Proposed solar farm on school land

CLINTONVILLE – After hearing a presentation about a proposed solar farm on property owned by the Clintonville School District, nobody from the district’s Land Use Committee recommended that the district pursue the construction of the solar farm.
The presentation was made by Clintonville Utilities Manager Dave Tichinel and Eric Udelhofen, VP Development for OneEnergy, at the committee’s Aug. 12 meeting.

Background
Tichinel told the committee that several years ago, when the district had decided to have a solar field constructed on district property, that he, as the manager of Clintonville Utilities had denied the project.
“Which turns out, probably saved the school (district) a couple million dollars in the future,” Tichinel said. “And I’m glad I did that.”

Clintonville Utilities is not against solar energy, Tichinel said.
“I want to do it the right way,” he said.
Clintonville School Board member and Chairman of the committee Ben Huber thanked Tichinel for denying the solar field project several years ago.
“The school board, when we started the referendum process had solar presenters come to us and give us plans,” Huber said. “What they said in open session and verbally was not represented in the paperwork. The paperwork actually had language that really could have hurt the district. And Dave, and his good friends in the Shawano Utilities, went through that contract with a fine-tooth comb and showed us where we had dropped the ball. He saved this district millions of dollars because he did due diligence.”
Tichinel told the committee he had information to share about a solar field that could be constructed on district property, which would also provide educational opportunities for students. Under the proposed policy, Great Lakes Utilities would pay for the solar project.
“The school wouldn’t be on the hook for a dime,” Tichinel said.
Proposed project
The proposed project would need around 25 acres of the district’s property for the solar field, Tichinel said. This would be for a five-megawatt (MW) solar field. The district would receive $500 per acre, per year, with incentives escalating in future years.
The project would be developed by OneEnergy, which has an office in Madison. The closest solar field it has to Clintonville is located in Bonduel. For that project OneEnergy partnered with WE Energies.
Tichinel stressed that the project would include an educational component about clean energy for students.
He added that there are alternative sites in the City of Clintonville if the school district would decline the proposed project. One of those alternative sites would be Clintonville Municipal Airport.
“But honestly, I would like to show you, the board and community, that I am not against solar being at this high school, that’s my main reason for picking the high school in the first place,” Tichinel said.
Udelhofentold the committee that OneEnergy is working on finding suitable locations in as many of the Great Lakes Utilities members’ territories as it can.
“The goal is to find locations that have the characteristics to support a cost-effective project and have some sort of tie-in with the landowner,” Udelhofen said.
The goal would be to build the solar field in 2027.
Under the proposed agreement, there would be a power purchase agreement that would stipulate that OneEnergy would own and operate the project and sell the power to Great Lakes Utilities.
The proposed solar field would have a 40-year lifespan. The term of the power purchase agreement would be 30 years. The lease agreement with the school district would be for 40 years.
Any maintenance for the solar field would be the responsibility of OneEnergy, Udelhofen said. OneEnergy would also be responsible for removing all the solar field infrastructure and restore the property at the end of the project’s life or if it stops operating for six months.
Udelhofen said the district’s property has many good characteristics that are conducive to a solar field, including proximity to electrical infrastructure.
The solar panels would all be single-axis tracking panels that run north and south, Udelhofen said. They would sit on I-beams that would be in the ground 10-12 feet. The property would be around 30% panels and 70% open space between the panels.
The only area of the property that would not have vegetation growing on it would be the access drive. The entire solar field would have a fence around it.
The proposed 5 MW solar field would produce around 11 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year. This is enough electricity to power around 1,300 Wisconsin households, Udelhofen said.
Tichinel said Clintonville Utilities has a substation near the school district’s property.
“This is an easy way to transport that power to our (Clintonville Utilities) line,” Tichinel said.
Because the power generated by the solar field would be transferred to a Clintonville Utilities power line, Tichinel said the generated power would be used by Clintonville residents and their electric bills would decrease.
Most of the land surface of the proposed solar field would have vegetation growing on it. Udelhofen said the vegetation could be used for a pollinator habitat, grazing for sheep, or crop production.
“The biggest challenge with that (crop production) is actually finding people who actually want to grow vegetables,” Udelhofen said.

Discussion
Kuhn asked if OneEnergy has partnered with other school districts on similar projects.
Udelhofen said it has not partnered with other school districts.

Kuhn also asked how the lease agreement would be constructed.
Tichinel said Clintonville Utilities would be leasing the district property for the proposed project.
Stephen Reinke, director of Buildings and Grounds for the Clintonville School District, asked if the solar panels would follow the topography of the land or would earthwork be done to make the property flatter.
“It is hilly back there, so I was just wondering if you guys cut some of the land,” Reinke asked.
Since this would be a smaller project, Udelhofen said the solar field could accommodate the grade fluctuations of the land.
Kuhn said he was involved with the proposed solar field a few years ago. Under the agreement for that solar field, Kuhn said the district would have been required to pay around $50,000 every year to eventually own the solar field system. Based on district electricity bills, the district would have lost around $15,000 per year over 30 years.
“That’s why it wasn’t good,” Kuhn said.
When looking at the numbers for the solar field currently being proposed, the district would receive $12,500 per year via the land lease. This equates to $375,000 over 30 years.
“And we can’t touch that land according to the agreement, it’s yours,” Kuhn said. “I’m just thinking in an $18 million annual budget, $12,000 is minuscule.”
Tichinel said the escalator clause in the lease agreement would increase the amount of money the district would receive each year.
If the school district is not interested in pursuing the proposed solar field, Tichinel said it will be constructed somewhere else in the city.
“We do have land elsewhere,” Tichinel said.