Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin Council approves battery energy storage agreement; members ask for workshop on costs and customer impacts
Summary
Council voted to accept a VMEA/Vimma battery energy storage agreement that staff said could save Franklin Power & Light about $426,000 over five years, but several council members urged a workshop to compare owning batteries versus the VMEA contract and to clarify how savings would be passed to customers.
The Franklin City Council voted July 14 to accept a proposed battery energy storage purchase agreement offered through VMEA/Vimma, a measure staff said could reduce Franklin Power & Light’s costs by roughly $426,000 over five years by reducing monthly demand charges.
Zack Wright, director of Power and Light, explained the contract’s operational concept and likened the batteries to the city’s existing peak-shaving generators: “We get charged a demand cost every month on our power bill. . . . adding batteries . . . will add on to the additional savings like we’re doing with the generators right now,” he said. Wright and other staff said the VMEA model does not require an up-front out-of-pocket payment from the city under the contract they presented; the vendor shares a portion of the avoided demand charges.
Council members asked whether customers would see bill reductions and whether Franklin’s infrastructure could accept battery-backed voltage. Staff said savings could be evaluated and potentially passed to customers but cautioned that distribution infrastructure upgrades and a more detailed analysis would be required before guaranteed customer savings could be scheduled.
Several council members asked for a workshop comparing an outright purchase and ownership model (upfront capital and city-controlled asset) against the VMEA contract model (vendor-owned, shared savings). One council member cited past reluctance by VMEA to support local renewables and expressed concern about vendor incentives; others urged that the contract language and long-term costs be analyzed before expanding commitments.
After debate the council moved and the motion carried to accept the VMEA/Vimma agreement as presented; staff said they will analyze the infrastructure and savings pass-through and report back to council.
What’s next: Council requested a workshop/analysis comparing ownership versus contract and asked staff to return with infrastructure needs, estimated customer impacts and a recommendation for whether to proceed with the VMEA arrangement or pursue city-owned options.
