HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-15 City Council (11)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’ t
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE:DECEMBER 15, 2003 CMR:483:03
SUBJECT:FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION
OF TWO RESOLUTIONS TO REVISE UTILITY RATE
STABILIZATION RESERVE GUIDELINES AND TERMINATE
GAS RATE SCHEDULE G-7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council
adopt the attached resolutions to revise the guidelines for three Utility Rate Stabilization
Reserves and terminate Gas Rate Schedule G-7
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Committee voted
unanimously to accept staff’s recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolutions
B: CMR:467:03 Adoption of A Resolution to Revise Utility Rate Stabilization
Reserve Guidelines and Terminate Gas Rate Schedule G-7
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistan
Ei HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:221:03 Page 1 of 1
***NOT YET APPROVED***
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AUTHORIZING REVISIONS TO THE RESERVE
GUIDELINES FOR THE ELECTRIC SUPPLY RATE
STABILIZATION RESERVE,THE ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE,AND
THE GAS SUPPLY RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 7207, adopted June
21, 1993, the City of Palo Alto ("City") established rate
stabilization reserves for its electric, gas, water, refuse,
story drain, wastewater treatment, and wastewater collection
utilities; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 7769 adopted June
22, 1998, the City replaced the Gas Fund’s rate stabilization
reserve with the Gas Fund’s distribution rate stabilization
reserve and the Gas Fund’s supply rate stabilization reserve,
and it also replaced the Electric Fund’s rate stabilization
reserve with the Electric Fund’s distribution rate stabilization
reserve and the Electric Fund’s supply rate stabilization
reserve; and
Whereas, rate stabilization reserves are maintained to
fund unanticipated cost contingencies and help to maintain rate
stability; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 7207, adopted June
21, 1993, the City conformed the levels of the rate
stabilization reserves to the reserve level guidelines, as
amended from time to time.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION i. Findings.
In 2005, the Electric Fund’s supply rate
stabilization reserve is exposed to higher supply
costs due to variability in hydroelectric energy
production, which results in reduced energy made
available by the Western Area Power
Administration.
o The Electric Fund’s distribution rate
stabilization reserve balance should be
sufficient to cover a normal rise in operating
031210 cl 0072347 1
***NOT YET APPROVED***
costs over a two-year period in combination with
reduced sales revenue and one-time cost
contingencies.
o The Gas Fund’s supply rate stabilization reserve
is exposed to volatile wholesale natural gas
prices that have arisen in recent years.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby authorizes the amendment
of the reserve guidelines for the Electric Fund’s supply rate
stabilization reserve, the Electric Fund’s distribution rate
stabilization reserve,and the Gas Fund’s supply rate
stabilization reserve.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this
resolution is exempted under the CEQA Guidelines under Section
15273 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of
Administrative Services
Director of Utilities
031210 cl 0072347 2
***NOT YET APPROVED***
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO ELIMINATING SCHEDULE G-7 OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO UTILITIES RATES AND CHARGES PERTAINING
TO GAS SERVICE
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION i. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, Section 1 of Resolution No. 7522, adopted
June 19, 1995, adopting Utility Rate Schedule G-7 (Large
Commercial Nature Gas Service), and Section 1 of Resolution No.
7596, adopted June 24, 1996, amending Utility Rate Schedule G-7
(Large Commercial Natural Gas Service) are hereby amended to
delete all references to the foregoing Large Commercial Natural
Gas Service schedule.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, Section 1 of Resolution No. 7765, adopted
June 22, 1998, Section 1 of Resolution No. 7982, adopted June
26, 2000, Section 1 of Resolution No. 7992, adopted July 31,
2000, Section 1 of Resolution No. 8021, adopted December 18,
2000, Section 1 of Resolution No. 8042, adopted March 19, 2001,
Section 1 of Resolution No. 8053, adopted May 21, 2001, and
Section 1 of Resolution No. 8075, adopted July 9, 2001, amending
Utility Rate Schedule G-7 (Large Commercial Core Gas Service)
are hereby amended to delete all references to the foregoing
Large Commercial Core Gas Service schedule.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, Section 1 of Resolution No. 8175, adopted
June 17, 2002, amending Utility Rate Schedule G-7 (Large
Commercial Gas Service) is hereby amended to delete all
references to the foregoing Large Commercial Gas Service
schedule.
