Search

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 13

Alderman Dowd

| have a few questions and actually the first one is from something you originally said. If you put them on a roof
and the roof has to be replaced, how difficult is it to have the panels moved and reinstalled and is that
something that comes with the warranty or is that additional cost if the roof has to be replaced, you need the
additional cost allocated to move and reinstall the panels?

Mr. Hasselbeck It is not difficult to do that, but it is time consuming. In the State of New Hampshire 100% of a
solar array needs to be installed or in this case removed by a licensed electrician or someone involved in the
electrical apprenticeship program. So it is labor, it is significant labor that would be an expense. So that is one
of the key reasons why when we started out with this portfolio of 30 plus municipally owned buildings, we
narrowed it down to what we determined was the highest value. Frankly we want to avoid that scenario where
you do have to remove and then reinstall them.

Alderman Dowd

So you want a roof that is got at least a warranty of the same warranty you have with the solar panels?

Mr. Hasselbeck Not necessarily because that’s not foreseeable. So | guess and you know we can get into how
the economics work in a little bit more detail. But these systems do reach a breakeven point well before the end
of their useful life soan. And any power production or electricity savings has that breakeven point, that’s all
gravy essentially. So you know if there is a roof replacement need at year 30 of the solar system, you know,
that solar system had paid for itself multiple times over and you’ve seen those benefits there. What we want to
avoid is the need to replace that roof and the need to remove and reinstall those solar panels within that 15 year
time frame, that’s kind of the break even.

Alderman Dowd

I’m hugely in favor of solar panels but just some questions because we may be building a new school and
putting one on top and cost is an extremely important characteristic. So from a maintenance standpoint you
would have to plan buying a roof say on top of a school, that would normally cost hypothetically say $50,000.00
to replace. It might be double if you’ve got solar on it and you have to move it and reinstall it.

Mr. Hasselbeck Potentially but there’s also things that we or any other solar developer and that roofing
contractor and that roofing manufacturer could do on the front end to basically avoid that need. We just recently
completed a project for the Dover Technical High School; brand new building, brand new roof. We were able to
get involved with the Joint Building Committee early and the architect early and they made some decisions on
the design phase which had a minor increased cost to the roof, but avoided or will significantly reduce future
expenses. Things like backing board and you know millimeter thickness.

Alderman Dowd

So the other question | have is on a year to year basis, how much preventative and correction maintenance has
to be done on the solar system? Who does it and who pays for it?

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 14

Mr. Hasselbeck Excellent question. So during the term of the power purchase agreement, the owner of the
array pays for that. So in this case that would be an investor group that we’ve done and they would pay me and
my team to come out and do what we call an annual inspection. It is about a 20 page report of things that we
look at both mechanically and electrically to basically do preventative maintenance to maximize the up time and
longevity of this system. We are also on a daily basis, for systems like this, monitoring the production and we
have really excellent visibility into what is going on a per panel basis. So if there is an issue we are able to
identify it remotely and then make a determination if we need to roll a truck to fix it or if we can resolve it
remotely. So that is all handled by the owner of the PPA.

Alderman Dowd

Good answer to go along with a good question.

Mr. Weeks _ | will just note Alderman Dowd, also in the financials that we will get into in a moment we include an
optional O&M Contract were the City to elect upon entering into ownership of the array to continue having
ReVision provide that service. That is a totally optional expense but to be conservative in the numbers we are
assuming you are paying for that and so not having to think about the Operations & Maintenance in the future.

Alderman Dowd

Ok the other question | have is that there is a lot of technology going on, we've just alluded to a little bit. MIT is
doing a lot in the solar panel arrays. They are making them from different products now than they used to. You
need fewer panels now. | have no idea in having read these articles when that is going to happen. If we build a
new school we are 2 years away from a solar panel, minimum. So we don’t know how the technology may
change between then and now. But | know they are looking at like two face solar which uses the reflective light
that goes beyond the panel, gets it coming back. | don’t know if you’ve been involved in that at all?

