ERMUSR MISC ITEMS 08-12-2003 Elk River
Municipal Utilities
322 King Asenue phone: 763.441.2020
Elk River. MN -i ;ii F.tc -u18099
August 6. 2003
To: Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission
John Dietz
Jerry Takle
James Tralle
From: Bryan C. Adams
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
Enclosed is the packet for the August 12, 2003, commission meeting at 4:00 p.m.
In an effort to control our insurance costs, Pat Hemza has been researching other long
term disability insurance options. We are currently with Fortis Benefits and will be
changing to Principal. See the attached memo dated July 22, 2003.
California is again considering experimenting with electric deregulation. See the
attached article from Jim Walters of Rochester Public Utilities.
Attached is an article titled "Auditor to Study City Run Businesses.' from July 17. 2003,
Star Tribune. This study could have a huge impact on municipal utilities. MMUA is
keeping a close eye on this issue.
Attached is a memo from the State Demographic Center estimating the City of Elk River
population at 18,082 as of April 1, 2002.
Please note in the financial section, our conservation improvement program (CIP)
spending is getting close to our budgeted amount. We will discontinue the rebate
program until after the beginning of 2004. The rebates that are now in the process will be
paid. The additional rebate applications we receive will be filed and paid after the first of
the year with 2004 funds. 2004 required spending will be approximately $188.000.
As a final note, attached is an article titled "Natural gas bubble collapse may take
NIMBY with it", taken from July 2003, Electric Light & Power.
22-Jul-03
To: Bryan Adams
From: Patricia Hemza
Re: Long Term Disability
The ERMU presently has group Long Term Disability with Fortis Benefits.
We are on the downside of a two year rate guarantee, effective
until September 1, 2003.
A proposal from Principal has been reviewed in comparison with Fortis. Two
other companies declined to quote a rate to ERMU.
FORTIS STANDARD UNUMP PRINCIPAL
Rate Per$100/Payroll $1.12 $1.58 $1.70 $0.83
Monthly $1,447.29 $2,041.71 $2,196.77 $1,072.54
Annual $17,367.74 $24,500.49 $26,361.29 $12,870.48
Benefits quoted are the same. Principal guarantees their quoted rate to June 2005.
Fortis has not quoted a renewal premium, it is known that the rate will increase, but
we do not know how much at this time, only that it will definitely increase.
It is recommended that we accept the quote from Principal for the LTD, effective
September 1, 2003.
•
FW:Dereg in California
Jim
California Municipal Utilities Association Questions New Electric Market Experiment
California Municipal Utilities Association
Online Exclusive, Jul 7 2003
By vote of its state-appointed board last month, the California Independent System Operator Corporation
(CAISO) has decided that California should risk reliving the electricity service disaster that plagued the
state in 2000 and 2001.
The CAISO was established in 1998 to provide open access to high voltage transmission systems. Last
month the CAISO approved a new market structure that has two basic principles: (1) reliability services
should be provided by market-based bids rather than assured through a cost-based regime; and (2) scarce
transmission, akin to space on crowded interstate freeways, should be made available to the highest
bidder.
By its vote last Thursday, the CAISO Board essentially affirmed that the market experiment commenced
by the state legislature with AB 1890 in 1996 was the right thing to do. We disagree," said Jerry Jordan,
executive director of the states association of publicly owned electric utilities, the California Municipal
Utilities Association. "California is once again breaking new ground and adopting a market structure that
is not being adopted by anyone else in the Western United States. The 11 western states operate one
interconnected electric system. California's adopting a market structure which ignores the practices in the
rest of the West is a huge gamble. This is doubly true when applied to California's electricity grid, which
is short of transmission and generation in key locations. The state-appointed CAISO Board is taking a big
chance with California's energy future."
The CAISO action came in its approval of Market Design 2002 (MD02). MD02 is based upon the
Standard Market Design advocated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), but which has
been rebuffed by several states. It is based on a system of financial derivative transmission rights that
attempts to replicate the traditional system of assigning physical transmission capability to consumers.
"The FERC and CAISO proposal is not a good idea at this time, because now California can not afford
another energy market experiment, especially when state energy officials are predicting shortfalls right
about the time MD02 would go into actual operation." Jordan said.
