The Centre Region Council of Governments on Monday became the final participant to sign on to a long-in-the-works and sometimes controversial multi-agency solar power project.
The COG General Forum — which consists of members of the governing boards of the six Centre Region municipalities — voted to move forward with the the 15-year Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA), which is designed for the participants to acquire clean energy at reduced costs.
Nine other participants have already authorized joining the agreement over the last two months: State College Area School District, State College Borough, College, Ferguson and Patton Townships, the State College Borough Water Authority, College Township Water Authority. Centre Hall-Potter Sewer Authority, Centre County Refuse and Recycling Authority, CATA, the Centre County Housing Authority and Halfmoon Township were all part of the working group formed in 2020 but dropped out over the past two years for various reasons, with most pursuing their own solar projects.
COG will acquire 80% of energy for its facilities through the SPPA from solar developer Prospect 14 at a rate of 7.6 cents per kilowatt hour in the first year followed by a 1.5% escalator annually. The agreement is projected to save the COG $5,443 in the first year, an average of $9,616 annually and $144,243 total over the 15 years, according to a presentation by Pam Adams, Centre Region sustainability planner and a member of the project management team.
The agreement also includes five-year contract with Direct Energy for distribution and energy not covered by the SPPA, and a six-year contract with consultant GreenSky Development to provide ongoing management services.
Project costs, including consultant and legal fees, are billed proportionally among the participants, with the COG’s anticipated costs being $28,439.
Prospect 14 will build, operate and maintain a a 22-megawatt solar array on leased farmland in Walker Township, and participants will purchase solar energy from the project at predetermined rates. Total project costs for all SPPA participants are $563,310.
The land development plan for the solar field still requires review and approval by the Centre County Planning Commission and Walker Township. The developer and township did reach a conditional use agreement after an appeal which requires, among other things, maintenance, stormwater management and decommissioning plans.
The contract sets a target operational date of Oct. 31, 2026 and it must be in operation by June 30, 2027 or Prospect 14 will face penalties.
Concerns Over Legal Fees Raised Again
Legal fees have been at the heart of some concerns over the project, and the issue was raised again at Monday night’s General Forum meeting.
By the fall of 2023, $165,000 in legal fees were approved by the participating entities. As it became clear that additional work would be necessary, project attorney Chris Berendt of the firm Faegre Drinker told the working group in early 2024 that he would work “at risk” — meaning the participants could refuse to pay.
Excess fees beyond the initial $165,000 through May 31, 2024, plus the final fees from June 1 through closing totaled $193,455.50, with Faegre Drinker agreeing to waive $70,110. That brought the additional fees to $123,345.50, and the COG’s share of that is $4,726.88.
When the additional fees came to light in August 2024, the two most notable critics, State College Borough Councilman Josh Portney and Halfmoon Township Supervisor Ron Servello, repeatedly said that the legal work should have come to the participating entities for approval first and that the handling of the costs was irresponsible.
Project leaders said the fees should have been communicated better and sooner, but were not improperly handled. Others pushed back on suggestions that called into question the integrity of the SPPA Working Group and other officials.
Borough Manager Tom Fountaine said in September that State College doesn’t necessarily have a fixed budget for legal fees and usually pays for them the way it does other contracted services: when it receives the bill after the work is completed. Centre County Administrator John Franek apologized in August for not including the authorization of the county’s share in a quarterly report.
As the lead entity and largest consumer on the project, the State College School Board voted to pay the total $123,000 in excess fees whether the other entities decided to or or not.
The dispute led to several public spats, a Portney press conference in which he said he was the target of retribution, contentious State College Borough Council meetings and competing op–eds.
On Monday night, General Forum members debated whether an initial limit had actually been specified, as newly seated chair and Ferguson Township Supervisor Jeremie Thompson noted that the minutes of a September 2023 meeting reflect that the motion authorizing spending for legal fees did not include a figure.
Portney and Servello, though, said it had been made clear there was a $165,000 cap.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t believe it’s appropriate to be paying these legal fees that were accrued at risk,” Servello said. “Governing boards were not given prior notice of increase in prices beyond the cap that was set in 2023. I just don’t think it’s appropriate.”
State College Borough Councilman Evan Myers said since Faegre Drinker performed the work at-risk, members were not obligated to vote for it, but should decide if the charges were reasonable.
“If you individually decide that was a fair and reasonable charge… then you vote in favor of it,” Myers said. “If you don’t think it was fair and reasonable, then that’s up to you.”
The General Forum joined the other nine participating entities in approving the fees, with Portney, Servello and at least one other member who could not be identified on the meeting broadcast voting no.
Asked if the COG should make any policy change to avoid similar situations in the future, COG Executive Director Ben Estell, who only started in the role in August 2024, said that the General Forum needs to make a procedural adjustment to assure it receives direct and timely reports from representatives to non-COG bodies.
“Coming at this after everything has happened, there are clear communication failures that have gone on,” It’s incumbent upon somebody like me to make sure staff reports are making it to the forum, however the forum also had it’s own representative that was there, so we need to make sure that those reports are coming back to the forum on a regular basis as well. That’s why I believe it’s a procedural change that needs to happen for us, less policy, in the future.”
