2015-11-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

which would be addressed in the PPA, such as if the city chose a 6 -month annualization payment to avoid more disparity and allow for easier management; and lower wintertime output at highest point of usage and how that impacted the overall cost. As an example of credit reconciliation, Mr. Kroll reviewed advised that the OVAL energy rate was calculated on the size of the system, not how much it produced that would remain the same every month. Mr. Kroll advised that for ten months, the City would receive a credit, and could choose which two months of the year they set as their "demand holiday" to receive a discount on the full demand load. Since the OVAL has very high usage in the winter time, in a traditional scenario, Mr. Kroll suggested the city could strategize to set its demand holiday for the highest usage months to receive money off the entire demand load and establish standby service. However, Mr. Kroll advised he was still checking with Xcel Energy to determine their flexibility with that and to make sure the reality of that option would actually play out, with more research to be completed on his part to finalize numbers as accurately as possible. At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Kroll responded that if the solar system produced more energy than it consumed, it would be sold on the grid and metered accordingly. However, Mr. Kroll opined it would be unlikely that the city would ever reach that limitation for receiving a credit back. Mr. Kroll advised that their design engineers were conscious of the need to design it based on constraints of the demand charges and usage to best maximize what the city received and use the rest for the arena. Mr. Kroll noted that the arena used way more energy than balanced on the system, but the goal was to maximize the overall profitability of the system between the two meters as much as possible and utilize the available space on the roof. Mr. Kroll noted that the size and design of the system would allow more detailed finalized numbers to determine performance curves and profitability as would be detailed on the PPA schedules. Further discussion ensued on the purchase options in this scenario; how the actual formula and credits were determined; language of the standby tariff as written and requirements for Xcel Energy to at a minimum allow the city with a limited amount of credits on a certain percentage of KWh or negotiated limitation on the system size to demand profile depending on how Mr. Kroll was able to vet that out with Xcel before finalizing the PPA for review and consideration by the PWETC and City Council. Mr. Kroll advised that the next step was 1) to receive the go-ahead from the city for the project; and 2) for lawyers on both sides to review contract language of the PPA after which they could begin the design process of working with Xcel Energy to design the system for the city to compare with cash flows prior to signing the contracts. Once signed, Mr. Kroll advised that their firm would then begin the actual engineering specifications available for the system. Due to the expense of the engineering and design process, Mr. Kroll noted that that work was done after contracts were signed. Page 7 of 18