American Canyon High to get solar power

Solar panels sprouting up at American Canyon High School next year could start a green trend for the Napa Valley Unified School District, which is considering tapping the sun to help power several of its campuses.

The NVUSD board of trustees recently gave the district the nod for financing and building a one-megawatt photovoltaic system at the south county campus, which will open next fall. The system will cut American Canyon High School’s electric bill by at least 55 percent once it’s running at full capacity, Aaron Jobson of Quattrocchi Kwok Architects said in a recent presentation to the school board.

“What we learn and do at the high school might be the template for what we do at the other sites. ... (But) it’s conceptual at this point,” said Don Evans, NVUSD director of school planning and construction.

The school district typically spends about $200,000 annually for electricity at Napa High School and about $300,000 per year to power Vintage High School, Debbie Brenner, NVUSD assistant superintendent for business services, said. The money comes out of the district’s general fund and Brenner anticipates saving at least $35,000 to $50,000 per year on electricity at American Canyon High, thanks to the new system.

The solar project costs between $6 million and $8 million, which will come out of the district’s construction budget, Evans said.

The district also recently applied for $25 million in state-qualified school construction bonds, of which it could get all or just a portion. If the money comes through, the school district would repay the interest-free bonds with money previously earmarked to pay higher utility bills, Brenner said.

Depending on how much in construction bonds the district gets, NVUSD could eventually install systems at three or four NVUSD campuses — possibly at Silverado Middle School, Snow Elementary School, Phillips Charter School and Napa and Vintage high schools. Plans are already under way to build a small photovoltaic system at New Technology High as part of a school remodel.

For now, crews for the project at American Canyon High plan to put the cells — complete with security fencing and cameras — on rooftops and on the ground in the campus’ northeast corner.

The photovoltaic cells have lifespan of about 50 years and California utility costs could rise between 20 and 40 percent over the next two decades, Evans said.

The school district is working with the National Development Council, which will link the district to other agencies taking temporary ownership of the system and reaping the tax credits associated with generating solar energy on-site. NVUSD will own the system outright five years after it’s built.

Mark Brewer, principal at American Canyon high, says the project will not only save the district money but also greatly reduce the school’s carbon footprint.

“I think it’s just great that they decided to capitalize on modern technology,” he said of the project. “Powering the schools is incredibly expensive (and) it costs a lot of money to heat and cool with traditional electricity.”

Evans said construction crews will start putting in the photovoltaic system at American Canyon high during the first quarter of 2010 and wrap up the project before the school opens to freshmen and sophomores in August of 2010.

34 comment(s)

manxkat wrote on Aug 27, 2009 7:13 AM:

" I think the multiple layers of superintendents at NVUSD should go back to school and take a class on investing.

An investment of $6 to $8 million should return $300 to $400K annually at 5%, not $35 to 50K. And, there must be provision for an ammortized return of the full capital investment.

Clearly, solar power does not make good financial sense - unless of course you are "investing" someone else's money like taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately we have come to expect the schools to waste our tax dollars through mismanagement like this and people don't even blink an eye anymore. We have become conditioned to accept this financial chaos while they cry poor and claim that they are underfunded. "

Mr4 wrote on Aug 27, 2009 7:23 AM:

" $8,000,000.00 spent to save $35,000 per year. That is 30 years to break even - provided the system continues working that long.

Brilliant. This is why California is bankrupt. "

Paddy wrote on Aug 27, 2009 7:27 AM:

" I guess we are learning which schools are not on the 'consolidation' chopping block. "

antipc wrote on Aug 27, 2009 9:11 AM:

" So let me get this straight. We're going to spend a minimum of $6 million dollars to save a maximum of $50k a year. That means a system designed to last 50 years takes 120 years to pay for itself, excluding increases in energy costs.

Looks like the taxpayers get to subsidize an inefficient system through tax credits.

Sounds an awful lot like the non-producing methane generators at the old landfill.

