Solar Case Studies

Solar Case Studies
Table of Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Tri-County Electric Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative. . . . . . . . . 8
San Miguel Power Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Okanogan County Electric Cooperative . . . . . . . . . 19
Green Power EMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Cherryland Electric Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Kit Carson Electric Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Great River Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Summary
Fast evolving technologies and policy initiatives are transforming all sectors of the elec-
tric utility industry, including electric cooperatives. No energy source is changing faster
or generating more questions than solar energy.
Promoted by federal and state mandates and financial incentives, the use of photovolta-
ic panels to produce electricity is surging. Declining system costs have made the tech-
nology more affordable and further juiced the solar surge. That growth, however, is not
without consequences for how cooperatives do business. There are serious implications,
financial, technical and strategic.
As solar generation's capacity grows and solar power's cost continues to decrease,
non-utility providers are inviting consumers to choose solar for a portion of their elec-
tric power needs. Many electric cooperatives are wrestling with the question of how to
respond. Is solar a promising opportunity for future growth? Or is it a competitive threat
to cooperatives’ core business?
Electric cooperatives are embracing the challenge and in many places leading the way in
bringing solar energy to people. Across the country, co-ops have almost 240 megawatts
of solar capacity online or on the drawing board. By empowering their consumer-mem-
bers to have a role in determining how their energy needs are met, cooperatives provide
innovative solutions that balance their business priorities and consumer goals while
ensuring reliable, affordable and sustainable electric power for all.
The following eight case studies illustrate some of the innovative ways cooperatives are
satisfying member-consumers’ demand for solar-derived electricity. These profiles run
the gamut—from generation and transmission cooperatives to small distribution cooper-
atives, from Washington state and New Mexico to Minnesota and Georgia.
You’ll find that the solar solutions they’ve devised are equally diverse.
NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 3

Solar Case Study
Tri-County Electric Cooperative
1. Company Profile
Tri-County Electric Cooperative (Tri-County) serves approximately 13,000 meters in the southeastern corner
of Minnesota. Tri-County is an all-requirements member of Dairyland Power Cooperative, its power supplier.
Dairyland’s policy allows an exception to its All Power Requirements Contract that affords its member cooper-
atives the opportunity to own or contract for a set capacity of utility-scale distributed generation. Tri-County’s
service territory has a challenging topography and is heavily wooded. The member composition is mainly resi-
dential and farmland, averaging about four members per mile of line, and agriculture is the primary economic
driver in the area. About 20 percent of Tri-County’s load is for resale to municipal utilities under contract.
2. Renewable Profile
The cooperative has constructed a community solar array of 73.8 kw. Tri-County selected tenKsolar’s RAIS XT-
28 photovoltaic system (www.tenKsolar.com), an integrated system whose components are designed to work
together. The reputation and Minnesota roots of tenKsolar played a large role in its selection.
This array consists of 180 modules of 410 watts each, and 10 6 kw RAIS inverter buses. They were ground
mounted using Hubbell Helical Coil foundations on a tenKsolar-rail mount-system. The system is projected to
produce 107,651 kwh annually. The footprint of the array is about 107 feet by 78 feet. The co-op had been con-
sidering a solar project for three years prior to the project’s commissioning on July 22, 2014, and it took approx-
imately one year from Board approval to final construction of the project.
3. Financing and Rate Design

Local control and ownership was a primary goal of the co-op. Tri-County considered various financing and own-
ership models before deciding on the tax equity flip model, facilitated by the National Renewables Cooperative
Organization (NRCO). Federated Rural Insurance Exchange served as the tax equity investor.
Under the tax equity flip model, the cooperative forms a taxable subsidiary, and this subsidiary and the tax
equity investor form a special purpose entity (SPE). The SPE constructs, owns and operates the array, and has a
purchase power agreement with the cooperative for the output. In the first stage of five or more years, all dis-
tributions and tax benefits (investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, etc.) from the SPE are distributed
to the owners in a 99 to 1 split: 99 percent to the tax equity investor and 1 percent to the cooperative subsid-
iary. After the initial term, the split ratio “flips”: 95 percent to the cooperative subsidiary and 5 percent to the
tax equity investor. At that point, the cooperative subsidiary can buy out the tax equity investor at fair market
value. For more detail on this model, please see the NRECA SUNDA Business and Financing Field Manual.
Tri-County, through the SPE, owns, maintains, operates and insures the array. Units are sold to members for
$1,400 each. Members do not own a specific module of 410 watts, but rather a 180th interest in the output of
the total array. Members who purchase a unit receive a 1-to-1 kwh credit for their share of kwhs produced by
the array against those kwhs consumed by the member. This credit will be applied monthly to the members’
electric bill over the next 20 years. This is accomplished through software provided by the National Informa-
tion Solutions Cooperative (NISC), which also provides the billing software to Tri-County. The member does not
receive rebates or tax benefits for participating. Any Renewable Energy Credits stay with the cooperative to
offset future costs associated with the array.
Tri-County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 5

4. Project Development
Site visibility was of primary importance. The co-op’s headquarters campus was a suitable location for the
array. Winona Renewable Energy, LLC, a local PV contractor with experience in this type of project, performed
a yield projection of the site. Star Energy Services, which is owned by a consortium of cooperatives, performed
the engineering review.
Permitting and licensing required coordination with the local city regarding ordinances (zoning), as well as some
discussion with the local electrical inspector about the need for running low-voltage cable through a conduit
and for fencing the array. A compromise was reached to avoid fencing by relocating the low-voltage cables
away from areas where someone could reach them. The array is a single-phase interconnection, which was
interconnected directly to Tri-County’s three-phase distribution feeder at a primary voltage of 12.47 kV and not
net-metered to the adjacent headquarters building. The PV contractor was responsible for conducting accep-
tance testing and commissioning.
5. Operations and Maintenance

Operations and maintenance procedures and schedules are still under development. Warranties on the compo-
nents of the array are 12 years on the panels, 25 years on the inverter bus and 25 years on the panels for kwh
production degradation below 92.5 percent. The only unscheduled maintenance issue was from a rock thrown
by a lawnmower, which broke the glass on one module, which was replaced by the contractor. Given the load-
ing of the feeder that the array was connected to, initial calculations showed that no operational issues would
be anticipated, and none have been observed. No changes to the electric distribution system, mitigation tech-
niques, or technologies were required.
6. Telemetry
The cooperative does not utilize SCADA technology, and none was required for this array. Output of the array is
monitored and posted in real time on the co-op’s website through the use of a third-party vendor, Solar Edge,
using its eGauge system. Tri-County does have an advanced metering infrastructure system, but it is not cur-
rently being used to actively manage DG on its system.
7. Administrative Impacts
No additional personnel were required; however, the marketing and member services departments were
overwhelmed at first by questions from members. That has since scaled back to a manageable level. Account-
ing personnel worked with their software provider, NISC, to accommodate changes needed in order to bill
purchasers of units in the array; the changes related to being able to apply the kwh credit for production from
the array. Some additional work on the cooperative’s website was required to accommodate the program.
Tri-County communicated this project through newsletters, press releases, social media, its website, and other
normal communications channels.
8. Renewable Policy Development

Tri-County has had DG policies in place for some time. Minnesota has a mandated 25 percent renewable
energy generation requirement by the year 2025. In addition, a state-mandated DG renewable connection
policy was developed in conjunction with cooperatives in Minnesota. Cooperatives are required to net meter
accounts up to 40 kw.

9. Member Interest in Solar
Over the years, the cooperative has used surveys to ask members about their interest in renewables. Recent
surveys showed a 10 percent to 20 percent interest in solar. Small-scale solar is becoming more affordable with
more installers to choose from and, as a result, member interest is increasing. The Board decided to move for-
ward as a result of a strategic planning initiative. The board wanted member support and involvement, so the
cooperative utilized its standing Member Advisory Committee as a sounding board for this project. The Adviso-
ry Committee endorsed it enthusiastically.
The initial plan was to develop a 40-kw array, but because of member interest, it was soon expanded to a 73.8-
kw array prior to construction. So far, 88 percent of this new total array has been sold. Members pay $1,400 per
unit of interest in this array, which amounts to 180th interest in the output (kwh) of the total array on a pro-rata
basis. The share is then credited against the consumption on their electric bill on a one-to-one basis. The coop-
erative currently has approximately 100 participating members, with several purchasing more than one unit,
further indicating member interest in renewable energy. An expanded special section on Tri-County’s website is
devoted to the “Renewable Rays” program. The section includes background on the project, answers to a num-
ber of frequently asked questions and photos of the array both while under construction and upon completion.
As a point of reference, about 50 members (approximately 1 percent) of Tri-County have on-site DG systems.
10. Business Options

Tri-County decided to utilize a community solar concept to maximize visibility and to give members the oppor-
tunity to have solar without investing a lot of money or locating a panel at the members’ location. Some mem-
bers do not have the appropriate topography (too hilly or too many trees) or the right building type to accom-
modate a solar panel on site, yet they still want to participate in solar. The cooperative also determined early
on that it would be beneficial to control the project and not utilize a third party to own or market the array. The
final installed cost of the array was about $2.76 per watt.
11. Lessons Learned

Co-ops do not need to start from scratch. There are many co-op-based models to choose from that can fit your
needs, so find one that you are comfortable with.
Based on the installed cost, especially the soft costs associated with the contracts and agreements required,
Tri-County would have opted for a larger array to leverage economies of scale. It is about the same amount of
work to develop a 100-kw array as a 10-kw array.
The board kept it in perspective that a 74-kw array was going to be less than the cost of a new large bucket
truck, and would provide value to the members over the 20-plus-year life of the project.
Location, location, location: The location of the cooperative’s campus was also a big plus that solidified the tie
between the co-op and the solar array, and it is suitable for another array expansion in the future.
In the end, Tri-County affirms that the array was a good decision, and that it has been a success for the cooper-
ative and its members on many levels.
For additional information, contact:
Brian Krambeer Ted Kjos
CEO, Tri-County Electric Cooperative VP Marketing/External Relations,
bkrambeer@tec.coop Tri-County Electric Cooperative
Ph: 507-864-7783 Ph: 507-864-9232

