $5.5 million estimate included tax credits (Taylor said the upfront capital cited was the out-of-pocket amount before the direct payment), whether carports were reflected in the PPA rate (yes), and whether the district could contract only for the high school or a subset of sites (Taylor said ownership can be phased, but PPAs become less competitive as the scope shrinks). He also noted practical issues such as parking-lot phasing (installations commonly take multiple two-month phases per lot) and roof-warranty coordination with installers.
After the presentation the board moved to refer the project to the Finance & Facilities committee with instructions to draft an RFP and return to the full board with recommendations. The committee will vet procurement language, scope options (ownership versus PPA), safe-harbor strategies for federal incentives, and a phasing plan before the board votes on next steps.