Jim
is you Ira e enough information to make a business case. you're too late " --Bill crate.
Jim Walters, CEM
Manager of Marketing and External Services
Rochester Public Utilities
4000 East River Rd. N.E.
Rochester, MN 55906-2813
507-280-1606
f 3 7/11/03 8:31 AM
•
I,- U e> a: ayi ayi 1. d 0.�- cote) ) a.) ) 0 y_.. ,.3 .i a)co Y d 0
W c3Ta :°aCy m ^y.CyNO .. U3 Y6,o
E._ � >,_C a) 3 u y
G. d � oyy , 0. _? U •- Aw •-• > Go°i:= yam ::= 4 d
k1 'w vat " uu u`o a,y ai cUVL=r m•c a`ti .t ° t0 m0 8
c - m >
CO rr.+ - c m'ta o tt ° o^.� d - �; o �:d.2'�=u y.c = `mp t
i— O^ v>''D U ai d a3 E CN O C 3 .Qc >' p C yin O W t
H d a=N '"'� c.E 3 d^-U 'J" E..0 o O `td a,¢ m d O U A 3 m•
- • U b .8 C 3 a o O 0# C .7Si8 O5 > 2y_a = J d- 0.0 W SQL. TO ❑ S
.
■- C' y rn .d.O b U ^''O N y y O " C C 5 g.0 O C O
3^ a o os a; g „, y U c. t
h G- '- .1..21— , 0- `n o•: E E.` h, - O > =3'U V y G•
� n ° O ¢ y 2 m y E O '°' � " a�v`E a�O f 0 E a� n•- m
o = .. r; ,CS‘C?: y 1 d.0 J ro h C " O.,a vi y ._ ^ > d
N ° _ uZj -'.Eu Udm "a) o vUcuy1. >A To r -
S" " C>> .. c� U • 3 a C y 7.S N't'a._ �.i y a> a� "C� a� i y. e to O.� O' t>C`O U r� y c d - A- ' .
U a o ±c003 ��. yE � � xw.5 ° STia �? 3o n E � rc_c- moU ° � Erc ❑ U�� = d a) v,.0 A� `�« a, 3 E ac U.�1. 1O >,y � o O m n.� m
a �o,o c.5 roam .�C C 2 02 04 E cd ,n J. °.w9 C.0 d 1. y
d G w c, 0 4 > uC •E
U-L y a • 7 y y d y " o.. U > y U o
= 'i7. .n
■� _ 0
ai Y O 0 to•d • O¢ 2." _ g ° d -6-5
C C .J 0 0 t^p d., t� cu L .- 0 aJ- y m 0 O
.z: .... 5. -• go ^-� o3 ="gym 0 ... oU yli0 ayioc °'a
T _
O _ _ 3tirJ' = y y °) A C,_ = ti 0 3 - E `n L.:Eax E- d y 0,o .v o
t'<.^▪ 0. ¢eo.E n C E w C O ,'9'- O� ' w0 ,'~ 000- `y . y
3 y. y. E. [ E y ` U c �>°= ma y U° o.: ate. o q
d. a ti
= 5 :) = ,,, 0-5c, m E .$ a Ks,. a u c o c .,3y >
O - m^ _° cs E cu .E o m to S. ..,. 3 y o m. .. E
to'Q O k „=c ayi y N d ti ^ >4.�y.2 ?.0 =.' N
›..03
al y y'J dO 6, ^ d T.,O yL
7 C vi O H- y = %0.. t, 1. .fl E 'O >w y w o ai
. UN A , a) 3 N 0 U y O t0 cC U. • 0 U W U 0 .y. Q) to �p Cn VC 0 k 0_ r0°
d• cS en c ?„-g3-- 80 . 3.2.g.. ...= c o
•� ate E 0 O � ,� n Cr P civ. C L G, ea en U y O CO 0'rte"•E 0 03
Or a, `0• F� .... U ° 0-3� g O�Y t0 C C) ^ 1y� 0 3p 0 O'•u; F T•+ U C 0 O.
c 3 ° eo°v °' 0 o c y 11 U m v O y o� o ` E ,a�� mt ,7 z-�'o
4 m 1- y:Dm-sz ^ mtO ` 3o m0•= yu.� 30 ..
