Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Power board approves tri‑party agreement to allow Silicon Ranch solar to connect at East Industrial Park substation
Summary
The Ripley Power and Light Power Board unanimously approved a tri‑party interconnection agreement that allows a Silicon Ranch solar project to use the East Industrial Park substation to reach the TVA system. The city will not take ownership or significant costs, and the agreement includes metering to support the TDA system.
The Ripley Power and Light Power Board voted unanimously to approve a tri‑party interconnection agreement enabling a Silicon Ranch solar project to connect through the city’s East Industrial Park substation to the TVA system.
The agreement, described at the board’s meeting as a tri‑party arrangement because Silicon Ranch will move generation through the city’s substation onto the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) system and the TDA network, allocates no ownership of the facility or major construction costs to the city. The board’s superintendent said the city’s role is limited to permitting use of its facilities and that Silicon Ranch will cover most project costs; the agreement does include metering that will assist the TDA system.
Board members said the interconnection could help attract industry that values access to renewable power, while not creating a direct asset obligation for the city. “We really don’t have any ownership in it,” the superintendent told the board. The board moved and seconded the measure and then took a roll‑call vote approving the agreement.
The motion was made by Alderman Thompson and seconded by Miss Austin. The recorded roll call on the motion listed Alderman Olsen (yes); Alderman Chipman (yes); Alderman Fraser (yes); Alderman Long (yes); Alderman Kielick (yes); Alderman Thompson (yes); and Mayor Pichi (yes). The vote tally was 7 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.
During discussion, board members and the mayor also described a separate, 30‑year multi‑state agreement tied to a Mount Pleasant solar project and said they viewed that longer contract as higher risk. Those remarks were presented as part of an informational update rather than a formal action on the Mount Pleasant agreement; the board did not approve that multi‑state contract at the meeting.
The city clerk recorded the approved tri‑party agreement and the board authorized proceeding to finalize the contract documents and signatures so the project may move forward.