Mr. Hasselbeck Yep very much so. So those are called, please stop me if | get into the weeds, this is my zone
right here. So those are called bifacial modules. And in some scenarios they make a ton of sense because
they allow us to harvest extra bits of solar energy and get more production. In these specific types of
installations, in the State of New Hampshire with our climate the additional energy that those panels produce do
not justify the additional cost of those panels. But that is specific to these buildings. Where we really like those
bifacial modules is on solar carport designs where now we have instead of maybe 6 to 12 inches between the
back of a panel and a roof surface, we have you know 10 to 12 feet in a nice reflective parking lot surface so we
can really harvest that extra energy. Ora large ground mounted array can be another good opportunity for
those bifacial modules.

Alderman Dowd

Right so and | noticed in the articles it said they like to do them on flat surfaces not angled roofs because of the
way it reflects. Also the other technology that is coming in is are panels that sort of follow the sun to some
degree to increase their efficiency.

Mr. Hasselbeck Another great question, so those are called trackers, they are solar tracking arrays and they
make them that track the access in one way like this and also dual access trackers so they will follow it north
and south and east to west. Those options are out there. In some cases they do make sense, not in these

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 15

cases because what that does is we are adding significant extra cost to our racking and support systems, which
really must be offset by the additional generation that they provide. So in these power purchase agreement
projects where we do typically have expansive roof or ground spaces, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Alderman Dowd

Ok the other thing that is being discussed in places is having part of the power from the solar panels be able to
charge batteries that can be used especially in the winter when you get some power and they can put it in the
batteries and use it at night for instance. Is that something that you’re involved in?

Mr. Hasselbeck Deeply involved yesterday | was just in Durham with EverSource and UNH talking about their
micro grid initiative. So we are deeply involved in that; we are the largest installer of commercial and residential
battery based systems in New Hampshire and Maine. Right now, today — for these types of projects, that
technology is not cost effective, it actually harms the economics. But what is really great is we are designing all
of our systems to be future compatible with what we call AC Coupled Battery Systems. So your new school in
particular, another 2 years give or take, we are going to see the same downward pressure on battery cost,
manufacturing costs that we’ve seen historically in PV panels. So | could make a convincing argument that
instead of a conventional propane generator for your new school, we should spend that money instead on a
large battery which will provide emergency backup power and also provide additional opportunities for savings
by doing demand response, which the utilities are talking about and we are working on in Massachusetts. So
long story short, yes that’s awesome — not yet, but these systems will be in the future if desired compatible with
the battery.

Alderman Dowd
OK | may have added questions but | will let somebody else ask some.

Mr. Hasselbeck This has been fun for me though.

Alderman O’Brien

Thank you to Mr. Hasselbeck you sparked my interest with the, no pun intended, with the fastening type of
system. Basically what | am concerned about is like you say | want to focus on the ballast system. We do live
in New England and | understand it is the weight of the ballast that holds it to the roof. So what are some of the
engineering, we do get the occasional hurricane, | understand we are not in tornado alley. But then again |
could understand that all bets are off with a tornado, but with the New England Noreaster and everything else
like that how does the ballast system really stand up in this type of weather climate?

Mr. Hasselbeck Yeah really well so we look at you know local snow loads, local wind loads. So the same type
of design criteria that a new building has to be put through, you know with the specific wind loads for this town,
this City, building height is a factor, whether there are parapets or whether it is a flat roof, the proximity of the
solar rays to the edge of the roof. If you saw on our designs, there’s a four foot gap between the edge of the
roof and the beginning of the solar panels, that serves two purposes. One for that maintenance and fire access
if needed; two, it actually significantly reduces the loading on that system. The other thing is that we are not
looking, all these panels are connected in a large horizontal basically. So we get the benefits of this basically
large kind of interconnected entity, instead of just one individual solar panel at a time. So I’d be happy to get
into the weeds on all the calcs that get done to make sure that they don’t blow off, but I’ve never lost one yet
and | sure as heck don’t plan to in downtown Nashua.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 16

Alderman O’Brien

And | left my PHD at home so you don’t have to get into the weeds. But it is a concern, New England like they
say, “wait a minute, the weather will change”. To that, do you also look at in a ballast type of system you look at
the insulation of the building that you put it on. | did have a failure of a structure because people at a later date
over-insulated. And when they over insulated then there was no wicking of the snow or no melting and it kept
the snow on until finally the roof caved in. So do you do the usual caveats with that and you look at each
engineering standards as is and not to any architectural changes?

