Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
9/2/2015 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.A.
{O�pALM spP iy a Y N 4 s corou�P Cq<fFORN,P City Council Staff Report Date: September 2, 2015 NEW BUSINESS Subject: REPORT ON THE FINAL SELECTION OF SOLAR FIRMS, AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH FINAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS, AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,625 TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. A6401 WITH NEWCOMB/ANDERSON/MCCORMICK, INC. FOR THE CITYWIDE SOLAR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 15-03 From: David H. Ready, City Manager Initiated by: Marcus L. Fuller, Assistant City Manager/City Engineer SUMMARY After a comprehensive and competitive qualifications and cost based solicitation of solar firms to provide design-build services for solar photovoltaic systems at various City facilities, staff is recommending authorization to proceed with final contract negotiations with SunEdison and SolarCity. Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 6401 adds Phase 2 "Contract Negotiations" allowing staff to coordinate with and proceed to develop final contracts for design and construction of solar photovoltaic systems with SunEdison and SolarCity for various City sites, at an added cost of $30,625. Final contracts with SunEdison and SolarCity will be provided to City Council for review and approval at a future date, following successful contract negotiations based on the terms and conditions of the final and best offers included with the proposals submitted by SunEdison and SolarCity. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Authorize staff to proceed with final contract negotiations with SunEdison and SolarCity for design-build services for solar photovoltaic systems at various City facilities; 2) Approve Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 6401, increasing the contract amount by $30,625, for a total not to exceed amount of $176,563, with Newcomb/Anderson/McCormick, Inc., for contract negotiation and coordination services; and 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. ITEM NO. City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015-- Page 2 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 BACKGROUND: On September 18, 2013, the City Council approved an agreement with Newcomb/Anderson/McCormick, Inc., ("NAM"), with an initial scope to perform photovoltaic feasibility analysis related to potential development of photovoltaic ("PV") systems at various City facilities. A copy of the September 18, 2013, staff report is included as Attachment 1. Also on September 18, 2013, the City Council approved a funding agreement in the amount of $1,175,225 with South Coast Air Quality Management District ("AQMD") for funding to install PV systems at four City facilities, as follows: 1) $284,915 for the Palm Springs Visitors Center 2) $311,680 for Fire Station #3 3) $190,365 for Train Station 4) $388,265 for the James O' Jessie Desert Highland Unity Center The AQMD funds were awarded to the City through its application in May 2012 under the AB 1318 Mitigation funds associated with the construction and operation of the Sentinal Energy Project Power Plant near Desert Hot Springs. Subsequently, NAM performed the feasibility analysis and on June 4, 2014, the City Council received a presentation on the results of their analysis of 11 various City facilities. At that time, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with NAM, in the amount of $85,000, for development of a Request for Proposals ("RFP") to solicit proposals from the solar industry for design-build of PV systems at the 11 City facilities originally included in NAM's scope of services. A copy of the June 4, 2014, staff report is included as Attachment 2. On November 19, 2014, the City Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the agreement with NAM, in the amount of $12,088, to include the four additional sites funded by the AQMD grant as part of the comprehensive RFP being prepared for PV systems Citywide. The full list of 14 City facilities included in the City's RFP for PV systems included: ❖ Animal Shelter ❖ Fire Station #4 ❖ Convention Center ❖ Sunrise Plaza ❖ Community Center ❖ Tahquitz Creek Golf Course ❖ Demuth Park ❖ Train Station •S Downtown Parking Structure ❖ Visitor's Center •S Fire Station #1 ❖ Wastewater Treatment Plant 4. Fire Station #3 ❖ Unity Center On January 21, 2015, the City Council received a presentation on the status of the project, and approved the City's release of the RFP, identified as RFP 03-15, Design- Build of Solar Electric Systems, which was officially released the next day. 02 City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015-- Page 3 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 On March 19, 2015, the City received 10 formal proposals from the following solar firms by the required deadline to receive proposals in response to the RFP: ❖ Baker Electric, Inc.; Escondido, CA ❖ BAP Power Corporation, dba Cenergy Power; Carlsbad, CA ❖ Borrego Solar; San Diego, CA ❖ La Salle Solar Systems, Inc.; Cathedral City, CA ❖ NEXTera Energy; Juno Beach, FL ❖ Nobell-MD Energy Partners, LLC; Palm Springs, CA ❖ Performance Contracting, Inc.; Anaheim, CA •S SolarCity Corporation; Thousand Palms, CA ❖ SunEdison; Belmont, CA ❖ SunPower Corporation Systems — Renova Energy Corp; Anaheim, CA Subsequently, from March through June 2015 an Evaluation Committee reviewed the 10 proposals in terms of financial benefits, proposal package completeness, technical strengths, the amount of solar PV experience and qualifications of the firm and proposed team, the proposed schedule of performance, system aesthetics, implementation approach, and the use of local contractors and local expertise. The type of solar PV system proposed for each of the 14 sites and each site's aesthetic considerations were also taken into account in this analysis. It is important to note that some solar firms did not propose on all 14 City facilities. Baker Electric proposed solar arrays at all 14 sites, and Borrego Solar proposed solar PV systems at the Convention Center, Sunrise Plaza Complex, Tahquitz Creek Golf Course, and Wastewater Treatment Plant. Cenergy Power and Nobell Energy Solutions proposed solar PV systems only at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and LaSalle Electric proposed PV systems at all sites except for Fire Station #3. After thoroughly reviewing all of the proposals submitted, a short-list of three solar firms was selected to present formal interviews conducted on June 11, 2015. The three finalists were: ❖ SolarCity Corporation; Thousand Palms, CA ❖ SunEdison; Belmont, CA ❖ SunPower Corporation Systems — Renova Energy Corp; Anaheim, CA Final and best offers have been submitted by the three short-listed solar firms for the City's review, and the evaluations have been completed. On July 20, 2015, staff presented its final recommendation to the City Council sub-committee (Lewin/Mills); the sub-committee concurred with staffs recommendation with direction to schedule City Council approval to enter into final contract negotiations with SunEdison and SolarCity to provide design-build services for solar PV systems at the following sites: . 