minutes - edc pv project meeting
07.26.04
attendance
Jim Krumsick; Balzhiser & Hubbard, Electrical Engineer
Steve Still; EWEB
Brian Hawley; EWEB, Engineer, Energy Management Services
Frank Vignola; Solar Energy Lab, Director
Chris Cottrell; EDC, Solar Director
Dave Beardsley; University of Oregon Facilities, Project Manager
Greg Haider; University of Oregon, Zone A Maintenance Manager
agenda
The focus of this meeting was to flush out all known components to date for the project, refine the scope, discuss the budget, and identify authorization, resources and timeline. The result of the meeting should be a set of clear goals for the project.
discussion
project schedule
EWEB has notified the project of a pending incentive milestone. PV Eugene is a pilot program in which EWEB offers a 10-year contract to buy all of the customer’s PV output for 25 cents per kWh. The program is limited to the first 150 kW installed DC capacity. The 3kW EMU installation (phase I) was the first project in our area to enter into this program. Because of this, EWEB has maintained a placeholder in the program for phase II. However, as time moves on, the University has not shown any significant progress and we now face an impending cut-off date. In EWEB’s words “if the UO/ASUO fails to complete this project by September 30,2004 (or be substantially underway, contracts signed, and materials ordered), then EWEB will declare this pilot program closed.”
The EDC/ASUO group sponsoring this initiative transferred funds to facilities Thursday, July 22, 2004. This becomes the start date for phase II of the $100,000 EDC Solar Energy Project.
The first project meeting was conducted Monday July 26, 2004.
The solar panels are a known long lead item (2-9 months).
discussion items
EWEB had prepared sample calculations that indicate, under all the right conditions, the phase II system output could reach 12.6 kW DC. This would involve the participation of solar credit investors. This model was used at Lillis and involved a complicated lease agreement and consulting fees that erased most of the benefits of the partnering. EWEB had recommended that we release an RFP asking the contractor to provide the largest system possible for the contract amount. Our revised plan is to get base bid pricing for a 10kW system with an alternate for additional capacity in 2 kW increments.
EWEB recommended that we require a 20-year warranty for all major system components (solar panels and inverters). The industry norm is 10 year. We agreed that this would add to the $/watt of the system and would essentially hide the cost difference. Our revised plan is to add an extended warranty by alternate.
The budget for the project will be greater than $50,000; therefore we won’t be able to use the PO procurement method. Also, there are no solar contractors currently in the OUS retainer program; therefore, alternative methods were discussed. It may be beneficial to the University to contract with an electrical contractor on retainer. Because the project cost is greater than $25,000 BOLI regulations will apply.
Chris Cottrell, EDC solar director, asked Jim Krumsick after the meeting whether he could provide services pro bono. Jim accepted this arrangement. Because of this, the project budget will not be burdened by electrical engineering costs. We benefit by receiving an electrical specification for the most common type of PV panel system on the market today. By adding an electrical specification to the bid package we are assured that standards of performance, quality control, warranties, submittals, design considerations, applicable codes and standards, products, wiring, tie-in, cleaning, initial startup, testing and acceptance, and operation and maintenance documents are covered. It also contributes to a project goal: develop a solar installation package that can be applied to and encourage similar installations in the future.
Projects of this type require a recipient facility, in this case the Student Recreation Center. User groups need assurance that the system will not develop high maintenance costs in the future. Of particular concern to the host facility are roof penetrations, structural connections, grounding, aesthetics, and serviceability. A project goal will be to develop a project delivery process that assures consideration of these issues. Because of this we will use an accelerated design/build process. The contractor will be asked to present proposals for the following details: connection to structure with calculations, array configuration, roof penetrations, etc for review in meeting with participation by user group, facilities, engineer, and EDC.
Cathy Olson, capital project budget manager, requested that we avoid any lease arrangement with this project. The University will apply directly to the state Department of Energy for BETC credits. It simply takes too long to process lease agreements. A goal for the University would be to develop a simple lease boilerplate that could facilitate partnering in the future. This option will not be pursued by this project.
Frank Vignola (director of the Solar Energy Lab) contributed expertise to the meeting and reported that several solar contractors have expressed interest in the project. He recommended that the roof-top array be located on the upper roof rather than the lower roof. He said that there were some shading issues on the lower roof.
It was agreed that Jim Krumsick would prepare and submit a scope of services proposal to the University.
Dave Beardsley, Greg Haider and Dennis Munroe conducted a site visit Tuesday July 27, 2004 to establish possible roof-top panel location, conduit routing and meter interface location. Dave Beardsley followed up by pulling structural details of the chosen area from archives. We did not share Frank’s concern about shading. The array could be moved to the East on the lower roof to avoid any shading due to nearby structure during the winter low incident angle period.
next meeting
tbd
|