Agenda item

To receive a report from the Head of Finance, Property and Climate Resilience on the Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System project.  

The Cabinet had before it a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) to consider the Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System.

RESOLVED that:

1. The Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System project as outlined within Option 3 be APPROVED.
2. That delegated authority be granted to the Cabinet Member for Governance, Finance and Risk - in consultation with the Deputy Chief Executive s151 and the Head of Finance, Property and Climate Resilience - to deliver the Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System project.

Note: *Report previously circulated

The Cabinet had before it a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) to consider the Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System.

The Cabinet Member for Finance, Governance and Risk outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

• The Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System would achieve:

Ø  Leadership and engagement- a demonstration of green investment. Payback was expected within 10 years.

Ø  Carbon savings - up to 215 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) annually.

Ø  Energy cost savings and avoidance of cost volatility. By year 5 the Council expect to save around £67,500 in electricity costs.

Ø  Resilience- improved self-sufficiency. Solar power would supply the majority of Phoenix House power needs.

• Currently solar panels provided 10%-12% of Phoenix House electricity each year.  
• By storing surplus power in a smart battery system, the Council would achieve best value and use it on site. 
• The project would add value to this asset, as the top levels of the multi-storey car park were unused.
• Protection of the roof was vital. The Council would install security barriers to prevent access. The barriers were already justified to deal with Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and safety issues on site.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change highlighted the following:

• The proposal was considered valuable in helping Mid Devon meet its net?zero targets. Significant effort had already been invested in achieving net zero through actions within the Council’s control, both corporately and across the community. This proposal represented an action fully within the Council’s gift as a corporate contribution to net zero.
• She had been very supportive of the proposal and believed the public would be supportive, given the need to install renewable energy infrastructure on existing assets for example, on new housing, which central government had been considering making mandatory. It was seen as entirely appropriate to maximise the use of existing infrastructure, including Council buildings, to generate renewable electricity.
• The public had wanted to see the Council take this action, and the proximity of electricity users strengthened the proposal’s appropriateness. As with much of the Councils wider activity, it demonstrated the right course of action in response to the climate crisis.
• It was also noted that the Council had been doing a great deal to support social housing, including delivering net?zero homes. This meant the Council had been acting both to supply social housing and to contribute to net zero through that work.

Discussion took place with regards to:

• The proposal was not just about generating energy but about whole?life carbon, safety, asset management and effective use of the estate. Most of the electricity had come from the grid, with green contracts providing only limited direct generation. Producing renewable energy at the point of use would have reduced carbon impact, eased pressure on the local network, and improved resilience and price stability.
• It was noted as one of the few direct actions available to the Council to deliver its climate strategy, and essential if the Council wished to lead on its public commitments.
• Whether the Council had been purchasing electricity under renewable or green tariffs, and what the carbon difference had been between buying renewable electricity from the grid and generating it directly on the Council’s estate. It was explained that the Council were on a green tariff and all of the Councils electricity was renewable. In carbon terms, both buying green?tariff electricity and generating renewable energy on site had been forms of offsetting electricity use. The Council had paid extra for its green tariff and had remained exposed to price fluctuations, meaning that although the arrangement had been positive environmentally, it had still carried value?for?money risks.
• Whether Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service had been consulted on the design and layout of the battery storage system. It was explained that as the Council had a risk assessment they would be consulted in the process.
• How the scheme would have been protected from vandalism, given recent issues at the multi?storey car park and the adjacent bus station.  This included whether barriers preventing pedestrian access would still have allowed for ongoing maintenance and whether preventative maintenance would have been carried out before installation. It was explained that robust measures would be put in place and the top three levels of the car park would be sealed off to pedestrians and vehicle access.
• Whether an assessment had been carried out on the number of electrical vehicles that could be charged using the battery storage system? It was confirmed an estimate of 20,000 - 30,000 units of electricity was used last year for recharging the vehicles at Phoenix House.
• Whether surplus electricity would be sold back to the grid, given the schemes capacity to over?generate and store excess energy, and whether this could create a net income. Any excess generation would be small, and the price received for exporting it would be very low, circa 5p per unit. The system would be designed to operate on this principle.
• Would the battery capacity be sufficient to run the building during periods of low sunlight, such as after several cloudy days when preceded by good generation days. It was explained that the battery storage system would meet the specification for the needs of the Council.
• How long the solar panels were expected to remain usable, noting the 10?year payback period and whether the investment could have delivered benefits over 20–30 years despite some efficiency loss. It was noted that the solar panels typically had a 25?year lifespan based on gradual efficiency loss. This did not mean they became unusable after 25 years, only that performance declined. After that point, the Council would review whether upgrading the system was worthwhile, but the panels would still have generated power beyond the 25?year period.
• Would the Council increase electrical vehicle charging points. 
• A discussion was had around the maintenance of the current solar panel.
• Were the electric vehicles that the Council used leased or purchased? It was explained that they were leased.
• Would the Council ensure that the Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System be included on the Risk Register to be managed appropriately. It was confirmed that assets were already included in the Risk Register.   

RESOLVED that:

1. The Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System project as outlined within Option 3 be APPROVED.
2. That delegated authority be granted to the Cabinet Member for Governance, Finance and Risk - in consultation with the Deputy Chief Executive s151 and the Head of Finance, Property and Climate Resilience - to deliver the Phoenix Lane Solar and Battery Energy Storage System project.

(Proposed by Cllr J Downes and seconded by Cllr J Wright)

Reason for decision:

The appropriate consents would need to be obtained and in place, such as the District Network Operator (supply agreements, system compliance) and Planning Permission if required. There were no legal implications associated with this proposal.

Note: *Report previously circulated