Solar Case Study
Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative
1. Company Profile
Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (SMECO) serves approximately 160,000 meters in an area that includes
south and southeast of Washington, D.C. The 1,150-square-mile service area is a mix of rural and suburban
areas, most of which is within commuting distance of Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. The service territory
lies entirely within the PJM control area and is bounded by water on three sides: the Chesapeake Bay to the
east and south, and the Potomac River to the west. It has a clearly defined service boundary with the adjacent
investor-owned utilities: Potomac Electric Power Company on one side and Baltimore Gas & Electric on the
other. The area has a history of significant weather events including hurricanes, tropical storms and ice storms.
Numerous areas have considerable tree canopies, and a substantial portion of SMECO’s operations budget is
devoted to right-of-way (ROW) maintenance.
About two thirds of SMECO’s load is residential and one-third is commercial, most of which is to retail stores.
The cooperative is unaffiliated with a G&T cooperative and, as such, must manage its own power supply portfo-
lio. SMECO utilizes the services of ACES Power Marketing to assist in this task. The SMECO system is comprised
of 230-kilovolt transmission, 69-kV subtransmission and 12.47-kV distribution circuits. SMECO has about 11,600
miles of distribution line and averages about 14 members per mile.
The cooperative’s peak system load is bimodal in nature, with annual peaks alternately occurring in both the
winter and summer seasons. Solar offers no apparent peaking capacity in winter months and little apparent
peaking capacity in summer months, as system peaks occur later in the day than the peak output of the solar
array. The cooperative’s average system load is approximately 400 megawatts.
In December 2012, SMECO completed construction of a 5.5-MW solar array, located on 33 acres of a 47-acre
parcel owned by SMECO that is adjacent to its engineering and operations center in Hughesville, Maryland. The
capacity factor of the array is estimated to be 18.5 percent. The duration of the project, from start to finish,
was just under two years. The construction and commissioning period took approximately five months.
The 23,716 MEMC 280-W DC module solar array is connected to the local electric distribution system using 11
Advanced Energy 500-kW inverters. All components were specified by the developer, Sun Edison. Total output
of the array is 5.5-MW AC. This project fits into the cooperative’s overall power portfolio needs both for energy
and for Maryland state mandates for renewable energy. The array provides a small percentage of energy but a
large percentage of solar renewable energy credits to meet a portion of SMECO’s renewable portfolio standard
(RPS) requirements.

First, the cooperative performed its due diligence. It met with the Rural Utility Service (RUS), National Renew-
able Cooperative Organization (NRCO), and legal, technical and financial consulting firms prior to issuing a
request for proposal (RFP). The cooperative created a for-profit subsidiary, SMECO Solar, to take advantage of
grants provided under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which
substantially reduced the cost of the project. A main goal was to minimize the impact on rates, as this project is
folded in as part of SMECO’s power portfolio. As part of the RFP process, the cooperative, with assistance from
NRCO, received bids from 18 developers for 29 potential projects throughout southern Maryland. Sun Edi-
son was selected from this group to construct the array on SMECO property as a turnkey project. The project
represents a $20 million investment. SMECO Solar qualified for a $6 million ARRA grant, for a net investment
of about $14 million, or $2.55 per watt AC, which was financed through RUS using a standard Federal Financing
Bank loan.
Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 9

The site was selected because of its suitability for the project, its visibility to the public and the fact that SMECO
already owned the property. As a turnkey project, all components of the array (modules, inverters, racking), as
well as engineering and design, were developed by Sun Edison and reviewed by Burns and McDonnell on behalf
of the cooperative. Sun Edison utilized Vaughn Industries as the prime construction subcontractor. Actual yield
to date is very closely aligned with initial projections.
Typical permitting and licensing issues were encountered, and SMECO was able to expedite the permitting
process. One unique siting issue was that there were a number of old tobacco barns of historical significance
on the property that needed to be moved; best practices were used during removal of the barns. Although the
barns themselves could not be saved, they were documented, and plans were made to reuse the raw materials.
Final commissioning and acceptance testing were performed by Sun Edison, with review by Burns and McDonnell.

The cooperative has a five-year maintenance agreement contract with Sun Edison’s subsidiary, NVT, which cov-
ers all operations and maintenance issues with the array, as well as SMECO employee training. At the end of the
contract, SMECO will evaluate whether to continue to outsource this function or to bring it in-house.
A site inspection checklist was developed by Burns and McDonnell.
The array has an interconnection with SMECO’s distribution system on a large feeder very close to a substation.
Given the loading on this feeder, calculations showed that there would be no operational issues; there have
been none to date. No mitigation techniques or special technologies were required prior to interconnection.
Although the site is fenced, there have been a couple of instances of vandalism using rocks.
6. Telemetry
Array output is posted to a Sun Edison Client Connect website using its proprietary programs. The website is
linked to the cooperative’s SMECO Solar website so members can view the array output in real time. Array
monitoring is provided by Sun Edison as part of the five-year contract.
The addition of the array added some work to all departments. Additional legal and accounting work was
needed to develop the for-profit subsidiary, SMECO Solar, and to fulfill annual reporting and tax requirements.
Because the array was not marketed to the membership, most outreach efforts consisted of maximizing the
project's public relations value to the membership and the community at large. As part of this effort, a com-
panion website for the subsidiary was developed (www.smecosolar.com). The cooperative also utilized press
releases and articles in the monthly newsletter, Cooperative Review, to keep members informed about SMECO
Solar.
Recognizing its achievement with the SMECO Solar array, SMECO was named 2014 Electric Cooperative Utility
of the Year by the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA).
In 2014, SMECO held a series of open house meetings that were well-attended by members who wanted to
learn more about solar generation. The open house meetings, which were held in response to recent national
solar developer marketing campaigns geared toward rooftop solar installations, have strained cooperative engi-
neering and administrative resources. As a result, the cooperative is currently evaluating staffing and organiza-
tional changes to better address the increased workload as interest in rooftop solar continues to grow.

The cooperative has had distributed generation (DG) policies and procedures in place for quite a while. The
state of Maryland has adopted a renewable portfolio standard that gradually increases over time to require the
cooperative to achieve 20 percent renewable energy in its power supply portfolio by the year 2022. The coop-
erative is also required to achieve 2 percent of its renewable energy total using solar sited within the state. Any
utility that does not achieve these minimum percentages is subject to a financial penalty payable to the state.
SMECO’s board reviewed and approved both this project and Rockfish Solar, which is currently under develop-
ment. As a cooperative responsible for its generation portfolio, the board has a risk oversight committee that
reviews power supply risk. SMECO plans to integrate additional renewables into its future portfolio planning
through long-term wind and solar power purchase agreements (PPAs) or additional solar ownership, depending
on the economics at the time.
NRCO recently completed a study for SMECO that reviewed both community and rooftop solar with an eye
toward implementing changes to its DG policies. SMECO offers true net metering per state requirements, com-
pensating members who put energy back on the grid on an annual basis at the energy-only rate for their net
production.

Member feedback as a result of this project has been very positive. Given SMECO’s Chesapeake Bay location,
there is continuing sensitivity to environmental issues, and this project has been a net plus in this regard. Cur-
rently, the cooperative has 662 members with some form of DG, primarily solar. Another 332 applications for
DG are pending. SMECO foresees a high penetration of rooftop solar in its future, particularly as a couple of
national rooftop solar firms are marketing actively in the area to members and nonmembers alike. The combi-
nation of saving money on energy with no money down while also going green has earned a lot of attention.
Because of the positive experience with this project and the state of Maryland’s renewable portfolio standard
requirements, SMECO is proceeding with the larger 10-MW Rockfish Solar project. It is structured differently
than the first in that it will be owned by the developer; SMECO will purchase the entire output of the Rockfish
project under a PPA with the developer.

SMECO reviewed various business models and evaluated them at each decision point considering two primary
concerns: meeting the RPS requirements and the impact on members’ rates. Although the two solar projects
are different, they share the common denominators of meeting both the RPS and the lowest cost require-
ments.
At the time of each RFP, SMECO selected the lowest-cost, all-rolled-in, life-of-project option. For the SMECO
Solar project, that lowest-cost approach was direct ownership, primarily due to the ARRA funding. For the
Rockfish Solar project, it was a PPA. Both options give SMECO rights to the full output, including energy, capac-
ity and solar RECs. Going forward, SMECO plans to investigate community and rooftop solar options to meet
member demand.

11. Lessons Learned
Overall, SMECO has had a positive experience with owning the first solar project, though in hindsight, it might
have looked more closely at a third-party PPA. Letting a third party own and operate the project would have
eliminated a few headaches along the way. It will have firsthand experience with both approaches once the
Rockfish Solar project is operational. SMECO found that using consultants to assist in the process was extreme-
ly valuable. Also, NRCO was especially helpful. SMECO strongly recommends using an RFP process with com-
petitive bids, as it has found that there are a lot of players out there anxious to make a proposal, with some
making multiple proposals.
SMECO foresees additional DG fitting into its power portfolio, driven by both the RPS and member interest. It
continues to see higher penetration of solar DG driven by rooftop solar developers, an option the cooperative
is currently investigating.
Because of the recent proliferation of solar in its service territory, SMECO will be studying future rate design al-
ternatives for both the power supply side and the DG side to cover its fixed costs. This also means SMECO must
continue to learn, educate and evolve as the industry and technologies develop.
Joe Slater Beth Kennedy

CEO, Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative Controller, Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative
Joe.Slater@smeco.coop Beth.Kennedy@smeco.coop
Ph: 301-274-4343 Ph: 240-528-9716
Asst. Ph: 301-274-4489

Solar Case Study
San Miguel Power Association
1. Company Profile
San Miguel Power Association (SMPA) is an all-requirements member of Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Cooperative. SMPA serves 13,500 members in the southwestern corner of Colorado. The eastern part of its
service territory is ski and tourist country with mountainous terrain, while the western part is primarily broad
valleys and plateaus. Membership is about 81 percent residential and 18.5 percent commercial. SMPA serves
about seven members per mile of line. Some members are very “ecologically conscientious,” while others are
very bottom-line-driven.
As part of Tri-State, SMPA is allowed 5 percent ownership of local generation. Due to the size of the associa-
tion’s solar array and the addition of several smaller hydro projects, the co-op has reached this limit.
SMPA’s solar array, located in Paradox Valley, Colo., has a nameplate capacity of 1.1 megawatt DC. In 2013, the
unit maintained a 20 percent capacity factor. Siting, permitting and installation of the array took approximate-
ly one year and was completed Dec. 13, 2012. The array consists of 4,784 Hanwha Solar One modules of 235
watts each. Power conversion is accomplished with an AE Solar Energy PowerStation 1000 NX with two AE 500
NX inverters. Racking was ground-mounted on driven piles. The site covers more than 6 acres of a 9.27-acre
parcel of land.

