2016-01-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

262 which would be addressed in the PPA, such as if the city chose a 6 -month 263 annualization payment to avoid more disparity and allow for easier management; 264 and lower wintertime output at highest point of usage and how that impacted the 265 overall cost. 266 As an example of credit reconciliation, Mr. Kroll reviewed advised that the OVAL 267 energy rate was calculated on the size of the system, not how much it produced that 268 would remain the same every month. Mr. Kroll advised that for ten months, the 269 City would receive a credit, and could choose which two months of the year they 270 set as their "demand holiday" to receive a discount on the full demand load. Since 271 the OVAL has very high usage in the winter time, in a traditional scenario, Mr. 272 Kroll suggested the city could strategize to set its demand holiday for the highest 273 usage months to receive money off the entire demand load and establish standby 274 service. However, Mr. Kroll advised he was still checking with Xcel Energy to 275 determine their flexibility with that and to make sure the reality of that option would 276 actually play out, with more resear h to be complete,„d n his part to finalize 277 numbers as accurately as possible.. 278 279 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Kroll responded that if the solar system 280 produced more energy than it consumption realized, it would be sold on the grid 281 and metered accordingly. However, Mr. Kroll opined it would be unlikely that the 282 city would ever reach that limitatiqqkflor receiving a credit back. Mr. Kroll advised 283 that their design engineers were conscious of the need to design it based on 284 constraints of the demand charges and usage to best maximize what the city 285 received and use the rest for the arena. Mr. Kroll noted that the arena used way 286 more energy than balanced on the system, but the goal was to maximize the overall 287 profitability of the system between the two meters as'much as possible and utilize 288 the available space on the roof Mie. Kroll noted that the size and design of the 289 system would allow more detailed finalized numbers to determine performance 290 curves and profitability as would be detailed on the PPA schedules. 291 292 urther discussion ensu the purchase options in this scenario; how the actual 293 ula and credits were ined; language of the standby tariff as written and 294 re ements for Xcel nergy o at a minimum allow the city with a limited amount 295 of credits on a certain percentage of KWh or negotiated limitation on the system 296 size to demand profile depending on how Mr. Kroll was able to vet that out with 297 Xcel before finalizing the PPA for review and consideration by the PWETC and 298 City Council°"011IIIIIII�� 299 300 Mr. Kroll advised that the next step was 1) to receive the go-ahead from the city for 301 the project; and 2) for lawyers on both sides to review contract language of the PPA 302 after which they could begin the design process of working with Xcel Energy to 303 design the system for the city to compare with cash flows prior to signing the 304 contracts. Once signed, Mr. Kroll advised that their firm would then begin the 305 actual engineering specifications available for the system. Due to the expense of 306 the engineering and design process, Mr. Kroll noted that that work was done after 307 contracts were signed. Page 7 of 18