Mr. Hasselbeck You got it, so that’s exactly why we do all of our own project specific, engineering review is part
of our due diligence just to make sure. Because that happens a lot especially with older buildings, is that things
get added. Oftentimes what we see is actually additional HVAC units either hung from rafters or put on top that
weren't included in the original designs. That’s why it is really important to us that we do our own due diligence
just before installation so we capture any changes or alterations to that building that happened post-construction
to make sure that what we are doing doesn’t compromise the structural integrity.

Mr. Weeks | would just add Alderman O’Brien as an interesting test case, a couple years ago Hurricane Sandy
was probably the biggest challenge to install solar. You had a substantial amount of solar penetration in New
Jersey and New York State. There were a number of roofs that came off, but no solar came off roofs. There
were some roofs with solar that were lifted, but | don’t think a single panel was loosed in that particular Super
Storm and we have so far had a clean track record here in Northern New England.

President Wilshire

| have a question about the end of life for these panels, what happens then?

Mr. Weeks Great question briefly and James feel free to add. So the power purchase agreement which we will
get into momentarily here, actually stipulates that if the City opts not to purchase the array, the panels, then the
full installation from the investor partner, it is the investor, the owner of the arrays responsibility to remove the
panels and to return the facility to its prior condition absent normal wear and tear. So that is not the City’s
responsibility unless you choose to own the array. To be honest, we have a so far small test case because the
commercial lifespan of solar equipment is 40 plus years. We have systems that are reaching 40 and slightly
beyond 40 years old in this country and they are still putting out about 80% of their initial Day 1 power. So as of
this point, there is not much a secondary market because there is not much to feed that market. We do certainly
anticipate that in the coming years and certainly decades that will emerge. The primary ingredients in solar
panels are reusable, valuable commodities; glass, silicon, aluminum. Just how they will be repurposed
presumably into new solar panels remains to be seen but that is certainly emerging.

Mr. Hasselbeck And | do think that a better case study is the European Market which is far more established
and mature than the US market and there is a little cottage industry focused on the purchase and recycling of
solar panels and associated equipment at the end of their lives. So again it is not poisonous chemicals, it is
glass, aluminum and inert silicon. So there will be a value and a market for it.

Alderman Lopez

So just two quick questions, the first one is we were talking about how much this would offset expenses in terms
of power use. Given that these are absorbing sunlight coming down on a roof, would there be a reduction in
cooling costs during particularly hot days?

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 17

Mr. Hasselbeck Yes is the answer which is kind of an ancillary benefit to solar rays because you are right, these
things are designed to suck up solar energy. We have done some really neat studies especially over these past
few weeks where it has been so hot in taking our flare guns and measuring temperatures of the solar panels
versus temperatures of the roof surface underneath. UV rays and heat are two of the biggest factors in roof
wear and tear. So they are much cooler which reduces cooling costs. What we can’t do is quantify exactly how
much cooling load we are going to reduce. So because we can’t quantify it with 100% certainty, we don’t
include that in any of our models. But the benefit is there, it is real. We can show you differences in
temperatures and thermal imaging, but | can’t say this will also save the City X thousands of dollars in cooling
costs.

Alderman Lopez

And just my final question is you had, in discussion with Alderman Dowd, you said other climates have a higher
level of, your implication | think was that there is a higher level of sunlight?

