Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Power Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord staff flags several costly power-purchase options; board tentative on new-build commitments
Summary
EN E/consultants presented four potential power-purchase volumes to the Municipal Light Board; staff recommended interest in a new-build wind project and board members expressed limited appetite for high-priced long-term contracts aside from a hydro option.
Board members heard an update May 14 from staff and the ENE group on several power purchase opportunities, including an existing hydro project (5–10 year term), an existing northern Maine wind project, and two new-build projects (a new wind and a new solar), both proposed as 25‑year contracts.
The short-term question is whether Concord should indicate interest to the developer and other MLP purchasers so the developer can size projects and offer final pricing. Staff emphasized that prices for new-build projects are currently high across the market and that developers are pricing in elevated risk and scarce near-term build capacity.
Laura summarized the four offerings and said the two new-build projects carry significantly higher prices than Concord’s current portfolio. She said the existing hydro project (New York-sourced hydro) is in very early negotiation and could be cost effective if terms are favorable, but no price was yet available. "One of the existing ones, the hydro, would be coming in from New York ... it could be cost effective," she said. The cheapest option on paper was the existing northern Maine wind project, but Laura warned of basis risk: output from that region can trade at a discount to Massachusetts hub pricing and, in some periods, be disconnected from the prices Massachusetts customers pay.
Of the new-build options, staff said the new wind project offers a more valuable winter and capacity-aligned load shape than the new solar project, which would increase local solar saturation. Those projects were described as expensive relative to Concord’s current portfolio and would raise supply costs if purchased. Staff asked whether the board wanted to express interest to help the developer size the project and continue negotiations.
Board reaction was cautious. Bianca said she favored considering the hydro project but was skeptical of the existing northern Maine wind’s pricing and the new-build offers. One board member argued Concord can meet climate goals through market purchases without locking into expensive long-term contracts that provide large near-term profits to developers. No procurement decision or commitment was made at the May 14 meeting; staff said they would collect additional pricing detail and inform the board if an attractive, lower-risk opportunity emerged.
Staff also noted forward hedging positions: assuming a named project is built, Concord has roughly 75–80% of its needs hedged through 2030; the percentage drops afterward and new purchases would shape the post‑2030 portfolio. The board asked staff to flag specific bids that are cost‑effective and to provide comparisons to current portfolio costs before any contract commitments.