BUT WAIT! There's more! We're considering doing it at 3 or 4 more sites. "

reason-ator wrote on Aug 27, 2009 9:48 AM:

" I'm surprised this wasn't in the original plans. Especially at the price. "

AThought wrote on Aug 27, 2009 10:32 AM:

" Just imagine the thought of the cost of all the schools got solar panels. And, to think... this money could be used to hire back teachers, lower class sizes, buy better materials, raise teacher salaries. While it's great to save energy, the amount being spent and the payoff over that many years may not be worth it right now. That money needs to be spend elsewhere in the schools, and solar panels can be looked at when the schools are in better shape. "

Downtownsupporter wrote on Aug 27, 2009 10:33 AM:

" They just figured it out that it is "incredibly expensive" to power schools. I agree with reason-ator. Why was this not in the original plans? I wonder, how long will it be before we see an article about how the panels got ripped off? "

cheezcakemaker wrote on Aug 27, 2009 10:52 AM:

" PV arrays only last 50 years…. So they won’t even last the minimum 120 years for the return on the investment? Then what?

And when you put the PV array on the roof of the school, will the underlying roof last 120 years also? Or will the panels have to be removed to re-roof then be re-installed?

Good thing they budgeted for security measures for these priceless gems. NVUSD wouldn’t wan the taxpayers to be ripped off. Again!

"The NVUSD board of trustees recently gave the district the nod"....To waste tax payers money. Not just at one site but potentially even more sites! Guilty as published for flunking math class and having no common sense. "

noblindershere wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:42 PM:

" Does the CFO have a math degree? I knew she was once an administrative assistant, but please...I can do that math and it doesn't add up. We put in solar two years ago and we still have a monthly bill...they underestimated our energy use. I would really move forward with caution on this one. How about trying some conservation steps first, like not watering in the heat of the day, I don't care if the district doesn't pay for water, its wasteful.

How about sending an email out to 1,000's of parents that drove to their schools to see what teacher their child got the day before school....how many vehicles drove across town? A simple email could have avoided that one. step up to some 21st century conservation practices before spending more money. "

post-it wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:46 PM:

" Your simple calculations do not take into account the future growth in energy costs as projected in the article of 20-40% growth. This project helps put the school's energy costs in a fixed position for the life of the panels. "

funnyme wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:01 PM:

" I'd like to know who the "Solar Power" contractor is. I sure hope is a local company.

Someone once told me "Follow the money..."

Needles to say been green sure seems to be VERY EXPENSIVE!
All the energy saved is probably going to be the same, if not more, used to print all those green bills to pay for a green project unless the Treasury Department has gone green...that would explain a lot though :) "

tripnote wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:06 PM:

" There must be a mistake, major TYPO, or brain toot because if these Figures are Correct, someone needs to be fired.
solar is expensive, but should pay for its self within 10-15 years, not 120 years! "

pat wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:06 PM:

" It continues to amaze me that so many of those that comment think they can read a newspaper article and are then somehow more knowledgeable and informed than those at the district that have spent countless hours investigating and planning these proposals. Let me ask of those that have posted: Did you attend the meeting to hear the presentation? Did you watch it on the web? How about on TV? I bet not one of you did. But you seem to find yourself so informed that you criticize those that made the proposal.

If you had watched the presentation, you would know that the district will spend only 55% of the cost, the balance is being paid for by the investor who gets the tax credits (the NVUSD can’t receive the tax credits because they are a public agency). But you knew that right? You also would know that the estimated energy savings is far greater than the 55% because that calculation is a worst case scenario, based on maximum energy use. When you are using less than maximum use, which is standard, you still create the same volume energy, increasing your savings even more. I won’t even mention the 25 million in State qualified bonds that could help pay for the district’s portion.

I am glad so many of you that throw out these negative comments are so informed, and so much smarter than those making these presentations. Funny thing is, when I watch these meetings, I never see you come and tell them how smart you are and how they have it all wrong. "

Mr4 wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:08 PM:

" But wait, there's more!

Since California does not have the money for this, it must come from bonds.

At 5%, the interest only on an $8 million bond is $400,000 per year.

So that means we are spending an additional $400,000 per year in order to save $35,000 each year.

And these people are teaching our children? "

Lexme2 wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:24 PM:

" The system will cut American Canyon High School’s electric bill by at least 55 percent once it’s running at full capacity,

The school district typically spends about $200,000 annually for electricity at Napa High School and about $300,000 per year to power Vintage High School, Debbie Brenner, NVUSD assistant superintendent for business services, said. The money comes out of the district’s general fund and Brenner anticipates saving at least $35,000 to $50,000 per year on electricity at American Canyon High, thanks to the new system.

The solar project costs between $6 million and $8 million, which will come out of the district’s construction budget, Evans said.

