Are there solar savings?

Mayor Moak touched upon the solar panel project in his address to the council last night. 

I was happy to hear the solar panel project is moving forward. Last I read in The Daily News, the mayor still hadn't selected a vendor. But he was supposed to do one a few weeks ago, so perhaps he hasn't announced it yet.

But one line of his speech caught my ear.

"We will continue to work on green initatives. The solar panel project at  the middle school and the DPW has been retooled and is in final stages of the contracts. There will be 500 kilowatts of solar panel being produced on our roofs this summer, which will lower the costs of powering the middle school and the DPW building."

This runs counter to my understanding of the project. I thought the city basically was looking to break even on the deal, paying out to the solar panel company roughly the same amount we're paying to National Grid. In fact, I found this excerpt from a Daily News article published in September. 

Since the city pays about 15 cents per kilowatt now, Moak said the $3.6 million solar panel system that would be installed atop the Nock wouldn't generate cost savings as much as take pressure off the grid.

"(The cost) is very similar to what we're paying now," said Moak. "We don't expect to save a lot of money. What we expect to do is provide alternative energy — that's a huge factor that we're looking for. Some people pay more than they have to. We're not doing that."

So which is it? Are we saving money? I certainly hope so, and kudos to the mayor if that's the case. But if we are, what changed? Did the collapse of Eyeon--and the competitive bidding that followed--actually help the city?