Solar panels bought with wastewater ratepayer funds aimed at reducing their future exposure to ever increasing PG&E power costs needed to operate the treatment plant have been gathering dust in a warehouse for 27 months.
The idea was to create an 11-acre solar farm to the south of the treatment plant to cover much of the annual $1.5 million plus PG&E bill required to power the treatment process.
But then the city changed their mind about proceeding as they came up with another “vision” for the area. Dropping a solar power project at the treatment plant is something they had done twice before.
The big difference this time around was the city actually purchased the panels.
Now the South San Joaquin Irrigation District is willing to pay $1.25 million for the panels to replace those at the Nick DeGroot Surface Water Treatment Plant that are nearing the end of their useful life. The city gets 40 percent of its water from the SSJID facility.
The City Council is being asked to approve the sale when they meet at 7 p.m. tonight. The SSJID board has already agreed to the terms.
The fiscal impact portion of the staff report the council received regarding the sale states there is no general fund impact.
But given the fact roughly two thirds of the city budget is not tied to the general fund, the report appears to fall short of the long-promised goal of being transparent with the public.
For example the report:
*Doesn’t indicate what the city paid for the solar panels. Ratepayers have no way of knowing whether they are taking a significant financial hit.
*Since electricity is one of the biggest annual costs to treating wastewater, the council was not told how not proceeding with the solar farm would impact being able to keep a lid on growing operational costs which is clearly a fiscal impact.
*While it is clear solar panel technology is constantly changing, there is no indication how much replacing the power savings potential of a solar farm to the extent that was envisioned could cost ratepayers more than they had already spent if new panels were purchased on today’s market.
*There is no indication of the fiscal impact of not stabilizing PG&E power costs will have on monthly wastewater rate charges especially in light of the city making it clear they will be significant rate hikes on the horizon due to escalating costs.
The solar project, after it was approved, was never brought back to the council to officially kill unless, that is, the action item on tonight’s agenda does that is an extremely low-key manner.
Why that is important is there has never been a public vetting of why the one option — covering the nearby 550-space Big League Dreams sports complex with solar panels — wasn’t a viable alternative.
It would get multiple use out of existing city property plus it would reduce heat generation from the massive parking lot broken up occasionally by trees.
Manteca Unified in 2013 completed solar projects — that were installed primarily over parking areas — at 26 school sites.
What happened is between the loan payments for the solar projects and increased PG&E rates, the district’s power costs have stabilized. That means they are now saving more than $1 million a year in avoided electricity costs that can be diverted to other purposes such as classroom expenditures.
In the case of the City of Manteca, a solar farm would essentially stabilize future rate hikes by not putting the city at the mercy of double digit rate hikes that are on the horizon for PG&E to address systemwide safety issues as well as increased electricity procurement costs.
To contact Dennis Wyatt, email dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