SECTION 4. Section 1 of Resolution No. 7522, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-3 (Non-Core Natural Gas Service) and
G-4 (Transportation-Only Natural Gas Service), shall remain in
full force and effect.
SECTION 5. Section 1 of Resolution No. 7596, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-I (General Natural Gas Service) and
G-2 (Genera! Natura! Gas Service), shall remain in full force
and effect.
031023 cl 0072332 1
***NOT YET APPROVED***
SECTION 6. Section 1 of Resolution No. 7765, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-I (Residential Gas Service), G-2
(Commercial Core Gas Service), G-3 (Commercial Noncore Gas
Service), and G-4 (Noncore Gas Transportation Service), shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 7. Section 1 of Resolution No. 7982, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-2 (Commercial Core Gas Service), G-3
(Large Commercial Core Gas Service), and G-4 (Large Commercial
Core Gas Transportation Service), shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 8. Section 1 of Resolution No. 7992, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-I (Residential Core Gas Service) and
G-2 (Commercial Core Gas Service), shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 9. Section 1 of Resolution No. 8021, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-I (Residential Core Gas Service), G-
2 (Commercial Core Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Core Gas
Service), and G-4 (Large Commercial Core Gas Transportation
Service), shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION i0. Section 1 of Resolution No. 8042, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-I (Residential Core Gas Service), G-
2 (Commercial Core Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Core Gas
Service), G-4 (Large Commercial Core Gas Transportation
Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service), shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION ii. Section 1 of Resolution No. 8053, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-I (Residential Core Gas Service), G-
2 (Commercial Core Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Core Gas
Service), G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service), G-II (Large
Commercial Fixed-Term Commodity Gas Service), and G-12 (Large
Commercial Custom Commodity Gas Service), shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 12. Section 1 of Resolution No. 8075, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-3 (Large Commercial Core Gas
Service),G-4 (Large Commercial Core Gas Transportation
Service),G-II (Large Commercial Fixed-Term Commodity Gas
Service),G-12 (Large Commercial Custom Commodity Gas Service),
E-4 (Medium Commercial Electric Service), E-7 (Large Commercial
Electric Service), E-8 (Large Commercial Electric Service), E-9
(Large Commercial Direct Access Electric Service), E-II (Medium
Commercial Direct Access Electric Service), and E-17 (Medium
Commercial Electric Service), shall remain in full force and
effect.
031023 cl 0072332 2
***NOT YET APPROVED***
SECTION 13. Section 1 of Resolution No. 8175, pertaining
to Utility Rate Schedules G-I (Residential Gas Service), G-2
(Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), G-
4 (Large Commercial Gas Transportation Service), G-6 (Municipal
Gas Service), G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service), G-II (Large
Commercial Fixed-Term Commodity Gas Service), and G-12 (Large
Commercial Custom Commodity Gas Service), shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 14. The Council finds that the revenue derived
from the authorized adjustment of the gas service rates shall be
used only for the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2,
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 15. The Council finds that the adoption of this
resolution does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code
section 21080, subdivision (b) (8).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Utilities
Director of Administrative
Services
03 I023 ¢| 0~72332 3
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
ATTENTION:FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 21, 2003 CMR:467:03
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO REVISE UTILITY
RATE STABILIZATION RESERVEGUIDELINES AND
TERMINATE GAS RATE SCHEDULE G-7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council
adopt the attached resolution to:
(1) Revise the guidelines for 3 Utility Rate Stabilization Reserves and;
(2) Terminate Gas Rate Schedule G-7
B.ACKGROUND
In 1993, Council adopted a Utility Reserve Policy and approved establishing Rate
Stabilization Reserves (RSR) to help stabilize rates for each utility (CMR:263:93).
Prudent reserve levels reduce the risks facing the utilities by providing a cushion to fund
unanticipated cost contingencies. In this manner, reserves help to provide rate stability.
Prudent reserve levels also help to maintain the City’s excellent credit rating with rating
agencies.
Each RSR has a minimum and maximum guideline level. The guidelines serve to trigger
an evaluation for the need to raise or lower rates. The compounded impacts of a sluggish
economy, volatile gas and electric prices, rising capital improvement program costs (CIP)
related to the City’s aging infrastructure and a large scale San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission CIP have posed challenges in recent years to the financial stability of the
utilities rates and reserves. Looldng ahead in 2005, reduced energy available from the
Western contract and variability in hydro energy production will expose the Electric Fund
Supply RSR to significant market price risk, particularly in low hydro years. These new
CMR:467:03 Page 1 of 3
cost contingencies, and others, were identified and evaluated by staff to ascertain if the
Utilities current RSR’s guidelines are adequate for the near future.