0 3 City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015-- Page 4 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 Selected Vendor Procurement Typel Power Offset Animal Shelter SunEdison PPA* 64% Convention Center SunEdison PPA* 71% Demuth Park SunEdison Purchase** 91% Downtown Parking SunEdison Purchase** 88% Structure Fire Station 1 SunEdison Purchase** 91% Sunrise Plaza SolarCity PPA* 71% Waste Water SolarCity Purchase*** 88% Treatment Plant Unity Center SunEdison Purchase** TBD' *PPA = power purchase agreement (lease) **Purchase will be via AQMD grant funds ***Purchase will be via WWTP Funds (Fund 420) Not all sites were selected for solar PV systems due to the very marginal benefits of systems proposed at the Demuth Community Center, Fire Station #3 & #4, Tahquitz Creek Golf Course, Train Station and Visitor's Center. It was also necessary to evaluate the direct purchase price of the various solar PV systems to aggregate the total cost of those systems within the available $1.2 Million AQMD grant. Conceptual layouts of the solar PV systems to be installed at the 8 selected City facilities are included as Attachment 3. Given the highly technical and specialized nature of the solar industry, staff recommends that the City coordinate the final contract negotiations with the selected solar firms with NAM, who originally intended to provide contract negotiations support in its original proposal to the City provided in June 2014. Staff has prepared Amendment No. 3 to the agreement with NAM, which will add the contract negotiations services at an additional cost of$30,625. A copy of Amendment No. 3 is included as Attachment 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The requested City Council action is not a "Project' as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378(a), a "Project' means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The requested action is to authorize approval of an amendment to a professional services agreement to include performance of contract negotiation services in the preparation of final design-build contracts for solar PV systems, and is exempt ' The final solar PV system size is to be determined due to the new HVAC system being installed at the Unity Center Gym. 04 City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015-- Page 5 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. However, Senate Bill 226, effective January 1, 2012, enacted California Public Resources Code 21080.35, which created a new categorical exemption under CEQA for the installation of solar energy systems, including associated equipment, on the roof of an existing building or at an existing parking lot. Those City facilities where solar PV systems will be installed on existing buildings or parking lots, will not require further environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA. Those City facilities where solar PV systems may be installed by ground-mount systems on native ground will require subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to initiating construction of those solar PV systems. FISCAL IMPACT: On June 4, 2014, staff presented the preliminary feasibility analysis of implementing solar PV systems at several City facilities. At that time, the analysis demonstrated a value to moving forward with solar PV systems, in that these systems may generate a net benefit of approximately $2,300,000 over the 25-year life of the systems. The results of the City's competitive solicitation for solar PV systems has identified significantly improved financial benefits to proceeding with solar PV systems, with a potential net benefit of approximately $25,000,000 over the 25-year life of the systems as shown in the following Table. site System Size Capital Cost PPA Price 25 Year Bill 25 Year Net (kWdc) ($/kWh) Savings Benefit Animal Shelter 638.4 N/A $0 $7,000,225 $4,725,034 Convention Center 957.6 N/A $0 $8,611,789 $5,693,472 Demuth Park 161.7 $460,576 N/A $1,716,460 $1,256,154 Downtown Parking Structure 75.6 $255,314 N/A $744,750 $456,899 Fire Station N1 50.4 $169,795 N/A $408,223 $200,379 j Sunrise Plaza Complex 396.9 N/A $0 $3,895,432 $2,939,290 Wastewater Treatment Plant 1130.5 $2,178,848 N/A $11,339,779 $9,459,633 Unity Center* 40.0 $150,000 N/A $84,143 $8,713 Totals 3451.1 $3,214,533 $33,790,801 $24,739,574 *Site load,system size,and system cost estimated The following provides a general outline of the final proposals to be negotiated for each City facility selected for a solar PV system: Animal Shelter to be awarded to SunEdison via a Power Purchase Agreement to install a 638 kWdc solar PV system (ground mount) to produce 1,380,603 kilowatt- hours (kWh) of electricity at a fixed cost of$0.068/kWh2 2 As a comparison, the City currently pays SCE a rate of $0.153 per kWh at the Animal Shelter; the PPA will lock in a rate of $0.068 per kWh (56% less than we currently pay) fixed for the 25-year term of the PPA. 05 City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015 -- Page 6 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 • Convention Center to be awarded to SunEdison via a Power Purchase Agreement to install a 957 kWdc solar PV system (roof mount) to produce 1,573,806 kWh of electricity at a fixed cost of$0.077/kWh3 • Demuth Park to be awarded to SunEdison via a direct purchase for $460,575.50 ($2.85/kW) to install a 162 kWdc solar PV system (parking lot canopy structure) to produce 278,875 kWh of electricity • Downtown Parking Structure to be awarded to SunEdison via a direct purchase for $255,314 ($3.38/kW) to install a 76 kWdc solar PV system (parking lot canopy structure) to produce 