Ok, by the statements in the article and based on average beween Napa and Vintage High total electricity cost prior to solar panels should be $250k right? The panels should save 55% right? How does that become a mere $35-$50 k in savings per year? By my math it means over $125k in savings annualy. Am I missing something or is someone just making upi numbers here? "

manxkat wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:44 PM:

" Pat: Thanks, you can always be trusted to defend the schools no matter how bad the mismanagment is.

To your credit though, you reminded me of the $25Million bond from the state. I have to hand it to you libs. You don't care how bad money is mismanaged so long as it is some nebulous taxpayer dollars from some other level of government like it comes from outer space. "

tripnote wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:55 PM:

" Well Pat, since you're so much smarter than the average poster, please tell me and the rest of us who are no smart how the cost is justified?
so Pat, 55% of 8 mil is 4.4 million. With 50K in savings it'll take 88 years to break even!
Please explain to us in a language we can understand how these figures make sense? "

post-it wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:57 PM:

" OK, according to Pat's comments, some information is clearly missing.

The solar array is 1 megawatt. This is basically a small power plant, and more power than the school will use. Apparently, the school district is letting a "private utility" use their building and will buy the power from them at a discount. Does that make it clearer? "

antipc wrote on Aug 27, 2009 2:09 PM:

" OK pat, my scenario was best possible case. Factor in the fact this is a government project you can be assured the actual numbers will be the worst case scenario.

Now for the 45% tax credit the investor gets, that comes from who? That's right, the TAX PAYERS, after it's filtered through the government.

Yes the bonds are interest free but the project still doesn't pencil no matter how you spin it. The simple fact is that in order to be green somebody is going to have to pay & I'm tired of it being ME.

NVUSD, you got some splainin' to do. "

Thedude wrote on Aug 27, 2009 2:29 PM:

" Lexme2, I had the same problem as you, I think their is something wrong with the article. "

antipc wrote on Aug 27, 2009 2:40 PM:

" Oh yeah, I forgot.

Debbie Brenner is the one that quoted the $35-$50k figure. So I assume someone did the homework because saving 55% of an unquantified figure means nothing to me.

So basically we're borrowing money from the state (tax payers) & using money from the construction fund to dump the "savings" into the general fund.

There, that clears it up. "

thisisnotatest wrote on Aug 27, 2009 2:50 PM:

" PAT:
Are you working for the solar company? Even if taxpayers are only paying 55%, and even if it comes from bonds, its not worth it.
Even at $4 million, wouldn't you rather have a bigger library? 10 more classrooms? Another sports field?
No, I guess you'd rather have a shiny roof. "

alucawanza wrote on Aug 27, 2009 4:06 PM:

" The money to buy the solar panels comes out of a categorical building fund. The money to pay for power comes out of the district budget. The money for the solar panels can't be spent on anything else but construction. It is construction bond money. However, the savings directly impact district money which can be used for a bigger library, classrooms, etc. or pay the interest free 25 million building bond which will get the extra classrooms and libraries...whatever is needed. The district wouldn't have made any money going the old way. Hope they get the 25 million construction bond. "

pat wrote on Aug 27, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Lots of questions yet not one of you answered mine. Have you taken the time to watch the presentation? You still can. It’s on the district website in the agenda section.

To answer your questions: Manx, yes, you can count on me to challenge your ludicrous claims of wild mismanagement and how the teachers union is out to get you. And, your comment “you libs”; I don’t follow. I am a registered Republican. I firmly believe the cheapest thing we can do as a society is educate our kids. It will cost far less in the long run to invest heavily in education. Welfare, unemployment, incarceration and social services are far more expensive than well educated youth ready to enter the workforce. I am sure we agree on that, but you just don’t want to pay for it.

Tripnote, I never said I was smarter, just more informed. I have kids in this district and want to make sure they get the best education possible. I don’t rely on newspaper articles to get my information, I watch the meetings, email board members, and ask for information from the district. You should try it.

Post, antipc and notatest, watch the presentation; you will get the information you need. Don’t base all your number crunching on a newspaper article. Do you really think all these people sit around and try to figure out how they can blow millions of dollars? If so, sounds like you should run for school board and fire ‘em all. But, that would mean you would have to actually study the issues, not read about them in the paper. "

thisisnotatest wrote on Aug 27, 2009 5:09 PM:

" PAT:
I'm not number-crunching. I'm using common sense.

Also, you said yourself: "the cheapest thing we can do as a society is educate our kids." How are solar panels cheap?

