Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-04 Utilities Advisory Commission Summary Minutes Approved: 060105 MAY 4, 2005 - COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 7:00 P.M. PALO ALTO CITY HALL – 250 HAMILTON AVENUE THIS NOTICE IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(A) OR 54946 I. ROLL CALL The meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were: Dexter Dawes, Dick Rosenbaum, John Melton and George Bechtel. Council Liaison Bern Beecham was present. Commissioner Dahlen absent. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Art Kraemer, 1116 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto CA spoke on the Enron settlement. He expressed his displeasure with the settlement. He doesn’t believe we obtained proper legal advice. Today’s article in weekly says we signed two days prior to Enron declaring bankruptcy. Beecham questioned the information sources that Mr. Kraemer used as his points were inaccurate. Jerry Meek spoke of regarding the rate increases. He is the Facilities Manager for Roche Pharmaceuticals. He said our natural gas distribution rates for a facility his size are higher than PG&E, which he stated was confirmed by Palo Alto staff. Our rates would not be competitive as other areas in the state. He said there is a $255,000 difference between Silicon Valley Power (City of Santa Clara) and CPA’s electric rates. He would like to continue to work together so Palo Alto rates can be competitive with other municipalities and with PG&E. Rajiv Bhateja distributed handouts as to where Palo Alto stands in water rates compared to other cities around the country. He stated he doesn’t understand why we are paying such high rates. CPA is almost twice as high as Milpitas. He asked the UAC to give strong consideration to this. Voters rising up is a very blunt instrument. Tragic to have citizens rise up and be upset about this. III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Melton moved approval of April 6th UAC meeting. Rosenbaum seconded. Passed unanimously. IV. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS Referred to recent settlement with Enron, a handout shows the revisions impact on the 5 year financial plan.’. There has been an enhancement of the 5 year plan schedules by adding line and column references. Cells that changed due to the Enron settlement have been highlighted. John suggested we change order. Item 3 remove to no.2, final City of Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission Approved: 060105 item Utilities proposed budget and rate changes. Dawes mentioned items A & B. budget books. UTL budget and rate change till after rate changes. He would like to do each utility with the 5 year plan, rate changes and budget together. V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS Beecham attended the annual NCPA lobbying session in Washington to present our issues to our senators and representatives. The Energy Act has been presented to the House and there has been much debate on this. NCPA and CPA are neutral on the debate. The Senate favors certain issues that are not popular in the House. Bankruptcy Act passed, would include our contracts with any firm that goes bankrupt. It will clearly give us options to canceling contracts with companies declaring bankruptcy. VI. DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES REPORT John Ulrich addressed the Enron settlement stating that it’s important to reflect that the reason for the contract was to have a reliable source of power at a time when we were concerned of a lack of power supply due to the PG&E bankruptcy. A lot of work has been done by staff. City Council made this decision with a tremendous amount of concern of what this amount would have on our customers. Our proposals for rates and reserves, this settlement will not impact our proposal for rate increases and changes. The settlement has been paid for with the use of reserves. John thanked the City Council and the staff who have worked on this for the past couple of years on behalf of the customers we work for. Beecham expressed his concern over misunderstandings of the details. Several years ago, Council entered into this agreement and shortly after a subcommittee was formed. We prepared proposals for bid and the City selected the contract from the firm that had the best financials and offered the best package. At the time, that was Enron. As the energy crisis abated, our contract went under water. As Enron’s financial situation worsened, the City decided to terminate the contract. This settlement potentially has saved this City millions of dollars. Bern offered to provide the history of this to anyone who is interested, just send him an email and he will forward. Dawes said it was a decision based as an insurance policy during the energy crisis. PG&E went into bankruptcy and there was concern that court would void the contract with Western. This contract was an insurance policy against loosing that power. Rosenbaum spoke about the irony of this situation. We announced we are paying $21.5m to Enron, a week later a documentary comes out on Enron. If we had signed the contract with one of the other six suppliers who didn’t go bankrupt, we would be out $41m dollars. He expressed Palo Alto residents should appreciate the irony of this. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Approved: 060105 VIII. NEW BUSINESS John Ulrich suggested moving right into the recommended revisions. We will work out of 1A which was handed out this evening. Item will be shown as Electric gas and supply. Girish presented information related to the gas and electric reserve balances. Gas Five Year Financial Reserve Balances After Enron Settlement Allocation • FY 04/05 Estimated Ending Reserve Balance: $7.5 M (row 58 old) rate sheets • Allocated cost from Enron settlement: -$3.4 M (B 27 new) • Revised FY 04/05 Ending Reserve Balance: $4.1 M (B 58 new) • Expected Changes in Reserves: $0.0 M (C 21 new) • FY 05/06 Projected Ending Reserve Balance: $4.0 M (C 58 new) • FY 05/06 Min/Max Reserve Levels $7.6/15.2 M (C 77/C 67) Uncertainties Faced by the Gas Supply Business Unit • Legal uncertainty which is largely resolved with the Enron settlement • Regulatory uncertainty - minimal • Higher market price volatility continues, managed with laddered purchase strategy • Supplier default uncertainty managed by diversifying purchases with multiple suppliers with good credit and tighter contract provision for credit and defaults. Gas Supply Risk Exposure in FY 05/06 Gas Supply Reserve Relative to Actual Risk Identified in FY 05/06 • FY 05/06 Projected Ending Reserve Balance: $4.0 M • FY 05/06 Min/Max Reserve Levels $7.6/15.2 M • FY 05/06 Risk Identified $3.2 M The projected Gas Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve balance is below minimum reserve guideline levels, however adequate to meet the low level of cost uncertainties in FY 05/06. Reserves are projected to be within guidelines by FY 08/09. Electric Five Year Financial Reserve Balances After Enron Settlement Allocation •FY 04/05 Estimated Ending Reserve Balance: $53 M (row 76 old) •Allocated cost from Enron settlement: $18 M (B 38 new) •Revised FY 04/05 Ending Reserve Balance: $35 M (B 76 new) •Expected changes in Reserves (draw down): -$10 M (C 25 new) •FY 05/06 Projected Ending Reserve Balance: $25 M (C 76 new) •FY 05/06 Min/Max Reserve Levels: $29.9/59.8 M (C 98/C 86) Approved: 060105 Uncertainties Faced by the Electric Supply Business Unit • Legal uncertainty, largely resolved with Enron settlement except for the possible back billing by PG&E to NCPA for transmission charges. • Regulatory uncertainty, continues with disputes related to energy crisis (e.g.., PG&E’s attempt to back bill for transmission) • Higher market price volatility, continues, managed with laddered purchase strategy. • Hydro production uncertainty, began in 2005, managed with reserves, purchase strategy, and a potential complementary energy exchange agreement in the future • Supplier default uncertainty, managed by diversifying purchases with multiple suppliers with good credit and tighter contract provision for credit and defaults. Rosenbaum questioned the amount of snow at Calaveras. Monica Padilla shared information that NCPA is forecasting above average precipitation for this year. If we have a dry year, this is what the outcome would be. Girish Balachandran said we are trying to make a point that will fit in with what Rosenbaum is actually saying. Electric Supply Reserve Relative to Actual Risk Identified in FY 05/06 •FY 05/06 Projected Ending Reserve Balance: $25 M •FY 05/06 Min/Max Reserve Levels: $29.9/59.8 M •FY 05/06 Risk Identified $38.3 M The projected Electric Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve balance is below reserve guidelines for FY 05/06. Cost uncertainties are lower and reserves are expected to be within guidelines by FY 07/08. The bottom line is we (staff) feel this will be enough for the next couple of years. From 2001 the estimates, 9 ½ - 11 cents are steady state from rates, 10 ½ - 11 cents. Santa Clara is at 7.9 cents and plan an 8% rate increase in July. Santa Clara has purchased a lot of resources, through the 80’s and 90’s. Their rates have been at the current level for years and years while PAU’s