HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - August 11, 2015 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL
SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2015
A. Roll Call by City Clerk
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held
Tuesday, August 11, 2015, commencing at 7:01 a.m.
Present: Council Member Kuehne, Council Member Mounce, Council Member Nakanishi, and
Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler
Absent: Mayor Johnson
Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Ferraiolo
NOTE: Council Member Kuehne left the meeting at 8:07 a.m.
B. Topic(s)
B-1 Renewables Portfolio Standard Update (EU)
Rates and Resources Manager Melissa Cadek provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) update. Specific topics of discussion included current RPS
requirements, future of RPS, RPS in review, Lodi RPS, Lodi's current resources versus
requirement, current RPS efforts, Lodi's new resources versus requirement, and next steps.
Mario De Bernardo, State Government Relations and External Affairs Manager with Northern
California Power Agency (NCPA), provided an update on two pieces of legislation: AB 645
(Williams) and SB 350 (de Leon), both of which address future potential RPS targets, regulations,
and related issues. Mr. De Bernardo stated that NCPA and City staff met with legislative staff on
July 20, 2015, at the Lodi Energy Center to explain where Lodi fits in the State's energy goals and
the value it brings to Lodi. Additionally, NCPA has been active at the State Capitol in lobbying
with legislators, as well as with key staff members, who are drafting both pieces of legislation.
In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. De Bernardo stated that SB 350 addresses the
matters that Governor Brown was attempting to attain; whereas, AB 645 does not. With respect to
President Obama's plan, Mr. De Bernardo explained that his plan, which focuses on emissions
from power plants, is separate from these pieces of legislation, which are related to renewable
energy procurement from utilities. Ms. Cadek added that President Obama's Clean Power Plan is
less stringent than the proposed California plan, which will fall under the Air Resources Board to
craft and submit to the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. De Bernardo further explained that
these bills deal specifically with industrial utilities procuring renewable energy; not so much on
emission numbers, but reduction in emissions is the ultimate goal. Labor plays a significant role in
the bill, and it focuses on jobs, which is the reason this bill is not directed at emissions reductions,
but on renewable projects.
In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. De Bernardo stated both bills passed their house of
origin on June 3, 2015, without amendments, but at the next level, some amendments were made
and discussions continue on the major outstanding issues, such as rooftop solar and energy
efficiency. At the request of Council Member Mounce, Mr. De Bernardo stated he would provide
information to Council on who supports and who opposes the bills.
Mr. De Bernardo reported that NCPA has been involved in discussions with Senator de Leon
since January to identify operational challenges associated with implementing his legislation. He
predicted that, of the two bills, SB 350 is more likely to pass based on the amount of attention the
bill has received. As he stated previously, the two outstanding issues are: 1) rooftop solar,
because it does not receive credit in the RPS program as it does not lead to construction of large
power plants and because solar companies cannot use union labor, and 2) energy efficiency
because the goal to double energy efficiency is too general, there are competing proposals, it
does not give local government flexibility to provide incentives and energy efficiency activities,
and there is a requirement to disclose customer usage data to regulatory agencies, which is a
privacy concern. Mr. De Bernardo stated that both investor- and publicly -owned utilities are
pushing to have solar energy applied toward the RPS program.
In response to Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler stated that Senator
Galgiani and Assemblymember Cooper listened carefully to the information presented to them,
and he believed they would vote in a manner that was beneficial to Lodi. In further response,
Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler stated that letters have not yet been sent because the final position
of the bills is unknown.
In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. De Bernardo stated that NCPA's outreach has gone
beyond the letter -writing campaign, adding that the local representatives were given detailed,
informative packets on NCPA's position at their meeting, along with elected representatives from
member cities and NCPA staff attending to articulate the concerns. Council Member Mounce
stressed the importance of letter -writing campaigns, stating that pressure from every angle and in
many forms helps get cities' message across to legislators.
In answer to Council Member Kuehne, Ms. Cadek stated that geothermal energy is one of Lodi's
largest contributors toward its RPS program and that Palo Alto has a significant source of
hydroelectric power.
In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Ms. Cadek stated that, if the price is reasonable, it
would be prudent to buy more renewable power now and spread it over multiple years; however,
there are limitations on excess surplus because short-term energy contracts, i.e. those less than
ten years, cannot be counted.