SMPA evaluated two business models for its community solar project: third-party ownership and full owner-
ship. After a request for proposal (RFP) was issued and responses evaluated, a third-party ownership model
was chosen. SMPA management recommended Clean Energy Collective (CEC) to the board based on CEC’s
experience with community solar. The board selected CEC to sponsor the project for the benefit of its members
while limiting financial risk to the cooperative.
CEC has about 35 community solar projects across the country, 11 of which are with electric cooperatives.
CEC is technically the owner of the Paradox Valley array and assumes all financial responsibility and risk. Co-
op members who want to participate can purchase a panel of the array and receive a share of the output as a
monetary credit on their monthly bill. Members can purchase one or several panels at a cost of between $695
and $750 per panel, depending on the application of the solar rebates in effect at the time. Monthly credits are
calculated as the member’s percentage of interest in the array multiplied by the metered output less 5 percent,
which is escrowed for future operation and maintenance. This amount of kwh is credited at 11.615 cents per
kwh and increases at 1 percent per year. Please see the example on page 17.
The gross cost of the installed array is about $5.54 per watt, including both hard and soft costs.
SMPA had already been looking at the Paradox Valley site prior to the RFP process and assisted CEC by recom-
mending the site and sharing in a small portion of the siting groundwork. All other development issues, includ-
ing site development criteria, engineering, procurement and construction up to and including final commission-
ing, were CEC’s responsibility.
SMPA wanted to build as large an array as feasible and allowable under its power supply contract. However,
SMPA did not want to build a facility that would cause excess power flow back onto Tri-State’s system. One
MW was appropriate because its production would not exceed the native load. The size of the array was also
determined using a combination of engineering, economics and siting.
San Miguel Power Association NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 14

CEC engaged Martifer Solar as its primary contractor and Sunsense Solar as the designer. The site is predicted
to produce 1,731 megawatt hours annually, although actual production topped 2,000 MWh during the first
year. The array is interconnected to a three-phase feeder on the SMPA distribution system. Internally devel-
oped engineering calculations showed that, based on feeder loading, no interconnection issues would develop
on either the distribution or transmission systems, and none have. SMPA system coordination and protective
schemes were studied prior to facility construction. Changes to the system scheme had to be implemented to
accommodate the reverse power flow in two substations. Security fencing around the array was a requirement
of NEC (National Electric Code) as well as a necessity given both the array's remote location and the fact that it
sits in an open livestock range.

CEC is responsible for the array's operations and maintenance. It has a standalone LLC that operates like a trust
to ensure funding for operations and maintenance over a 50-year period. This is funded by 5 percent of the
sales price of the panels and the dollar value of the array's kilowatt-hour output.
The array has not experienced any major maintenance issues, although components in the inverters were
replaced under warranty in year two of operation. Given the southwestern desert location, CEC is investigat-
ing the need to clean the array annually for maximum output. No operational energy issues such as islanding
or reverse power flow have occurred. No mitigation techniques, technologies or special metering have been
required.
Real-time production data from the array is collected by CEC’s proprietary Remote Meter software and posted
to CEC’s public website. The cooperative website provides links to this data so that members can access infor-
mation. Data that the cooperative uses to credit members’ accounts for kilowatt hours produced by the array is
also generated by the Remote Meter software.
No additional staffing was required, though additional front-end work with ATS, the cooperative’s billing provid-
er, was required to correctly bill the accounts of those who participated in this project, which totaled approxi-
mately 70 participants at the project’s inception. This was largely due to the need to credit the accounts for the
production of the array by integrating a crediting file, which is created by CEC monthly and then downloaded
into the ATS software. Since implementation, no major issues have arisen, although monthly monitoring by
SMPA is necessary.
Member service personnel spent considerable time answering members’ questions, the most common one be-
ing the economics of participation. As marketing and sales of the array panels were the responsibility of CEC, it
handled most of the inquiries and sales questions. Marketing pieces were developed jointly by SMPA and CEC.
A website for the array, www.smpasolar.com, was developed.

Colorado has a mandated net metering state law at 10 kw or less for residential and 25 kw or less for commer-
cial. SMPA has had distributed generation (DG) installations in place that predate state programs. The co-op
has voluntarily developed renewable incentives for local renewable resource development. These are currently
at $0.75 per watt of installed capacity up to a limit of 3 kw for residential members and 10 kw for commercial
members. Purchasers of the array units are eligible to receive these incentives.

SMPA sees a greater penetration of DG in its future as equipment prices fall and reliability and access to DG in-
creases. Further utility use of smart grid technology will allow DG to expand to greater utilization. SMPA works
toward a rate-neutral strategy for DG development so that, in general, the costs of DG do not place upward
pressure on the rate base. In one case the co-op has reduced wholesale power costs by obtaining an “offset”
contract under Tri-State policies.

As a point of reference, SMPA currently has 178 members with net-metered DG systems, 170 of which are
solar. When SMPA embarked on this project, it was largely based on the results of a member survey that made
it clear they wanted options for local renewable energy. The decision to consider community solar as a means
of supporting member interest was driven by the board of directors. Currently, SMPA has sold out the array
with 214 members participating. Two large purchases account for about 50 percent of the array. The town of
Telluride purchased panels for all of its low-income housing units (about 95 kw), and the Telluride school district
purchased panels to offset the energy usage of a large addition to an existing building (about 500 kw). Member
feedback has been very positive, even with members who are not participating. Some members want solar,
but their property is not conducive to panels. Others want solar but do not want to be burdened with installa-
tion or maintenance issues. Members are pleased that nonsubscribers are not subsidizing subscribers and that
the program is not affecting the cost of electricity for nonsubscribers. SMPA is currently experiencing pent-up
demand for another community project. Recently, two municipalities enacted Renewable Energy Mitigation
Programs (REMP) that apply to new construction, additions and remodels, which in part is driving this demand.
SMPA is also exploring a community hydro project and a low-income community solar project sponsored by the
cooperative to benefit low-income members.
9. Lessons Learned
Loss of control was the first lesson learned. The agreement with CEC called for branding the project as the
San Miguel Solar Garden. As CEC grew and staff turned over, SMPA ran into some issues with being left out of
marketing and branding activities and ads. Closer monitoring and communication with CEC in the marketing ac-
tivities would have been appropriate. At times, confusion existed among the membership regarding this third
party selling electricity and marketing to members. This was important to SMPA, as it wanted it to be clear that
no other entities would be selling electricity to its membership without its agreement. Better monitoring and
communication with CEC in this regard would have helped. SMPA may have chosen to have better control over
the sales, marketing and branding of its community solar array. Going forward, SMPA will analyze all business
options available to it as market conditions, the state of technology and societal attitudes toward solar evolve.
SMPA chose to build the larger array anticipating more member demand and participation. There was not
much response to pre sales notices, although the region is highly supportive of local renewable resources. The
array did sell out in the projected three-year period, primarily achieved through large purchases. Another
option, given the rapid decline in solar photovoltaic module costs, would have been to build the array in stages,
which might have ultimately resulted in lower panel prices for the members. In the future, SMPA will evaluate
this option as well.
What would SMPA tell a cooperative starting from scratch? Perform the upfront work to understand the de-
mand for the product, why you are offering it and how it will benefit the membership and the cooperative at
large. It should be a win-win for all. Otherwise, it might not be a good fit for your co-op.

Calculation of a Monthly Credit
Sally Smith buys 10 panels. Her portion of the total 4,784-panel array is .0020903.
September’s total output from the array was 163,245 kwh. Sally’s portion of this (163,245 x.002093) is 341 kwh,
less the 5 percent escrow for operation and maintenance, leaving 324 kwh to credit.
Thus, the credit applied for September is 324 x .11615 = $37.63
Brad Zamborski
Manager of Member Services, San Miguel Power Association
brad@smpa.com
Ph: 970-765-5554

Solar Case Study
Okanogan County Electric Cooperative
1. Company Profile
Headquartered in Winthrop, Wash., Okanogan County Electric Cooperative (OCEC) serves approximately 3,100
meters. It is located on the eastern side of the northern Cascade range in Washington state, about 40 miles
south of the Canadian border. An all-requirements member of the Bonneville Power Administration, Okanogan
County Electric is allowed to have additional distributed generation resources. Through Bonneville, approxi-
mately 88 percent of the co-op’s power requirements are generated by hydro and 10 percent by nuclear. About
41 percent of its members are residential, 43 percent seasonal, 5 percent irrigation loads and less than 10
percent commercial. The terrain is mountainous with a large snowpack in wintertime. The service territory is a
remote, resort-type area with many second homes. The co-op’s large number of seasonal accounts is a factor in
the relatively high, fixed monthly fee of between $35 and $40 a month for most members. The co-op averages
about 6.4 members per mile of line. OCEC is winter-peaking, and solar adds little, if any, capacity to the system.
The cooperative has developed two community solar projects that use Silicone Energy solar modules and
inverters. Made in Washington state, the Silicone Energy equipment makes the co-op eligible for additional
incentives from the state. The first project, commissioned in September 2010, is the Okanogan County Electric
Cooperative Community Solar Project (OCEC CSP). It consists of 104 195-watt modules totaling 20.28 kw, that
are connected to four 4,200-watt inverters. The second, the Winthrop Community Solar Project (Winthrop
CSP), was commissioned in July 2011 and consists of 120 190-watt modules totaling 22.8 kilowatts that are
connected to five 4,200-watt inverters.
Energy Solutions, the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor, designed, engineered, pro-
cured and managed the construction of both projects. It subcontracted with Norwil Electric, Bart and Company
and Doug Hayes Excavating for installation of the systems. It used Cascade Concrete for the concrete ecology
blocks, and North Valley Lumber supplied the steel pipe for the racking system. Both the EPC firm and subcon-
tractors were local companies. Project implementation took approximately six months.
OCEC developed the community solar arrays because of the ecological inclination of the members and because
of the addition of the community solar section of the Washington State Renewable Energy System cost re-
covery program. Energy Solutions, the local solar provider, made a presentation to the cooperative's board of
directors.

The projects were self-funded. Funds for all costs of the array were raised from co-op members in advance.
A mailing was sent to all members inviting them to participate. Component spec sheets and warranties were
reviewed by Energy Solutions and OCEC. Installing contractors were licensed and bonded. The OCEC attorney
developed a contract for participating members and funders. Sizable incentives from the state of Washington
were the primary driver of the projects. The letter describing the program and the participation agreement can
be found on pages 22-23.
Members can fund the array at various levels, but most committed to the $6,000 level. The funders are paid
back in two ways. First, the funders receive a production credit, based on the amount of energy produced by
the array and multiplied by the average cost of wholesale power for the year. Based on the percentage of the
member’s funding of the total investment, the member gets that percentage of the production credit value in a
check. In 2011, a typical year, the credit was $30.45 for a funder at the $6,000 level.
Okanogan County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 19

Second, the funders receive a State of Washington Incentive payment for Renewable System Cost Recovery,
which is funneled back through OCEC via its excise tax. Based on production in a typical year, this amount
works out to about $1.08 per kwh produced. The funders at the $6,000 level receive $750 in a typical year.
This arrangement continues until 2020, at which time both payment programs end. The array and its output are
then the property of OCEC. Based on both payment programs, the simple payback is less than seven years.
A location at the OCEC headquarters site was selected for the first array. It has a southern-facing exposure and
great visibility to the membership. The town of Winthrop agreed to host the Winthrop CSP at its water treat-
ment plant, which also had excellent southern exposure. Energy Solutions was the turnkey provider for both
projects and performed the yield projections, which turned out to be accurate. State and local governments
required electrical permits for both projects. An environmental impact checklist and building permits also were
required. Energy Solutions subcontracted some work to local contractors, but it provided final commissioning
and acceptance testing. Array output is recorded through OCEC’s advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) sys-
tem. Both projects are interconnected to Okanogan’s distribution system at a primary voltage of 12.47 kv.