Mr. Hasselbeck Yes it is something we call irradiance levels. So irradiance is the measure of watts per meter
squared but we are not in a terrible spot. The best predictor of solar production is your latitude lines, right? So
your latitude line is a really good predictor so you see down by the equator, that same solar panel will generate
roughly 30% more energy than it will up here in New Hampshire. But here in New Hampshire they still do pretty
good and if you follow the latitude line straight east to Germany; Germany has one of the largest solar markets
in the world and they are able to meet what? Was it 50% plus?

Mr. Weeks On peak, sunny windy days the entire German Economy, the 4" largest economy in the world is
virtually 100% solar and wind powered. They actually have 30% less solar insulation or irradiance than we do
here in New Hampshire at a higher latitude and yet they’ve been able to achieve that substantial benchmark
with a couple decades head start over this region.

Alderman Lopez

So we do OK but basically what you are saying that compared to equatorial regions, New Hampshire is not as
bright?

Mr. Weeks That is true as my wife bemoans often but nonetheless a lot of solar output.
Mr. Hasselbeck Bright enough.

President Wilshire

Commissioner do you have questions?

Fire Commissioner Paul Garant

| have one question and it may be more esthetics than technical but when | saw the inverters, the slide with the
inverters — one | wanted to know are they all mounted externally or are some mounted internally?

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 18

Mr. Hasselbeck It depends on the project. So we can do either; in this case we have all examples. So all the
inverters are rated to be mounted externally, so if we need to put them outside, that is what they are designed
for. If in the top left, that’s the case where we had some spare space available in an electrical/mechanical room.
If that’s an option, we’d love to take that option. Another option on the top right, we mounted those inverters
right on the roof surface itself, so that’s another option. So if esthetics were a concer we could include.

Commissioner Garant

My concern is the array of conduit on that building surface which after you have designed the building to make it
look esthetically pleasing, particularly a Fire Station, then we end up with 20 rows of conduit. Is that always
necessary?

Mr. Hasselbeck Yeah it’s a great question. No it’s not, so first of all esthetics actually does play into our design
because we firmly believe that our solar adoption rate is 1% so there is a lot of opportunity there. These
municipal projects are so valuable because they are offering community residents first exposure to solar and if it
looks ugly that is not going to be a positive experience. And that doesn’t help anybody, right? In that specific
case, that’s actually in the City of Keene, that system is gigantic so it is a massive power plant. That specific
location is on the rear of the building sandwiched between the dumpsters and where they park the Zamboni. So
we do take that into account. | want to be clear, we are electricians not magicians and we do have to connect
our solar arrays to the inverters but | am not looking to put all that stuff rignt next to your front door, | guess.

Mr. Weeks And | am happy to advise on these specific properties because these are substantially smaller
arrays there is sufficient room. | think the plan, it hasn’t been all confirmed, we are still in that process working
with the managers of those facilities, but the plan is to locate those two or three inverters, not the 8 or 10 that
you see on larger arrays in those utility rooms and run interior conduit runs. That’s always our preference from
an esthetic standpoint and we should be able to do that in these cases.

Commissioner Garant

Thank you.

Mr. Weeks Thank you Commissioner.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you. We touched on maintenance of the panels. Is there any concern or issues that come up with the
roof maintenance once something is installed?

Mr. Hasselbeck Another great question that’s why we really feel strongly about due diligence prior to a solar
installation to essentially avoid major roof maintenance there. But in the case where this is say, what does
happen sometimes you know we saw the HVAC units up there. That is often, those heating and cooling units
typically do have penetrations, those are often the locations for roof leaks or areas of the roof that need
maintenance in the life cycle of a building. So our first approach is to avoid getting too close to those. But in the
event where you know we did need to move some panels, it is not a big deal to move a few solar panels. Itis a
big deal to remove all of them for a big re-roof. So a simple roof leak if that happened, you know, we are
moving only a handful of panels in that specific area so that’s very minimal exposure and very minimal cost.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 19

Mr. Weeks And it is worth noting Alderman Lopez asked the question about the roof condition, in addition to
reducing cooling loads by exactly how much we don’t know, hence not included in the financials, it will extend
the roof life. Those UV rays are the primary cause of the degradation of the roof itself. So covering that up,
soaking up those rays instead as the panels are designed to do, will have that additional benefit.