�' .. 0 �c- recto � � ° � ^_ m� � cr 6?'- °: = 3oayi
April 30, 2003
TO: Sandra Peine, Clerk
City of Elk River
FROM: F. Thomas Giilaspy
Minnesota State Demographer
SUBJECT: 2002 Population and Household Estimates
Your April I, 2002 population estimate is 18,082.
Your April 1, 2002 household estimate is 6,228.
If you have any questions or comments about these estimates, please contact the
Demography Division, 300 Centennial Office Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul. MN
55155, phone (651) 296-2571 or send an e-mail to local.estimatesC state.mn.us. All
challenges must be submitted in writing. Please refer to the enclosed sheet for details .
PLEASE NOTE:
On April 23, 2003, Minnesota Planning was abolished. The State Demographic
Center and its functions were transferred to the Minnesota Department of
Administration. Our address, phone numbers and relationship with you will not
change. The e-mail address cited above has changed since last year.
•
A •
•
S• I • Vs. Department of Administration
State Demographic Center
300 Centennial Office Building
April 30, 2003 658 Cedar Street
St Paul,MN 55155
Telephone: 651-296-2571
Fax: 651-296-3698
TTY: 651-297-1357
Dear Cleric
The State Demographer is required by law to produce annual population and household estimates for each
of Minnesota's cities. Enclosed you will find a sheet containing the April 1, 2002, population and household
estimates for your city. Please note that these estimates pertain to one year ago,not the present. These
estimates are being sent to you now for review and comment. A copy of your estimates has also been sent
to your county auditor for review. The estimates are subject to change and are not considered final until
they are released to the Minnesota Department of Revenue in July. Please do not release the estimates to
the public until July 15, 2003.
These estimates mac be used as factors in a number of state aid programs. Questions about the impact of
these estimates on a given state aid program should be directed to the state agency that administers the
program.
The enclosed figures represent estimated population and household changes since the 2000 Census. The
number of households corresponds to the number of occupied housing units. A household may be a single
family, one person living alone, or any other group of persons who share the same living quarters. While
we believe than our estimates are usually accurate, we realize there may be occasional problems. For this
reason, we value your comments. We may not be aware of such changes as housing demolitions, the gain
or loss of group quarters, construction of public housing and the gain or loss of mobile homes.
If you are satisfied with our estimates, it is not necessary to contact us or provide any further information.
If you wish to challenge our estimates, please send us the appropriate documentation, as indicated in the
enclosed guide, by June 10, 2003. Please remember that we cannot correct problems with the 2000
Census. Questions or comments should be directed to James Hibbs at the address listed on the letterhead.
You may also contact us by e-mail at local.estimatesastate.mn.us or by phone at(651) 296-2571. The
volume of phone calls is heavy at this time of year, so you may be asked to leave a message on our voice
mail system. We will to to respond promptly.
Thank you for taking time to review these estimates.
Sincerely,
•
R Thomas Gillaspy
State Demographer
Enclosures
tt 5
a �a commentary
Natural gas bubble collapse may take NIMBY with it
Just how long can the NIMBI snot in my Renewables and hydropower. Generate 9 it may be time for
backyard)stance prevail? percent of electricity. Controversy flows from energy companies o
The recent deluge of warnings and alarms dams' effects on fish populations and diver- to make customers w -'
about the collapse of the natural gas bubble sion of water resources. Renewables, such as aware of this. rn
suggests that we're reaching the end of the wind generation, also find opposition in The Oklahoma 'a
rope as far as bowing to the NIMBY stance. terms of environmental impact on wildlife Energy Resources = • -
No one wants new power plants of any kind and land use. as well as complaints about Board offers some 2 ` r11=7
(in tact, many people aren't thrilled about noise resulting from the turbine's blades lessons for utilities g
existing power plants, which in many cases spinning in the wind. Voluntarily funded -6
have been in the same location for decades), Fuel cells. Yes. even the hydrogen econ- by Oklahoma's oil m°
substations. transmission towers or develop- omy, by some estimates at least several and natural gas t= , .