No formal operations and maintenance procedures have been developed. Array outputs are monitored every
30 minutes by computer, and any errors or false readings automatically generate an email to designated OCEC
individuals, as the cooperative performs any operations and maintenance in-house. The design and tilt of the
arrays allow snow to slide off and clean the arrays during the winter months. Unscheduled maintenance issues
developed as some of the solar modules and inverters were the first ones manufactured at Silicone Energy’s
plant in Washington. Two inverters developed irregular output and were replaced under warranty. After three
years, some of the solar modules showed moisture penetration at the edge of the glass, although this did not
affect the energy output. Those modules showing the defect were replaced under warranty.
Initial calculations showed that no operational issues would be anticipated, and none have been observed. No
changes to the distribution system, mitigation techniques or additional technologies were required.
6. Telemetry
The cooperative operates Aclara’s two-way automated communications system (TWACS) and advanced meter
reading (AMR) system. A standard TWACS meter was installed at each array and reports the output for moni-
toring and energy production to the OCEC’s website, which members can view.
No additional staffing or personnel were required, but some additional member services work was required.
The board approved the community solar projects with the understanding that no construction or manage-
ment costs would be paid by OCEC, except in instances of additional insurance costs or necessary legal costs
to implement the project. The board was also involved in reviewing the project announcement and funding
solicitations mailed to the members.

Washington state law requires Okanogan to provide net metering to its members. Further, OCEC is required to
offer net metering to at least 0.5 percent of its load, based on its 1996 peak demand. OCEC has met the mini-
mum and plans to continue to make net metering available. Because of OCEC’s relatively high monthly charge
of between $35 and $40 for most members, solar is not economical in many instances without incentives.

Given the area, OCEC knew its members were interested in renewable energy, solar in particular. Of the 3,100
meters in its system, the cooperative has about 30 net metering accounts as of 2014, mostly solar. Due to high
member interest in solar, OCEC quickly sold out both arrays prior to construction. OCEC first mailed a letter to
each member describing the first array, its costs and the Washington state cost recovery program. It is worth
noting that the first project was funded in 14 days with a waiting list. Eight months later, those members were
accommodated in the second array. Through the use of the local news media, the second array was quickly
fully funded, again prior to construction.

Because of the Washington renewable energy cost recovery program, the cooperative did not investigate other
methods of ownership of the array or other models. Due to state program constraints, OCEC is maxed out for
participating in the state program.
11. Lessons Learned

OCEC believes that the projects have been valuable from a public relations perspective, in part by helping OCEC
to engage its members. The model it chose both limited the risk to OCEC and maximized the value to participat-
ing members. Not only was this a good deal for the members from an environmental perspective, but because
of state incentives, it also did not shift costs to members who did not participate. Evaluating the project in
retrospect, OCEC does not believe that it would have done anything differently.
Dave Gottula
CEO, Okanogan County Electric Cooperative
dgottula@ocec.coop
Ph: 509-996-2228

Program Details and Participation Agreement

Solar Case Study
Green Power EMC
1. Company Profile
Created in 2001, Green Power EMC (GPEMC) is owned by 38 of the 41 electric cooperatives in the state of
Georgia, to whom GPEMC currently provides 32 megawatts of renewable electricity. These 38 cooperatives
are also members of Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC), their generation cooperative; the remaining three
cooperatives in the state have their power supply needs provided for by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
GPEMC’s generation portfolio consists mostly of wood-fueled biomass, landfill gas and hydropower, with about
465 kilowatts of solar. Peak load for the OPC Georgia cooperatives is about 9,000 MW.
Though cooperatives in Georgia do not have any mandates or renewable portfolio standards to meet, mem-
bers of GPEMC may choose, on a subscription basis, to buy into various proposed projects. GPEMC recently
announced agreements to purchase the full output of three planned projects: a 20-MW solar project and a
52-MW solar project located near Hazlehurst, Ga., both owned and operated by the Silicon Ranch Corporation,
and a 131-MW solar project owned and operated by Southern Power near Butler, Ga. The outputs of these are
scheduled to come online in late 2015 to late 2016, with purchase power agreements from 25 to 30 years.
GPEMC’s most visible project to date is its Sun Power for Schools program, where it has provided 37 solar
demonstration systems to schools in its members’ service areas across the state. As each site averages about
1.2 kw, this program is primarily educational. To simplify installation, each system is a standard kit developed
by GPEMC and its contractor, and is mounted behind the meter at each participating school. Each system com-
prises of four to eight photovoltaic panels, from a variety of panel and inverter manufactures, including Sharp,
Suniva, Canadian Solar, SMA, Kaco and Fronius, as well as other appropriate electrical disconnects. The solar
array is pole-mounted to a Power Fab pole mount, which also houses the wiring. Each kit also contains a weath-
er station and data acquisition capabilities provided by Locus Energy. Installation and routine maintenance is
performed by a solar contractor. The average installed cost of each system is about $14,000.
GPEMC currently has three producing solar purchase power agreements in place for 465 kw. It has worked with
Cobb EMC in implementing the 7.5-MW Azalea Solar project power purchase agreement. Green Power EMC
and its member EMCs recently announced agreements with Silicon Ranch and Southern Power for projects to-
taling 203 MW. In addition, GPEMC is evaluating the development and construction of several small utility-scale
solar projects of approximately 1 MW each. The following is a list of GPEMC Solar PPAs:
1. 115-kw Rooker Rooftop Project (14 EMC participants)
2. 150-kw Clean Controls ground-mount project (14 EMC participants)
3. 200-kw ChemNut rooftop project (18 EMC participants)
4. 7.5-MW Azalea Solar Project (Cobb EMC contracted asset)
5. 20-MW SR Hazelhurst fixed ground-mount project (27 EMC participants)
6. 131-MW Taylor County (Warner Robbins) single-axis tracker ground-mount project (three EMC participants)
7. 52-MW South Loving (Hazelhurst) single-axis tracker ground-mount project (nine EMC participants)
Green Power EMC NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 25

The 38 members of GPEMC are eligible to participate in any power project on a subscription basis and at any
level they deem appropriate, including not participating at all. As GPEMC is a cooperative, the output of any
power project is sold to members at cost. Member cooperatives generally roll the cost per kwh of each project
into their overall power portfolio cost. Recent research indicates the bus bar cost for utility-scale solar in Geor-
gia is approaching 6.5 cents per kwh or less, after tax incentives.
Since its inception in 2005, the objective of the Sun Power for Schools project has been education and member
relations. Power production has been minimal. As such, the location of the school and the visibility of the proj-
ect were of prime importance, and it was left to each participating cooperative member to determine the right
location for the package system. Member cooperatives do the legwork at the local level by contacting and re-
cruiting appropriate host schools, while GPEMC provides the equipment and arranges for installation and system
monitoring. There have been no permitting or licensing issues. Working with a recognized educational resource,
the University of West Georgia, GPEMC developed an off-the-shelf curriculum for middle and high schools. The
curriculum uses real-time and historic data from solar power generated from school installations. The program
also supports teaching requirements for science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Course offerings
in the areas of physical science, physics, chemistry and mathematics have been developed and put into use at
partnering schools. By providing a current technology in a real-world setting in their communities, this program
has won the cooperative praise from parents, students, teachers and school boards.
For purchased power projects, GPEMC focused on matching members’ renewable energy needs with avail-
ability of solar production at a competitive price. The recent purchase power agreements with Silicon Ranch
Corporation meet those needs. As such, Silicon Ranch is responsible for the entire engineering, procurement
and construction process, as well as ongoing operations and maintenance. The only requirement set forth by
GPEMC was that the facility needed to be located in the state of Georgia.
In addition, small utility-scale solar projects (250 kw to 2 MW) will likely be developed with member coop-
erative ownership in mind. These projects will be located in participating EMCs’ respective service areas to
provide maximum visual exposure to end-use customers. The EMCs will determine a suitable location for the
project and will work closely with GPEMC to finance, construct and operate the facilities.

With the Sun Power for Schools project, a third party provides maintenance on a contractual basis; with the
exception of maintaining the data acquisition components, very little maintenance has been required.
Under the power purchase contracts with third parties for the larger solar installations currently under develop-
ment, GPEMC has no responsibility for operations, maintenance or interconnection issues.
Plans for the smaller utility-scale projects (1-MW each) include a collaborative operation and maintenance plan
to be conducted by Green Power EMC and the staff of participating EMCs.
6. Telemetry
The Sun Power for Schools program uses the Locus Energy solar monitoring system. This data acquisition system
transmits data to a central server from each school’s solar installation using the school’s local Internet service.
Green Power EMC is evaluating Locus Energy as well as other data acquisition and monitoring systems for use
in the new utility-scale systems currently under development.

GPEMC has a management services contract with OPC that provides management and administrative support
on a fee basis. During the development of the Sun Power for Schools program, and more recently with the ne-
gotiations of the purchase power agreements, OPC provided the equivalent of about two full-time employees.
When legislative needs arise, GPEMC works with OPC, Georgia EMC and local cooperatives to help address is-
sues regarding renewable energy. For example, a recent Georgia law allows third-party solar energy sales. This
state legislative effort was a combined effort of multiple stakeholders, including the EMC organizations listed
above, as well as the investor-owned utility, municipal utilities and interested parties from the solar industry.
GPEMC has developed a statewide cooperative training program for renewable energy for the benefit of the
entire state.

