Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City study finds limited short-term savings from rooftop solar; six sites prioritized
Summary
A city study of 22 municipal buildings identified six rooftop sites with the highest near-term solar potential but found payback periods lengthened after the city secured a lower fixed electricity supply rate; staff recommended pursuing outside grants or power-purchase agreements and exploring community solar.
A staff study analyzing rooftop solar potential on 22 city-owned buildings found measurable generation potential but limited near-term economic savings under the citys current fixed electricity supply rate.
Amelia Mooney, the citys sustainability intern and the studys presenter, said the 22 municipal sites use about 9,400,000 kilowatt-hours annually (equivalent, she said, to about 562 gas-powered cars on the road for a year). Under prior electricity rates, the study estimated about $1.5 million in annual costs across those buildings and identified six high-priority locations where rooftop arrays could provide the most benefit.
Mooney listed those six: Fire Station No. 6 (11 Griffin Road), the Abbotts Square parking lot, the city fleet maintenance facility, the golf-course clubhouse, a community-and-economic-development-leased building at 39 Florida Avenue, and a water‑pump-station building. The study estimated that combined installations at the six sites could offset roughly one-third of the combined electricity use for those sites, but Mooney said a newly negotiated, lower 18‑month fixed supply rate reduces the expected annual savings and lengthens payback periods.
Given the change in supply pricing, staff recommended pursuing outside funding—Mooney noted community-action grants (recently up to $75,000 in some rounds) could cover single-site installations—or considering power‑purchase agreements that lower upfront costs. Committee members asked staff to explore community‑solar subscriptions as an alternative that would not require city ownership of hardware.
No motion to commit city funds was taken; councilors asked staff for follow-up financial modeling on community solar, power‑purchase agreement rates, and how grant opportunities could change the payback math.