117,930 kWh of electricity • Fire Station #1 to be awarded to SunEdison via a direct purchase for $169,795 to install a 50 kWdc solar PV system (parking lot canopy structure on the adjacent Henry Frank Arcade City parking lot) to produce 78,761 kWh of electricity • Sunrise Plaza to be awarded to SolarCity via a Power Purchase Agreement to install a 335 kWdc solar PV system (roof mount4) to produce 518,510 kWh of electricity at a fixed cost of$0.075/kWh5 • Wastewater Treatment Plant to be awarded to SolarCity via a direct purchase for $2,178,848 ($1.96/kW) to install a 1,110 kWdc solar PV system (ground mount) to produce 2,442,617 kWh of electricity • Unity Center to be awarded to SunEdison via a direct purchase for $118,607 ($5.95/kW) to install a 20 kWdc solar PV system (roof mount) to produce 31,549 kWh of electricity A comparison of the financial benefits of the solar PV systems proposed by the solar firms at each of the 8 final selected City facilities is provided as Attachment 5. The final financial analysis and net benefit will be fully detailed at the time the design- build contracts with SunEdison and SolarCity are presented to the City Council for approval; however, on the basis of the significant financial benefit to the City vis-a-vis avoided or reduced utility costs, staff recommends proceeding with final contract negotiations with SunEdison and SolarCity for the selected City facilities at this time. 3 As a comparison, the City currently pays SCE an average rate of $0.164 per kWh at the Convention Center; the PPA will lock in a rate of$0.077 per kWh (53% less than we currently pay) fixed for the 25-year term of the PPA. ° Solar panels will be installed on the roof of the Library, Pavilion, and Recreation Center, no parking lot canopy structures are proposed. 5 As a comparison, the City currently pays SCE an average rate of $0.225 per kWh at Sunrise Plaza; the PPA will lock in a rate of $0.075 per kWh (67% less than we currently pay) fixed for the 25-year term of the PPA. 6 The Unity Center system will be increased in size to accommodate increased power consumption due to the new HVAC system being installed at the Unity Center gymnasium; during contract negotiations a final system size to accommodate the estimated electricity load will be determined. City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015-- Page 7 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 California Solar Initiative (CSI) Program The California Solar Initiative (CSI) is overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and provides incentives for solar system installations. The CSI Program provides upfront incentives for solar systems installed on existing residential homes, as well as existing and new commercial, industrial, government, non-profit, and agricultural properties within the service territories of SCE. The CSI Program had a budget of $2.167 billion over 10 years, with a goal to reach 1,940 MW of installed solar capacity by the end of 2016. The goal includes 1,750 MW of capacity from the general market program, as well as 190 MW of capacity from the low income programs. On July 2, 2014, the City Council authorized the City Manager to file CSI rebate applications to SCE for the 10 original City facilities evaluated by NAM, requiring payment of a non-refundable $60,000 application fee to reserve up to $1,881,562 in CSI rebates. A copy of the July 2, 2014, staff report is included as Attachment 6. Subsequently, the City Manager filed 4 additional CSI rebate applications to SCE for the 4 AQMD grant sites, requiring payment of a non-refundable $6,250 application fee to reserve up to an additional $127,691 in CSI rebates for those 4 City facilities. In total, the City has reservations for up to $2,009,253 in CSI rebates for the 14 City facilities. However, now that the City has identified the 8 City facilities warranting solar PV systems, the entire $2,009,253 CSI rebate reservation is reduced to apply to these 8 City facilities. The total CSI rebates available to the City are reserved at a rate of $0.088 per kWh for purchased solar PV systems over the first 5 years of operation, equivalent to $1,271,224 over 5 years for the purchased solar PV systems. Additionally, for those City facilities with solar PV systems operated via PPA, the City is eligible for up to an additional $0.025 per kWh discount to the PPA rates proposed by SunEdison and SolarCity—further improving the financial benefit for those sites. The original performance schedule for receiving the CSI rebates required the City to enter into design-build contracts with solar firms by April 2, 2015, with construction completed by December 31, 2015. NAM, on behalf of the City, has continuously coordinated with SCE to advise them of the status of this complicated public solicitation process that has been underway since January 2015, and is currently coordinating with SCE for extension of time to the performance schedule given our current status. Anticipated Up-Front Capital Costs The final costs for the design-build services from SunEdison and SolarCity will be fully detailed as part of the City Council's future consideration of the design-build contracts with each solar firm for each City facility. However, based on the terms and conditions proposed in their final and best offers, the following is a general summary of the anticipated costs at each site: 07 City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015-- Page 8 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 • Animal Shelter: W • Convention Center: W • Demuth Park: $460,576 (AQMD Site) • Downtown Parking Structure: $255,314 (AQMD Site) • Fire Station #1: $169,795 (AQMD Site) • Sunrise Plaza: W • Wastewater Treatment Plant: $2,178,848 • Unit Center: $118,6078 (AQMD Site) Total Anticipated Cost: $3,183,140 To the extent the City receives the CSI rebates for the directly purchased solar PV systems, the up-front capital cost will be further reduced by $1,271,224 over the next 5 years as the rebates are received from SCE, ultimately reducing the capital cost required for these 5 solar PV systems to $1,911 ,916. Staff will be recommending that the $2,178,848 solar PV system for the Wastewater Treatment Plant be funded directly from the Wastewater Fund (Fund 420) Balance. The 4 AQMD sites, at an estimated cost of $1,004,292 will be paid from the $1,175,225 AQMD grant received. NAM Agreement The City Council originally approved an agreement with NAM for $48,850 on September 18, 2013, for feasibility analysis of solar PV systems Citywide. The agreement and its amendments are identified in the following Table: Table of Agreement Costs Cost Original Agreement (Feasibility Analysis) $48,850 Amendment No. 1 (Develop RFP) $85,000 Amendment No. 2 (Add 4 AQMD Grant Sites) $12,088 Amendment No. 3 (Proposed) $30,625 Total $176,563 There is no up-front capital cost required via the terms of a PPA; the solar firm absorbs all design, construction and project management costs which are repaid through the City's payment of electricity at the fixed rate per kWh over the term of the PPA. 8 The direct purchase price of the Unity Center solar PV system is subject to change dependent upon the final system sizing yet to be determined. 