Laserfiche WebLink
264 do the work, they were taking on risk. If it comes to fruition, Mr. Ross noted that <br />265 the State GESP program would provide a standard contract that was transparent <br />266 with approved vendors and endorsed by the State, lumping programs together to <br />267 maximize efficiencies, not just those prime and best payback projects. Mr. Ross <br />268 advised that this Department of Commerce Project, only in place for a few months <br />269 or a three year development timeframe, would hopefully allow for sufficient <br />270 analysis and comparison of which programs and ownership roles were the most <br />271 viable for municipalities. <br />272 <br />273 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Ross reviewed the solar subscription <br />274 reduction, with total energy and use per panel calculated monthly, and utility bills <br />275 credited as applicable by utility providers (e.g. Xcel Energy). In order to avoid <br />276 running in the negative with those credits, Mr. Ross advised that there was a limit <br />277 as to the size system you could purchase (e.g. 120% of your usage); with no <br />278 incentive to over -purchase beyond that 120% as the rate was not that attractive, as <br />279 pointed out by Mr. Schwartz. <br />280 <br />281 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Ross clarified that the subscription <br />282 manager had to cover their administrative costs, and could do so in a number of <br />283 ways: charge a higher rate for subscriptions to bank money to invest in the system <br />284 and any work required to keep the system managed; retain a portion of the system <br />285 (10% for example) rather than selling 100% of the subscriptions, and use that <br />286 portion to administer the system with that revenue; or charge subscribers a <br />287 monthly fee of the maximum allowable amount of .05% of their costs. <br />288 <br />289 Mr. Schwartz questioned what protection subscribers had if they provided upfront <br />290 money before the system was built or after the system became operational. <br />291 <br />292 Mr. Ross responded that by law, the subscription manager could not start charging <br />293 the customer for the system until a certain time after operations began, a <br />294 protection built into the law. However, protection over time was more difficult, <br />295 as outlined by Mr. Ross, for subscribers to a poorly -managed company that <br />296 eventually went out of business; with the roof asset (solar system) on a twenty - <br />297 five year lease with a proposed guaranteed income stream, and unless someone <br />298 else purchased the system and took over the subscriptions, it would be <br />299 problematic. Mr. Ross stated that there were many "nightmare" stories out there, <br />300 but there was a risk that subscribers could be out of luck in such a scenario. In his <br />301 consulting role, Mr. Ross opined that it would not be his recommendation for a <br />302 neighborhood or community group to be the developer or manager, but he would <br />303 rather suggest that they hire someone with experience and more longevity. <br />304 <br />305 Ms. Barsel noted a previous presentation by Mr. Kim Havey of the Department of <br />306 Commerce. His description of a program put in place some kind of solar system <br />307 and worked with different sized communities; with the City of Roseville sending <br />308 a letter of interest to be considered as one of their pilot medium-sized <br />309 communities for the program. Ms. Barsel asked if that was still a viable option. <br />Page 7 of 15 <br />