Based upon an updated cost contingency analysis, this report presents the staff’s
recommendations regarding the adequacy of the cun’ent guideline levels over the next
several years for each of the six existing RSR’s. The following Table 1 summarizes the
results and recommendations of this review.
Table 1
Proposed RSR Guideline Levels
Million $
Current Proposed Proposed Min/Max
RSR 2004,05 2004-05 Guideline
Guidelines MiniMax Guidelines MiniMax Change
Electric Supply $21.0142.0"$27.0154.0"+$6/12
Ei~’ctric Distribution 5.4110.7 6.8113.6 +I .412.9
Gas Supply 3.2/6.5 6.1/I 2.2 +2.9/5.7
Gas Distribution 2.314.6 2.314.6 No change
Water 7.5/I 5.0 7.5/I 5.0 No change
Wastewater Collection 3.9/Z9 3.917.9 No change
In addition to the proposed RSR guidelines, staff recommends termination of Gas Rate
Schedule G-7. This rate tariff is a pricing option "for large commercial and industrial
customers that poses a $3 million cost risk to the Gas Fund should customers decide to
switch from their current rate schedule to Gas Rate Schedule G-7. If this happens, the gas
utility could be obligated to purchase additional wholesale gas supplies at likely higher
market prices. To eliminate this risk, staff proposes to terminate Gas Rate Schedule G-7.
At present, there are no customers served under the G-7 rate.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The UAC reviewed and approved this recommendation at the October 1, 2003 meeting.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Approval of this proposal will increase the reserve guidelines in the Electric Distribution
RSR, the Electric Supply RSR and the Gas Supply RSR. None of the proposed RSR
revised guidelines automatically trigger a rate increase. Elimination of Gas Rate Schedule
G-7 will remove a potential $3 million cost impact.
CMR:467:03 Page 2 of 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This proposed rate increase would satisfy the Strategic Plan objective of providing
superior financial performance to the City and competitive rates to customers. These
recommendations do not represent a change in current City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the resolution does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
ATTACHMENTS
A: UAC Report: Recomrnended Revisions to Utilities Rate Stabilization Reserve
Guidelines
B. Minutes of UAC meeting held October 1, 2003
PREPARED BY:Randy Baldschun, Asst. Director of Utilities
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:467:03 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
OCTOBER 1, 2003
RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO UTILITIES RATE
STABILIZATION RESERVE GUIDELINES
2
RECOMMENDATION
This report requests that the Utilities Advisory Commission MAC) recommend that the
City Council approve (1) revisions to 3 Rate Stabilization Reserve Guidelines and (2)
suspension of Gas Rate Schedule G-7.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based upon an updated cost contingency analysis, this report presents the staff’s
recommendations regarding the adequacy of the current guideline levels over the next
several years for each of the six existing RSR’s. The following Table 1 summarizes the
results and recormnendations of this review.
Table .1
Proposed RSR Guideline Levels
Million $
Proposed Proposed Proposed Formula toCurrent2004-05RSR 2004-05 Guideline Calculate MaximumGuidelinesGuidelines MiniMax MiniMax Change Guideline
Electric Supply $21.0/42.0"$27.0/54.0"+$6/I 2 103% of purchase costs
Electric Distribution 5.4110.7 6.8/I 3.6 +I .4/2.9 38% of sales revenue
Gas Supply 3.216.5 6.1112.2 +2.915.7 75% of purchase costs
Gas Distribution 2.3/4.6 2.314.6 None 40% of sales revenue
Water 7.5/I 5.0 7.5115.0 None 62% of sales revenue
Wastewater Collection 3.917.9 3.917.9 None 61% of sales revenue
* Current and Proposed Guidelines for Supply RSR are based on 2005-06, not 2004-05
Page 1 of 12
BACKGROUND
In 1993, Council adopted a Utility reserve policy and approved establishing Rate
Stabilization Reserves to help stabilize rates for each Utility (CMR:263:93). The key
points of the policy are:
Reserves should be used to finance extraordinary one-time contingencies and to
cover increased operating costs in the short-run, while allowing rates to gradually
increase over a reasonable period.
Reserves should not be used to solve long-term financial problems or to cover
potential major catastrophic disasters.