08 City Council Staff Report September 2, 2015-- Page 9 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to A6401 The City is the recipient of a grant in the amount of $1,175,225 from AQMD for funding to install PV systems at four City facilities; these funds have been appropriated in Capital Projects Fund (Fund 261), Account No. 261-4491-50327. Funding for development of the project thus far has been appropriated from the following sources: General Fund (Fund 001): $66,250 Sustainability Fund (Fund 138): $133,850 Capital Project Funds (Fund 261): $12,088 Sufficient funds are available in account 261-4491-50327 for Amendment No. 3 in the amount of $30,625. Prepared by: Approved by: Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S. David H. Ready, E D. Assistant City Manager/City Engineer City Manager Attachments: 1. September 18, 2013, staff report 2. June 4, 2014, staff report 3. Conceptual Solar PV System Layouts 4. Amendment No. 3 5. Cost Comparisons 6. July 2, 2014, staff report ATTACHMENT 1 10 iy c V N r 't°ne.W `Q City Council Staff Report DATE: September 18, 2013 CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD) AGREEMENT FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Public Works & Engineering SUMMARY: Approval of this item will give authorization to the City Manager to complete all actions relative to the execution of the agreement with SCAQMD for Sentinal funds. RECOMMENDATION: 1_ Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with the SCAQMD for reimbursement of funds for the Sentinal Power Plant funded, Palm Springs Solar Voltaic projects, subject to prior approval by City Attorney. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. STAFF ANALYSIS: In May of 2012 the City applied for AB 1318 Mitigation funds associated with the construction and operation Sentinal Energy Project Power Plant. In February 2013, the City was informed that the SCAQMD Board approved $1,175,225 for 4 solar voltaic projects as follows: 1) $284,915 for the Palm Springs Visitors Center 2) $311,680 for Fire Station #3 3) $190,365 for Train Station 4) $388,265 for the James O' Jessie Desert Highland Unity Center SCAQMD has recently sent a proposed agreement to be executed by both City & SCAQMD. Once fully executed the City may begin the process to request proposals for design and construction of the four projects. At this time the agreement is still being ITEM NO. City Council Staff Report September 18, 2013-- Page 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Agreement finalized. Upon approval by the City Attorney and the SCAQMD, the final agreement will be presented to the City Manager for execution. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding will be provided by SCAQMD up to $1,175,225. Design and Construction shall not exceed that cost. Recommended by: Approved by: David J. Barakian David H. Ready, Ci ager Director of Public Works/City Engineer I I Attachments: f- 11h d� 3. 2 ATTACHMENT 2 o'QALPA S'P i O i V N • q R f Tpb011lll`!4 R cq<�faaN% CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 4, 2014 NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: SOLAR FEASIBILITY- PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Special Projects Coordinator SUMMARY The City Council will receive a presentation from Newcomb/Andersen/McCormick regarding solar alternatives for City facilities for consideration by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff as appropriate. STAFF ANALYSIS: The City hired Newcomb/Andersen/McCormick (NAM) to take a second look at the feasibility of installing Photo Voltaic (PV) Solar on many of the City facilities. More specifically NAM was to review the option of taking advantage of a seldom utilized SCE program (RES-BCT) that would allow the City to build a large PV array and have the power distributed to other facilities via bill credit and debit. (Copy of the report on file in the office of the City Clerk) The California solar regulatory environment is constantly in a state of flux and as such the report goes into great detail on the current environment and programs that exist that the City could avail itself of. The one program that was of specific interest to the City was the RES-BCT self-generation bill-credit transfer program. This tariff program on the surface looks quite promising until one realizes that the credit transfer portion of the tariff only allows for offset of the "generation component charges" it does not allow for demand charges to be offset, thus the financial benefit is greatly reduced and in the instance of the City's facilities it does not pencil out. Any project that the City were to undertake will qualify for the California Solar Initiative Incentive Program, which is more thoroughly described in the study document. The most promising current SCE tariff rrEM NO.�a...- 14 City Council Staff Report June 4. 