KANE COUNTY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, County Board Room Agenda 9:00 AM

Transcription

1 KANE COUNTY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 County Board Room Agenda 9:00 AM Kane County Government Center, 719 S. Batavia Ave., Bldg. A, Geneva, IL Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: August 14, Public Comment 4. New and Unfinished Business A. DISCUSSION: Solar Feasibility Study B. DISCUSSION: Update on Kane County Electrical Power Utility Consultant Request for Proposal 5. Events - Past, Upcoming A. Kane County Recycling Collection Event - Saturday, September 13, 2014, 8am-Noon, 540 S. Randall Road, St. Charles 6. Public Comment 7. Executive Session (If Necessary) 8. Adjournment to: October 16, 2014 Fund: Landfill Fund Budget Current Balance: $8,852, Kane County Page 1

2 for Kane County Government Facilities Prepared for: County of Kane Geneva, IL Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation Chicago, IL Date: August 8, 2014 Project Number: A ENVIRON Packet Pg. 2

3 Contents Page Executive Summary ii 1 Scope of Analysis and Methodology 3 2 Building Information 4 3 Potential and Incentives 10 4 Results PV Systems STWH Systems 12 Contents i ENVIRON Packet Pg. 3

4 Executive Summary This report presents the results of a solar feasibility analysis at five Kane County facilities. The analysis identified the potential energy and cost savings, as well as approximate installation costs for photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal water heating (STWH) systems at the five facilities as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Summary of Results STWH System Simple Payback PV System Simple Payback (yrs) (yrs) Building Without With Maximum Without With Maximum Juvenile Justice Center Judicial Center n/a n/a Adult Justice Center/Sheriff's Office Animal Control Court Services n/a n/a As can be seen in the table, significant rebates or incentives neither PV nor STWH systems are economically viable when paid for directly by the County. PV systems have a simple payback approaching 40 years, while STWH systems have a simple payback exceeding 50 years. The payback period for PV systems could be significantly reduced if substantial rebates or incentives are leveraged by the County. and incentive programs available to the County for PV systems include an Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) rebate program and an Illinois Clean Foundation (CEF) grant program. If the maximum amount of money was garnered from these programs, the cost of installing a PV system could be reduced by up to 60 percent and payback for PV systems could approach 12 years. However, both of these programs have limited funding available and the County is not assured of receiving money from either. The payback period for STWH systems can similarly be reduced by up to 60% through a CEF grant program. However, limited funding is available and the County is not assured of receiving money. PV and STWH systems can also be financed through power purchase agreements (PPA) arranged through a third party, which may help make the systems more viable. PPAs are not included in the scope of this analysis. Executive Summary ii ENVIRON Packet Pg. 4

5 1 Scope of Analysis and Methodology This solar energy analysis is intended to be a high-level analysis of the feasibility of installing solar energy systems at five Kane County buildings. This is a preliminary analysis that is intended to inform whether or not a detailed engineering design analysis is warranted at any of the buildings. As such, the results presented in this document should be considered rough estimates that should be further refined before pursuing the installation of solar energy systems. The scope of this analysis includes the Kane County buildings as identified in Table 2 below. Both PV and STWH systems are included in the analysis. Table 2. Facilities in Scope Facility Address Animal Control 4060 Keslinger Rd. Geneva, IL Judicial Center 37W777 Route 38 St. Charles, IL Juvenile Justice Center 37W655 Route 38 St. Charles, IL Adult Justice Center/Sheriff's Office 37W755 Route 38 St. Charles, IL Court Services 1330 N. Highland Aurora, IL ENVIRON utilized satellite imagery to determine the roof area available for solar energy systems on each building. System Advisor Model (SAM) software was used to simulate the performance of the solar energy systems on each building. Several assumptions pertain to the PV systems used in the analysis: The PV panels utilized by the SAM model are typical PV solar panels (approximately 17% efficient). On flat roofs, the panels are installed with a tilt of 30 degrees from horizontal (oriented directly south) with appropriate spacing between rows to minimize shading. On sloped roofs, the panels are assumed to be installed flush with the roof slope. The total cost of PV systems (including all equipment and installation) are estimated at $3.50 per Watt dc of installed capacity per the request of Kane County. All electricity produced by the solar panels would be used in the associated buildings and none would be sold back to the grid. In this way, each kwh produced by the PV systems would offset one kwh purchased from the electric utility. The solar panels are installed on all of the areas identified during the satellite image analysis. This maximizes the capacity and output of the systems. 3 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 5