Although cooperatives in Georgia are not regulated by the Public Service Commission and are not required to
meet a renewable portfolio standard, they believe it prudent to voluntarily increase the amount of renewable
generation—solar in particular—in their power portfolio mix. To that end, they develop or purchase renewable
generation. They are increasing the local presence and visibility of renewables to educate their members, and
are exploring ways to give those members options to engage directly in renewables, through either a virtual
rooftop option or participation in a community solar array.
9. Lessons Learned
Frequent and effective communication with cooperatives and their staffs is the main lesson learned. EMC staff
awareness of renewable energy issues is critical to helping a cooperative maintain its mission as the energy
leader in its service territory. As the price of renewables, especially solar, continues to fall and those of tradi-
tional generation resources continue to rise, member interest in renewables will increase. Green Power EMC
has been successful in keeping the cooperatives of Georgia working together and leveraging their collective
strengths to meet the challenges and opportunities of renewable energy. GPEMC is working on instituting a
four-part strategy with its members to prepare them for the future:
1. Offer retail rates—Better current volumetric-based retail rate structures with the fixed-cost nature of the
utility business.
2. Build and/or buy solar—Participate, get hands-on experience and show leadership and credibility with an
emerging energy technology.
3. Become your community’s local solar expert by educating yourself, your staff and your membership—Be-
come the go-to solar experts that your members think of first when considering solar technology.
4. Offer opportunities for the cooperative membership to engage and participate in EMC/cooperative-spon-
sored solar energy projects and service.
Jeff Pratt
President, Green Power EMC
jeff.pratt@opc.com
Ph: 770-270-7900

Solar Case Study
Cherryland Electric Cooperative
1. Company Profile
Cherryland Electric Cooperative serves approximately 33,000 members in six counties in northwestern Mich-
igan around the Traverse City area, about a four-hour drive north from Detroit. Cherryland is an all-require-
ments member of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative (Wolverine), its G&T. As such, its power supply is about
57 percent coal, 13 percent natural gas, 23 percent nuclear and 5.6 percent renewables, with the remainder
coming from other sources.
Its membership makeup is about 95 percent residential and 5 percent commercial and industrial (C&I). The sys-
tem density is about 11 members per mile, and the system is summer-peaking. The terrain is hilly and heavily
treed, with ample water resources for farming and recreation. Given its location and proximity to Lake Mich-
igan, the system is subject to heavy winter snowfalls. Recreational and summer homes abound; Cherryland’s
largest single member is the Crystal Mountain ski resort.
Michigan has a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 10 percent renewable generation by 2015. Wolverine is
capacity-short at present and has a new natural gas-fired peaking power plant under development. Wolverine
has created a subsidiary, Spartan Renewable Energy (Spartan), to develop renewable energy projects on be-
half of its members. Spartan is the owner of a 52-kilowatt DC Cherryland array called the SUN Alliance, which
is short for Solar Up North. The SUN Alliance array consists of 224 235-watt DC Sonali-branded solar panels.
The panels, mounted on AETR 24 and AETR 36 ground-mount racks, use 14 RENOVO inverters. Although some
components were imported, final assembly of the modules was completed in Michigan. The racks and inverters
were also engineered and developed in Michigan. The array encompasses an area of about 240 feet by 240 feet
(approximately one acre), and is located at the Cherryland’s headquarters in Grawn, Mich. Project development
started in October 2012, construction started in December 2012 and the project entered service on April 21,
2013. Given its northern location, the disparity in power production between high and low months is revealing.
The power produced in August, its highest production month, was worth about $2.75 per panel, based on the
current retail rate. In January, its lowest month, the power was worth about 27 cents! Examples of monthly
production for August and January are on page 32.
The array fits into Wolverine’s overall power supply portfolio because of the RPS mentioned above. Another
consideration leading to development of the community solar array was the significant presence of green ener-
gy advocates in Cherryland’s territory.
3. Finance and Rate Design

Because of its wholesale power supply contract and working relationship with Wolverine, Cherryland devel-
oped the project through Wolverine’s for-profit subsidiary, Spartan, to utilize available tax credits and lower the
overall net cost. No other models were considered. Spartan owns the array and leases it back to Cherryland. At
the end of a six-year period, Cherryland has the right to purchase the project at a set residual amount, similar
to a tax equity flip structure.
In addition to the lease payment, Cherryland is responsible for all costs associated with the array—operation,
maintenance, taxes, insurance, etc. Members can participate by purchasing a share of the array at $470 per
share, which amounts to about 223 watts AC. Because of a Michigan energy conservation mandate, Cherryland
is required to spend the amount necessary in energy conservation measures or rebates to reduce consumption
by 1 percent of last year’s sales. Solar qualifies, so members who purchase a panel also received a $75 rebate,
lowering the net cost per panel to $395. Members do not own a specific panel, but rather a 1/224 interest in
the output of the array. Members receive a credit on their bill based on their percentage of array output own-
Cherryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 29

ership in a particular month on a per-kilowatt-hour basis. The kilowatt hours to be credited are valued based
on the wholesale cost of power (currently 8.3 cents per kilowatt hour) to the cooperative for that particular
year. This arrangement continues for 25 years. In a somewhat unique arrangement, based on Cherryland’s long
working history with its local municipal utility, Traverse City Light and Power (TCLP), customers of the municipal
utility may also participate in the array on the same basis as members of the cooperative. This is accomplished
by crediting the municipal utility for the kilowatt hours of its participating customers. TCLP then issues a credit
to each of its participating customers on their municipal electric bill. Any value of renewable energy credits
stays with the cooperative to offset future costs associated with the array. Consumers who move out of co-op
or municipal utility territory can transfer their ownership to any other member or customer serviced by the two
utilities. The solar garden investment agreement between Cherryland and individual participating members is
on page 33.
Cherryland felt that because this was a community solar array, and the first in Michigan, it wanted the larger
community to be able to participate. This also provided a larger market for the panels and reduced risk. The
array sold out in less than 12 months, leading Cherryland to consider plans for a second array. The second array
will likely be located on TCLP lines.
A primary concern was to keep the project as simple as possible. It was quickly determined that Cherryland’s
headquarters could accommodate an array of this size. Three qualified contractors in the area were invited to
respond to a request for proposals. A local vendor with a history of solar expertise, Contractors Building Supply,
was selected to engineer, procure and construct the project. This vendor was selected not only because of its
bid, but because of its expertise with solar. It was also a co-op member. The vendor was responsible for the
turnkey operation, including commissioning, interconnection and acceptance testing.
There were no issues with the required local electrical inspection. Fencing was not required. The only zoning
issue encountered was related to the size and location of signage at the array.

No special operations and maintenance procedures have been developed other than the schedule for weekly
monitoring of the array’s output. Inverters and panels are covered by a 25-year warranty, and few operational
issues or failures have been encountered. Given that snow sometimes blankets the area, consideration was
given to sweeping snow off the array to obtain maximum output. This was researched, and based on informal
calculations, it was determined that the cost of removing snow from the array would not justify the increase in
output.
For simplicity, the array was connected to Cherryland’s office building, effectively netting a portion of the
building’s consumption. Given the load size of the office building, initial calculations showed no operational
issues were anticipated, and none have been observed. No mitigation techniques or added technologies were
required of the electric distribution system to accommodate the interconnection.
Cherryland donated two panels to the local high school robotics class to develop a method for removing snow
from solar panels using robotic techniques.
6. Telemetry
No advanced technology is used to monitor or manage the array. Its output is collected weekly and posted in
real time on the co-op’s website. The RENOVO inverters were chosen with this in mind.

No additional personnel were required; however, some extra effort was needed for marketing. One employee
was designated as the go-to person for member contacts. Some effort and money were spent on legal services
to develop the necessary agreements. No changes in staffing are anticipated as a result of the array. The big-
gest administrative task was to develop the necessary agreements and to train member contact personnel in
the signup process.

In 2011, the Cherryland board voted to remove the cooperative from regulation by the Michigan Public Utili-
ties Commission (Commission). However, Cherryland closely follows public policy set forth by the Commission.
Cherryland and Wolverine are following state mandates and expect to have 23 percent of their load generated
from renewable sources by 2018.

The cooperative had anecdotal evidence of member interest in solar. Management decided, with board sup-
port, to develop what they called a brick-and-mortar survey to determine member interest. If it sold out, that
would be an indicator, and if it failed to sell, that would be another. In addition to the solar array, the cooper-
ative presently has 40 net metering systems interconnected, with the majority of those being solar. Currently,
120 members and 80 TCPL customers are participating in the array, which is 100 percent sold out. Member
feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

Cherryland approached the project with three principles in mind: Keep it simple, maintain control and owner-
ship, and build visibility for the project. Third-party ownership with major national entities was rejected as too
complex. Its partnership with Spartan and TCLP fit the project well from the start.
A formal cost-benefit analysis was not undertaken prior to the start of the project. An overriding goal was to
keep the total cost of the project low enough that a member could buy a share for under $500 and mitigate
risk. That goal was met with the $470 share price thanks to favorable financing and utilization of the tax credits
available through Spartan. Lowering risk was accomplished through right-sizing the project and including the
11,000 TCPL customers as potential buyers.
11. Lessons Learned

This project was an overwhelmingly positive experience for Cherryland. It was able to not only provide a low-
cost solar resource to its members, but also successfully position itself as environmentally progressive and not
just the “coal guys.” The availability of the array has provided opportunities that otherwise may not have been
available to a segment of the membership that wants greener and cleaner energy. It provides the link from the
energy resources of today to the resources of tomorrow, and those who want it pay for it without cross-subsidi-
zation.
The cooperative’s advice to those who are contemplating a community solar would be the Nike motto—Just
Do It! There were some skeptics on Cherryland’s board, but a careful explanation of the facts brought them
around.

Examples of Monthly Production—August and January

Solar Garden Investment Agreement
SOLAR GARDEN INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
This Solar Garden Investment Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this
___ day of ___________, 2013 by and between Cherryland Electric Cooperative (“Cherryland”),
with its principal place of business at 5930 US 31 South, Grawn, Michigan 49637 and the
Cherryland Member (“Member”) identified as follows:
Member: _________________________________
Service Address: _________________________________
City/Twp: _________________________________
State: _________________________________
Telephone: _________________________________
Member No.: _________________________________
1. Overview.
1.1 Cherryland has developed the Solar Up North Alliance (also known as the “SUN
Alliance”) Community Solar Garden (“Solar Garden”) located at 5930 US 31
South, Grawn, Michigan 49637, which is comprised of, among other things,
photovoltaic solar panels (each a “Solar Panel”).
1.2 Qualifying Cherryland members may purchase investment shares in the Solar
Garden and receive future billing credits by paying a one-time upfront charge.
1.3 This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of Member’s purchase of
investment shares in the Solar Garden.
2. Purchase of Solar Garden Investment Shares.
2.1 Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Cherryland
hereby grants to Member credit for savings incurred by Cherryland’s headquarters
related to net metering the energy output from the Solar Garden in the amount set
forth in the Approval Form (“Solar Garden Credit”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1
during the term of this Agreement.
2.2 Member will receive the Solar Garden Credit as a credit on the Member’s
monthly billing statements for service provided by Cherryland at the customer
service address set forth in the Approval Form (“Service Address”) in the manner
provided in Section 6 below.
2.3 Member acknowledges and understands that Cherryland will retain sole
ownership, possession and control of the Solar Garden and each Solar Panel and
will have the exclusive right to maintain and operate such Solar Panels and the
Solar Garden.

