Boulder City finalizes deal for third solar power plant
The Sempra Energy solar plant, shown here, will be joined by yet another solar company after the Boulder City Council finalized a deal to lease about 1,150 acres in the El Dorado Valley to NextLight Renewable Power. The NextLight plant, which would be the third in Boulder City, is expected to be up and running by 2011.
Friday, June 12, 2009 | 7:11 p.m.
Related stories
- Sempra to expand solar power plant near Boulder City (4-15-2009)
- Gibbons dedicates solar plant near Boulder City (1-22-2009)
- Another solar power plant in the works for Boulder City (1-19-2009)
- Trash-to-power plans tabled (1-16-2009)
- Boulder City residents to pay more for electricity (1-6-2009)
- Solar power plant opens in Boulder City (1-5-2009)
- Solar firms seek land (12-24-2008)
Boulder City has finalized a deal with NextLight Renewable Power LLC to build a 150 megawatt photovoltaic solar power plant in the El Dorado Valley that will provide the city nearly $102 million.
The City Council approved the final details on June 9 with a 4-1 vote to lease about 1,150 acres of land in the city’s energy zone for $2.53 million per year. The term of the lease is 40 years with two 10-year renewal options.
NextLight, which will pay a fixed rate of $2,200 per acre for the duration of the contract, plans to start delivering energy in 2011.
The property was appraised at $1,500 per acre, City Manager Vicki Mayes said.
The NextLight plant, which will go by the name Boulder City Solar LLC, will be the largest of three solar plants in the city’s energy zone. After a proposed expansion, Sempra Energy will be able to produce 58 megawatts, and Acciona Energy has a 64-megawatt plant.
Jim Woodruff, vice president of regulatory and governmental affairs for NextLight, said Boulder City’s abundant sunshine, business environment and access to existing transmission lines makes it an attractive site for solar projects.
“The city set aside a good deal of acreage and provides a favorable business and permitting atmosphere,” Woodruff said. “It’s a great place to do a solar project and just a great place to do business.”
Councilwoman Linda Strickland and Councilman Travis Chandler said they were concerned that the contract did not take into account inflation during the next 40 years.
Under the terms of the contract, inflation can only be renegotiated at the time of the option renewals.
Strickland said that by her calculation, the city is shortchanged by $62 million.
“I’m afraid that by entering into something like this we’re going to look good for 10 years; we’re going to be able to meet our budgetary funds right now, but we are going to be selling our city short,” she said.
Chandler said the inflation factored in the deal was about half of the average 4 percent annual increase over the past 40 years. He still voted for the deal, but Strickland did not.
If the lease had been tied to inflation, then the price per acre would have been lower, said Mike Hatfield, NextLight’s director of development.
“It would have been a little bit lower than $2,200 per acre but still above the appraised value,” he said. “From our perspective, it would have been the same value package, the same economic value.”
The negotiations required some give and take, Mayor Roger Tobler said. While the city may not have received everything it wanted, it did get the solar plant with its lease payments in a competitive market, he said.
“I know we have an attractive area, but I don’t think we have an exclusive area that beats out every other area,” Tobler said.
The city also will receive two megawatts of power per year at a reduced commercial rate and the company is looking at selling the remaining power in California, elsewhere in Nevada and “a number of markets,” Hatfield said.
The city has two more proposals to build solar plants on another 2,000 acres of the dry lake bed in El Dorado Valley.
Green Tech Solar has proposed building a 200-megawatt photovoltaic solar facility and Martifier Renewables Solar Thermal LLC has proposed developing 2,100 acres on the dry lake bed.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Scott Disick celebrates his 29th birthday at 1 OAK in the Mirage
- HOA scandal cuts wide swath across Las Vegas Valley
- Man suffers bullet wound when stopping burglary attempt
- Photos: Surrender’s 2nd anniversary with Skrillex, ‘Le Reve,’ Paris and Floyd
- Nearly 40,000 have voted early in Clark County





Actually Boulder City has one of the most if not the most attractive area for solar development in the United States. No Environmental Impact reports, by far the biggest obstacle to any of these developments, a very favorable tax structure, no rezoning and complete access to transmission lines. Also there is Federal Government financing available that runs out in about 2 years, making the Boulder City area pretty much the exclusive area for this kind of development in the next few years. Typically these Environmental Impact reports can and do take 2-4 years to complete. So the bottom line to the people in Boulder City, you have one councilman that was looking out for your interests and the other 4 that sold you out. The truth is there are not many areas they can go to with these plants and you got short changed, it appears. But then again, what do I know.
Boulder City did set aside that land as a green belt. Now it is a green energy belt. The green belt was to protect the view for the residents from subdivisions. Now it will be developed anyway? All of the roof tops in Boulder City make it pretty stupid to plaster the desert with photovoltaic panels that can be placed on roof tops. There will be no solar thermal plant on the dry lake. Those require too much water. All that water has been apropriated and is now being wasted by Solar One. Plus the dry lake is used by many recreationists.
The people who voted to keep the green belt undeveloped are the ones who were sold out. Boulder City is going to look pretty bad. Kiss your property values goodbye.
Oh, and all of those jobs from the Sempra Facility went to workers from Niceragua. Are we learning yet???
Right on Sunlizard.Boulder City is finally going to get developed. Walker a Real Estate developer, spent close to 50 grand to get that vacant council seat and was supported by Vegas construction unions and the Board of Realtors.They cleverly found a way around Boulders no Growth ordinance, and will fill that valley from Boulder to Searchlight with solar cells and wind farms ! What a change its going to be.I feel sorry for all the dummies that put these people in office. Boulder was a nice little town, but then thats progress....
Those thinking about long-term recovery, know the enviroment will be a big winner in the conversion to biofuels & biopower --- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Here's the inconvenient truth about large scale renewable energy. Your power bill will probably more than double. Take a looky at this! : Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to get one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could cost $115 billion in new infrastructure, according to a report released Friday by the California Public Utilities Commission. Last year, a similar report from the commission estimated the cost at $60 billion.
That money would come from Californians' utility bills...http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2...