Alderwoman Kelly

And just to follow on, as we are starting to look at building projects, | would just be interested to know what we
can do to make it more solar friendly. So we have the Performing Arts Center coming up, we are talking about a
new school, what kinds of things can we do to make sure that they are solar friendly even if we don’t install it
right at that time?

Mr. Weeks Thank you so much for looking ahead and thinking ahead in that way and | would note to Alderman
Dowd’s question that we have had some conversations with members of the School Department and done
some preliminary designs. The two high schools each have capacity for about a megawatt, that would be ten
times the arrays you see here, so tremendous potential in the City in the future. | would say the short answer
Alderwoman Kelly is we are always grateful to be brought in early in the process. We are often working with
several municipalities and businesses, putting up new buildings at this point in time and advising their electrical
contractors on conduit runs, on spacing for inverters in the utility rooms so they don’t need to go outdoor
preferably, on roof type selection. So that is something obviously unique to a given project and their needs but
we are eager to provide that guidance at the get-go and certainly can do whether or not we are a chosen
vendor. We are happy to provide that input.

Alderman Dowd

Any new design building like the new school, the Performing Arts Center or anything like that, the architect and
the construction manager do a lot of the planning to allow for the solar array and they have a lot of that
responsibility to make sure it is done correctly and esthetically. So they would work with a solar company to
perform all that work but they’d do it in accordance with the drawings that they come up with.

Alderwoman Kelly

| think my question was if we were planning on it then definitely that would happen but if we are not and we are
just putting up a new building, are we at least thinking ahead and putting in roofs that can actually sustain this?

Alderman Dowd

Oh no we are way ahead and we are doing solar.

Alderwoman Kelly

OK.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 20

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Thank you very much gentlemen, appreciate you being here. Oh you still have more
presentation. The financials.

Mr. Weeks | will move swiftly through this, naturally we certainly invite questions and appreciate the chance to
answer them as you’ve given us so far. Let me just briefly preface, I’m fortunate to be a local citizen and tax
payer here in Nashua. We deeply appreciate and respect, speaking on behalf of a company whose mission it is
to accelerate this transition from fossil fuel dependence to clean energy. We deeply appreciate and respect that
the Energy Committee here in Nashua has proposed to the Aldermen and | believe the Aldermen have
accepted their recommendation that the City move toward 100% clean energy. A very exciting goal that now
many communities across New Hampshire and the Nation have adopted.

Naturally, we are always thrilled to work with communities that have environmental goals as their primary
motivator but the financials matter too; speaking as a local citizen as well. So at the outset, when we are
approaching a project of this sort and frankly 9 out of 10 projects that we develop, we want to ensure at the
outset that this will provide a financial return to the community and to the business, whoever it may be. The
primary mechanism to achieve that with a municipality or any other non-profit, tax-exempt entity is what is called
a power purchase agreement. To give a couple of the kind of summary facts on power purchase agreements,
the challenge that we are seeking to overcome with PPA’s is that in their wisdom the Federal Government has
chosen to direct all incentives for solar, federal incentives, through the tax code. That means if you are
homeowner or a business owner and have a tax bill to the IRS you can take the 30% investment tax credit that
the Mayor alluded to, which steps down at the end of this year. You can depreciate the asset if you are a
business, but if you are a non-federal tax payer, such as a municipality, you have no access to that directly.

The solution which was developed, in fact, by the Federal Government, the National Renewable Energy Labs at
the Department of Energy over a decade ago and has been blessed by the IRS which is, in fact, the primary
mechanism by which large-scale solar has been implemented in the United States is this power purchase
agreement. As the name suggests, the City is not purchasing the array, the capital expense for the panels, the
inverters, the racking, etc., the City is purchasing the power that the array produces and feeds to its facilities at a
rate below the current utility rate. What this looks like is you have investors on the one hand who are providing
the capital to finance these projects and I'll show you what those specific numbers are on the next slide. They
are owning and operating the array, contracting with ReVision with James’ team to provide the O & M once we
have fully installed the system and permitted it. They are recouping their investment through that Federal
Investment Tax Credit and depreciation and some very modest environmental attributes renewable energy
credits and crucially from the sale of the electricity it produces to the City at that below market rate.

