Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Power Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Work session leans toward keeping 2 MW of GRDA for base power while weighing solar and storage
Summary
Councilors and staff debated a long-term GRDA contract versus local solar and battery storage; technical staff warned that batteries cannot fully replace GRDA’s overnight capacity, and several members said keeping 2 megawatts of GRDA offers community reliability while more analysis is done.
City staff presented a detailed comparison of long-term power options and urged councilors to weigh stability against cost savings. Glenn, a staff presenter, told the group that the city is not seeking a decision at the work session but reminded members "they'd like it by the end of March." The central policy choice is how many megawatts to contract from GRDA — options shown included 3, 2, 1.5, 1 or zero — and that decision will determine how much of the city's load remains exposed to the open market.
Utility operator Jeff said solar-plus-storage cannot fully replicate GRDA’s role as base load power: "Solar is not a replacement for GRDA," he said, explaining that batteries sufficient to cover overnight load would be very large and costly. Multiple members favored a minimum of 2 megawatts from GRDA for operational security; one councilor summarized their view bluntly: "You go with 2." Staff emphasized that GRDA is a 25-year contract with a PCA pass-through and hedging arrangements, so the choice is a trade-off between predictability and exposure to potentially lower market prices.
Why it matters: The council must decide whether to prioritize price stability and resilience (more GRDA) or to take market risk in hopes of lower costs (more solar and market purchases). Staff will return with requested numbers — day‑ahead market history, site cost estimates and battery cost modeling — before the council is expected to take formal action.
Provenance: topicintro SEG 119, topfinish SEG 1816