6 Several assumptions pertain to the STWH systems used in the analysis: The STWH panels are typical glazed flat-plate type collectors. On flat roofs, the panels are assumed to be installed with a tilt of 30 degrees from horizontal (oriented directly south) with appropriate spacing between rows to minimize shading. On sloped roofs, the panels are assumed to be installed flush with the roof slope. Basic assumptions are made about the hot water consumption of each building. The total cost of STWH systems (including all equipment and installation) are assumed to be $100 per square foot of collector panel area. The size of the STWH systems are varied in the analysis to optimize payback. The Court Service building and the Judicial Center have limited hot water use. As a result, these buildings make poor applications for STWH systems and are not included in the analysis. Hot water usage at the Juvenile Justice Center is similar to that of the Adult Justice Center. Utility costs used for the analysis are assumed to be $0.09 per kwh for electric energy and $5 per MMBtu for natural gas. 2 Building Information Table 3 shows a summary of the areas identified on each building that are appropriate for solar energy system installation. Figures following the table show the actual placement of those areas on the buildings. 4 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 6

7 Table 3. Building Roof Analysis Building Notes Area Approximate Usable Roof Area (sqft) Orientation A 30,182 Flat Juvenile Justice Center Judicial Center Adult Justice Center/Sheriff's Office Animal Control Mostly flat roof with few roof obstructions. Ideal for solar energy installation. Entire roof is sloped. Not ideal for solar energy system installation due to orientation of roof pitch (either towards southeast or southwest). Solar panels are assumed to be installed flush with the roof (at approximately 30 degrees from horizontal) on the southeast and southwest facing roofs. Some areas of flat roof and some with sloped roof. Very limited roof area for installation. Most flat roof areas either have existing equipment obstructions or would be partially shaded by other portions of the building. Panels could be installed on one flat roof area and on the south facing slope of the roof. Panels are assumed to be installed flush with pitched roof areas (at approximately 30 degrees from horizontal). Panels could potentially be mounted to south facing wall of building. Slope of roof off axis with solar panel slope, entire roof would be usable. Additional space at ground level could potentially be used. B 3,829 Flat C 3,859 Flat D 1,675 South slope E 2,491 Southwest slope F 7,720 Southwest slope G 8,029 Southeast slope H 3,279 Southeast slope I 4,155 Flat J 580 South slope K 580 South slope L 943 South slope M 689 South slope N 689 South slope O 5,956 East slope P 4,560 West slope Court Services Mostly flat roof with few roof obstructions. Q 4,996 Flat 5 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 7

8 Figure 1. Juvenile Justice Center 6 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 8

9 Figure 2. Judicial Center 7 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 9

10 Figure 3. Adult Justice Center 8 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 10

11 Figure 4. Animal Control Figure 5. Court Services 9 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 11

12 3 Potential and Incentives Currently, only three rebate and incentive programs were identified by ENVIRON for the installation of solar energy systems on municipal properties in the state of Illinois. The programs are summarized in Table 4 below. Table 4. Potential and Incentives Potential Illinois DCEO Solar and Wind Rebate Program PV Systems Illinois Clean Foundation Solar Grant PV Systems Illinois Clean Foundation Solar Grant Thermal Systems Notes Closed for 2014, but will reopen for Applicants are not guaranteed rebate. Rebate winners are selected randomly from applicants. Minimum 1 kw dc system capacity required. Maximum incentive is $30,000 or 40% of project costs, whichever is less. Grants must be applied for and approved by the Clean Foundation. Limited funding available and applicants not guaranteed of receiving funding. Maximum incentive is 60% of project costs, inclusive of state funding. Grants must be applied for and approved by the Clean Foundation. Limited funding available and applicants not guaranteed of receiving funding. Maximum incentive is 60% of project costs, inclusive of state funding. Rebate Amount $2.50 per Watt dc $2.00 per Watt dc $100 per sqft. collector area Max Rebate $30,000 or 40% of project costs 60% of project costs 60% of project costs Weblink ois/keyindustries/ /Pages/01 -RERP.aspx cleanenergy.org/ solar/ cleanenergy.org/ solar/ There are federal tax rebates available for installing renewable energy systems, however, given that the County is not a federal tax paying entity, the county would need to engage a third party owner/operator to receive the tax rebates. This type of arrangement would negate the applicability of the rebates and incentives shown in Table 4 above. 4 Results 4.1 PV Systems Table 5 shows the results of the solar analysis considering rebates or incentives. System sizing is set equal to the maximum potential capacity, given existing roof space and configurations. As can be seen in the table, the simple payback for PV systems rebates or incentives ranges between approximately 30 and 40 years. 10 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 12