¯Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) level guidelines should be set to allow reserves
to float up or down. The decision to set aside more money or less money than the
guideline should be based on an assessment of the uncertainties and financial risk
facing the utilities.
¯The adequacy and prudency of the guidelines will be reviewed internally each
year, and if appropriate, revised guidelines wil! be recommended.
Since 1993, Council revised certain Rate Stabilization Reserve guideline levels in 1998
(CMR:194:98) and 2001 (CMR: 248:01). Currently, the Water and Wastewater Funds
each have an RSR. To assure fairness to all ratepayers in a deregulated competitive
environment, the Electric and Gas Funds each have an RSR for Supply and a separate
RSR for Distribution. Although electric deregulation is currently at a standstill, the
separation of reserves, the unbundling of rates, and the accounting structure to support
this separation should continue while there is a prospect that some newer form of
deregulation in California could arise in the furore.
Prior to establishing the Electric Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve, Council established the
Calaveras Reserve in 1983 to partially fund obligations arising from the Calaveras
Hydroelectric Project. In the late 1990’s, the reserve was built up to cover .potential
stranded costs that could arise in a deregulated and competitive enviromnent (CMR’s:
214:96, 219:97, and 222:99). To offset the potential stranded costs over the project’s debt
service life, a schedule for annual reserve withdrawals was approved by Council through
2032. With the stalling of deregulation in California, the potential for stranded costs
arising has substantially diminished. Despite the ill conceived plan for deregulation in
¯California, there remains interest in re-introducing a better-conceived version for
deregulation in the State by some customer groups, energy companies, and politicians.
Therefore, the Calaveras Reserve should continue to serve as a potential stranded cost
remedy while continuing to help keep Paloo Alto’s wholesale costs of power lower than
the market. Each year the amount withdrawn from the reserve helps to subsidize the
relatively high cost of this hydroelectric project and provides rate relief to Palo Alto
ratepayers. The unaudited projected beginning balance in the Calaveras Reserve for
2003-04 is $68 million.
Page 2 of 12
Prudent reserve levels reduce the risks facing the Utilities by providing a cushion to fund
unanticipated cost contingencies. In this manner, reserves help to provide rate stability.
Prudent reserve levels also help to maintain the City’s excellent credit rating with rating
agencies. Standard and Poors (S&P) and Moody’s assigned an AA- and Aa3 rating,
respectively, to the City’s 2002 Utility Revenue Bonds. S & P noted, "In addition to rate
increases, the city has established cash reserve policies for each utility fund that provide a
significant amount of liquidity." S & P further noted, "The stable outlook reflects .... a
demonstrated commitment on behalf of management and the city council to maintain the
financial health and flexibility of the utility funds."
DISCUSSION
The compounded impacts of a sluggish economy, volatile energy prices, rising capital
improvement costs (CIP) related to the City’s aging infrastructure and a large scale San
Francisco Public Utilities Cormaaission CIP have posed challenges in recent years to the
financial stability of the Utilities rates and reserves. Reserves should be used to even out
recurring operating cost uncertainties over the years such as hydro production variation
and market price fluctuations. Reserves should also be maintained to ensure the financial
strength of the City and Utilities and be consistent with prudent utility financial planning
practices.
Looldng ahead in 2005, reduced energy available from the Western contract and
variability in hydro energy production will expose the Electric Fund Supply RSR to
significant market price risk, particularly in low-hydro years. These uncertainties were
addressed in the Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Guidelines and
Implementation plan.
LEAP Guideline #2- CMR:398:02, October 21 2002
Manage hydro productiQn risk by maintaining adequate supply rates stabilization
reserve
LEAP Implementation Plan #11 - CMR:354:03, August 4, 2003
Maintain adequate reserves by recognizing the degree of uncertainty the City faces
in the future. Evaluate modifying the policy or targets to make certain that the
Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve is adequate to ensure stable rates in an
environment of uncertainty and consider potential guidelines such as being able to
maintain stable rates in the event of two dry years in a row.
These new cost contingencies and others were identified and evaluated by staff to
ascertain if the Utilities current RSR’s guidelines are adequate for the near future. Very
large potential cost contingencies that are deemed highly unlikely such as the SFPUC
construction of a $1 billion filtration plant, the Calaveras dam is breached, a large
supplier default during very high market prices, or similar events were not provided for
in this reserves analysis.
