Though the vast majority of schools interviewed for this report had an overall positive experience in going solar and achieved the outcomes desired from their investment, seeing a solar project through to completion can sometimes entail unforeseen challenges. This section summarizes common challenges faced by schools that have already gone solar in order to help ensure a smoother process for future solar schools.
Financing for Solar Energy
One of the major challenges for schools in going solar is figuring out the most cost-effective way of paying for these systems. Compounding this issue is the fact that schools – because they lack a tax liability to do so – are unable to directly take advantage of federal or state tax credits for solar. The wide array of financing options employed by schools interviewed for this report reflects the challenges of investing in solar without easy access to key federal and state incentives, but also underscores the creativity of schools in fully leveraging the available options. Of the 15 executive interviews conducted, no schools relied solely on direct cash payments for their systems. Any cash put into the project by the school – from bond measures, capital or operating budgets, or other means – were combined with other key forms of financial support, such as grants, loans, rebates, and SRECs. Excluding systems financed through third-party ownership, only two of the 15 projects were funded via a single financing option of any kind, reflecting the importance of investigating and fully leveraging all available sources of financing.
Solar Procurement Issues
The most oft-cited set of challenges encountered by schools in their efforts to go solar were related to the procurement process. Some of these issues and many others are covered in greater detail in TSF’s Steps to a Successful Solar Request for Proposal.[1]
Though schools pointed to a wide variety of procurement issues, a common theme was development risk – that is, issues with the contractor (or other entities affecting the installation process) completing the work or fulfilling other contractual obligations in a timely manner. One school, for example, lamented not having had in place a request for proposal (RFP) or contract language imposing penalties on (or otherwise ensuring accountability of) installers who did not complete all aspects of the work on time. Because the contractor did not fulfill all its obligations, and because the school had little means of compelling the company to do so, the district remains reluctant to pursue any additional solar projects. As mentioned in the TSF guide cited above, contracts and other procurement documents should require contractors to submit and adhere to a list of major project milestones and expected completion dates, and potentially make contractor payments contingent on their ability to do so. As a related issue, procurement staff may also consider adding RFP and contract language to ensure timely contractor responsiveness to any technical issues that may arise after the installation process, especially for those that jeopardize system performance or safety. Finally, schools should consider including language to protect their interests in the event that a company backs out of a contract altogether, which was the case with one interviewee.
Another procurement issue cited by schools was maintaining the existing roof warranty after the PV system was placed in service. Rooftop solar arrays sometimes require contractors to puncture the roof to install equipment to hold the system in place, which may violate the existing roof warranty. To avoid this issue, contractors should be required to obtain written certification from the company providing the current warranty that the proposed solar installation will not nullify this warranty. In the event this certification cannot be obtained, the contractor should bear the responsibility of securing a new warranty. RFP documents should also specify that the contractor work with the roof manufacturer and not violate any existing roof warranties.
Protecting against performance risk is key to ensuring the school receives the full financial benefits of their solar investment. Some schools noted their realized cost savings was sometimes a bit less than what was expected, which can be due to lower solar energy system production than was expected or promised. However, when comparing the actual amount of electricity generated with estimates provided by the installer, it is important to keep in mind that the solar resource varies from year to year. While estimates of solar production are based on a “typical meteorological year” (TMY), the actual weather experienced in a given year varies. For example, 45 years of weather data from Atlantic City, New Jersey shows that annual solar resource availability ranged from 12 percent below to 9 percent above the average estimate that would be used in production calculations.
An easy way to avoid this issue is to require contractors to provide an accurate estimate of system performance and to guarantee the system, when properly maintained, will produce electricity equal to a predefined percentage of this estimate, or else face financial or other penalties. Lower than expected cost savings can also be the result of erroneous assumptions made regarding baseline facility energy use or the value of the solar electricity produced by the system. One effective way to mitigate these risks is to hire an independent consultant with expertise in solar technology, policy, and energy markets to review the assumptions underlying any cost savings estimates provided in contractor proposals. These consultants can also help review final contract terms and provide input on the current policy, regulatory, and legal landscape to help ensure the school is receiving the best deal possible.
Community and School Board Engagement
Because investments in solar energy can come at a large upfront cost and due to the persistence of several myths and misconceptions regarding solar energy,[1] some communities and school boards may be reluctant to embrace proposals to install solar on their schools. Hosting a set of stakeholder meetings or making a formal presentation to the board on the value of solar energy to the community can serve to dispel many misconceptions, provide a clear sense of the solar installation process and its expected outcomes, and help garner community support for the project. The Solar Foundation and other members of the Solar Outreach Partnership have a wealth of experience in engaging local government and community stakeholders and may be able to support your school’s own outreach and engagement efforts with free technical assistance services. More information on these U.S. Department of Energy funded services can be found at www.solaroutreach.org/ta.
Regulatory Requirements
Another issue schools have frequently encountered in going solar is the difficulty of understanding and complying with all state and local regulatory requirements. While ensuring these requirements are satisfied should mainly be the responsibility of the contractor, the time and money it takes to comply with these rules are typically passed on to the solar customer in the form of increased project cost. Complex, onerous, or even nonexistent planning and zoning requirements and permitting, inspection, and interconnection processes can serve to drive up the “soft” costs (i.e., the non-hardware or business process costs) of going solar. Taken together, these soft costs account for nearly half of the total cost of installed solar in the U.S.[1]
Fortunately, there are many actions state and local governments can take to help reduce these soft costs, including incorporating solar energy into local planning processes and zoning codes, streamlining and expediting the solar permitting process, developing statewide interconnection standards, working with local lending institutions to develop financial products for solar, and supporting or leading solar market development programs. More information on these topics is available at www.solaroutreach.org/resources or by contacting The Solar Foundation at info@solarfound.org.
[1] Ardani/ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, K., Seif/ Rocky Mountain Institute, D., Margolis/ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, R., Morris/ Rocky Mountain Institute, J., Davidson/ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, C., Truitt/ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, S., & Torbert/ Rocky Mountain Institute, R. (2013).Non-Hardware ("Soft") Cost-Reduction Roadmap for Residential and Small Commercial Solar Photovoltaics, 2013-2020 (NREL/TP-7A40-59155). Retrieved from National Renewable Energy Laboratory website: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/59155.pdf
[1] See two Solar Outreach Partnership factsheets addressing common solar myths and misconceptions at: http://solaroutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Solar-Myths-Misconceptions-Part-I.pdf and http://solaroutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Solar-Myth-II-_-Final.pdf