2015-01-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

171 172 With concerns raised by Member Gjerdingen regarding building maintenance 173 and/or expansion, Member Cihacek noted that, with a twenty year agreement for 174 the solar installation, any substantial changes to that particular building would 175 most likely not be anticipated until the end of that contractual agreement; with 176 costs for moving panels and/or down time also negotiated as part of the fixed 177 price for the twenty-year agreement period. 178 179 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Kampmeyer reviewed energy cost 180 assumptions including annual inflation; but depending on how much of an 181 increase was granted by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to Xcel Energy 182 during that time. Mr. Kampmeyer noted the current dramatic drop in natural gas, 183 and potential increases in the future as Xcel Energy was regulated to shutter coal 184 plants and/or decommission nuclear plant and associated costs. Mr. Kampmeyer 185 noted that Minnesota currently had low energy costs due to coal energy, and 186 average annual increases of approximately 4.3% over the last t n years. 187 188 Mr. Weir anticipated a realistic 3.5% annual increase form Xcel E gy over the 189 next twenty years, with a 2% escalator built in 190 191 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Kamp er confirmed that the purchase 192 price of the system was negotiable depending on the system cost and available 193 investors; but was typically low risk for municipal governments from their past 194 experience in these negotiations 195 196 At the request of Chair Stenlund, . Kampmeyer a vised that their firm would 197 not charge for designing the system and was part of their services provided; and 198 I(A vailable to offer a proformaif th chose to own the system and 199 nding on financing through the SPPA, inflation and degradation over time of 200 ystem. Mr. Kampmeyer offered rovide information for the Commission 201 ity to make an informed decision. 202 203 t the request of Chair Stenlund Mr. Schwartz provided suggestions for moving 204 forward. Mr. Schwartz advised that, on a dual track, staff was seeking a 205 recommendation from the PWETC to the City Council in preparation for their 206 January meeting, and anticipating that work would continue at that same time if a 207 decision was made to pursue the Made in Minnesota application due in February 208 and allowing enough lead time to work out remaining details; as well as 209 continuing to discuss programs for larger roof areas. Mr. Schwartz advised that 210 staff felt applications were feasible on smaller roofs on campus to pursue other 211 programs as well. 212 213 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff did not see 214 any need to pursue a competitive bidding process under Minnesota municipal 215 contracting laws for smaller systems, but to simply negotiate with installers and 216 financial partners. Page 5 of 11