rates were significantly less than Santa Clara’s for long periods in the 90’s and through 2004.. We relied on our Western contract. They also do well in selling their excess resources. They got their resource portfolio in place years and years ago. Rosenbaum commented we have more Western than Santa Clara does. 50% of our energy requirements basically cost us 2. cents per KWh. Rosenbaum does not understand why we have 10 cent power when half of the supply is at 2 cents.. Same situation as water, we will not be able to explain why our rates are higher than other cities. Approved: 060105 Bechtel asked to address the increase on the long-range-plan. Dawes replied the questions would be asked after staff present each rates. Staff told the Commissioners that we are looking forward to any help and advice we can get in looking at our financials. John Ulrich asked Karl Van Orsdol to go through his perspective as the Risk Manager. Enron settlement - Credit Rating Impacts should be minimal as Palo Alto has maintained high reserve levels and earmarked sufficient funds to pay the settlement. We are in full compliance on NCPA and other bond funding issues. Palo Alto has implemented a Risk Management Program based in the Administrative Services Treasury Division which can accurately assess creditworthiness, potential exposure, and provide independent oversight. The City Council continues to have the lawful authority to modify rates based on costs. ASD has contacted the major credit agencies to notify them of this settlement and made it clear we are available to meet with them to discuss our options. We have not heard back from them yet. Joe Saccio stated that as a courtesy and without any discussion of the details he called them and invited them to come after the disclosure on Monday to talk to us. They said they may want to come down and talk with us at some point. We will still have sufficient reserves to meet an emergency. Our market exposure for FY05/06 is lower than for further years out. Hydro risk and difficulty in estimating history since 1922. wet or critically dry year, we have 12 critically dry, 16 dry. Important in setting reserves, the distribution of critically dry periods comes in groups i.e. droughts and therefore setting a reserve limit to include two years is appropriate.. Calculating Hydro Risk • The CPAU estimates $35m should be set aside to cover 2 years of adverse hydro conditions. • $20M is for WAPA and $15 million is for Calaveras. • At CVP the worst 2 years in the last 73 showed 175 GWh/year reduction (388 GWh Average). With high market prices replacement power would total $25.0 Million • At CVP the level of production at the 10% worst event over 1 year is 130 GWh. • At high market prices the two year costs are $18.6 million Credit Risk – Electricity • Credit risk provides the one of the greatest sources of variation in potential reserves, because of low frequency of occurrence but the high financial impact. • Reserve estimate of credit risk is $6 million and current • MTM for electricity is $18.8 million. Approved: 060105 • The weighted default probability is: 0.05% or 5 times out of 10,000 events. • There is an expected annual loss of $8,520 on an average. • Default of largest exposure would likely cost Palo Alto between $8 - $16 million. Credit Risk – Combined Exposures Dawes asked for reasoning for the credit rating? Karl Van Orsdol stated that the City has subscribed to this service for the past year supplied by Moody’s called KMV. This services provides real time up to date information on default rates which use a proprietary algorithm. Transacting Strategy and Portfolio Structure Directly Impacts Reserve Requirements and Risks • Increased forward purchases decrease market risk (but increase credit risk. • Transacting with multiple counterparties in balanced amounts and relative to credit rating lowers credit risk. • The impact of portfolio structure on risk exposure can been seen in the tables on the actual FY05/06 estimated risk exposure. We ensure we have accurate up-to-date credit information on the companies that we have had in the past. We believe that for 05/06, the risks are appropriate. If reserves are primarily designed to protect against rate shocks by covering risks then rate increases should be determined by the need to recover in the time frame appropriate to the risk exposure, both short and long term. Target reserve levels should reflect the expected long term risk profile of the portfolio. Short term current reserve levels should reflect risk profile. Recommendations from Risk Manager The interaction of reserve levels, short term and long-term risks, reserve