ment of resources within their sight line or decades away from practical application, is producers and roy- & `s �
within earshot. In the case of development of under scrutiny. A recent Science article alty owners, the
remote resources, many people are opposed reported that a hydrogen economy could cre- OERB is dedicated to restoring abandoned or
even though thousands of miles separate them ate bigger, longer-lasting ozone holes over the orphaned oil sites and educating the commu-
from the"impact".Many of those same people earth's poles. Leaks (about 10 percent of all nity on the contributions of the oil and natural
may never before have been aware of the exis- hydrogen manufactured) from its production, gas industry. What they're really accomplish-
tence of those resources. storage and transport could increase the ing is commendable:putting a positive spin on
However, everyone wants—no, make that amount of the gas in the atmosphere, which Superfund site clean-up. Their Web site pro-
demands—low cost, high quality. uninter- would worsen ozone depletion. Current losses claims, "4,768 sites have been voluntarily
rupted power. are already greater than this. restored by us since 1995.'
Putting aside for the moment the status of So, I've returned to the topic that initially We could squabble about the use of'volun-
the U.S.natural gas supply,I'd like to focus on sparked this manifesto. tary." but it helps illustrate my point of ho'c
this unwavering dichotomy.Opposition seems Natural gas. There are strong economic, they deliver their message.Their TV commer-
to have escalated to the point of zero tolerance efficiency and environmental reasons to use cials feature soft-spoken, grateful landowners,
for infrastructure development. Almost any natural gas in the generation of electricity. usually standing in amber waves of grain.
solution gets shot down. However, the natural gas bubble of 10 to 15 Utilities need to get their messages out tc
Nuclear. Generates about 20 percent of the years ago or so appears to have burst. Prices customers about what it's going to take to
nation's electricity supply. However. vetoed remain above the $5 per MMBtu mark and keep the lights on. The challenge will be to
due to concerns about operating safety and dis- probably won't be dipping back to $3 anytime turn the downside (everything the public
posal of radioactive waste, Three Nile Island, soon.And the lanyard price curve for natural opposes) into a perceived sacrifice or altruistic
Chernobyl and the prolonged debate over gas traded in futures markets is today at an all gesture by the energy company—a la OERB.
Yucca Mountain have most likely precluded time high. Supply is tight but thanks to a Energy companies need to promote their
the construction of any new nuclear power somewhat flat demand resulting from mild own images—perhaps landowners surveying
plant in the U.S. until, well, the "Jetsons" weather and a sluggish economy,no real crisis their horizons, which include transmission
become reality. It's likely that tourists will be is at hand. towers running across the fields in artistic
routinely traveling in space long before we see The challenge in tapping additional reserves diagonal patterns; homeowners contentedh
another nuclear power plant. National Public has been kicked up a notch.The comparatively grilling in their backyards, while an aerial
Radio reported in June that the Soviets already easy-to-find,easy-to-develop reserves are sput- view shows a substation located in their
have plans to host two space tourists per year tering. Now, the hard (and more costly) work neighborhood.
for the nominal fee of$20 million each. must begin. It's time to puncture the consumer's bub-
Coal.Generates 50+percent of our electric- New. undeveloped areas are being targeted ble.NIMBI,no more.
ity. Many see it as a necessary evil. Viewed as for exploration and production. Many of these
dirty—a pollution problem. Our generation reserves will be tougher to access and will
section this month (see page 19-20) shows require longer distance transport. Liquified /J
how new clean coal technologies offer solu- natural gas (LNG) imports are being eyed and (y � - /
tions to remedy these problems. Regardless of new receiving terminals are being discussed. g s. i f v v s o- ,
your opinion, however, it remains compara- It's obvious there will be no easy—or per-
tively low cost and abundant, fect—solution.Controversy is a mainstay.And
I
L E T T E R T O THE EDITOR
In the April, 2003 issue of Electric Power&Light, a letter to the Editor was published from David Holstein. The opinions stated by
Mr. Holstein were personal opinions, were not reviewed nor approved by Washington Group International, and do not reflect the
viewpoint nor opinions of Washington Group International.
Sincerely,
Robert !E Zcust,Senior lice President
Business Development-Power
Prfnceton,A,J,