In response to Council Member Kuehne, Ms. Cadek stated that the City, through NCPA, is
participating with a Southern California power agency in a 75 megawatt solar project in Kern
County, which locked in a price of $60 per hour that would generate 31,000 megawatts of power
a year for the City.
In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Ms. Cadek stated that this project is incorporated in
the current price structure. She further explained that RPS contracts lock in a price over a long
term, but the up -front cost is higher than market prices and, as time goes on and market power
prices increase, the mid and later years of the contract will cost less because of the locked -in
price. Council Member Nakanishi questioned if the City will need to raise rates because of this
contract, to which Ms. Cadek responded that she cannot predict what will happen in 2017, at
which time the City will begin paying on this contract, because these renewable resources will
impact the Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA) but not the base rates.
Council Member Mounce expressed disappointment in staffs explanation at the previous Council
meeting to the Facebook group concerned about electric utility rates. She believed staff failed to
mention that SMUD's potential inability to meet the State -mandated requirement for renewable
resources, which may cause it to raise rates, does not take affect until the year 2030, yet citizens
want relief on their bills now. Further, she believed staff was not clear regarding the City's buy-
back of solar energy, stating it only refunds customers for energy produced beyond their usage.
City Manager Schwabauer pointed out that, while 2030 is the ultimate deadline to reach
50 percent RPS, there are interim targets as early as 2023. With regard to solar, the City does not
allow solar users to construct solar systems that may generate more power than they need for
their homes because the City is required to buy back the power at retail cost, which does not
recapture the cost for marketing and distributing the power. Council Member Mounce stated that
the public deserves the entire answer to a question; not only the piece that satisfies staffs
position.
Council Member Kuehne suggested that legislators be made aware of this predicament and be
2
requested to enact legislation allowing utilities to recapture the cost of distribution and
maintenance from customers, rather than a set percentage. If that were possible, customers
could build larger solar panels than needed because the City could recover it costs. Ms. Cadek
explained that, under the net metering law, customers can be compensated at the end of the year
if they generated more energy than they used. Council approved the compensation rate at the
retail rate, less the 3 percent public benefits charge. She stated there is some discussion that,
when the 2016 legislation ends, the net metering law may be revamped to address this concern,
but it is too early to know what the outcome may be. She stated the City can readdress the matter
once the bill renews or ends in 2016.
Council Member Nakanishi stated it was a moot point because it is state law, to which
Mr. Schwabauer responded to the contrary, stating the City needs to advocate for policies that
work for its rate payers and, to do so, it needs to understand legislators' points of view.
In response to Council Member Mounce, Ms. Cadek stated that solar customers are given the
option to be compensated for their excess power generation by City check or to roll the amount to
the next year as a credit. Last year, the City issued $9,000 back to customers for solar power
generation. Council Member Mounce requested a list of who received checks and for how much,
as well as who carried over their credits and for how much. City Manager Schwabauer stated that
the report cannot identify individuals, but it can list the number of accounts and the dollar
amounts. Council Member Mounce stated she believed that checks written to individuals were
public information. City Attorney Magdich stated that, under State law, customer names and
energy usage is privileged information.
Electric Utility Director Elizabeth Kirkley informed Council that, in the near future, staff will present
information at a Shirtsleeve Session on the impact solar customers have on the City's revenue
stream and options to better recover revenue.
Council Member Nakanishi questioned if those cities who chose not to move forward with the
current RPS projects through NCPA are delaying their obligation to meet this requirements.
Ms. Cadek responded that most of those cities are either already fully resourced to 2025, are
focusing on behind -the -meter generation, or have a surplus situation. Each member has a
different portfolio and they likely opted out because they do not have a need for it at this time.
In response to Council Member Kuehne, Ms. Cadek explained there is a distribution cost to bring
power to Lodi from the various power plants, but the cost is the same regardless of where the
plant is located.
In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Ms. Cadek stated that transmission costs are similar,
but it can vary depending on the amount of congestion on the lines. Ms. Magdich added that the
Southern California project in Kern County is on inexpensive land with plenty of room to build
solar farms for the project. In further response, Ms. Cadek stated that purchasing power outside
of California is complicated and not worthwhile as that power does not count toward RPS and is
less valuable.