13 Table 5. PV System Results or Incentives Building Approximate Usable Roof Area (sqft) Maximum Potential Installed Capacity (W dc) Annual Production (kwh) Potential Annual Savings ($) Installation ($) PV System Simple Payback (yrs) Juvenile Justice Center 39, , ,387 $17,225 $548, Judicial Center 21, , ,591 $27,863 $967, Adult Justice Center/Sheriff's Office 7,636 59,576 68,801 $6,192 $208, Animal Control 10, , ,457 $11,921 $472, Court Services 4,996 17,843 22,045 $1,984 $62, Table 6 shows the results of the analysis with rebates and incentives considered. For each facility, the system capacity is set so that rebates are maximized (generally rebates are limited by the $30,000 rebate limit in the DCEO program) 1. Table 6. PV System Results with Maximum and Incentives Building Juvenile Justice Center System Capacity at Maximum Rebate Level (W dc) Annual Production (kwh) Potential Annual Savings ($) Installation Total ($) and Incentives ($) Net Installation with ($) PV System Simple Payback with Incentives (yrs) 21,429 26,159 $2,354 $75,000 $45,000 $30, Judicial Center 21,429 23,991 $2,159 $75,000 $45,000 $30, Adult Justice Center/Sheriff's Office 21,429 24,747 $2,227 $75,000 $45,000 $30, Animal Control 21,429 21,005 $1,890 $75,000 $45,000 $30, Court Services 17,843 22,045 $1,984 $62,450 $37,470 $24, These results show that PV systems are not economically viable at any of the buildings rebates or incentives. It is worth noting that the results above assume systems are installed on building roof space. At some facilities (the Animal Control Center, in particular), there may be space available for 1 Incentives garnered under the Clean Foundation grant may further be limited by the requirement that PV systems must supply either 25% of a facility electric load from June to August or be installed on a facility that is LEED Silver certified. Further detailed analysis is required to determine if the systems quoted will garner the maximum rebate as stated here. 11 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 13

14 ground mounted PV systems. While ground mounting allows for optimal system orientation (which maximizes energy production) it is not significantly less expensive than roof mounting. As a result, system paybacks for ground mounted systems will be similar to those for PV systems mounted on flat roofs. The Court Services building is an example of a PV system mounted on a flat roof and as a result, we can expect ground mounted PV systems to have a simple payback of 31.5 years rebates and 12.6 years with maximum rebates and incentives. 4.2 STWH Systems The analysis and results for STWH systems are more complex than those for PV systems because the performance of STWH systems are dependent on the amount of hot water used and system size needs to be optimized to maximize payback (payback is not independent of system size as it is for PV systems). Given the assumptions made for this high-level analysis (specifically that system cost per area of solar collector remains constant across the range of collector sizes), payback is minimized as the system size is minimized. A more detailed analysis (with accurate pricing information for system sizing) would more accurately reveal the optimum system size, which would be larger than the optimum size identified by this analysis. However, the payback calculations can be assumed to be roughly accurate. The results of the analysis for the Animal Control building are shown in Table 7 and Table 8 below. Table 7. Results for STWH System at Animal Control Center # of Collector Panels Panel Area (m2) Panel Area (ft2) (kwh) (MMBtu) Savings ($) System ($) Simple Payback (yrs) , $72 $4, , $166 $12, , $208 $17, , $250 $21, , $283 $25, Table 8. Results for STWH System at Animal Control Center with Maximum # of Collector Panels (kwh) (MMBtu) Savings ($) System Maximum ($) Net System with Maximum ($) Simple Payback with (yrs) 1 2, $72 $4,304 $2,582 $1, , $166 $12,912 $7,747 $5, , $208 $17,216 $10,330 $6, , $250 $21,520 $12,912 $8, , $283 $25,824 $15,494 $10, ENVIRON Packet Pg. 14

15 The results for the Adult Justice Center and Juvenile Justice Center are shown in Table 9 and Table 10 below. Table 9. Results for STWH System at Adult Justice Center and Juvenile Justice Center # of Collector Panels Panel Area (m2) Panel Area (ft2) (kwh) (MMBtu) Savings ($) System Simple Payback (yrs) , $591 $34, , $1,100 $68, ,377 83, $2,025 $137, , , $3,566 $275, Table 10. Results for STWH System at Adult Justice Center and Juvenile Justice Center with # of Collector Panels (kwh) (MMBtu) Savings ($) System Maximum ($) Net System with Maximum ($) Simple Payback with (yrs) 8 24, $591 $34,432 $20,659 $13, , $1,100 $68,864 $41,318 $27, , $2,025 $137,728 $82,637 $55, , $3,566 $275,456 $165,274 $110, The results shown in the above tables indicate that STWH systems are not economically viable for any of the buildings analyzed. 13 ENVIRON Packet Pg. 15