Laserfiche WebLink
Member Heimerl noted lack of information at this time on potentially reduced <br />rates for the skating center load; and as referenced (Page 7 of the PPA), noted that <br />the city would have no interest in the solar power facility as written. Based on <br />past discussions about the city desiring to get into green power cooperative <br />opportunities for energy from solar farms, Member Heimerl questioned if this <br />PPA language in any way prevent the city from developing that type of <br />relationship at all. <br />Mr. Culver duly noted that question, noting the city did not want that potential <br />option for a relationship prevented in anyway, and advised he would clarify that <br />language with Sundial Energy and the City Attorney. <br />Based on his review of the draft PPA, Member Cihacek stated that the city had no <br />equity in this system, either upfront or at its conclusion, and should therefore have <br />no binding effect on community solar gardens. As previously noted, if the city <br />should choose to purchase the system, since it had no equity in it, they would <br />need to pay fair market value. <br />Member Seigler stated his preference to see an annual risk analysis performed to <br />determine ramifications if the system was not performing up to expectations, or if <br />there were roof issues, or if the city decided to purchase the system in seven <br />years, a determination of its risk. Member Seigler expressed further interest in <br />what the worst possible event was for the city if everything went wrong or in any <br />situation where the city may need to outlay money. If the results of this analysis <br />proved that the city would have no financial outlay under any scenario, Member <br />Seigler stated that he wanted that confirmed, and if there was any risk, what <br />would result for the city (e.g. hail damage to the roof or to the solar system <br />inverters, or loss of money to the city if Xcel changed its rate structure). <br />Member Cihacek assured Member Seigler that the financial assumptions provided <br />were fairly conservative, and from his perspective, opined that the only risk he <br />found was rotating how they drew power by Xcel, whether their rates were <br />reduced, stayed static, or jumped higher. Member Cihacek noted that a twenty- <br />year risk was hard to project, but opined that a five year risk may be easier or <br />more meaningful and address Member Seigler's reservations. However, to <br />respond to Member Seigler, Member Cihacek opined that there was actually no <br />risk to the city, and that the city could ask the provider to take their system and <br />leave, whether due to political changes from the federal or state government, or <br />the Public Utilities Commission affecting law change, whether those risks were to <br />the vendor or city, or of mutual benefit. In this case, since the City didn't own the <br />system, Member Cihacek opined that the city's highest risk was any damage to <br />the roof, which was currently being clarified by staff, and whether there would be <br />any offset for the vendor paying all or part of any damages. However, Member <br />Cihacek stated he didn't find that risk of enough significance based on the <br />information provided to -date. <br />Page 9 of 20 <br />