Carroll County reviews proposal for 100 kW solar array at corrections facility

An unnamed presenter to the Carroll County Commission on Feb. 9 outlined a proposal to install a roughly 100 kilowatt AC solar array near the county corrections facility that, according to figures in the presentation, would generate approximately 200,000 kilowatt-hours per year and offset roughly 23–28% of the facility’s stated annual load.

The presenter said the county solicited three quotes — from Barrington Power, Revision Energy and New England Clean Energy — and ran side-by-side internal-rate-of-return calculations under two financing scenarios: a loan from the Community Development Finance Authority at 2.75% interest and an all-upfront purchase. The presenter said the loan scenario produced a “very strong IRR,” and that, under the assumptions used, the projects would begin producing net savings after loan retirement; the presenter also stated that "all of the projects ... are worth more than 1000000 dollars of avoided cost for the county, over the 40 year lifetime of the array," quoted verbatim from the transcript.

Technical details presented included an array of about 250 panels (each described as just under 600 watts), an estimated site footprint of less than half an acre and a projected annual generation of about 200,000 kWh. The presenter said the corrections facility’s annual electricity use is “in the range of 750,000 kilowatt hours a year” (as stated in the transcript). The presenter also reported an estimated annual savings figure in the transcript phrased as "probably $23.24 grand a year"; the exact dollar amount is unclear in the meeting record and is reported here as stated in the transcript.

The presentation addressed lifecycle and decommissioning issues. The presenter said they contacted recyclers and that "Orem Recycling of Goffstown" quoted $0.18 per pound for panel recycling, which the presenter translated in the meeting as about "$15 per panel"; that per-panel and per-array arithmetic in the transcript is internally inconsistent and is flagged in the clarifying details below.

Commissioners and staff discussed whether to include fencing around the arrays. The presenter said one vendor’s price fell by about "$25" when asked to provide a no-fence price; the transcript records that change using that language but does not make clear the units involved. Commissioners emphasized the importance of comparing proposals "apples to apples" and said the county committee will meet the next day to produce a single recommendation. Commissioner Chandler asked that committee recommendations be forwarded to Melissa, and the presenter agreed. The commission did not take a vote on installation or procurement at the meeting.

During the public-comment period, Dallas Emory said he "applauds" the effort but is "not a big fan" of a project at this scale, questioned whether a ~23% offset over the life of the project justifies the investment and urged caution. Commissioners responded that the work is exploratory and that any spending would require delegation approval.

What happens next: the county committee expected to meet and prepare a recommendation; commissioners referenced Feb. 23 as a possible date for further action depending on the committee’s work.