2014-Page 2 NAM Solar Feasibility Study program is the Net Energy Metering (NEM) program which gives credit to customers for excess energy that is produced. The study document details how NAM goes about conducting a feasibility study, including all the parameters and assumptions that they utilize; all being very conservative. NAM reviewed numerous City sites for possible solar installations and narrowed down the possibilities to eleven (11) specific sites. Each site was modeled and evaluated based on three approaches to financing for the projects: 1) Cash Purchase, 2) Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) (Third Party Financing), or 3) Simple Loan (Bond Financing). The study recommends that the City consider bidding all eleven sites under both a financing and PPA approach in an attempt to drive down the overall price with competition. Staff believes that the study provides an excellent base for a decision making process to follow and the data provided will be invaluable in developing and evaluating any future RFP process that might occur. The decision making process must include discussions of such items as roof mounted vs carport mounted systems; what a carport might look like; what about the need to remove trees; as well as discussions on the use of currently owned City acreage for a ground mounted system. Once these policy type decisions are made the list of sites can be narrowed and an RFP process can be developed. The study clearly indicates that a ground mounted system at the Animal Shelter would be a good investment as would the possibility of a ground mounted system for the Wastewater Treatment Plant if acreage could be utilized for this purpose. The Convention Center parking lot with carports is also a good possibility, however, the location of the permanent parking for the Convention Center is in a state of flux currently. The other sites, as stand-alone sites, are not as viable. FISCAL IMPACT: j The NAM report reveals that the best results are achieved K the City were able to purchase the systems with cash. The analysis reveals that the 25 year net benefit of the financing and the PPA approaches are essentially the same. i Allen Smoot, Special Projects Coordinator David H. Ready, City er 15 Ca PALM sA City of • alm Springs Solar Feasibility Analysis Results N+wcdNal Mdrrron�McC«m.cA n ; l �' Agenda • Background • Analysis Methodology & Assumptions • Results • Next Steps �j 04 17 Background • Investigation of solar across 11 sites ❖ Downtown Parking Structure ❖ Demuth Park ❖ Fire Station #1 ❖ Fire Station #2 :• Jaycee Frey ❖ Tahquitz Creek Golf Course ❖ Demuth Community Center ❖ Convention Center ❖ Sunrise Plaza ❖ Wastewater Treatment Plant ••• Animal Shelter • Procurement Strategies: PPA vs. Direct Purchase • Interconnection Strategies: NEM, NEMA, or RES-BCT i/18/2o14 3 05 III 18 Analysis Methodology • Review of energy use across City facilities • Use of aerial imagery to determine best locations for solar arrays • Review of current and developing legal, regulatory, and program rules • Development of three scenarios for analysis • Estimation of energy project costs and savings over the project lifecycle • Project Management and contingency incorporated into costs 4 06 19 Critical Financial. Analysis • The price of energy purchased from SCE and annual escalation rate: The analysis considers an annual escalation rate of 4.5%. • The amount of energy consumed and the profile of that consumption.- The models assume the load pattern observed so far is a good indication of future load patterns. • The cost of the solar system.- Considering recent procurement experience at other public institutions, we use conservative estimate for system cost assumptions: — $4.00 per Watt dc, which includes O&M, inverter replacement, and performance guarantees — $0.125 per kilo-Watt hour, for Power Purchase Agreements — $3.25 per Watt dc, for centralized installations 5/28,2U14 5 07 20 Results • Of the 11 sites investigated: — Solar at two sites were estimated to create bill savings of over $7 million over a 25 year timeline for each site (Convention Center & Waste Water Plant) — Solar at two sites were estimated to create bill savings of over $2 million over a 25 year timeline for each site (Animal Shelter & Sunrise Plaza) — Solar at four of the sites produce marginal benefits with conservative cost estimates • Net Benefit for entire portfolio is over $2 million over a 25 year timeline — Net Benefit includes all costs: Construction, Performance Guarantee, Operation & Maintenance, Project Management, Simple Financing, etc. 08 zi Recommendation now • Distributed NEM provides the highest value to the City - Both PPA and Purchase scenarios are viable • RES-BCT scenario less viable • Determine City`s aesthetic requirement - Carports in parking lots - Visible roof systems • Move forward with competitive bids - Capture both PPA and Purchase pricing - Ensure Performance Guarantee, Warranties, and Operation & Maintenance of system are in place 7 09 22 Steps • Develop and issue an RFP to the vendor community — Provide site details — Outline contractual obligations — Produce refined system layouts — Finalize system costs — Identify the best value solar vendor • Secure project financing if proceeding with direct purchase scenario • Contract Negotiations • Construction Period Services sRai;ota 8 10 V _ uestions? .. �I _ __ ice' -T T �• Photos Playground fix Tilt Solar System K Nvn. ..814+Hrscc.McG.:.- 12 25 Photos Field Fix Tilt Solar System 4 1 11 �. 5/2812014 ■ W `� 13 26 Photos Parking Garage Fix Tilt Solar System Ot Aw S/1Rp014 ■ ��/�� �� Ater...Mai A...Yr✓...'.A4:t. n+....� 14 N 27 Photos Parking Garage Fix Tilt Solar System saeaoia 15 28 Photas Parking Lot Non- Ot- traditional Fix Tilt Solar System r%LOC*J`a is 29 Photos Parking lot Non- traditional Fix Tilt Solar System sna/2014 � 17 30 Reference: Likely Benefits Site System Type 25 Yr Utility Total Costs C51 25 Yr Net Bill Savings Incentive Benefit Downtown Park,ng Structure Shade Structure $616.388 ($528,484) $56,000 $143,903 Demuth Park Shadestruclure $265,197 ($276,126) $24.889 $13960 Fife Station V Shade Structure $306,465 ($404,327) $36,444 (561,418) Fire Statlon4 Ground Mount and/or Roof Mount $298,155 ($296,266) $35,55S $37A45 Jaycee Frey Roof Mount $69,808 ($68,008) $5,333 $6,134 Tahquitz Creek Golf Course Shade Structure and/or Roof Mount $516,748 ($01,145) $56,999 ($57,S08) Demuth Community Center' Roof Mount and/or Shade Structure $334,692 ($394,26G1 $41,778 ($17,796) Mimal Shelter Ground Mount $2,317,801 1$2.109,2 Ill $271,110 $479,639 Convention Center Roof Roof Mount $3,669,511 (53,790,8G81 $426,665 $304,307 Convention Center Carport Shade Structure $3976,734 I54,320,1S0) $457,776 $114,359 Sunrise Plaza Roof and/or Shade Structure $2,653,287 ($2,724,686) $306,665 $235,266 Waste ter Treatment Plant-Fixed Ground Mount $8,274,607 ($8,471.663) $1,157,231 $960,175 TOTAL $23.297.393 ($24,015,260) $2,876334 52,158,467 SelecdwTOTAL* $22,139A87 (S22,585,S22) $2,741,223 1 $2,295,189 'Marginal s,ln removed 5/28/2014 16 18 31 InformationReference: System Potential System Year One Estimated Year One Estimate Solar Site System type Percent Offset Size(kW DC) Energy Usa e(kWh) Generation(kWh) Dovmtown Parking5truclute Shade Structure 63 133495 300,230 75% Demuth Park