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