Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses approval of NCPA energy-storage service purchase, requests cost scenarios and impacts
Summary
Council pulled a consent item to participate in an NCPA energy‑storage service agreement and voted to have staff return at a future meeting with scenarios showing costs, risks and potential benefits of buying a 1% share (about 3 MW) of a regional battery project.
The council stopped short of finalizing a utility agreement to buy into a regional battery-storage project and asked staff to return with clearer cost scenarios and operational examples.
Background and what was proposed Staff explained that the city was asked to join an energy-storage service agreement for a Trolley Pass Project LLC battery facility being assembled by the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA). Under the current proposal the city would take a small share (described by staff as roughly 1% of the facility), equal to about 3 megawatts of storage capacity. Staff said the participation would create an obligation to pay a monthly capacity service charge; one figure discussed during the meeting was $12.71 per kilowatt‑month (presented in the paper as a per‑MW rate), which staff translated in the discussion as an approximate $36,000 per month obligation for the city's share under the example rate, subject to market operations that would charge when power is inexpensive and discharge when prices are higher.
Council concerns and requested follow-up Council members asked for clearer, worked examples showing typical monthly and annual cost and revenue scenarios, the security/deposit requirements at project milestones, and whether the city could lose money in a given market period. The council also asked how resource adequacy obligations and market operations would be managed and requested a plain‑language explanation of why offsite battery capacity located in San Bernardino County would benefit Lompoc ratepayers.
Council action Council voted 5-0 to pull the item from consent and directed staff to return at the next meeting with illustrative scenarios, sample months showing how charges and offsets could work under different market conditions, and a clearer explanation of the city's long‑term obligations and typical outcomes. Staff indicated NCPA would like commitments roughly in September, so council asked staff to return at the following meeting to meet that timeline.
Ending Staff will prepare scenario-based examples, security deposit explanations and a short financial overview to present at the next available council meeting.