2.4 Member acknowledges and understands that Member is not purchasing electricity
from the Solar Garden, and that its sole involvement is as an investor in the Solar
Garden to encourage and support Cherryland’s use of renewable energy at
Cherryland’s headquarters. Cherryland will interconnect the Solar Garden to its
facility located at 5930 US 31 South, Grawn, Michigan 49637 and treat the Solar
Garden as a net metering project and all energy produced by the Solar Garden will
be isolated and metered at the facility in compliance with Cherryland’s net
metering tariffs.
3. Consideration. Member will pay Cherryland the amount set forth in the Approval Form
as consideration for the Solar Garden Credit granted, and to be granted, to Member
pursuant to this Agreement.
4. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the first day of the
Member’s billing cycle which follows the later of: (i) the interconnection date of the
Solar Garden (the date the Solar Garden starts delivering energy to the Cherryland
headquarters facility) or (ii) Cherryland’s execution of this Agreement.
5. Term. This Agreement shall run from the Effective Date for a period of twenty-five (25)
years or, if earlier, until the death of the Member (the “Term”), subject to early
termination as provided in this Agreement.
6. Solar Garden Credit. The Member will receive a credit on the Member’s monthly
billing statement equal to the Member’s proportional share of the total Solar Garden net
metering savings in kilowatt hours multiplied by the existing rate applicable to the
Cherryland headquarters facility.
7. Change in Member Location.
7.1 Member shall notify Cherryland in writing within fourteen (14) days prior to any
change in Member’s utility service location during the Term.
7.2 If Member moves to a new location within the service territory of Cherryland,
then the account associated with the Member’s new service location shall be
substituted for its original account in effect when this Agreement was executed.
7.3 If Member moves to a new location outside of the service territory of Cherryland
and fails to effectuate a transfer of the Solar Garden Credit to another qualifying
member of Cherryland pursuant to Section 8 below, the investment shares shall
revert to Cherryland and Member shall have no claim to the investment shares or
future credits, and shall have no claim to a refund of the investment share price.

8. Transfer or Assignment of Solar Garden Credit.
8.1 Member, or Member’s duly authorized representative or agent, may seek to

transfer the Solar Garden Credit to another qualifying Member of Cherryland by
submitting a Transfer Application. Cherryland has sole discretion as to whether
to approve the Transfer Application.
8.2 If Cherryland approves the Transfer Application, the transfer shall not be
completed until the Member receiving the Solar Garden Credit (transferee)
executes a new Solar Garden Investment Agreement and any other necessary
documents related to the transfer.
9. Additional Acknowledgments.
9.1 Member acknowledges that, except as expressly provided in section 8 of this

Agreement, Member may not assign, gift, bequeath or otherwise transfer any
Solar Garden Credit to any other individual or entity.
9.2 Member acknowledges that Member has no right, title or claim to the electric
energy produced by the Solar Garden.
10. Reporting and Marketing. Member authorizes Cherryland to use Member’s name, the
amount of purchased shares and Solar Garden Credit information (“Member
Information”) for reporting and marketing purposes. Cherryland may use the Member
Information only for official reporting to governmental authorities, public utility
commissions, and similar organizations, and in marketing materials generated and
distributed by Cherryland or its agent. Except as required by law and as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, Cherryland will not release or otherwise publish any
information collected from Member other than the Member Information. Notwithstanding
this section, Cherryland will not use or disclose Member’s name if Member provides
written notice strictly prohibiting such use.
11. Notice. All notices, requests, consents, and other communications under this Agreement
shall be in writing to the mailing address for each party stated above.
12. Governing Law/Jurisdiction/Venue. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been

made in, and shall be constructed under, the laws of the State of Michigan. The parties
acknowledge and agree that a court of competent jurisdiction located in Grand Traverse
County, Michigan shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any action or proceeding arising
under or relating to this Agreement.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Exhibit(s) attached hereto,
constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
hereof and supersedes all previous proposals, both oral and written, negotiations,
representations, commitments, writings and all other communications between the

parties. This Agreement may not be released, discharged, or modified except by an
instrument in writing signed by a duly authorized representative of each of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
MEMBER CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE
_______________________________ _________________________________
Member Name (please print) Signature
________________________________ _________________________________
Member Signature Printed Name
________________________________ _________________________________
Date Title
_________________________________
Date

Tony Anderson
CEO, Cherryland Electric Cooperative
tanderson@cecelec.com
Ph: 231-486-9200

Solar Case Study
Kit Carson Electric Cooperative
1. Company Profile
Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (Kit Carson) serves approximately 29,000 meters in three counties in north-
central New Mexico near the town of Taos, in the Sangre de Christo Mountains. The cooperative is an all-
requirements member of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Cooperative. Kit Carson averages 11 members
per mile of line. The terrain is on a high plateau with elevation starting around 6,900 feet, and the climate is
semi-arid. Solar resources are in the 5-to 6-kilowatt hour/m2 range per day on an annual average, according to
National Renewable Energy Laboratory maps. The territory receives about 300 sunny days per year. Under a
power supply contract with Tri-State, Kit Carson can self-provide up to 5 percent of its energy and 10 percent of
peak demand in locally owned renewables. The makeup of Kit Carson’s load is about 75 percent residential, 20
percent small commercial and 5 percent large commercial. The cooperative’s largest single account is Chevron
Mining, followed by a ski resort. Tourism, recreation and service industries make up a large part of the local
economy. Special considerations are required in working with two Native American tribes, the U.S. Forest Ser-
vice and the Bureau of Land Management.
Kit Carson has a telecom subsidiary, KC Telcom, which serves 1,996 members, as well as a propane subsidiary,
KC Energy, which serves 2,816 members.
Since 2009, Kit Carson has undertaken 10 solar projects: four owned by the cooperative, three commercially
owned, two owned by the school district with power purchase agreements (PPAs) with the cooperative and one
community solar array. These projects currently total just over 6,000 kilowatts AC of solar capacity. They range
in size from 45 kw to 1,550 kw. Kit Carson was not committed to any set model, design or components. Rather,
it has used a number of different models to provide its community's solar needs. In fact, three entities own the
three commercially owned arrays. For the community solar array located at the Taos Charter School, Kit Carson
partnered with Clean Energy Collective (CEC).
The cooperative’s membership is interested in solar, and Kit Carson is responding to its membership. Kit Car-
son anticipates developing additional solar projects and is currently in discussions with Tri-State to increase its
self-provide limit in their supply contract. The four projects owed by Kit Carson are UNM Taos-435 kw, KCEC
canopy-82 kw, KTAOS canopy-45 kw and Eco Park Canopy-60 kw.
Kit Carson estimates the solar production peak matches its system peak demand about 75 percent of the time.
On January 15, 2015, Kit Carson announced expansion of its community solar program with CEC to provide an
additional 1.5 megawatts AC of solar to be located in four different areas within its service area. These projects
will essentially follow the same ownership model used with CEC at the current community solar array.

Kit Carson used several models to incorporate solar onto its system. The cooperative received funding of $5
million as part of the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program, which funded the four projects it owns.
For the Taos Charter School community solar project, members were able to purchase a 235-watt panel for an
investment of $845. Members who did so received tax credits and net metering of the output as if the panels
were installed on their own roof―essentially a virtual net metering. All 420 panels available for sale sold out in
a short period. This project was structured through CEC, where it owns, operates and maintains the array. At
the start of the project, there was a PPA between Kit Carson and CEC whereby Kit Carson purchased all of the
array output at a negotiated price. As each panel was sold, the PPA amount decreased by that amount and the
purchasing member was credited as described below.
Kit Carson Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 39

CEC has about 35 community solar projects across the country, 11 of which are operated in partnership with
electric cooperatives. CEC is technically the owner of the Taos Charter School array, with all of the financial
responsibility and risk. Kit Carson members who wished to participate purchased one or more panels at $845
per panel, less any solar rebates available at the time. Monthly credits are calculated at the members’ pro-rata
share of the metered output of the array that month, less 5 percent times the current retail rate. Kit Carson and
CEC have a standalone LLC that operates like a trust to ensure funding for the operations and maintenance of
the array over the next 50 years, funded by the value of the 5 percent of the output produced monthly.
All remaining project costs were blended into the overall power cost of the cooperative. Kit Carson feels that all
of the PPAs should stabilize prices and make them more predictable, due to the fixed price nature of the PPAs.
Traditionally sourced power costs are increasing with unknown or unpredictable increases.
Kit Carson’s projects used different designs and specifications based on the best available at the time. The four
projects owned by Kit Carson were standardized. As some projects were only for purchased power, the cooper-
ative had less influence, but it did attempt to keep as much of the work with local firms as practical, and spec-
ified so in each project contract. Sol Luna Solar and PPC Solar are two local contractors that were used. Each
project was developed on a turnkey basis with the developer responsible for engineering, procurement and
construction.
The UNM Taos array consists of 2,640 Canadian Solar panels of varying sizes (180, 190 and 200 watts) that use
a 500-kw Satcon PowerGate inverter. The KCEC Canopy has 528 156-watt Yingli Panels and a 100-kw Satcon
PowerGate inverter. The KTAOS Canopy has 242 180-watt Trina panels and a 50-kw Satcon PowerGate inverter.
The EcoPark Canopy uses 308 230-watt Yingli panels and two 35-watt Advanced Energy inverters. The UNM
Taos array has single-axis tracking racks manufactured by Array Technologies; the other three canopy arrays
use fixed racks.

Kit Carson has contracted with a local installer to perform semiannual inspections of the arrays it owns. Pro-
cedures and checklists are still under development; at this point, only a visual inspection has been necessary.
No failures or maintenance issues have developed. A third party is under contract to perform required mainte-
nance. A copy of the inspection form is on pages 42-43.
No operational issues have been encountered. Mitigation studies were performed prior to installation by Los
Alamos National Labs. Kit Carson developed an internal policy that any array in excess of 50 kw would have
voltage regulation installed or upgraded in conjunction with the interconnection at the site. This seems to have
precluded any voltage problems.
Kit Carson is not aware of any warranty or operations and maintenance issues encountered by the six arrays
owned by other parties and connected to its system.
6. Telemetry
Kit Carson operates both a Cannon power line carrier and Next Grid mesh network smart metering systems to
monitor output from the arrays. In addition, those units in excess of 1 MW are also monitored by Tri-State as
part of its network. The community solar array at Taos Charter School has its output posted on the CEC website
and linked to the Kit Carson website. The other arrays do not have production data available for public viewing
at this time.

No additional personnel were required as a result of participating in the solar projects. However, staff time was
directed toward communicating with members about the cooperative’s participation in these projects. Press
releases, including photos, were developed for each of the projects. In addition, the cooperative has a special
section located on the Kit Carson website (www.kitcarson.com/content/go-green) pertaining to solar that in-
cludes fact sheets about its involvement. The community solar array is also linked to the CEC website dedicated
to Kit Carson (www.kcecsolar.com), and the FAQs are attached.

Kit Carson’s solar projects are a response to feedback provided in member meetings over several years. Kit
Carson participates in a net metering program, as required by the New Mexico Public Utility Commission, and
currently has 189 net metering solar members. The cooperative has developed an advisory solar committee of
its membership, with subcommittees focusing on the areas of finance, education, technical and workforce de-
velopment. A copy of the subcommittee’s mission statements is attached. Early on, the committee of 22 mem-
bers met quarterly, or more often as necessary. However, the committee is not active at this time.