replenishment rates need to be more fully evaluated. ASD and Utilities proposes to come back in 6 months with a dynamic risk approach for long-term risks. The electric transacting strategy should incorporate the short-term reserve levels in order to maintain correlation between risks and reserves for the upcoming 36 – 72 months or until appropriate reserve levels are reached. Utilities staff should continue on-going efforts to minimize hydro risk thorough forward purchases and other approved products. As hydro risk is reduced, the amount of reserve allocated to hydro risk can be reduced. Concur with the proposed rate increases and reserve levels. Approved: 060105 There were no questions from the Commissioners. Staff moved on to the other Utilities. Tom Auzenne joined the table. Dawes asked if Tom said he has some slides prepared but his primary focus is to answer questions. – The 05-07 Budget document needs to be produced at a certain time and all information after the printing goes into Schedule B- the 5 year financial plan. The adopted budget will include everything. Dawes said he looks to the 5-year plan to represent more accurately what the utilities will be doing rather than the budget book. Bechtel said when he compared the operating budget to the 5-year plan there were a number of differences. Which came first, the budget book or the 5 year plan spreadsheet? Tom said the big book was first. Bechtel said it would be really helpful if we laid out our spreadsheet to line up with the budget book. Enterprise Fund page 241 shows revenues with 2 line items. The 5 year plan schedule shows many more line items. On the expenditure side, we have many more categories. The 5 year plan document has been developed the way it has due to other commissions asking for more detail. Bechtel said he likes the detail. Dawes spoke up that on Item 3 action item the Commission moved on without having a vote. He asked for a motion to recommend no changes in reserve guidelines per staff’s recommendations. Melton said within 6 months they are planning to overhaul the way the reserves are done. Dawes said there will be an issue with addressing the settlement. Is there a need to modify in order to deal with sub-par level of reserves? Motion: Rosenbaum moved the UAC recommend Council affirm the continued application of the RSR guidelines for rate for financial planning and rate making purposes for the 05/06 budget. Second: Bechtel Seconded. Added the comment that guidelines only apply for the existing budget schedule. Commission agreed to the revision. UNANIMOUS: Recommendation passed to recommend Council affirm the continued application of the RSR Guidelines for rates for financial planning and rate making purposed for the 05/06 budget. Approved: 060105 Ulrich stated we had received several questions from the commissioners over the past few days. How to go through? Dawes said as we go through the funds, Rosenbaum will address his issues and Dawes will read Dahlen’s questions. Gas Utility: 5 Year Plan, Budget for Gas and Rate Increase Rosenbaum stated In the five year plan for all the utilities, under Operating Expenses, there are two lines under the sub-heading, Allocated Charges. These expenses appeared for the first time in the ten year plan we received last year. He said he doesn’t recall us discussing what these charges represent. Are they new charges to the Utility or has another charge been reduced to keep the total the same? Staff responded that these charges have always been there, just "allocated" amongst the functional areas. Now, we have them broken out separately at the Fund level. Originally they were calculated and assigned to a cost center. Several years ago it changed so all charges show up at the Fund level. Allocation charge was previously based on headcount but now based on services. UTL has approx 20% of the city staff. Other departments charge us 20% of their overhead. It is not negotiated with City Manager. John said it is basically a pass-through. It is based on a calculation, every couple of years ASD brings in a consultant to look at allocations for those calculations. Not based on services rendered. Is it fair to our rate payers. John stated that methodology said it is not an attempt to put a value on our services, a way of taking cost in the General Fund budget for services and then allocating back to the departments. Tom Auzenne said that Cost plan charges and Allocated charges, were basically the same thing (semantics). Tom Auzenne said that Utilities Administration budget also includes our part of I.T. support functions and the Technology Fund rolls up to the Director. Rosenbaum