Council Member Mounce questioned the status of the project that the City was considering five
years ago to utilize property at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility for a solar
project. Ms. Kirkley stated she was unsure, as this occurred before she came to Lodi, but
speculated the reason is the minimal available property, adding that such a project would
generate very little power and the cost per generation would be higher than the project currently
under consideration. Mr. Schwabauer stated he recalled that it was determined the project would
not be economically feasible, but he would follow up on the matter and report back to Council.
Council Member Mounce believed Lodi should be able to utilize its own property for projects or
sell to NCPA for a project. Ms. Cadek explained that 6 to 7 acres is needed in order to build a
solar system of 1 megawatt and that utilities typically buy into projects in the 70 to 100 megawatt
range because of lower pricing.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler, Ms. Cadek explained that the City receives roughly
$4 million in greenhouse gas revenues and that Council approved a plan last year to use those
funds primarily on public benefits and energy efficiencies. Mr. Schwabauer added that the
greenhouse gas program is an artificial market to require people to pay for carbon use, but over
time that resource will fade.
Council Member Kuehne stated he would like the utility rate tiers to be less complicated and is
looking forward to the upcoming Shirtsleeve Session at which this topic will be discussed.
Council Member Mounce concurred that the tiers need to be simplified so that those who utilize a
substantial amount of energy will pay more and those that do not are more in line with PG&E's
rates.
In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Ms. Cadek stated that, in the initial years of the
proposed projects, the impact on the power cost would be $1 to $2 while the cost of power is
higher than the market; however, green power would be less. Mr. Schwabauer added that staff
cannot predict what will happen; the market will decide what impact it will have.
In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. De Bernardo stated that NCPA has raised the
concern with legislators that these mandates are causing an increase in commercial costs,
causing rate payers and businesses to look elsewhere; however, Senator de Leon's response is
that the same argument was made on the initial RPS bill, yet the economy is now stronger. There
is a great deal of focus on the pending bill amendments to ensure the issues relating to
investment in local projects, rooftop solar projects, and flexibility on energy efficiencies are
addressed. Council Member Nakanishi expressed concern that, because states other than
California have less -stringent requirements, businesses will choose to locate outside of the state,
which will negatively affect California's economy, to which Mr. De Bernardo agreed, stating that
argument has been made to legislators as well. In further response, Mr. De Bernardo stated that
the current bill allows local government to exercise a cost containment provision, should cost
become an issue, and avoid complete compliance with RPS; however, it is unknown how those
provisions will be addressed. The few small utilities that made this argument have yet to hear if
their claims will be accepted by the California Energy Commission.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler, Mr. De Bernardo stated that NCPA is fighting to
ensure large hydroelectric power counts toward the RPS because is contributes significantly to
reducing the carbon footprint and because it is poor policy to make utilities dump excess power in
order to meet the 50 percent RPS.
In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. De Bernardo stated that legislators excluded
hydroelectric power in the bill, but they are not arguing that hydro is not a renewable resource;
rather, the incentive behind the bill is to create new projects, and hydro plants have not been
constructed over the last few decades, nor are any planned for the foreseeable future. Council
Member Mounce stressed that NCPA should be creating a game plan to strongly encourage
legislators to include hydroelectric in the bill and questioned if NCPA staff has a positive
relationship with legislators who could carry a bill written or co-authored by NCPA through the
process. Mr. De Bernardo responded that NCPA has worked with legislators to address the
amendments in SB 350, including the hydro issues, and will continue to do so. Council Member
Mounce demonstrated her passion about government, stating it is necessary to fight hard and
argue the point to reach the desired outcome.
Ms. Kirkley pointed out that, even if the 50 percent RPS mandate is not approved, Lodi will still
need the two new proposed projects to maintain the existing 33 percent requirement.
Alex Aliferis stated that the group, Coalition of Energy Users, is currently fighting against SB 350
and he encouraged the Council and others in San Joaquin County to actively oppose the bill. He
believed SB 350 was a dangerous bill that would mandate citizens to reduce gas, thereby
increasing gas prices. Mr. Aliferis presented statistics on California's utility costs for residential,
commercial, and industrial users, all of which demonstrate that California is significantly higher
than the national average, and on the low number of manufacturing facilities that were built or
expanded in California as compared nationally.
