HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from William NashSubject: Financial & Environmental Comparison — Hellman Solar (1.5 MW)
Audience: City of Seat Beach Council / Planning Commission
Purpose: Demonstrate that relocating to commercial rooftops/carports is economically
viable and environmentally preferable.
Project Overview
• Proposed size: 1.5 MW
• Estimated production: —2,628 MWh/year
• Project life: 25 years
• Discount rate: 6%
Financial Comparison (25-Year View)
Metric Hellman Ground Mount Rooftop / Distributed Alternative
Installed Cost—$1.875M—$2.325M
Mitigation & Monitoring —$400k
Effective Total Cost—$2.275M
25-Year NPV—$2.63M
Payback
—5.3 yrs
Minimal
—$2.325M
—$2.58M
—6.0 yrs
Key Finding:
The financial difference over 25 years is approximately $50,000 (-2% of total value).
Risk Comparison
Risk Category Hellman Ground Rooftop Alternative
Wetland Impact
High sensitivity
None
CEQA Litigation
Moderate —High
Low
Long -Term Monitoring
Required
Minimal
Regulatory Uncertainty
Elevated
Low
Community Opposition
Likely
Limited
Key Policy Insight
Even if rooftop/carport solar costs 10-20% more upfront, the difference is largely offset by:
• Avoided environmental mitigation costs
• Reduced CEQA litigation exposure
• Lower long-term liability
• Stronger public support
Conclusion:
From a lifecycle financial perspective, the options are nearly equivalent. From an
environmental and risk -management standpoint, rooftop relocation is significantly safer.
Recommendation
Before approving wetlands-adjacentground mounting, require:
1. Formal alternatives analysis
2. Quantified rooftop/carport feasibility study
3. Risk -adjusted financial comparison in the CEQA record
LITIGATION RISK SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
How a 1-year delay due to CEQA litigation affects financial outcomes.
Base Case (No Delay)
• Year 1 revenue:—$420,480
• 25-year NPV:—$2.63M (ground)
Scenario: 1-Year Delay from Legal Challenge
Assumptions:
• Project pushed back 12 months
• Financing accrues during delay
• Legal costs: $250,000
• Discounted revenue shifts one year later
Financial Impact
1. Lost Year 1 revenue (discounted):—$390,000
2. Legal+carrying costs:—$250,000
3. Financing carry (6% on $2M for 1 year):—$120,000
Total estimated delay impact:—$760,000
Adjusted Ground -Mount NPV After 1-Year Delay
Original NPV:—$2.63M
Minus delay impact: —$760k
Revised NPV tt $1.87M
Now compare to rooftop option (no delay):
Rooftop NPV a $2.58M
Result: Rooftop becomes financially superior by—$700,000 .*'
If Delay = 2 Years?
Impact approaches $1.2M—$1.4M.
Ground mount becomes clearly inferior economically.
Key Takeaway
A single year of CEQA delay can erase any cost advantage of the Hellman ground -
mount proposal.
Risk -adjusted economics favor rooftop alternatives.
Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers.
My name is Willian Nash, and I'm speaking regarding the proposed Hellman
Solar Project adjacent to the Los Cerritos Wetlands.
First, I want to be clear: this is not an argument against solar energy.
Expanding renewable energy is essential. The question before you is about
siting— and whether placing this project on the property line of one of
Southern California's most fragile coastal wetlands is the best option.
The Los Cerritos Wetlands represent one of the last remaining tidal wetland
ecosystems in our region. They provide habitat for sensitive species, flood
buffering, groundwater interaction, and long-term restoration potential. Even
if the solar array does not directlyfill wetlands, adjacency matters.
Construction vibration, hydrologic alteration, lighting, fencing, and long-term
maintenance activity all create edge effects that can degrade wetland
function.
From a policy perspective, there are viable alternatives.
Relocating the project to nearby commercial rooftops would likely increase
capital costs by roughly 40 to 60 cents per watt. For a 1.5 megawatt system,
that translates to approximately $600,000 to $900,000 more in upfront costs.
Parking lot carports would cost more — perhaps $1.2 to $1.9 million more.
However, those added costs must be weighed against litigation and delay risk.
Wetlands -adjacent projects are far more likely to trigger CEQA challenges. A
one- to two-year delay could easily erode the financial advantage of the
lowest -cost site. Legal defense costs alone can approach several hundred
thousand dollars. More importantly, delay undermines climate progress.
There is also reputational risk. Seal Beach has an opportunity to align
renewable deployment with wetland stewardship rather than place the two in
conflict.
Commercial rooftops and existing developed sites represent best -practice
solar siting. They avoid ecological conflict, reduce permitting risk, and often
enhance community acceptance.
This decision is not about whether to build solar — it is about where to build it.
I respectfully urge the City to require a thorough alternatives analysis under
CEQA that meaningfully evaluates commercial rooftop and disturbed -site
options before approving a wetlands -edge configuration.
Thank you for your time and your stewardship of both climate progress and
our coastal ecosystems.