Laserfiche WebLink
354 <br />Member Heimerl noted lack of information at this time on potentially reduced <br />355 <br />rates for the skating center load; and as referenced (Page 7 of the PPA), noted that <br />356 <br />the city would have no interest in the solar power facility as written. Based on <br />357 <br />past discussions about the city desiring to get into green power cooperative <br />358 <br />opportunities for energy from solar farms, Member Heimerl questioned if this <br />359 <br />PPA language in any way prevent the city from developing that type of <br />360 <br />relationship at all. <br />361 <br />362 <br />363 <br />364 <br />365 <br />Mr. Culver duly noted that question, noting the city did not want that potential <br />option for a relationship prevented in anyway, andised he would clarify that <br />language with Sundial Energy and the City Attc <br />366 <br />Based on his review of the draft PPA, <br />367 <br />equity in this system, either upfront or <br />368 <br />no binding effect on community solar <br />7ihacek stated that the city had no <br />clusion, and should therefore have <br />As previously noted, if the city <br />369 should choose to purchase the sys m since it had no equitXiii it, they would <br />370 need to pay fair market value. <br />371 <br />372 Member Seigler stated his preference to see an annual risk analysi ormed to <br />373 determine ramifications if the system was not performing up to expec ations, or if <br />374 there were roof issues, or if the city decided to purCwent <br />system in seven <br />375 years, a determination of its risk. Member Seigle �����d further interest in <br />376 what the worst possible event was for the city if evwrong or in any <br />377 situation where the city may need to outlay money. If the results of this analysis <br />378 proved that the city would have no financial outlay under any scenario, Member <br />379 Seigler stated that he wanted that confirmed, and if there was any risk, what <br />380 would result for the city (e.g. hail damage to the roof or to the solar system <br />381 loss of money to the city if Xcel changed its rate structure). <br />382rwe <br />lnVee rs, or383ber i acek assured Membqqqer r that the financial assumptions provided <br />384 fairly conservative, and from his perspective, opined that the only risk he <br />385 found was rotating how they drew power by Xcel, whether their rates were <br />386 reduced, stayed static, or jumped higher. Member Cihacek noted that a twenty - <br />387 year riskas hard to project, but opined that a five year risk maybe easier or <br />388 more me gful and address Member Seigler's reservations. However, to <br />389 respond to Member Seigler, Member Cihacek opined that there was actually no <br />390 risk to the city, and that the city could ask the provider to take their system and <br />391 leave, whether d"'fie to political changes from the federal or state government, or <br />392 the Public Utilities Commission affecting law change, whether those risks were to <br />393 the vendor or city, or of mutual benefit. In this case, since the City didn't own the <br />394 system, Member Cihacek opined that the city's highest risk was any damage to <br />395 the roof, which was currently being clarified by staff, and whether there would be <br />396 any offset for the vendor paying all or part of any damages. However, Member <br />397 Cihacek stated he didn't find that risk of enough significance based on the <br />398 information provided to -date. <br />399 <br />Page 9 of 20 <br />