0
Mike Lusk requested clarification regarding the 2017 ECA increases in relationship to the Astoria
project, to which Ms. Cadek stated that any increases that affect power costs are dependent upon
sales and the ECA, and there were multiple moving parts that make it difficult to predict the affect
on rates. Further, the Astoria project results in a fixed rate for 20 years, with a higher up -front cost
and lower cost in the later years for a net zero impact, but the affect on rates will depend on
where market prices are moving. Ms. Kirkley further explained that, if the RPS requirement did
not exist, the City would enter power contracts on the market because, at this time, it is less
costly; however, this law requires that a contract be in place to meet the RPS requirement.
Mr. Schwabauer further explained that the Astoria contract will not change what will happen with
the ECA because it is a fixed price, but the rest of the market will impact the ECA with an
increase or decrease. If the situation is positive in 2019, the ECA will decrease despite the fact
that the Astoria cost is higher, but if market prices increase, the City will save money on the
Astoria contract, but it would cause the ECA to increase.
C. Comments by Public on Non-Aaenda Items
None.
D. Adjournment
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jennifer M. Ferraiolo
City Clerk
5
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Renewables Portfolio Standard Update
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2015
PREPARED BY: Electric Utility Director
B,sm I
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) update.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Senate Bill (SB) X1-2 requires that 20, 25, and 33 percent of the
City's retail energy sales be supplied by renewable energy by the
end of Compliance Years 2013, 2016 and 2020, respectively.
Existing generation resources, coupled with excess surplus and historic carryover from prior years, will
enable the City to meet these current requirements. However, pending legislation will require utilities to
procure renewable energy at an amount equal to 50 percent of its retail sales by 2030.
Staff will provide Council with an update regarding RPS regulations and Lodi's current RPS status. In
addition, staff will provide Council with information regarding the Northern California Power Agency's
(NCPA) efforts to assist members, including Lodi, with future RPS planning and compliance efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
Elizabeth A. Kirkley
Electric Utility Director
PREPARED BY: Melissa Price-Cadek, Rates & Resources Manager
EK/MPC/Ist
Renewables Portfolio
Standard (RPS) Update
City Council Shirtsleeve
August 11, 2015
RPS History
• 2002 — SB 1078
o Established 2o% by 2017
• 2006 — SB 107
Accelerated to 20% by 2010
• 2011 — SBX1-2
Expanded RPS to 33% by 2020
Current RPS Requirements
• 2013 - RPS Regulations
0 33% of Retail Sales
by 2020
0 Established
Compliance Period
Interim Targets
• Required adoption
of Enforcement and
Procurement Plan
no,
Comp. Per. 1 Comp. Per. 2 Comp. Per. 3
2011-2013) 2014-2016) 2017-2020)
What the Future Holds for RPS
• Legislature adjourned until mid-August
• Must pass by September 11
o AB 645 (Williams)
• 50% RPS by 2030
• Interim Targets of 38% by 2023 and 44% by 2026
SB 350 (de Leon)
• 3 Clean Energy Goals by 2030
— 50% RPS
— 50% reduction in petroleum used in motor vehicles
— Doubling of energy efficiency in existing buildings
— Interim Targets of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027
• Outstanding Issues (rooftop solar, energy efficiency)
RPS in Review
• Retail Sales
— Does not include municipal use
• RPS Portfolio Content
Categories (PCC)
— "Bucket o"
• Contracts prior to 2010
— "Bucket 1"
• Contracts after 2010
• Delivered to CAISO
— "Bucket 2"
• Contracts after 2010
• Outside CAISO
— "Bucket 3"
0 Unbundled RECs only
.1 - �CC 2
PCC 1
KC
0
Lodi RPS
• Historic Carryover
• Excess Surplus
• Current RPS Sources
— Geothermal (existing)
— Small Hydro (existing)
— Solar
• Astoria 2 Solar Project
• Commercial Operation Date — December 2016
• Sufficient to Meet 202o Requirement
• Ranked 12 of 43 for Compliance Period 1 (POUs)
• Additional Resources Need to Meet 2030 Requirement
Lodi Resources (Current) vs. Requirements (2014-2030)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
n
2014 2015 2o16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Current Resources � Excess Surplus � Historic Carryover RPS Requirement
Actual requirement to 2020; proposed to 2030
Current RPS Efforts
• May 2015 - RFP issued by NCPA
• 6 Respondents
— Multiple facilities
— Terms ranging 2 to 30 years
— Prices ranging high $40's to high $6o's
• Reviewed by NCPA and members
• Four members moving forward, including Lodi
• Two separate projects totaling (5 to 10 MW)
— Project details confidential
— Reputable developers; competitively priced
— 2017 and 2020 commercial operation dates; long-term contracts
— Incremental increase in power cost (initial years) ~$85oK (including Astoria)
— Cost differential declines over time as price remains fixed and market prices rise