restated in terms of cost allocation philosophy (0304 ), he tried to compare but was unable to come up with the numbers. Rosenbaum asked a Gas Fund question about the – large amount for 04-05, $3.754 million under the heading “Other Revenue/Reconcile to IFAS/CoBug What is that number? Tom Auzenne said additional G3 gas revenues have accumulated since gas rate changed mid-year. Also, this includes an $800,000 PG&E refund that was not showing up in the original budget. There is also additional gas revenue from operation of the CoBug. Melton; stated that allocated overhead is common. The real issue is equitability. Are these allocated on the same methodology to all city departments? Our concern is “does Approved: 060105 the Utilities Department get those charges allocated on exactly the same as every other department”. Joe Saccio spoke and said that statistics are gathered and costs allocated on usage for attorney office, vehicles, etc.. All have a rational basis. Every few years we go back and take a look and update for all departments within the City of Palo Alto. Melton asked if the same basis is applied consistently through all departments? Saccio answered ‘yes’. Bechtel asked on gas. He has been trying to reconcile the 5-yr plan spreadsheet and the enterprise fund summary. $3.2m in operating budget and just a little over $2m on the spreadsheet [Page 241 in budget book]. Primary reason of having more current info is to help determine our rate increase. These numbers are very up to date and will be more accurate than the budget book. Any allocated charge is in the op budget and will be included. Where will he find salary and benefits on 5-year financial plan? Ulrich replied that the financial plan put together for purposes that we stated. You will need to tell us if there is more information you need than what is in the book and the plan. A big part of our expenses other than commodity, are operating expenses. John said every year we come up with an improvement. More detail now with SAP. Strategic Plan. Manpower and cost of doing business are all part of that. If there is something specific you want to add. As you recall, about a month ago we put in a list of highlights of things that are changing. You may want to go back to doing something like a zero based level and look at if you think it is appropriate. Bechtel said if the systems were integrated it would be a lot easier to follow. Melton asked about the gas utility. In the column adjusted 0405 line 20 shows $3.1m out of the distribution reserve for this year that we are currently in. However when he looks at breakdown of revenue and cost by distribution, he sees distribution had about $10m in revenue and $10m in cost. Why did that amount come out of reserve when the deficit was on supply side? Lucie Hirmina replied line 21 is a $2.8m withdrawal from supply reserve directly attributed to Enron. Before Enron, the number was zero. This is a balancing account between revenue and expenses. It has to balance. Lucie will have to get the spreadsheet to answer the question correctly. Lucie explained everything that is coming out of distribution. The funds are not co-mingled. Melton repeated withdrawal from distribution reserve of $3.1m. what drove that when the cost of revenue and distribution were the same. After Lucie explained everything that is charged to distribution, he understand. The profit is all in distribution. GAS Approved: 060105 Rosenbaum said, Mr. Meek was unhappy concerning our gas price compared to PG&E. He thought our laddering strategy would produce the opposite effect? What is the explanation? Also some charts in the quarterly report for residential rates, they paint a very favorable picture compared to PG&E. Tom Auzenne said the laddering strategy does not enter into this. The laddering strategy was intended to mitigate the effect of volatile supply costs and has worked very well on that. Mr. Meeks was correct because our distribution When we set rates for our industrial customers, we use the max usage (Jan) and assign costs. Dawes said the figures don’t reflect actual usage. Tom Auzenne said PG&E passes on market costs. Our supply costs are competitive with the market. Mr. Meeks is concerned with the fixed costs, which are higher than in PG&E territory. PG&E has greater flexibility. With PG&E, the more you use, the more the rate goes down. Ours are flat. Philosophy of how you charge per customer mix. Lucie said if we use the same methodology as PG&E we will negatively impact the smaller customer cost. Small customers within the same class… Lucie said they still are paying more than PG&E. It’s not clear if our