Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant report lays out trade‑offs between Sunflower/Prairie Land and KMEA power proposals for Goodland
Summary
A Midwest Municipal Solutions report presented to the Goodland City Commission compared Sunflower/Prairie Land’s discounted full‑requirements contract with KMEA’s unbundled proposal, highlighting cost scenarios, governance and limits on local generation and recommending further sensitivity testing and legal review before a decision.
John, a consultant from Midwest Municipal Solutions, told the City Commission that Goodland faces a choice between two contrasting power‑supply models: a discounted full‑requirements offer from Sunflower/Prairie Land and an unbundled, more diversified option from the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency (KMEA). John said the report’s goal was to show structural trade‑offs — not to endorse a single winner — and urged additional legal and sensitivity analysis before the city commits.
The report summarized historical and modeled costs. John said Goodland’s average wholesale cost was about 5.6¢ per kilowatt‑hour in 2024 and about 5.3¢ per kilowatt‑hour from January 2024 through March 2025. Sunflower’s proposal includes fixed energy pricing of about 1.5¢/kWh for years 1–2, rising to 2.1¢/kWh in years 4–5, and shifts demand charges; under Sunflower’s projected ECA (energy cost adjustment) of 2.2¢/kWh the model produces a lower near‑term cost, but John stressed that an adverse ECA stress scenario (modeled at 3¢/kWh) narrows that advantage and increases cost exposure.
KMEA’s unbundled offer uses a diverse mix of solar, WAPA allocations, fixed energy blocks and market purchases. John said KMEA gives local generation dispatch control and voting rights on KMEA governance bodies; it also creates potential revenue from participation in auction revenue rights (TCR/AR) markets. The report modeled a mid‑range credit from TCR/AR participation of about $130,000 per year (roughly 0.2–0.4 tenths of a cent per kWh in the scenarios presented).
A key nonfinancial distinction was operational flexibility. Under the discounted full‑requirements structure John noted that Goodland’s local generation would be limited to emergency and maintenance uses in most contract forms, while KMEA structures would preserve broader local dispatch options. John said those differences affect how the city could run its 15‑megawatt plant during market price spikes.
Sunflower representatives in the audience disputed portions of the report and offered to fund an independent outside sensitivity and stress‑test if the city, Sunflower and KMEA can agree on the consultant. John and staff recommended deeper sensitivity analysis across multiple variables (ECA, capacity scenarios, fuel prices), a legal and contractual review of risk allocation, and additional modeling of any Sunflower option that would allow greater local generation access.
Next steps the commission discussed included asking for the additional analysis, scheduling legal review, and inviting follow‑up presentations from the providers. The commission did not take a binding vote at the meeting.