Page 3 of 12
Goal of RSR and Methodology to Calculate Reserve Guideline Levels
The goal of the RSR is to have sufficient funds over a two year period to cover three
situations: (1) a decline in sales revenue, (2) a rise in recurring operating, capital, and
supply costs, and (3) one-time cost contingencies. In this manner rate stability and rate
flexibility is maintained over a two-year period. After two years, it is assumed that rates
would be changed to cover the on-going cost or revenue changes. It is important to have
rate flexibility to delay a rate increase in order to stagger retail rate adjustments between
the six utilities on a customer’s bill. The value and importance of having adequate
reserves to weather an unanticipated crisis was recently demonstrated during the 2000-01
energy crisis as Gas Fund reserves were drawn down to near zero in order to cushion the
rate shock to Palo Alto customers from skyrocketing natural gas prices.
To arrive at the recommended maximum guideline level for each RSR, the relevant sales
revenue and cost contingencies related to the three situations have been quantified and
summed. To calculate the proposed minimum guideline, the maximum guideline was
reduced by half. The 6 RSR tables that follow estimate the associated cost for each
situation as applicable.
Electric Supply RSR
Table 2
Electric Supply RSR
Estimated Cost Contingencies
2005-06
A. Decline in Sales Revenue
B. Recurring cost contingencies
1. Western hydro production and market price variability (2 dry hydro years) iiii,i,
2, Calaveras hydro production - market price ,(2 dry hydro years),
3. Calaveras Plant outage (1 occurrence )
4. Market pri~e risk- related to un-hedged load positions (2 yea~s)
5. CklSO/transmission costs (2 years)
Subtota/ (A and B)
C. One-time cost contingencies
6.Regulatory and legal cost uncertainties
7.Supplier default (I occurrence)
8.Thermal plant investment initial working capital
Subtotal (C)
Sum (A) (B) and (C)Projected minimum!maximum,’~’ guideline levels 2005-06
Proposed minimumlmaximum guideline levels 2005-06 .....
Projected reserve beginning balance 2003-04 (per budget, unaudited)**
Million $
$6
18.0
4.0
1.5
5.0
4.0
32.5
10.0
6.0
5.0
$ 21.0
53.5
21142
27154
37.6
Page 4 of 12
** Staff’s updated, unaudited projection for the Supply RSR beginning balance in 2003-
04 is approximately $51.3 million.
The current guideline formulas appear inadequate to address a substantially changing
environment for the Palo Alto Electric Utility. Beginning in 2005, ~eater exposure to
wholesale market prices in combination with a number of regulatory uncertainties
indicates that the Electric Supply RSR guidelines should be raised to help keep retail
rates stable during this important transition. The 8 estimated cost contingencies in Table 2
above are addressed following a discussion of why there is no impact on this particular
reserve from a decline in usage or sales.
Retail sales revenue may drop due to the economy, conservation, price elasticity and/or
weather. However, the Electric Supply RSR is not adversely impacted by either a rise or
decline in retail sales. Weather related load uncertainty is mainly a capacity/transmission
issue and not an energy cost uncertainty for the City. To meet energy cost uncertainty, the
City has adequate hydro capacity capabilities and ability to shape the energy during peak
periods. The main adverse impact due to load uncertainty is related to lower loads. This
uncertainty to a large part is hedged by maintaining open positions with the Short Ten~a
Electric Asset Management (STEAM) ladder. A large part of supply costs are variable
and the City has the ability to transact in the wholesale energy markets to sel! any unused
energ-y. Therefore, reduced usage or sales does not have a significant impact to the
electric supply portfolio and no reserve cover is included for this uncertainty.
The 8 estimated cost contingencies are:
Western Hydro Production and Market Price Variability = $18 million
Western energy is expected to provide -40% of the City’s energy needs in an
average hydro year, but could vary between 25-55% (at a !0%-90% probability
level) of City’s energy needs depending on hydro conditions. Assuming market
prices and hydro conditions are negatively correlated, the supply cost variability was
computed. A maximum reserve target of $18 million was recommended to cover two
¯ consecutive dry hydro years (90 percentile in year 1 and 75 percentile in year 2.)
Calaveras Hydro Production - Market Price Uncertainty = $4 million
Palo Alto’s share of Calaveras hydro production from 2005 forward is expected to
meet -12% of the City’s energy needs in an average hydro year. This could vary
between 4-22% (at a 10%-90% probability level) of the City’s energy needs
depending on hydro conditions. Assuming market prices and hydro conditions are
negatively correlated, the supply cost variability was computed. A maximum reserve.
target of $4 million is recommended to cover two consecutive dry hydro years (90%
percentile in year 1 and 75% in year 2).