For the City’s part, the City is licensing the use of those two roofs and potentially future roofs or ground areas for
the purpose of installing solar. It is committing to buy the power from the array at the rate schedule set out in
that PPA contract. In order to maximize its long term savings, after 5 years, which is the minimum period of time
the investor must own the asset, it is the IRS recapture period on that tax credit; short of five years the investor
must return those tax incentives on a pro rata basis. But once we reach Day 1 of Year 6, the City may and is in
fact encouraged to for its financial benefit, acquire the array at a substantial discount and then generate its own
power going forward for the next 30 to 40 years.

The specifics for these two projects would be an initial cost to the investor of just over $500,000.00 and upfront
cost to the City of $0 because again you are not owning the array, you are simply purchasing the power from the
array. In order to make the investor whole and I'll say a word about the investors that we are fortunate to work
with, the City would be purchasing that power at a starting rate of 8.8 cents per kilowatt hour, rising 2% annually

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 21

thereafter for the duration of that PPA contract. Again, minimum 5 years; standard term of 25 years but those
buy out options are annual beginning in Year 6. So the City determines for how long they remain in the PPA.

If you were to exercise that option at the earliest possible point in Year 6 there would be a capital expense of
just over $300,000.00. That amount is pegged to fair market value as required by the IRS so the amount
declines each year thereafter. If the City were to defer that buyout as it may choose to do in that given year, you
aren't required to commit upfront, but once again the sooner you own the asset and are generating your own
power the greater the long term benefits. And then assuming that the City does exercise its buyout option in
Year 6, the net savings, so this is deducting the cost to buy it out at $300,000.00; the cost to maintain it were
you to contract with ReVision for this optional Operations Maintenance Contract; the modest degradation factor,
we model in a loss in production of half of 1% per year; hence a 40 year old system at 80% as we see today on
systems in the ground. We build in these factors, | noted earlier a full replacement of the inverters midway
through the system life, very conservative assumptions around utility, inflation and renewable energy credits.
Put all this together and our conservative estimates on savings for the City over the 25 year warranty period
come out to a little under half a million dollars. And then if you extend out to the minimum commercial life span
of 40 years, $1.27 million dollars.

To represent these numbers graphically for a moment, you see in the yellow line that is the solar PPA with that
early buy out in year six. So you have modest initial savings and we can circulate the more detailed financials,
but the City is purchasing the power from the array, that 8.8 cent rate is approximately 20% below current utility
costs. So you are saving roughly 20% on each kilowatt hour provided generated by the solar array. So relatively
modest initial savings without any capital cost. Were you then in Year 6 to buy out at about $300,000.00, you
would be payback sort to speak of between Year 6 and Year 12 or 13 of approximately 6 % years to recoup that
investment and from that point forward your savings are accumulating to the long-term figure of $1.27 million.

The blue line there is if you were to — your worst case scenario if you will, that is if the City determined to never
allocate the capital, to purchase the array; simply took that Power Purchase Agreement to the full 25 years and
then acquired it at a very, very low cost after 25 years, your long-term savings would be less but still strongly
positive. Just a final way of representing these same numbers which we think is worth understand and please
pardon the label. Initially we did present in the RFP for 5 sites, we are currently at 2. So on the right you see
the status quo scenario. So for these facilities which are Eversource Rate Class G, General Commercial the
current rate, the current cost of that electricity, when you factor in not just the supply, but the transmission,
distribution, costs all the line items on your bill that are charged on a volumetric basis per kilowatt hour, the
current is about $0.123 cents per kilowatt hour. To the left the utility line in gray is if we take the Federal
Government projections on utility cost inflation over the next several decades; the US Energy Information
Agency projects for New Hampshire, an average 2 72% per year inflation. WWe have seen more in recent years,
about 3% going back the last 15 years. We think it is prudent and conservative to use the Government
projections, a bit lower than that going forward. So those are your utility status quo scenarios in that assumption
an average cost over the next 40 years of that power of just over 20 cents per kilowatt hour.

