1 was to finance the project utilizing Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, or CREBS funds, and use PG&E rebates to pre-pay a portion of the cost. CREBS is a portion of the Federal 2005 Energy Bill. The Federal Government put aside 500 million dollars for very low interest loans for government entities, such as the county of Amador, to encourage municipal entities to invest in renewable energy.

Option 2 is to use a private firm to own and operate the system for the county with a fixed fee to be paid back to the County.

Option 3 includes the County funding the up front costs of the project, financing it through CREBS, and using PG&E rebates to pre-pay a portion of the costs.

Due to the lack of funding, and to optimize the County’s return, option one appears to be the most desirable. Tom Baker with the California Construction Authority has been assisting the County in finding financing options for the project. He performed an analysis for staff on Option 1 that showed that for the first 10 years the project has a negative cash flow.  After 25 years this option, Options 1, will yield an estimated $662,776 return for the county, in today’s dollars. The option is based on a 3% escalation and an interest rate of 1.5%. Supervisor Richard Forster pointed out that those numbers assume that the energy levels stay at the present usage level. Baker agreed and said that companies are predicting a 3-5% escalation and “I try to be somewhat conservative in what I present.” Supervisor Novelli asked if the 10 years in the red are a fixed figure. Baker explained that the information is based on what the California Construction Authority knows about the CREB loans.

“This is the best guess that we know with the information from the IRS,” he said. Supervisor Oneto asked if the photovoltaic panels are proven to last 25 years. Baker answered, “we don’t’ know, because we don’t have that kind of track record with photovoltaic systems. We do know that photovoltaic systems constructed in the 1960’s are still in operation.” Supervisor Escamilla then asked that since the parking structures have been eliminated from the plan is there enough space on the administrative building to allow enough photovoltaic panels to meet the energy needs of the building?  Baker explained that the panels won’t take care of all the energy needs of the building but it will “deflect a large chunk of it.” He said they will be putting as many panels as they can with southern, eastern and western exposures, but it would be hard to determine what percentage of the power they will be generating from the panels, as the building does not have a years worth of usage yet. He did say however that if energy prices continue to rise then the County could, through another phase of funding efforts, fund the car ports that were cut from the original plan, but at this point he suggests to leave them out the initial planning phases because of the expense.

Supervisor Forster clarified with CAO Patrick Blacklock that the photovoltaic panels are fiscally possible at this point, especially since last meeting’s budget discussions indicated that the county would have to be fiscally conservative. Blacklock said that the net present value is so positive, over the long run, that it appears to be a good step for the county to take. Ultimately a motion was made to proceed with the photovoltaic financing by utilizing the CREBS funds and PG&E rebates to finance the costs.