Starting with a series of meetings in 2005, Kit Carson first became aware of member interest in solar. Since
then, member interest and support have steadily grown. A large segment of the membership is environmental-
ly conscientious, and the public response to Kit Carson’s solar initiatives has been overwhelmingly positive; for
example, the community solar array at Taos Charter School quickly sold out. Given the sunniness of the cooper-
ative's territory, solar is a natural fit. Member preference is for local, independent control of the power supply,
which solar partially provides. The cooperative positioned itself for change according to its members' wishes.
Kit Carson has received positive local press for its solar initiatives, and it was named Solar Utility of the Year by
the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) in 2013, recognizing its achievement in developing solar.

In short, Kit Carson took an all-of-the-above approach to solar. Members can subscribe to the community
solar program for direct ownership. If they choose, they can install their own rooftop solar array. All members
receive a portion of solar as part of the standard generating mix under the cooperative’s ownership of solar
arrays and through power purchase agreements.
11. Lessons Learned

Kit Carson plans to review its pricing and rate structure, given that solar is becoming a larger part of its overall
portfolio. The cooperative found several good sources of information, including local contractors, a University
of New Mexico branch college and SEPA. Its advice to cooperatives starting from scratch would be to begin by
educating board members, soliciting member input, listening to different opinions and educating the member-
ship about what is feasible.
Luis Reyes
CEO, Kit Carson Electric Cooperative
lreyes@kitcarson.com
Ph: 575-741-0213

Inspection Form

Community Solar FAQs
Kit Carson Electric Cooperative Inc.
FAQ: Solar Projects

575-758-2258 * 800-688-6780* www.kitcarson.com
BOARD OF TRUSTEES KCEC Solar Questions & Answers
District One
We’ve heard Kit Carson Electric Coop is a national leader in solar energy production. What
Manuel Medina, Vice
President
does that mean? The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) ranks utility companies according to
Luisa Valerio-Mylet. the amount of solar power they utilize in their system. In 2012 KCEC was ranked third in solar watts
David Torres produced per consumer and fourth in overall solar watts produced. SEPA also nominated KCEC as the
Peter Adang UTILITY OF THE YEAR for 2011. KCEC CEO Luis Reyes was on of the two finalists in a nation-
wide competition between all utilities for CEO of the Year in 2012.
District Two
Bobby Ortega, President We’ve been hearing a lot of talk about Community Solar. What is it? KCEC is the first New Mex-
Virgil Martinez ico electric company to utilize Community Solar. The Clean Energy Collective sells individual and
multiple panels from the solar array at Taos Charter School to KCEC members. The electricity pro-
District Three duced by the purchased panels is then credited to the member’s bill. This allows members who can’t
Art Rodarte
install solar panels at the home or business to still take advantage of the power of the sun. For instance,
District Four
if a member rents their home or business, lives in a location that does not get full sunlight, has
Ambrose Mascarenas neighborhood restrictions or just doesn’t want to bother with a home system, KCEC Community Soar
Chris Duran, Secretary is a great alternative. The panels are real property, so the energy can continue to be applied to the
member’s bill if he or she happens to move within the KCEC service territory. The panels are afford-
District Five able and can be purchased on a low interest payment plan. KCEC Community Solar is our way of
Bruce Jassmann, Treasurer making renewable energy available and affordable to all KCEC members.
Jerry Smith
It’s been said the northern part of KCEC’s territory is solar powered. What does that mean? On
a sunny day, every home and business from Questa north is powered by the sun. The solar array out-
side Amalia, which was energized in June 2012, produces 1.25MW AC power. The Chevron Mining
concentrated solar array produces 1MW. The two arrays produce enough power to provide all the elec-
tric needs for every home, retail business, school, village government and medical facility in Questa,
Cerro, Sunshine Valley, Costilla, Amalia and everything in between.
Does KCEC actually own all these solar arrays? KCEC owns the UNM-Taos, KTAO, Taos High
School and our headquarters parking lot arrays. The rest of the solar arrays in our service territory
were built by other parties. We have Power Purchase Agreements with them.
What is a Power Purchase Agreement? When an investor plans to build an array a power purchase
agreement can be put in place. This means KCEC agrees to purchase the power produced by the array
at a certain price. The electricity produced is metered before it is fed into the electric grid. KCEC pays
for the power that is produced. At this time we are limited to 5% of our total electric needs coming
from these agreements.
Can KCEC add more solar arrays to their portfolio? At this time, due to the 5% limit, we are at the
maximum for solar production. We are working with our power provider, Tri-State Generation and
Transmission, to increase the percentage of power we receive for our abundant sunshine.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 578, Taos, NM 87571

Street Address: 118 Cruz Alta Road, Taos, NM 87571
Business Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday

Subcommittee Mission Statements

Solar Case Study
Great River Energy
1. Company Profile
Great River Energy (GRE) is a generation and transmission cooperative that comprises 28 distribution cooper-
atives in Minnesota and Wisconsin. GRE serves about 660,000 accounts or about 1.7 million people. About 57
percent of GRE’s end-use members are residential consumers, and 43 percent are commercial and industrial.
It has a variety of generation resources totaling more than 2,800 megawatts, the largest of which is the Coal
Creek Station with 1,140 MW of coal-based generation. GRE has sufficient capacity resources through 2027,
but it will need to add renewable resources by 2024 to meet the Minnesota renewable mandate of 25 percent
by 2025. As part of its resource planning and as a learning experience, GRE has deployed a 272-kilowatt solar
array at its campus in Maple Grove, Minnesota. The site had an existing 72-kw rooftop array and a 250-kw wind
turbine. This array was sized to not exceed the average building load.
GRE has committed to installing about 20 smaller, 20-kw arrays at its member distribution cooperatives’ locations.
The Maple Grove solar array consists of three sections, each with a different manufacturer and configuration:
1. Sharp (180 panels of 300 watts, totaling 54 kw) supported by Creotecc racking and Cantsink helical
pile foundations.
2. tenKsolar (297 panels of 410 watts, totaling 121.7 kw) supported by tenKsolar rails and Chance helical
pile foundations.
3. Suniva (360 panels of 265 watts totaling 95.4 kw) supported by Carport Structures parking canopies.
The total nameplate rating is 272 kw. An Advanced Energy 100-kw AC central inverter was paired with the Suni-
va modules. A Solectria 50-kw AC central inverter was paired with the Sharp modules, and tenKsolar 500-watt
micro inverters in 6-kw inverter buses were paired with tenKsolar panels. The annual capacity factor is estimat-
ed at 15 percent.
Construction started in January 2014 and the project entered service at the end of May 2014. The array was
added as part of the GRE energy renewable generation resource mix and will serve as an overall learning expe-
rience for GRE as it deploys up to 20 planned 20-kw solar projects at each distribution co-op member’s location
through 2015. GRE members have the option to install additional solar modules to the array for community
solar on an incremental cost basis. Two of the five installations completed in 2014 have committed to doing so,
one sized at 57.4 kw and the other at 45.9 kw. Three of the 14 planned installations in 2015 have committed to
adding community solar and another four are still considering it. All co-op members are allowed to supply up to
5 percent of their own needs under the current all-requirements power supply contract.
The 20-kw membership initiative was started for three primary reasons:
1. To create visibility across the membership and to showcase how the GRE portfolio is evolving by providing
an opportunity for each member to have an array on its distribution system.
2. To provide a real-world, hands-on experience with small-scale solar design and installation.
3. To provide an opportunity for members to start a community solar program at a favorably priced increment.
The 20-kw-size project was chosen because it is manageable from an installation and budget standpoint. There
is no limitation on the size of incremental solar that a member can add.
Great River Energy NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 47

GRE explored a number of options for financing but chose to execute a lease structure with CoBank. It provided
the best value for GRE compared to alternatives and was a relatively straightforward transaction that could be
executed under GRE’s existing lease agreement. The lease has a 10-year term and a buyout at the end, which
allowed GRE to minimize upfront expenditures by deferring any capital requirements for 10 years.
In addition to executing a lease for GRE’s solar assets, GRE also offered to execute and hold a lease for any
distribution member that installs incremental solar for its own needs. GRE and the member will execute a de-
velopment agreement covering the development of the solar asset and the financial obligation requirements of
the lease.
Here’s how it works: GRE will build and finance the project through a lease with CoBank and the co-op will simply
have the obligation to pay GRE for its lease costs and for the buyout at the end of 10 years. GRE encourages its
member co-ops to explore all financing and development options to determine which makes the most sense.
The main requirement was to locate the solar installation within GRE’s Maple Grove campus so it would be
visible to the public. The only calculation for yield projection was a site shade analysis. Engineering for the proj-
ect was largely completed in-house for conceptual design and component selection. Dunham Associates, the
original engineer for the GRE building, performed the interconnection. Components were selected based on
the country and state of origin, equipment type, availability and cost, with the goal of using as many U.S.- and
Minnesota-sourced components as possible, partially to take advantage of the state tax credit.
McGough Construction was the general contractor. Standard Minnesota electrical inspection and building
permits were required because this project was behind the co-op meter that serves Wright-Hennepin. The
only issue encountered during the electrical inspection was the need to either fence in the array or enclose all
low-voltage cables in conduit. However, fencing would detract from the look of the project and add costs, so
GRE proposed a compromise in which cables were routed away from any location where someone could walk
up and access them, thereby keeping conduit to a minimum.
GRE, Hunt Electric (electrical construction contractor) and Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative (the building
power supplier) commissioned the project. An anti-islanding test was important because the interconnection
was behind Wright-Hennepin’s meter to the building. This requirement was easily met with the equipment used
because almost all inverters today have that functionality built in. Each co-op has different metering require-
ments for distributed generation in terms of equipment needed and communications available to the meter.
GRE has been flexible in its design to meet those needs and to use different telecommunications options to
communicate with meters.