Page 5 of 12
o Calaveras Plant Outage = $1.5 million
Value loss related to plant outage will be greatest if the plant loss occurs during the
uncontrolled run-offs and the plant is forced to spill water. Value of lost
production/spill during the spring months is valued at -$1.5 million if the outage
lasts for two months. Since the plant insurance coverage against lost production does
not begin until the 3rd month after an outage, it is recommended that a reserve level
of $1.5 million be maintained to cover this contingency. Additional low
probability/high impact contingencies related to plant outages are considered as part
of the stress testing-contingency planning analysis.
Market Price Risk - Related to Un-hedged Load Positions = $5 million
Staff is in the process of finalizing a STEAM plan to manage the portfolio in the
short-term in the post-2004 era, including laddering-in purchases. STEAM
contemplates an energy portfolio consisting of firm and non-fm~a resources, and
planning for an average hydro year until relevant hydro condition data for a given
year becomes available.
The STEAM ladder and resulting open positions over 2 years could result in a cost
increase of $3-6 million (average of 100,000 MWh open position over two years x
$30-60$/MWh market price increase), if market prices increase steeply. A -$5
million reserve to cover this contingency has been included.
o CAISO/Transmission Cost Uncertainty = $4 million
This relates to ancillary services available through Western as well as transmission
and ISO costs. A $2 million per year reserve level has been included to cover this
uncertainty.
Miscellaneous Regulatory and Legal Cost Uncertainties = $10 million
Regulatory and legal uncertainties are numerous and difficult to quantify.
Historically, the potential for contested issues between CPAU and other parties
always exists. CPAU has been involved in a number of litigation events and others
could arise in the future. Examples include events such as Central Valley Project
(CVP) flow issues, water rights for the Calaveras project, various regulatory rulings
that could allow miscellaneous PG&E cost pass-throughs to NCPA and Western, and
CVP cost allocation issues related to Western energy rates. Although there is a high
degree of uncertainty surrounding potential regulatory impacts, disputes, and
litigation, it is appropriate to provide funds in the Supply RSR to address legal
disputes. A nominal reserve of $10 million is estimated to cover regulatory and legal
uncertainties.
Supplier Default = $6 million
Currently, CPAU’s electricity suppliers are primarily government entities with
essentially no default risk. However, the utility is currently negotiating with up to 5
Page 6 of12
counterparties to provide approximately 50% of the City’s electricity needs in the
year 2005 and beyond time frame. In the negotiations, the City is negotiating with
counterparties rated at BBB- or above. The historic default rate over 24 months for
companies with a credit rating of BBB- or better is very low. The probability that one
of the prospective counterparties would default on the supply contract and force
CPAU to pln’chase that counterparties supply profile on the open market is about a
1% probability level. However remote the probability of such an occurrence, the
impact of such an event could be high. The Electric Supply Reserve level should be
managed with this in mind.
A prudent and conservative approach for managing the Electric Supply Reserve level
would l~e to cushion for credit risk which is equal to the 2 month period over which
CPAU would be forced to purchase electricity on the spot market given the market
price has risen to the 95% probability value and that this purchase occurred during
the highest electric price months with the largest supplier during those two months.
It is reasonable to assume that the largest counterparty would have approximately
40,000 MWh of supply each month and a price rise at the 95 percentile level will be
$72/MWh. Using this approach, a default risk buffer of approximately $6 million
would be required to cover this event.
Thermal Plant Investment Initial Working Capital = $5 million
In accordance with Council approved LEAP Guidelines, staff is pursuing thermal
plant investments/acquisition opportunities. A $5 million reserve level to cover initial
working capital cost related feasibility studies, potential land acquisition, pollution
air credit purchases, and related costs were included.
Electric Distribution RSR
Table 3
Electric Distribution RSR
Estimated Revenue & Cost Contingencies
1 ) 10% sales revenue decline for two years
2) Fund rise in on-going operating expenses for two years
3) Unanticipated/unusual one-time cost contingencies
Sum of 1,2, 3
Projected minimum/maximum guideline levels 2004-05
Proposed minimumlmaximum guideline levels 2004-05
Projected reserve beginning balance 2003-04 (unaudited)
Million $
4.6
2._~7
13.7
5.4/I 0.7
6.8113.6
9.0
Page 7 of 12
For the Electric Distribution RSR, the adverse impact of a decline in sales revenue is
addressed as a situation because less revenue is available to cover fixed distribution costs.