— Funded by Greenhouse Gas monies
Lodi Resources (New) vs. Requirement (2014-2030)
250,000
200,000
10,00❑
100,000
50,000
9
2014 2015 2o16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
� Current Resources New Resources � Excess Surplus � Histo ric Carryover RPS Requirement
Actual requirement to 2020; proposed to 2030
Next Steps
• Second Phase Agreement with NCPA
• Authorizes NCPA to negotiate Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
• Authorizes funding for said efforts
• Not to exceed $35,000
• Lodi share estimated at ~50
• Terminates upon:
• Effective date of Third Phase Agreement
• Termination of negotiations
• Third Phase Agreement effective upon:
• Successful negotiation of PPA
• Approval by Governing Boards
• Approval by NCPA Commission
• PPA executed by all parties
• Estimated completion — December 2015
of
ci
jjQuestions?
Jennifer Ferraiolo
From: Steve Schwabauer
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:58 AM
To: City Council; JoAnne Mounce - External
Subject: Fwd: FW: Council Follow Up - SB 350 and AB 645
Attachments: AB 645 Supporters and Opponents.png; List of SB350 Opponents.png; List of SB350
Supporters.png
At Council request attached is the voting record for the rps legislation
Stephen Schwabauer
Lodi City Manager
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, California 95240
(209) 333-6701
sschwabauerRiedigov
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elizabeth Kirkley <ek rltfey@DiodLj%'0 >
Date: Aug 12, 2015 5:10 PM
Subject: FW: Council Follow Up - SB 350 and AB 645
To: Steve Schwabauer <sschwabauer0loclL ov>
Steve,
In response to Council Member Mounce's request regarding support and opposition to SB 350 and AB 645 see the email
below, attachments, and links below for the votes in each house.
Liz
Here are the links for the SB 350 Senate Floor vote: • le inin.ca. av ub 15-16Lll . s . 03 -
.0350 Sb- 350 vote 2.0150603 1116AM_sen floor.html
AB 645 Assembly Floor vote: htt : le-Lnfo.ca. ov 5-16 bill asmab 0601=
0650 ah 645 vote 20150603 1153AM_asm floor.html
From: Melissa Cadek
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 2:14 PM
To: Elizabeth Kirkley
Subject: Council Follow Up - SB 350 and AB 645
Liz,
Per Councilmember Mounce's request, attached are 3 separate lists. Mario provided the information. One list includes
supporters of SB 350; one list includes opponents of SB 350. The third list is a combined list of supporters and
opponents of AB 645. Interesting to note that the lists come from the last committee analysis for each bill.
Azul
California Biomass Energy Alliance
California Energy Storage Alliance
California Environmental Justice Alliance
California Hydropower Reform Coalition
California League of Conservation iters
California Municipal Utilities Association,
California State Association of Electrical
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Wind Energy Association
Center for Biological Diversity
City of Santa Monica
Clean Power Campaign
Clean Water Action
AB 645 (Williams)
if amended
Workers
Climate Action Campaign
Coalition of California Utility Employees
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Elevator Constructors Union
EnergySource LLC
Environment California
Environmental Action Committee West Marin
Environmental Defense Fund
Independent Energy Producers Association
Large -Scale Solar Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextGen Climate
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, if amended
San Diego County Water Authority, if amended
Sierra Club California
Solar Energy Industries Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council
The Utility Reform Network, if amended
US Green Building Council, California
Union of Concerned Scientists
Vote Solar
W100f-10rn C+-=toCM f'n1inni 1 r%f Choo+- Motal &7r~rlrora
Paget of
Association Builders and Contractors of California
BizFed (Los Angeles County Business Federation)
Building Owners and Managers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction Trucking Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Metals Coalition
California Retailers Association
California Small Business Alliance
California Small Business Association
California Trucking Association
Coalition of Energy Users
SB
Page 14
Foster Farms
Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Independent Oil Producers Agency
International Council of Shopping Centers
International Warehouse Logistics Association
Kern Citizens of Energy
Kern Citizens for Sustainable Government
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Royalty Owners - California
National Federation of Independent Business/California
National Tank Truck Carriers
Placer County Taxpayers Association
Regional Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Tax Fighters
San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association
Santa Barbara Technology and Industry Association
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Small Business Action Committee
Azul
SB 350
Page 8
Baz Allergy, Asthma and Sinus Center
Berkshire Hathaway Energy
Blattner Energy
Bonnie J. Adario Lung Cancer Foundation
Breathe California
BYD Motors, Inc.