While those are projections, the numbers on the left we can have a lot of confidence in. We know the size of the
array, the power output based on the modeling that our engineers do through Helioscope as we have described.
We know that the cost to operate and maintain the arrays, the cost of the buyout, the degradation factor,
building all of this in, we arrive at on the left a long-term leveled cost. So an average unit cost per kilowatt hour
over the lifespan of the solar equipment of $0.057 cents if you exercise the early buyout of $0.085 cents if you
do not buy out at any point but go the full 25 year term. Or were you to purchase up front $0.058 cents but
naturally that would require a significant capital outlay at the beginning without the flexibility to determine at a
future point if you choose to own it or not.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 08/06/2019 Page 22

So that’s the financial summary. | am happy to take any questions you may have there and that really is the
substance of the proposal so we don’t want to take too much more of your time.

President Wilshire

| didn’t mean to cut you off.

Mr. Weeks It may just be worth if | may | recall one more slide that | threw in here and then we can talk a little
bit about kind of community engagement if you wish. But as to where that capital comes from, something that
ReVision takes a lot of pride in as part of our Mission as a Certified Benefit Corporation is extending — so we are
making solar available to non-profits and municipalities that in New Hampshire’s context with very limited State
incentives, would otherwise not have an opportunity to go solar. When you read about utility scale solar projects
the financing in almost every case comes from Wall Street where they are able to earn market level returns,
particularly if it is a State like California with substantial additional State incentives. In New Hampshire for
smaller scale projects with limited incentives, there unfortunately is not a commercial PPA investor market. We
just can’t sell these projects except rarely at very substantial scale. Projects at this size, simply don’t have
financing available in the existing solar investor market. Consequently what ReVision has worked to do over the
last several years beginning as a kind of proof of concept on our own balance sheet by directly investing in and
owning upwards of 70 non-profit power purchase agreements for various non-profits around the region. But in
the last 2 years, in order to bring added scale we have recruited and partnered with a number of mission-aligned
investors including for this project a family that lives here in this community and works in this community that is
blessed to have a large tax bill to the IRS which they through such an investment have the opportunity to
essentially redirect by investing that capital in solar projects, taking advantage of the existing tax incentives and
providing much lower cost financing than is otherwise available.

We call this program ReVision Solar Impact Partners, we have so far built over 120 of these PPA’s for other
municipalities and non-profits like the Soup Kitchen. That is why we believe or perhaps part of why we have the
opportunity to work with many smaller community organizations and smaller municipal projects thanks to these
investor partners who share our mission of deploying solar at lower cost. Let me shut up with that and welcome
any questions you may have on the finances.

Alderman Clemons

Yeah so when you did the .... because | know the City bulk purchases power, so when you did the market
analysis, did you factor what the City purchases power at in to your analysis?

Mr. Weeks We did. Because these two facilities will be net metering facilities they are not required to register
as net metering but because there will be excess production in peak summer months, they will under current
regulations require, will have to revert to default supply which would add were they purchasing net power would
add between a penny and two pennies per kilowatt hour. And Bob Hayden is the expert in the competitive
supply market and he can speak in more detail. So for these two facilities, they will require that reversion to
default supply. For your interest perhaps, as we look at larger scale projects at the airport or other offsite
locations which would be directly fed into the grid, they would through group net metering off set multiple City
accounts, but each of those participating accounts in such a group would retain the ability, as they do today, to
purchase that power on the third party competitive supply market rather than going to default. So default makes
sense in a situation like this where you are providing most of the power on site, so you are getting not in fact
from Eversource but from your own rooftop. And for larger scale projects we approve net meter to avoid that
requirement.