distribution costs are too high, allocation between customer classes, can we figure this out. Lucie said they are paying their fair share compared to the other classes. The amount of money in dist system and cost to maintain, operative, test, and rehabilitate are broken down into class as Lucie mentioned. In recent years we’ve spent a significant amount in rehabilitation and replacing pipe. $11.5 in the 1st year and $10.4 million in the 2nd, not a large up creep in our costs of distribution. Sales are flat or declining. Dawes read from Elizabeth Dahlen’s email saying “The proposed gas rate increase does not come as a surprise and I am in favor of staff's recommendation.” Bechtel asked about several of the other proposed rates. Our revenue is falling due to decreased usage. Our rates should be scaleable. We will have to deal with that issue. We can’t keep our costs fixed, we are going to have to have a scaleable utility. MOTION: Rosenbaum motioned to approve a 15% increase recommended by staff. Looking closely at 5 yr financial plan it is evident we’ve been living off the reserves for the past two years. He is surprised at figures in Table One. This is the first indication that we have rates that are higher than PG&E. We now have two utilities where we have to charge more than surrounding cities. SECOND: Bechtel seconded. UNANIMOUS: Vote unanimous. Approved: 060105 Electric Fund Arthur Keller, a Palo Alto resident said it is very painful to pay a large settlement to Enron. He remembers when compared to everyone in PG&E territory, we were doing very well. Because of our power supply structure and how we obtain electric power, we don’t have that much cost differential between power purchased during day and night. As demand grows in PA, as need to buy additional power supply. Reducing the peak load is the thing to do. CPAU should encourage more people to install solar power on their property. He knows some friends in PG&E territory who benefit from time-use metering so they can charge their cars at night. This rate would allow us to shape our demand so we don’t need so much energy in peak hours and seasons. Thank you to the Commission for the time and dedication you put in week after week and also to staff. Tom Auzenne responded we have time of use rates on the books for commercial customers. To date, no takers. Residential – we haven’t been as successful as in other areas of the country. We are relatively un time differentiated. Electric – 5year plan, budget, and rates issue Rosenbaum asked about 5 or 6 categories of supply, western, Calavaras, renewable, anticipated energy we have not yet purchased, transmission, and allocated costs. When he went through the risk management report, he added up everything we were supposed to purchase for next year, everything should be in that number. Cost components are that will add up to $58m. Basically we had several Western $7.1m, Calaveras fixed O&M $1.6, spot market purchases [what we plan to buy] $.07, transmission 10.8, wind 3.4, elect master agreement purchases 18.5m, NCPA 3.7, TANC $4m. We anticipate purchasing an extra $7m from the market for 05/06. This information was presented earlier in the calculation of reserves. . These numbers were calculated assuming an average hydro year. Since then we’ve gotten progressively worse hydro news from Western. We are expecting less Western and that has resulted in us having to purchase more from the market. Bechtel asked for a walk-through of Calaveras costs. Rosenbaum also wanted an explanation of Calavaras entries in 5 year forecast. Look at line 18, interest income is total, including income on Calavaras reserves. Line 26 from reserves is amount that comes out of Calavaras. Line 35 Calaveras Debt Service, this is the amount of money we pay on the cal debt. Cal interest, this is the portion of interest income that comes from the Calavaras reserves. Each year we get a big batch of income, more that ½ of that is Calavaras money and we place into the Calaveras reserves. Line 76 is total amount in Calaveras reserve. Approved: 060105 Line 26 is amount we take out of Calaveras, we pay debt service $7.5, O&M in line 32 $1.7m. Bechtel asked what are we actually paying for Calaveras? We are paying more than 7.5 cents and most is funded through cal reserve. Taking from rate payers this year is 3 cents. Dawes read from a communication from Commissioner Dahlen: The proposed electric: How will this rate increase impact Palo Alto Green users; do you anticipate participation dropping? • How much and for how long will the supply rate stabilization reserve be maintained above maximum? Obsolete • What guidelines will you