Shade Structure 28 59,795 44547 74% Fire Station Shade structure 41 86,475 65,229 75% Fire Station Ground Mount and/or Roof Mount 40 83,581 63,638 76% Jaycee Frey Roof Mount 6 12,603 9.546 76% Ta hquitz Creek Golf Course Shade Structure and/or Roof Mount 64 134.899 101,921 75% Demuth Community Cents Roof Mount and/or Shade Structure 47 112,452 74,775 66% Animal Shelter Ground Mount 305 646,102 4BV39 75% Convention Center(Root) Roof Mount 480 1.113,998 763,656 69% Convention Cmter(lot) Shade Structure 515 1,09074 819,339 75% Sunrise Plaza Root and/or Shade Structure 345 2,773,670 2,071,242 75% Wastewater Treaenett Plant Ground Mount 1225 2,773,670 2,069,234 75% 5/28/2014 ■ �i/'� `/ !9 32 R' ference: Scenario Comparison Scenario Total Ufe 25 Year Net 25 Year Payback Cycle Cost Benefit I Period NEM Purchase ($13,739,918) $12,433,809 $4,705,714 14 NEM Simple Loan (524,015,260) $2,158,467 $1,358,369 Term NEM PPA ($21,119,024) $2,178,369 $947,544 16 RES-BCTPurchase ($13,882,239) $6,062,459 $644,636 18 RES-BCTSimple Loan 1$24,092,413) ($4,147,1161 ($2,681,478) Term RES-BCTPPA ($23,943,507) ($7,441,354) ($5,496,615) - 512AI2014 20 33 ATTACHMENT 3 34 Solar PV System Conceptual Layout Animal Shelter SYSTEM DESCRIPTION • ��'�i • ,` £..".Sr �" • ! • !W MODULE TYPE SurlEtlraanR 330 BYC ,,.,,.a.=d'.. •i - • ' Q,+ • w. . .,. QUANTITY 1B24WAbtlu@s 3' SYSTEMSIZE(DC)638.40kW0C SYSTEMSQE(AC) "..00RWAC !'• ,`•• ! TILT ANGLE 0' 11"' ;.J! — � * ' ••. , S •• • � ' AZIMUTH 60'M-60' � •'� •� • ■ ■■ 1 INVERTER 18 rCPS 28 KTL DO AREA ` • i I F i i r AREA 181,8/9 ap.A..R. y �• •��y t A• .y` 1nL r cornectlon Pow-- P% A, l a�• I � i I fj] 11-[ fk e . t✓ • a t� Solar PV System Conceptual Layout Convention Center rsr�oEsaaanar, -- iYPE s»rwtu�va AI�OWMYAt 3 RY WAl( ,o` t » ,ar .crtic,rr.nDO .4j 4 J t F t r _T� Solar PV System Conceptual Layout Demuth Park SYSTEM CEe Prm lat"M, ftl www*Ufft)jfftwww rst oue mwKe T KWOIL M ftl' •CltjixKft w � k 8- A 14�Ys W Solar PV System Conceptual Layout Downtown Parking Structure 5`/STEM Mc"Wriok WWfitype 6w4M..* i ^} • •+., orrrter m"Ofti.n t srorEracee+cr esaOrv�C _ _._ .-. -- TILT nncie J#r AXIOWW a 14 614. LA i f � fit; ■ i+ '�-" '� r -4,+ +1 " A w Solar PV System Conceptual Layout Fire Station #1 WSTWOM"MON of Q11WMY 1MMYwi. � vft A~H A :. N691IH1 •Olt9G SiKR00 — � -- •� � l� = .^. 7--� a r Ir f Y 1 ■ r L1eir.S Solar PV System Conceptual Layout Sunrise Plaza Complex h A1 *, dl%l " w fA s ¢ s n s 1. w 1 5 a a q a - - --- - - - - - - - i _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ v i a _ [ _ _ _ = yY ry � 4 ATTACHMENT 4 42 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT NO. A6401 PHOTOVOLTAIC FEASIBILITY/RFP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO Agreement No. 6401 for consulting services, (herein "Amendment") made and entered into on the day of 2015, by and between CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a California charter City and municipal corporation, (herein "City"), and NEWCOMB/ANDERSON/MCCORMICK, INC., (herein "Consultant"), is hereby amended as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, City and Consultant entered into that certain Photovoltaic Feasibility Services (PV) Agreement No. A6401 for a feasibility study of installing PV at various City facilities ("Agreement"), as dully amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to add additional services associated with Phase 2, "Contract Negotiations," as described on Exhibit "A", incorporated herein, whereby Consultant shall coordinate and participate on contract negotiations with certain solar vendors selected by City for installation of PV systems at various City facilities as part of the Citywide Solar Project, City Project No. 15-03. Section 1. Scope of Services, Exhibit "A", is hereby amended by adding those services identified as "Phase 2 — Contract Negotiations", as described in the Consultant's letter dated August 13, 2015, included as Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Section 2. Section 3.2, Compensation of Consultant, is hereby revised to reflect the total amended contract amount as herein specified by this Amendment. The Schedule of Fees, Exhibit "A", is hereby amended and increased by $30,625 to add Phase 2 "Contract Negotiations" scope of work and is hereby revised as follows: Tasks from Proposal Amount Initial Phase, Data Collection $8,400 Initial Phase, Site Visits/Analysis $8,400 Initial Phase, Feasibility Analysis $23,450 Initial Phase, Finalize Analysis $7,000 Initial Phase, Direct Costs $1,600 Total Initial Phase Cost $48,850 Tasks from Proposal Amount Phase 1, Develop RFP $44,841 Phase 1, Solicitation Support $22,421 Phase 1, Proposal Evaluation $28,826 Phase 1, Direct Costs $1,000 Total Phase 1 Cost $97,088 Tasks from Proposal Amount Phase 2, Contract Negotiations $30,625 Total maximum contract amount $176,563 43 Section 3. Time for Completion, Consultant shall provide the services provided herein by this Amendment as directed by City. Section 4.4 "Term" is hereby revised to reflect a new term extending through June 30, 2016, unless otherwise extended by mutual written agreement of the parties, and subject to termination pursuant to Section 4.5 of the Agreement. Section 4. Full force and effect: Except as otherwise previously modified herein, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this Amendment as of the date first written above. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a California charter city and municipal ATTEST: corporation By: By: James Thompson David Ready City Clerk City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Douglas Holland City Attorney NEWCOMB/ANDERSEN/MCCORMICK, INC. By: Printed Name/Title 44 EXHIBIT "A" 45 NLe.Nml Newcomb(Anderson I McCormick E N E k G" ENG N E E k i N G AND G C N S J,i N v August 13,2015 P-2451.04 Mr.Craig Gladders City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92263-2743 Re: Proposal:Solar PV System Support—Contract Negotiations Dear Mr. Gladders: Newcomb Anderson McCormick, Inc. (NAM) is pleased to submit this proposal to assist the City of Palm Springs (City) with contract negotiations in their current solar efforts. NAM will support the negotiations by identifying cost drivers and other key issues for discussion with the selected PV vendor. Additionally, NAM will analyze the pros and cons of the options being discussed during the negotiation process and provide technical recommendations regarding alternative approaches,designs and equipment. NAM will provide the following services in support of the negotiations and contract execution: • Assist the City and the legal team with the contract negotiation phase with selected proposers, including negotiation strategies, economic and performance targets, schedules, and terms and conditions • Develop a list of cost drivers for negotiations, including any "alternative' business arrangements proposed • Review any changes to proposal based on negotiations prior to contract award • Participate in negotiation process as requested by City • Provide recommendations and assist City with final decision on a contract award To accomplish the proposed scope of work,we estimate a total cost of$30,625 including travel and expenses. The cost of each task is shown below, along with an estimate of direct expenses such as travel and document production. Direct expenses will be billed to the City for actual costs incurred by NAM with no markup. 