70 likes | 87 Views
Bridge Church Solar PV Opportunity Analysis. August 4 th , 2015. Bridge Church Solar Team. Project Overview. Annual PG&E electric costs +/-$95,000 and going up Objective is to materially lower electric bill Use savings for ministry and other purposes Three PG&E meters
E N D
Bridge Church Solar PV Opportunity Analysis August 4th, 2015 Bridge Church Solar Team
Project Overview • Annual PG&E electric costs +/-$95,000 and going up • Objective is to materially lower electric bill • Use savings for ministry and other purposes • Three PG&E meters • Sanctuary building • All other buildings on campus • Parking lot lights • Net Energy Metering Aggregation (NEM-A) • One array, one interconnection, three meters offset • Project sizing between 115kW-DC and 185kW-DC • Dependent on energy efficiency upgrades
Things to Consider • PG&E rate structures • A6 Good w/o solar; great with solar • May soon be limited • Energy efficiency improvements • HVAC upgrades • Lighting upgrades • System sizing risks • Too Large – Give PG&E free energy • Too Small – Less protection against PG&E’s rising costs
Reasons to Look at Solar PV Now • PG&E net energy metering (NEM) rules are set to change by Q3 2016 or mid-2017 at the latest. • New NEM rules will be less favorable for exported power. • Projects completed before NEM rules change can “grandfather” on existing NEM rules for 20 years. • Changes to Investment Tax Credit (ITC) at end of 2016 • Reduces from 30% ITC to 10% • Bridge Church should aim to complete solar project by Q2 2016
Next Steps • Determine PV system size based on risk sensibilities • Smaller system – lower cost, lower risk, less reward • Larger system - greatest reward if usage remains constant • Complete energy audit of selected components • Review interactive model/cash flow documents • Complete PV system RFP bid package • Gather proposals from reputable solar vendors for project • Secure financing • Vendor selection • Contract negotiation and execution • Project implementation
PV System Location Considerations Roof location • Insufficient space for anticipated system size • Additional costs (structural and roof replacement) • No secondary benefit Courtyard location • Insufficient space for anticipated system size • Substantive additional costs for architectural blending Parking lot location (recommended) • Least expensive option • South lot location minimizes aesthetic concerns • Encourage parking at south end over north entrance