follow to draw this back down? N/A • Given the uncertainty in the market and the fact that last year's bi-annual rate increase does not appear to have had the intended impact we hoped for, I support Staff's proposed rate increase. Melton stated the hit for Enron is taken entirely in 04/05 on Supply Reserve. MOTION: Melton moved approval of staff recommendation SECOND: Bechtel No discussion. Vote: UNANIMOUS Waste Water Collection: 5-year forecast or enterprise fund in the big budget book. Melton wants to understand the rational for getting reserve to mid-level of the target guideline. In a couple of years, letting it continue to run, around 20009/10 we are above the maximum. Relatively stable fund. Not sure he agrees with the need to increase at such a rapid rate. Tom Auzenne displayed a projection of the WGW Reserve. Also put up Wastewater System Improvement CIP. We’ve already deferred projects for two years. The CIP for 2005/06 and 2006/07 are higher than anywhere else and is a result of those deferrals. Tom said a number of CIP projects in 2004/05 and excess dollars was Approved: 060105 returned to that reserve ($1.9M). that is a significant influx of cash but it is a one-time inclusion. Rosenbaum stated that in the five year plan for Wastewater, there is a mysterious increase in the RSR(line 36) for 2004/05. Is this correct? Tom responded yes, we are projected to receive $1.9 million from CIP return from closed projects (note at the bottom of the forecast) we deferred the rate increase in 2004/05. Tom Auzenne said if we go with a 17% as recommended we might have to do a rate decrease sooner than we regularly do but the reserves will be in a healthier condition. Melton said if we spread it out over the 5-year, the rate increase would be 12% . We find a modest 17% and then we will re-evaluate in 2006/07. Melton said 12.7% would get reserve to middle level in 2009/10. Tom Auzenne said as of April we are about 10% below in revenue Dawes asked if waste water billing is in relation to the water usage for the commercial customer and Small comm. It is the total use, sewer based on water use; large customers based on their total use. Answer is that it is a fixed cost for all customers in a class. Communication from Dahlen read by Dawes: I must concur with Dick that I do not like the outcome of Cost of Service Studies, which indeed appear to only result in recommending rate increases. What specifically are the increased wastewater treatment expenses - is this new technology, increased chemical purchases, increased staff costs? What CIP expenditures are projected for the coming year and can these projects be postponed? How much revenue specifically was lost due to the drop in the local economy? In Table 1, are the Residential units per CCF; and if so, why is the current rate for the residential user so high in comparison to Commercial and Restaurants? If the Residential unit is not per CCF than what is the current average residential charge per CCF? The comparison to neighboring Cities has no numbers; hence, a clarification on exactly what was compared is needed to understand this information as this is the first time I have seen reference to a wastewater rate comparison. Following this comparison, the logic of raising Palo Alto rates to approximately 6% above the neighboring communities, whose rates up until this proposal were 7% higher than Palo Alto is lost on me. Unless more information is provided in the meeting, I am not in support of staff's recommendation to increase the wastewater rate. Overhead slide of wastewater bill comparisons for now and with the rate increase. John Ulrich said the WW TX plant is a fairly significant customer of CPAU Electric. Bechtel said we need a scalable rate for these things. He will support this increase. Approved: 060105 Dawes believes there is a great deal of merit in concerns raised in the size of increase and the impact on the reserves situation. Should be approached with caution and scaled back to 10% this year and 7% next year. John said Melton came with 12.7% our staff report says 17%. Can we figure out what that will mean to the reserve? Lucie said it would mean an $8K difference. If we do another 7% will be slightly below . As shown on the 5 year projection revenue is lower than these budget projections. It is not fed into column B yet. Lucie said the revenue decline is due to the economy itself, the lower use of water with low flush toilets; people are using less. Column B is therefore $543K below target guideline. With the reduced increase, we would be$1.1 million below. Dawes said that will give him some pause but is still attracted to splitting