Put yourself in NVUSD's position. If you had this kind of money, would you buy books, equipment, build classrooms, better libraries, and a really nice gym?

Or would you invest in a solar technology that has not fully developed yet?

Solar panels are good, but why do they come before classroom essentials? "

Mr4 wrote on Aug 27, 2009 5:22 PM:

" Pat,

Amortizing $8 million over twenty years at 5% interest costs the taxpayers $630,929 dollars per year. And this to save $35 - $50k per year?

Now please don't respond with your shell game of how the locals are scheming to take money from some other politician's pile. It it not relevant - it is still taxpayer dollars.

You write: "I firmly believe the cheapest thing we can do as a society is educate our kids."

Really! How are these wasteful solar panels teaching our children anything useful?

And please, don't insult us with your "registered Republican" line. Plenty of statists did the same. How do think the party ended up with John McCain? "

pat wrote on Aug 27, 2009 6:33 PM:

" Notatest: still haven’t watched the presentation yet, have you? Also, if you have any knowledge in how and what voter approved bond money can be spent on, you would know that it can not be spent on books, equipment, class room essentials or anything that was not stated in the measure.

Mr4, I sincerely would like to respond to your concerns, but I got lost in your diatribe about shell games, scheming, and politics. These rants get us no where. If you have an issue with how the school district is spending money, I suggest you go to a meeting and tell them so. "

thisisnotatest wrote on Aug 27, 2009 6:55 PM:

" PAT: my last retort,

The presentation wasn't exactly an academy award winner. Nor was it convincing that the construction bond should be used on solar.

Also, what I meant was, there are lots of better projects.
I think a good gym, library, or classrooms would fit the description.

I sure wouldn't want to attend a district that thinks solar panels are more important than classrooms. "

antipc wrote on Aug 27, 2009 7:06 PM:

" Nice try alu, money can't get into those funds until it's taken from our wallets & purses.

Pat, simple economics & mathematics trumps the presentation. NVUSD got SOLD a bill of goods that is anything but GOOD for the tax payer, period!

Mr4 got it right, about the interest on bonds. Just because the NVUSD gets interest free bonds does not mean the state does.

This is no more than a shell game at best & more likely a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

The only winner in this disaster is the Greenies, & that's because their happy button gets pushed by emotion & idealism rather than reality.

Oh wait I take that back, the other winners are the investor who gets a guaranteed tax credit & the company selling the non-viable system. "

Mr4 wrote on Aug 27, 2009 9:06 PM:

" "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Benjamin Franklin "

5th generation napan wrote on Aug 31, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Wake up NVUSD, solar panels are ok, but you need real power.

Don't be sheep, really break the ground that needs breaking.

At least research this; Sterling Power Systems,

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/

Same green power, much more power, better pay back, much more energy efficiency, it's the way we need to be looking.

AT least look at the web site! "

TomcatMojoMom wrote on Aug 31, 2009 3:54 PM:

" Lex: I understand your confusion about the energy costs, but I just figured since the *much* newer campus in AmCan will have a much more modern, energy efficient electrical system, that their estimated costs will be much lower than the older buildings at Napa and Vintage. Which, to me, would seem a good reason to install the solar equipment at the older campuses where they will save more energy. "

antipc wrote on Aug 31, 2009 7:04 PM:

" Ok mojomom, you've seen my math, show me yours. Show ME, (a dumb, conservative, closed-mined, redneck)how this is going to save the tax payers even one penny over the fifty year life span of the system.

Making greenies feel good shouldn't make me feel broke. "

enginerd wrote on Sep 10, 2009 11:21 AM:

" Let me help you guys with your math.

A typicall crystalline-silicon PV system around here, installed at a 5 degree tilt will generate about 1400 kilowatt-hours of electricity per kilowatt of PV panels installed in one year. American Canyon High intends to install 1 megawatt of PV panels or 1000 kilowatts. Based on PG&E rates, each kilowatt-hour has a value of about $0.18, meaning for every kilowatt-hour produced by the PV system will save the school $0.18.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

1000kW X 1400kWh X $0.18
= $252,000

Not $35 to $50K, but $252K, and this number will grow larger and larger as the years go by and electricity rates go up.

Feel free to check my assumptions, I'm not making this stuff up.

Please don't assume that the school management is trying to steal from you to please the greenies before you know the whole story. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: