Bridge Church Solar Team August 4 th, 2015 Bridge Church Solar PV Opportunity Analysis

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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

Citation preview

Bridge Church Solar Team August 4 th, 2015 Bridge Church Solar PV Opportunity Analysis 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&Es rising costs Reasons to Look at Solar PV Now PG&E net energy metering (NEM) rules are set to change by Q 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