1. November 4, 2015 Board of Education Meeting Clyde Murley

2.  27 years in energy policy, procurement, and program development and management, focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy.  Solar PV procurement has been my main focus since 2008.  I exclusively represent public sector (mainly K-14 districts).  No ties to any individual solar vendors.  Advocate before CPUC and with utilities on behalf of clients when needed. 2

3. K-12 School Districts  Antioch USD – 5.2 MW (20 sites)  Culver City USD - 0.9 MW  Glendale USD – 3.6 MW (10 sites)  Los Angeles USD – 3+ MW (12+ sites)  Newport-Mesa USD – 2.6 MW (32 sites)  Murrieta Valley USD – 2.3 MW (22 sites)  Oakland USD – 4.0 MW (16 sites)  Porterville USD – 3.5 MW (6 sites)  San Ramon Valley USD – 3.3 MW (7 sites) Community College Districts  Barstow CCD – 0.9 MW  Desert CCD – 3.8 MW  Kern CCD – 1.1 MW  Ohlone CCD – 2.8 MW  San Jose-Evergreen CCD – 1.5 MW  Shasta CCD – 1.1 MW  Sequoias CCD – 0.9 MW  Solano CCD – 2.8 MW  Southwestern CCD – 3.2 MW  West Valley-Mission CCD – 2.2 MW  Yuba CCD – 2.8 MW 3

4.  Why (or why not) solar PV?  District’s preparation to date  What’s the right or optimal amount of solar?  Where should the solar structures go?  How much could solar benefit the District?  What’s the best process for procuring solar?  What would the solar systems look like? 4

5.  Done properly, it has become cheaper than the alternative of buying all your electricity from the electric utility.  Demonstrates the effective and wise use of money and resources:  Purchasing your own solar PV systems through a competitive design-build RFP process can significantly reduce short-term and long-term electricity costs.  Solar PV’s stable and predictable output also reduces electric cost variability over time and protects District from utility rate shocks.  Provides educational opportunities and source of pride for students and community.  Helps to advance State’s energy policies. 5

6.  Utility rate analyses, rate forecasts, and solar benefits modeling  Site-by-site examination of solar potential and sitability at all schools and the District Offices.  Assessment of expected solar pricing based on recent solar procurements.  Minimize rooftop applications -- instead, build solar carports and possibly playground and lunch shade structures. 6

7.  Southerly orientation and tilt.  No or little shading of panels (from trees and buildings, primarily).  Enough solar panels to offset ~75% of the site’s annual electricity use.  Abide by DSA ADA “path of travel” and other DSA requirements and constraints.  Compatible with District/School plans, land use, and campus activities.  Reasonable solar system cost. Achieving all of the above necessitates balancing & trade offs. 7

8.  Prepare and issue RFQ/RFP.  Employ the “Design-Build” procurement method.  Apply for and receive Clean Renewable Energy Bonds sufficient to pay for the upfront solar system costs plus District’s associated “soft” costs.  Issuing the RFP does NOT obligate the District to execute a solar design-build contract.  Assuming a contract is executed, the plan is to have all the solar systems built during the Summer 2016 break. Due to pending regulatory changes this gives the District the best chance of achieving a higher level of budget savings from the solar systems. 8

9. Upfront Solar Systems Cost Overall System Size (kilowatts) Projected 25- Year General Fund Savings Projected 30- Year General Fund Savings Projected 30- Year Net Savings $15 million4400$36 million$46 million$31 million - Savings amounts are in nominal dollars. - All scenarios include 30 years of O&M services and a 25-year Performance Guarantee. - Solar system cost includes District’s “soft” costs. - Assumes that solar systems are sized to create minimum SCE bill after allowing for 10% future energy efficiency reductions. This means reducing each site’s electricity usage by ~75%. 9

10.  District sells a CREBs bond, through either public or private placement, to pay for the solar project.  CREBs investors would enjoy a tax credit, which reduces District’s interest rate to ~1.3%/year, with a 17-20 year repayment term.  Application filed with IRS; No application fee and no obligation to use the CREB allocation if granted.  CREB request amount covers entire upfront solar project costs.  Once application is approved, District’s financial advisor works to get the most favorable terms of financing (either public or private placement).  Assuming District successfully negotiates solar vendor contract and Board approves it, Board then also approves the CREBs financing documents; public hearings are held on both the CREBs documents & the District’s estimate of solar savings.  CREBs financing closes ~2 weeks later; funds deposited with District.  District now issues NTP to solar vendor and project begins. 10

11. 11

12. San Dimas High School 12

13. San Dimas High School 13

14. Arma J. Shull Elementary School 14

15. Rendering of Possible Solar Carports 15

16. Rendering of Possible Solar Carports 16