it. Bechtel asked John to give us a feel for what the risk factors are? In the study late last year, in the long term we will be able to spend less on sewer rehabilitation. We are starting to see the fruits of work already done, less leaks; therefore we can load present sewer line to a higher capacity. The upgrades will reduce CIP by $6m going forward. Our repair costs are continuing to go up because we are not changing the pipe as soon as we’d like to. Additional risk is less revenue. John said if the commission is willing to add more risk and expect us to come back we could do that. Dawes said he feels we could take a higher risk level. Melton said he thinks when we look at it in more detail we’ll find the amount is much higher. Ulrich said if we forego the rate increase, you’ll need to be looking at something closer to 19 rather than zero. MOTION: Melton moved to not approve staff recommendation on the 17% rate increase for 2005/06 but TO recommend a Wastewater 2005/06 rate increase at 12% and 2006/07 at 5%. SECOND: Rosenbaum seconded. Ulrich asked to give an analysis of what the impact will be. Dawes said in 2005/06 we would be looking at a reduction of $2m and that would be $200,000 above the reserve. Lucie said it is scary since when you are close to the minimum reserve you never know what will happen. Ulrich said since we are a customer of the sewer plant if they had a problem they would pass the charges on to us. Lucie said revenue of $13.571 which is about $570k below what we are proposing. We will have $300,000 over the minimum. If we carry that forward we would have 200/708 1.1m we would be dead even unless we have emergency occurrence. UNANIMOUS approval. Approved: 060105 Water 5Year Financial Plan RSR will increase by $2.6 without any rate increase, is this correct. Tom Auzenne said projects have been deferred to 2006/07. It is correct due to the deferred CIP projects. Bechtel said since we are talking about supply purchases, deferring CIPs, do we really need to go ahead with a rate increase at all. Dawes read from Dahlen’s email: The proposed water rate increase: Some fundamental questions on this proposal; are we still sticking to our projected water rate increases over the next 10 years based on the proposed SFPUC increased water charges due to the Hetch Hetchy System upgrades? If so, are we modifying our proposed rate increase plan in conjunction with the delays in SFPUC work that we have been updated on for the past year? The write-up addresses lower wholesale FY05-06 commodity purchase costs from SFPUC, yet recommends a rate increase apparently to beef up the RSR. While I concur that the water RSR is not in great shape in comparison to some of our other utilities, I would question whether this is the year to address this shortfall? I have no comment on the "meter charge" other than I hope that proposal does not surface again. Due to the decrease in the commodity purchase costs from SFPUC, I am, in principal, not in favor of this rate increase. Ulrich mentioned the EIR that is currently underway. It is operations driven. Melton said since this is an operational issue we should recommend pushing the rate increase out. Ulrich was concerned that if we don’t collect 5% now we will have to have a higher rate two years from now. Auzenne suggested subjected this reserve to the same type of risk analysis as we do the other funds. What is the risk profile for something happening. Ulrich said this is another risk decision. Water has higher risk than wastewater. We don’t know what is happening at Hetch Hetchy. Not to mention the catastrophe of having it out. For the average customer this will be an impact of $3.40. Motion: Melton made the motion to not approve staff’s recommendation of a 17% increase but to approve a 10% increase this year and a 7% next year. SECOND: Bechtel John wanted to provide the impact. Vote: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Refuse: John said we have nothing to do with refuse. Just bill for refuse and storm drain. Approved: 060105 Commissioner Chairman Dawes declared agenda items 4-7 will be held for the June 1, 2005 meeting. Melton will attend the Finance Committee meeting on May 19, 2005 when Utilities budget goes for approval and he will summarize with accuracy our views on these matters. Dawes asked why the relocation of the Alma street substation shows no revenue as the site will be used by a developer for housing. Will the City reimburse the PAU for the relocation costs as they will re receiving money for the site from developers. IX. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, Dee Zichowic City of Palo Alto Utilities