California Black Health Network
California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health
California Energy Efficiency Industry Council
California Hydropower Reform Coalition
California League of Conservation Voters
California Pan -Ethnic Health Network
California Public Health Association - North
California Thoracic Society
Californians Against waste
Center for Climate Change and Health
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Circulate San Diego
Clean Power Campaign
Clean water Action
Cleveland National Forest Foundation
Climate Resolve
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Doctors for Climate Health (8 doctors)
Endangered Habitats League
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
EtaGen
First Solar
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the River
Health Care Without Harm
Independent Energy Producers Association
Large -Scale Solar Association
League of Women Voters of California
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Medical Advocates for Healthy Air
Moms Clean Air Force
National Parks Conservation Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextGen Climate
SB 350
Page 9
NextTracker, Inc.
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter
Public Health Institute
Recurrent Energy
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention
Seauoia Riverlands Trust
Jennifer Ferraiolo
From:
Steve Schwabauer
Sent:
Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:41 AM
To:
City Council; JoAnne Mounce - External
Cc:
Elizabeth Kirkley; Melissa Cadek
Subject:
White Slough Wind/Solar Project
Attachments:
FW-LodiWWTP PPA 01-31-11.docx
In response to a council request, we did a little research on the last effort to put wind or solar power on City
property. Prices at the time were in the $80-$100 range so it appears the project was abandoned because it was cost
prohibitive. As you know we bought into the Astoria Project for $64.00, much lower than the prices we were quoted
below. Ken Wiesel and George Morrow both report that it did not make sense at the time since there was no RPS
mandate and there was a strong motive for cost containment to go forward.
Steve Schwabauer
Lodi City Manager
WIND POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
By and Between
Foundation Windpower, LLC
("Seller")
and
City of Lodi
("Pu�rchs�er")
Dated as of 92011
FW Wind PPA Confidential and Proprietary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ARTICLEI DEFINITIONS .............................. ............................ ,........... ........................................ 7
ARTICLE II SALE AND PURCHASE OF ENERGY; RISK OF LOSS; EXCLUSIVE
CONTROL....................................................................................................................................12
Section 2.1urnm Des c tion... .................. ............................... ...................12
Section 2.2 m1b .......... ......................:...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Section 2.3 Purchaser's Failure to Accot t Deiive..........................:.:......................12
Section 2.4 Deliy-M Ftcvented _by Purchaser .............................................................12
Section 2.5 Seller's Failure to Deliver.........................................................................13
Section2.6 Curtailment.......................................................................................13
Section 2.7 Liquidated Damages...............................................................................13
Section 2.8 Non -Exclusive Benefit............................................................................14
ARTICLE III BILLING AND PAYMENT....................................................................:.............14
Section3.1 Invoices.....................................................................................................15
Section3.2 Pa3Lment ...................................................................................................15
Section 3.3 Errors......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Section 3.4 Biu}ng,Dispu es......................................:......................,:....................15
ARTICLE IV TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS OF ENERGY; FACILITY OWNERSHIP ............15
Section4.1 Title.......................................................................... .............. ......15
Section 4.2 Risk of Loss and Exclusive C .....................
....................... 15
Section4.3 ENiliiv ..................................................................................15
ARTICLE V CURTAILMENT AND MODIFICATION BY SELLER.......................................16
Section 5.1 Curtailment .......................... ..... .......................... ....... ........... .16
Section 5.2 Modification of fte Facili ........................................................................ 16
FW Wind PPA -i- Confidential and Proprietary