201 Mission Street., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105 T 415.896-0300 - F 415.896-1900I. www.newcomb.cc 49 NLOO I Newcomb I Anderson I McCormick ENERGY ENG NEFRING ANC CCNStI_-INC Proposed Project Budget Task Owner* NAM Effort Task Activity MMA I COPS Fours Est Cost Daniell negotiation stra ies 1 1 Contract klentify cost drivers and other scope issues in need of negotiating 1 1 Participate in negotiations meeti s 1 1 175 $30,625 Negotiations Develop and/or review contract modifications 1 1 Support OtV decision-making,including board meetings and materials 1 1 We are enthusiastic regarding this opportunity and look forward to a follow-up conversation to further discuss our proposal. Please contact me at (415) 896-0300 to set up a meeting and to answer any questions you may have. We look forward to working with you and your staff. Sincerely, John M. Newcomb Principal Copyright©Newcomb Anderson McCormick 2015 City of Palm Springs 47 ATTACHMENT 5 48 Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Animal Shelter SolarCitV SunEdison SunPower Baker LaSalle Nextera PCI Utility Expenditures Bill No Solar ($12,768,029) ($12,768,029) ($12,768,029) ($12,768,029) ($12,768,029) ($12,768,029)i ($12,768,029) Bill with Solar ($7,767,574) ($5,767,804) ($4,717,102) ($10,245,789) ($10,926,828) ($9,576,832); ($10,743,015) i Revenue Bill Savings $5,000,454 $7,000,225 $8,050,927 $2,522,239 $1,841,201 $3,191,196 $2,025,013I Costs PPA Costs ($1,904,355) ($2,211,457) ($3,955,680) ($21,503,540) ($1,400,944) ($1,218,730) ($1,164,906)11 PM, Contingency ($47,172) ($63,734) ($110,273) ($45,528) ($41,625) ($32,946) ($27,307)1 Total Costs ($1,951,527) ($2,275,191) ($4,065,953) ($21,549,068) ($1,442,568) ($1,251,676) ($1,192,213) Net Benefit $3,048,928 $4,725,034 $3,984,974 ($19,026,829) $398,632 $1,939,520 $832,8001 SunEdison selected based on greatest total Net Benefit. Z CD Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Convention Center SolarCity SunEdison SunPower Baker Borre o LaSalle PCI Utility Expenditures Bill No Solar ($14,049,706) ($14,049,706) ($14,049,706) ($14,049,706) ($14,049,706) ($14,049,706) ($14,049,706) Bill with Solar ($6,934,942) ($5,437,917) ($4,774,560) ($8,741,101) ($6,905,744) ($7,657,609) ($8,121,041) Revenue BillSovings $7,114,764 $8,611,789 $9,275,146 $5,308,605 $7,143,962 $6,392,0971 $5,928,665 i Costs PPA Costs ($1,874,480) ($2,854,583) ($4,254,390) ($42,480,564) ($3,932,622) ($5,162,831) ($2,531,531) PM, Contingency ($62,955) ($63,734) ($142,834) ($70,980) ($81,460) ($98,140) ($64,726) Total Costs ($1,937,435) ($2,918,317) ($4,397,225) ($42,551,544) ($4,014,082) ($5,260,971) ($2,596,257) i Net Benefit $5,177,329 $5,693,472 $4,877,921 ($37,242,938) $3,129,881 $1,131,1271 $3,332,408 SunEdison selected based on greatest total Net Benefit. M Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Demuth Park SunEdison Baker LaSalle PCI Utility Expenditures Bill No Solar ($2,325,731) ($2,325,731) ($2,325,731) ($2,325,731) Bill with Solar ($609,271) ($1,884,724) ($1,257,852) ($1,080,768) Revenue Bill Savings $1,716,460 $441,007 $1,067,879 $1,244,963 Utility Rebate $121,484 $7,074 $63,836 $79,108 Total Revenue $1,837,944 $448,081 $1,131,715 $1,324,071 Costs Construction Costs ($460,576) ($191,640) ($448,086) ($622,460) PeGu Costs ($2,733) ($9,600) ($1,400) $0 PM, Contingency ($37,065) ($16,099) ($35,959) ($49,797) O&M Costs ($81,416) ($18,959) ($61,981) ($38,428) Total Costs ($581,790) ($236,298) ($547,425) ($710,685) Net Benefit $1,256,154 $211,783 $584,290 $613,386 SunEdison selected based on greatest total Net Benefit. Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Downtown Parking Structure SunEdison SunPower Baker LaSalle PCI Utility Expenditures Bill No Solar ($851,310) ($851,310) ($851,310) ($851,310) ($851,310) Bill with Solar ($106,561) ($142,336) ($456,774) ($255,975) ($96,753) Revenue Bill Savings $744,750 $708,975 $394,537 $595,336 $754,558 Utility Rebate $51,373 $50,492 $20,113 $37,731 $54,100 Total Revenue $796,123 $759,467 $414,650 $633,067 $808,657 Costs Construction Costs ($255,314) ($502,052) ($267,755) ($310,054) ($509,817) PeGu Costs ($1,282) $0 ($13,400) ($1,000) $0 PM, Contingency ($20,528) ($40,164) ($22,492) ($24,884) ($40,785) O&M Costs ($62,100) ($315,373) ($18,959) ($43,751) ($27,126) Total Costs ($339,224) ($857,589) ($322,606) ($379,690) ($577,728) Net Benefit $456,899 ($98,122) $92,0441 $253,3771 $230,929 SunEdison selected based on greatest total Net Benefit. U, Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Fire Station #1 Sun Edison Sun Power Baker LaSalle Utility Expenditures Bill No Solar ($571,627) ($571,627) ($571,627) ($571,627) Bill with Solar ($163,403) ($211,841) ($322,737) ($293,304) Revenue BillSovings $408,223 $359,785 $248,896 $278,322 Utility Rebate $34,310 $31,829 $20,113 $22,900 Total Revenue $442,533 $391,615 $269,003! $301,222 Costs Construction Costs ($169,795) ($366,613)I1I ($244,605) ($215,420) PeGu Costs ($844) $q ($12,250) ($1,000) PM, Contingency ($13,651) ($29,329)1 ($20,548) ($17,314) O&M Costs ($57,864) ($324,487)I1 ($18,959) ($36,459) Total Costs ($242,154) ($720,430)', ($296,362) ($270,193) Net Benefit $200,379 ($328,815) ($27,359) $31,029 SunEdison selected based on greatest total Net Benefit. w Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Sunrise Plaza SolarCi * I Sun Edison SunPower Borre o LaSalle Nextera PCI Utility Expenditures Bill No Solar ($6,403,365) ($6,403,365) ($6,403,365) ($6,403,365) ($6,403,365) ($6,403,365) ($6,403,365) Bill with Solar ($2,517,933) ($1,985,276) ($2,256,139) ($2,292,148) ($2,056,101) ($1,945,027) ($2,377,812) Revenue Bill Savings $3,885,432 $4,418,089 $4,147,225 $4,111,217 $4,347,263 $4,458,338 $4,025,553 Costs PPA Costs ($916,050) ($1,630,844) ($1,486,936) ($1,851,702) ($3,042,487) ($2,250,985) ($1,840,291) PM, Contingency ($30,092) ($50,677) ($50,895) ($66,430) ($82,043) ($81,989) ($77,497) Total Costs ($946,142) ($1,681,520) ($1,537,831) ($1,918,131) ($3,124,531) ($2,332,973) ($1,917,788) Net Benefit $2,939,290 $2,736,569 $2,609,344 $2,193,086 $1,222,733 $2,125,364 $2,107,765 *No aesthetic concerns- all roof mount SolarCity selected based on greatest total Net Benefit. cn s, Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Wastewater Treatment Plant Solarcit ' SunEdison Sun Power Baker Borre o CeMrKv LaSalle Nextera Nobell Ki Utility Expenditures Bill No Solar ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) ($12,947,284) Bill with Solar ($1,607,505) ($1,S07,5O7) ($2,698,975) ($4,735,194) ($206,557) ($2,733,529) (53,933,946) ($2,212,714) ($2,829,403) ($2,167,085), Revenue Bill Savings $11,339,779 $11,439,777 $10,248,309 $8,212,09C $12,740,727 $10,213,755 $9,013,338 $10,734,570 $10,117,881 $10,780,199 Utility Rebate $1,064,057 $1,081,904 $964,651 $751,032 $1,276,5 $96lo229 $850,454 $1,020,572 $944,418 $997,007 Total Revenue $12,403,837 $12,521,681 $11,212,960 $8,963,122 $14,017,326 $11,174,983 $9,863,792 $11,755,142 $11,062,299 $11,777,206 Costs Construction Costs ($2,178,848) ($2,206,072) ($2,528,668) ($3,873,625) ($3,428,725) ($2,508,000) (54,010,360) ($2,228,945) ($2,844,199) ($3,182,200) PeGulosts $o ($19,080) $o ($195,865) $0 ($58,101 ($17,000) ($360,000) $ $0 PM,Contingency ($174,308) ($178,012) ($202,293) ($325,559) ($274,298) ($205,288) ($322,189) ($207,116) ($227,536) ($254,576) O&M Costs ($591,049) ($509,445) ($563,687) ($18,959 ($943,162) ($264,789) ($802,104) ($322,%6) ($286,709) ($610,328) Total Costs (52,944,204) ($2,912,609) ($3,294,648) ($4,414,008) ($4,646,185) ($3,036,178) ($5,151,653) ($3,119,026) ($3,358,443) (54,047,104) Net Benefit $9,459,63 $9,609,07 $7,918,313 $4,549,11 $9,371,141 $8,138,805 $4,712,1 $8,636,11 $7,703,85 $7,730,102 `Best in class Performance Guarantee(PeGu)for ownership scenario superior to SunEdison and within margin of error SolarCity selected based on total Net Benefit and Performance Guarantee. rn Solar PV System Final Benefit Comparison Unity Center i SunEdison Sun Power Utility Expenditures Bill NoSolar ($1,007,562) ($1,007,562)I, Bill with Solar ($842,179) ($537,617)' Revenue Bill Savings $165,382 $469,945' Utility Rebate $13,743 $39,723' Total Revenue $179,126 $509,668 Costs Construction Costs ($118,607) ($303,659)' PeGu Costs ($350) $0', PM, Contingency ($9,517) ($24,293)I O&M Costs ($50,872) ($319,019)', Total Costs ($179,345) ($646,970)', i Net Benefit ($220) ($137,302) SunEdison selected based on greatest total Net Benefit. The financial benefit of ($220) shown here is subject to change, based on a larger solar PV system to be designed and installed to accommodate increased power consumption anticipated at the Unity Center Gym due to the new HVAC system currently being installed. ATTACHMENT 6 57 {Of Q ALM sp4 �c N .r `4LffORN�P' CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 2, 2014 CONSENT AGENDA SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE CALIFORNIA SOLAR INITIATIVE (CSI) PROGRAM REBATE RESERVATION DEPOSITS FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Special Projects Coordinator SUMMARY The proposed action would be to authorize the City Manager to make up to $60,000 in CSI program rebate reservation deposits for the City wide photovoltaic (PV) project. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the City Manager to make up to $60,000 in CSI program rebate reservation deposits for the City wide PV project. 2. Appropriate the funds from the General Fund Reserves and authorize the Director of Finance and Treasurer to initiate the appropriate documentation. STAFF ANALYSIS: On June 18, 2014 the City Council took action to authorize Newcomb/Andersen/McCormick (NAM) to undertake the development of an Request For Proposal (RFP) document as well as file CSI rebate applications on behalf of the City for a City wide PV project; i.e. eleven (11) sites. The CSI rebate application process is a multi-step process. First a rebate application is submitted to Southern California Edison (SCE); applications have been submitted for all eleven previously defined sites. Second, SCE has thirty days to review the applications and then the City will receive an invoice from CSI for the reservation deposits; the City has thirty days to remit. Finally, when the projects are completed the reservation deposits are refunded and the City begins receiving the rebates over a five year period. It should be noted that if after the RFP process the City decides to not proceed with a particular site, the deposit related to that site is forfeited. The following exhibit lists the eleven projects, System Size, CSI rebate and the Reservation Costs: ITEM NO. 58 City Council Staff Report July 2, 2014-Page 2 CSI Rebate Reservation Fees-City Wide Photovoltaic Project Site System Type System Size(kW Total CSI Rebate CSI Reservation DC) Cost Downtown Parking Shade Structure 63 $43,662 $2,500 Structure Demuth Park Shade Structure 28 $19,405 $1,250 Fire Station 1 Shade Structure 41 $28,415 $1,250 Fire Station 4 Ground Mount 40 $27,722 $1,250 and/or Roof Mount Tahquitz Creek Golf Shade Structure 64 $44,355 $2,500 Course and/or Roof Mount Demuth Community Roof Mount and/or 47 $32,573 $1,250 Center Shade Structure Animal Shelter Ground Mount 305 $211,381 $10,000 Convention Center- Roof Mount 480 $332,665 $10,000 Roof Sunrise Plaza Roofand/or5hade 345 $239,103 $10,000 Structure Wastewater Ground Mount 1,225 $902,279 $20,000 Treatment Plant- Fixed TOTAL 2,6381 $1,881,562 $60,000 It is recommended that the City proceed with the application process and work with the Council Subcommittee before the fee payment deadlines to closely screen the projects to see if there are any that do not warrant proceeding with, thus saving the loss of the reservation fee for projects that will ultimately not be completed. FISCAL IMPACT: The total Reservation Fee cost is $60,000 and is determined by the size of the proposed projects. It is recommended that funding be appropriated from General Fund Reser ves. t Allen F. Smoot, Special Projects Coordinator David H. Ready, City a r 59