Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts And Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ripley Power Board withholds signed tri‑party agreement over land‑conveyance language
Summary
Board members said they found language in a draft tri‑party agreement with Silicon Ranch and the Tennessee Valley Authority that could obligate Ripley Power and Light to provide land; the board voted to withhold submission until requested corrections are confirmed and authorized the superintendent to deliver the contract once satisfied.
The Ripley Power and Light Board paused submission of a signed tri‑party agreement with Silicon Ranch and the Tennessee Valley Authority after members said draft language could obligate the utility to convey land through its substation, the board said at its monthly meeting.
Board members said the agreement, as drafted, included provisions that read as if Ripley Power would be required to provide additional land for project facilities. Superintendent said the board removed language that would commit the utility to provide land and that Ripley will not bear cost or ownership obligations for property Silicon Ranch needs.
“This is where we've said, whatever you need, we're here to help you with. But our customer is not gonna pay a penny or anything,” Superintendent said, describing the board's edits to the draft. The superintendent added that Silicon Ranch already owns about 45 acres at the project site and that the utility’s role is limited to the equipment passing through the Ripley substation to TVA’s transmission line.
Board members said the draft appeared written to benefit Silicon Ranch and that Ripley’s name had been included in sections that the utility should not be party to. The board’s technical consultants reviewed the draft and identified items they considered mistakes or that required correction; the superintendent said the signed document will not be sent until those changes are confirmed.
Alderman Austin moved to allow the superintendent to deliver the contract once he was satisfied with the revisions; the motion was seconded by Alderman Wall and approved on a voice vote.
The board did not state a delivery date for the corrected agreement and said the utility would withhold submission until its technical and administrative questions are resolved.
