Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses UAMPS ' all-requirements vs. project-based membership and EDAM impacts
Summary
Board members discussed potential participation in an "all-requirements" pool run by UAMPS, the trade-offs between pooling all resources versus project-by-project participation, potential 25-year commitment, and the coming day-ahead market (EDAM) with a decision expected within months.
Board members spent the bulk of the meeting discussing a regional aggregation option being advanced by UAMPS (referred to in the transcript as "UAMS," corrected here to UAMPS) that would pool participants' generation and buy power on behalf of all members.
Speaker 6 described the two options under consideration: remain project-based (each municipality selects and invests in individual projects) or go "all in" as an all-requirements participant so UAMPS would centrally manage resources and scheduling on behalf of the pool. Speaker 6 said the all-requirements approach would "take all of the projects combined and they would all be done through UAMPS" and warned that "it's gonna be a 25-year commitment." He also said the board would likely "pay more for power in the all-in group" but acknowledged administrative benefits: fewer local scheduling duties and potential reduction in staff time if UAMPS manages resources centrally.
Discussion points raised by board members included: - Cost allocation: under an all-requirements pool, costs would be socialized across participants and would average resources; some members worried that projects they funded that were low-cost would be averaged with higher-cost resources from other members. - Loss of project selection: several members emphasized that an all-requirements model would reduce a municipality's ability to pick which projects to join. - Contract length and risk: members noted the long-term nature of the commitment (described in the meeting as roughly 25 years) and the possibility that larger entities' priorities could shape resource selection. - Administrative capacity: members said opting out would leave the city responsible for securing firm power and likely increasing local staffing for scheduling and 24/7 market participation. - EDAM (day-ahead market) timetable: the transcript records a planning horizon where an EDAM-related change is coming; one speaker said a decision or rollout is expected by March 2026 and that the board should expect a decision in the next six months.
No formal motion or vote on UAMPS participation occurred at this meeting. Several members asked staff to pursue additional due diligence and to invite UAMPS representatives to make a presentation and answer questions before the board makes a decision.
Direct quote: Speaker 6 said, "We're just looking at changing our power board meeting from the first Wednesday of the month to the second Wednesday of the month" (quoted in the meeting in the context of schedule/timing) and later summarized the all-requirements trade-off: "The all requirements portion is gonna basically take all of the projects combined and they would all be done through UAMPS." (All quoted phrases attributed to the meeting transcript.)