Procedures, tools, checklists and a maintenance plan are still under development. The only unscheduled main-
tenance issue was one panel of broken glass, the cause of which is unknown. The panel was sent to the manu-
facturer for analysis and replaced under warranty. No operational issues such as islanding, voltage regulation or
reverse flows have been noted. As this facility serves the headquarters, the only building changes required to
accommodate the solar array were additional electrical panels and 480-volt switchgear. No smart grid technol-
ogy is being used; however, the building already had a rather sophisticated energy management system that is
also used for monitoring the array. GRE has revenue-grade meters for each of the panel/inverter combinations
that it accesses through the building management system and a separate data historian. Through the data

historian, GRE has access to data in one-second increments. Small voltage fluctuations in array output, based on
cloud cover, were noted, but they haven’t affected operations. Real-time information on the output of the tenK-
solar portion of the array is made public on GRE’s website using eGauge systems equipment and web portal,
and a sample graph is on page 52.
The Maple Grove campus project did not require adding staff members. However, successful implementation of
the 20-kw membership projects required additional internal coordination between generation, business devel-
opment, land rights, billing, member services and legal departments. GRE is working on programs to help its
members understand the subscription costs and to market community solar. A team effort between GRE and
distribution member staff ensures that solar installation meets both parties’ objectives. The four GRE staffers
came from the generation engineering, member services and business development departments. Also includ-
ed is one person representing the installation contractor and two or three people from the distribution coop-
erative. Items typically discussed included interconnection, metering and communications, size of community
solar, zoning and permitting, ground preparation and soil conditions and shading structures. Other items include
ground finish under the array, fencing needs, construction lay-down areas, delivery/check-in of materials, site
signage, and marketing and pricing of the community portion.
The need for additional skill sets at the GRE or distribution member level is evolving and will depend on how the
members decide to participate in DG. GRE is still determining what the ultimate level of involvement will be as
the knowledge base increases and as the pilot program ramps up.

GRE is subject to a state renewable energy standard that currently stands at 12 percent, increasing to 17 per-
cent on Dec. 31, 2016, and to 25 percent by 2025. GRE has sufficient resources until at least 2027 with its cur-
rent resource portfolio from an overall load perspective, but it plans to add additional renewables by 2024 to
comply with the increased renewables mandate.
Although GRE’s board of directors sets the strategic direction for renewable initiatives, the board and the mem-
bership must approve any resource additions. The board understood the need for GRE and its membership to
become involved in solar development and championed this effort, passing resolutions to enable the project’s
development. A press release and a fact sheet are on pages 53-55.
GRE is not rate-regulated. It is, however, required to file an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) with state regulators
every other year. The IRP contains GRE’s preferred plan and alternatives during a 15-year horizon while main-
taining compliance with renewable energy standards and other policies.
GRE added an amendment to its most recent power supply contract with its all-requirements members allowing
5 percent self-supply, specifically to address the addition of resources such as community solar gardens. With
the exception of a couple of utility-scale wind turbines, few of its members have opted for this self-supply. For
many, the ability to add community solar through the GRE program will be the first generation resource that
qualifies under the 5 percent option.
GRE works actively with the Minnesota Rural Electric Association in an effort to guide state energy policy. GRE
has developed a DG policy and supports a consumer’s choice to supply electric needs on site as long as it does
not degrade safety or reliability or create a cost burden for other consumer-members. Minnesota cooperatives
are currently exempt from the state’s newly enacted 1.5 percent solar energy standard. GRE members are
required to offer net metering for systems less than 40 kw. Minnesota has developed a state standard intercon-
nection and contract agreement to cover DG systems up to 10 MW, and cooperative staffs were instrumental in
developing the standards.

8. The Role of the G&T
GRE foresees greater penetration of DG going forward, driven by improving technology, consumer awareness
and economic incentives. It is becoming another generation resource that utilities have to account for in their
long-term planning and evaluate against other generation resources. GRE believes that G&Ts should lead efforts
in piloting various technologies, identifying and evaluating viable business models and providing financing solu-
tions for its members. It should further serve as a resource to members to prevent the duplication of efforts
and to provide the opportunity to mitigate risks.
To support the 20-kw membership projects, GRE developed two contracts. A standard site lease agreement
allowed GRE to place an array on each member site. A solar development agreement engages members wishing
to develop incremental solar that could be used as a community solar resource. The additional cost for incre-
mental solar is at the incremental cost, which allows members to realize a very competitive price on a small-
scale solar project. GRE projects that the installed cost for the base 20-kw array will be about $4.40 to $5 per
watt. The member’s cost for the additional member kw increments will be about $2.50 to $3 per watt.
9. Consumer-Member Interest in Solar

GRE has worked closely with its member distribution cooperatives to implement its solar initiative, installing the
20-kw solar arrays at all member sites in 2015. Member feedback is very positive. GRE’s 272-kw array installa-
tion initiative has been based on
1. Developing internal skills and knowledge toward DG development on member sites.
2. Creating regional visibility.
3. Assessing the technology.
GRE made a conscious effort to use U.S.-made and Minnesota-sourced panels. The G&T conducted a cost-bene-
fit analysis, but knowledge and visibility were more important factors than economics. GRE has a special section
on its website to inform the public of the solar initiatives and to show the production of the array. Future plans
include establishing a member portal on GRE’s Web page to view production data from the local arrays and as-
sembling a report to capture lessons learned and establish further guidelines for future solar installations.
10. Lessons Learned

At this point, maintenance requirements will likely be relatively site-specific. GRE observed that in the solar
industry, the design and technology curve is similar to laptop PCs. There is risk from supplier turnover, suppli-
er changes in component sourcing and technical changes. Since the project started, a panel supplier changed
sourcing and a rack provider stopped making the preferred rack system. Also, the marketplace is driving down
the cost of panels. All of these factors can have a significant effect on the project’s economics.
Managing costs and applying the appropriate development process is critical to ensuring acceptable economics
on small-scale solar installations. This kind of oversight requires a slightly different skill set than we are used to
across the utility industry, which has historically relied on comparatively stable suppliers and technologies.

11. Advice to G&Ts Contemplating the Move Into DG
1. Work together as a membership and develop a comprehensive approach that takes into account the needs
of the G&T and its distribution members.
2. Take a measured approach, limiting the financial and implementation risks.
3. Have a clear objective for the project.
4. Coordinating this activity through the G&T allows for economies of scale and socialization of costs. Most
important, it allows for all of the valuable information to be shared widely throughout the membership.
Andy Bergrud, PE Robert Sandberg

Senior Engineer PM, Great River Electric Manager Corporate and Business Development,
abergrud@grenergy.com Great River Electric
Ph: 763-445-5809 bsandberg@grenergy.com
Ph: 763-445-5305

tenKsolar Array Sample Graph

Press Release

Fact Sheet
Cooperative solar projects

span state
Great River Energy building distributed solar network throughout Minnesota
T
he electric cooperatives of Minnesota are working participating member cooperative to identify the ideal location.
together to convert the sun’s rays into electricity Additionally, Great River Energy will assist the member
throughout every corner of the state. cooperatives with interconnection efforts and collect key
In 2014 and 2015, solar arrays will be installed at sites information about energy production and system interaction.
owned by electric cooperatives. The projects are being led Most of the solar arrays will use a packaged system design
by Great River Energy, a wholesale electricity provider to from tenKsolar. One will install panels made by Silicon Energy.
electric cooperatives. Both manufacturers are Minnesota companies.
The local solar installations are part of a series of 18 projects, Some of the participating cooperatives are exploring plans to
each with an electricity generating capacity of 20 kilowatts install additional solar arrays at sites in their service area.
(kW). The solar projects will help Great River Energy and its
Research and development
member cooperatives evaluate the impact of solar energy
while providing up to 500,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of The first and largest in the series of solar installations was
renewable energy annually. completed at Great River Energy’s Maple Grove, Minn.,
headquarters site in June 2014. The 250-kW project has a
Although the installations will be designed, built and owned
research and development component that will test the
by Great River Energy, the company will work with each
performance of a variety of technologies and configurations.
The cooperative solar installations will employ solar technology from Minnesota companies tenKsolar and Silicon Energy. Energy Concepts installs and
commissions the projects.

The project will enable Great River Energy and its member That work, which is funded by a joint DOE/NRECA grant and
cooperatives to research how solar energy can work best part of DOE’s SunShot Initiative, will provide valuable
when connected to cooperative electric systems in Minnesota information for cooperatives across the country.
and provide valuable information for future utility-scale Using a variety of solar panels and different types of
solar projects. electrical systems to collect and convert electricity, Great
Additionally, Great River Energy is working with the National River Energy will analyze the solar energy facilities for:
Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and energy production, power quality, efficiency, durability, ideal
Department of Energy (DOE) to analyze various business installation conditions, reliability and finance structure.
cases for distributed generation and solar installations.
Great River Energy’s headquarters site will test a variety of solar technologies and configurations. The new 250-kW installation expands upon 72 kW
of solar panels that were installed in 2008. The array includes panels made by Sharp (two rows pictured at bottom), tenKsolar (three square-shaped
clusters) and Suniva (three rows closest to the building).
Great River Energy – Powering what’s possible

Agralite Electric Cooperative • Arrowhead Cooperative, Inc. • BENCO Electric Cooperative • Brown County Rural Electrical Association • Connexus
Energy • Cooperative Light & Power • Crow Wing Power • Dakota Electric Association • East Central Energy • Federated Rural Electric Association •
Goodhue County Cooperative Electric Association • Itasca-Mantrap Cooperative Electrical Association • Kandiyohi Power Cooperative • Lake Country Power
• Lake Region Electric Cooperative • McLeod Cooperative Power Association • Meeker Cooperative • Mille Lacs Energy Cooperative • Minnesota Valley
Electric Cooperative • Nobles Cooperative Electric • North Itasca Electric Cooperative, Inc. • Redwood Electric Cooperative • Runestone Electric
Association • South Central Electric Association • Stearns Electric Association • Steele-Waseca Cooperative Electric • Todd-Wadena Electric Cooperative
• Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association.
greatriverenergy.com/solar
7-30-2014 12300 Elm Creek Blvd., Maple Grove, MN 55369

Solar Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solar Case Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solar Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solar Case Studies

NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 3

3. Financing and Rate Design

Tri-County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 5

5. Operations and Maintenance

8. Renewable Policy Development

Tri-County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 6

10. Business Options

11. Lessons Learned

Tri-County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 7

3. Financing and Rate Design

Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 9

5. Operations and Maintenance

Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 10

9. Member Interest in Solar

10. Business Options

Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 11

For additional information, contact:

Joe Slater Beth Kennedy

Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 12

3. Financing and Rate Design

San Miguel Power Association NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 14

5. Operations and Maintenance

7. Renewable Policy Development

San Miguel Power Association NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 15

8. Member Interest in Solar

San Miguel Power Association NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 16

For additional information, contact:

San Miguel Power Association NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 17

3. Financing and Rate Design

Okanogan County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 19

5. Operations and Maintenance

Okanogan County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 20

9. Member Interest in Solar

10. Business Options

11. Lessons Learned

For additional information, contact:

Okanogan County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 21

Okanogan County Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 22

Green Power EMC NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 25

5. Operations and Maintenance

Green Power EMC NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 26

8. Renewable Policy Development

For additional information, contact:

Green Power EMC NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 27

3. Finance and Rate Design

Cherryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 29

5. Operations and Maintenance

Cherryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 30

8. Renewable Policy Development

9. Member Interest in Solar

10. Business Options

11. Lessons Learned

Cherryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 31

Cherryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 32

SOLAR GARDEN INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

2. Purchase of Solar Garden Investment Shares.

Cherryland Electric Cooperative NRECA | Solar Case Study ▪ 33

7. Change in Member Location.