A 10 percent electric sales revenue reduction was assumed. To fund a rise in on-going
operating expenses for two years, the calculation is based on the difference between the
average operating expenses and the maximum operating expenses over the period 2001-
2007. This difference, or rise in operating costs, is doubled to cover a two-year period.
The calculation for one-time unanticipated cost contingencies is an estimate of the kinds
of unusual expenses that could impact the Distribution RSR such as the renovation of the
Municipal Service Center to comply with earthquake standards, a ramp up of Demand
Side Management (DSM) programs, regulatory and legal cost uncertainties, or a
temporary ramp-up or expansion of the Capital Improvement Program. The current
guideline formulas appear inadequate to adequately address all situations. The recent
decline (2001) in Palo Alto electric sales has highlighted the need to raise the guideline
level in the Electric Distribution RSR to accommodate sales revenue declines.
Gas Supply RSR
Table 4
Gas Supply RSR
Estimated Cost Contingencies
I) 10% Higher Pool Consumption- Volumetric Variance
.2) Fu~.d. a significan.~, rise in Market Price for two years
3) Unusual One-Time Cost Contingency
Million $
$2.4
6.8
3.__QO
12.2Sum of 1,2, 3
Projected minimumlmaximum ’guideline levels 2004-05 .....3’216.5
Proposed minimumlmaximum guideline levels 2004-05 6.1112.2
Projected reserve beginning balance 2003-04 (unaudited)10.7
The 3 estimated cost contingencies in Table 3 above are discussed in detail. The current
guideline formulas appear inadequate to address volatile gas market prices, which began
in 2000-01. Very high market prices in combination with a less stable gas industry have
contributed to a need to raise the Supply RSR guideline levels.
10% Higher Pool Consumption- Volumetric Variance = $2.4 million
For the Gas Fund Supply RSR, a volumetric rise rather than a sales decline is a
situation that can cause a reserve withdrawal. If pool loads are higher than expected,
additional supplies must be purchased at prei~ailing market prices. If market prices
are high, the result is a decrease in net revenue for the pool and a withdrawal from
the Gas Supply RSR. $2.4 million in reserves protects the City from net revenue
declines over two years.
Page 8 of 12
Fund a Significant Rise in Market Price = $6.8 million
The gas commodity !addering strategy (CMR:196.01) leaves some exposure to
unhedged portions of the pool load at the time that the purchased gas cost budget is
developed. In December, at budget preparation time, approximately 40% of the pool
load for the next fiscal year is exposed to market prices. Therefore, the purchased gas
cost budget is prepared on projected market prices for the portions of the load
remaining to be covered by contract. A high market price scenario will result in
increased costs with fixed revenues from the pool customers. A reserve of $6.8
million will cover a market price movement to a high price for two years.
Unusual One-Time Cost Contingency = $3.0 million
Such contingencies could be regulatory and legal cost uncertainties as well as
supplier default/credit risk. Suppler default/credit risk is the risk that one or more of
Palo Alto’s gas suppliers would default on fixed-price gas delivery. This will
protect the City from the risk that a supplier defaults and replacement gas is
purchased at a high price over a two-month period. A nominal reserve of $3 million
is estimated to cover regulatory and legal uncertainties and supplier default!credit
risk.
Suspension of Gas Rate Schedule G-7
In the Gas Fund, one of the risks is that large commercial, industrial, or institutional
customers may decide to switch from their current rate schedule to Gas Rate Schedule G-
7. If this happens, the Utility would be obligated to purchase additional wholesale gas
supplies at likely higher market prices. These higher costs could draw down the Supply
RSR by approximately $3 million. To eliminate this risk, staff proposes to suspend Gas
Rate Schedule G-7. At present, there are no customers served under the G-7 rate because
customers prefer alternative Gas Rate Schedules G-3, G-11, or G-12. Its suspension will
not affect the bills of any customer, but it will eliminate the potential to negatively impact
the Supply RSR balance and other ratepayers.
Gas Distribution RSR
Table 5
Gas Distribution RSR
Estimated Revenue & Cost Contingencies
) 10% distribution sales revenue decline for two years
2) Fund rise in on-going operating expenses for two years .......
3) Unan.!idpated/unusual one-time cost contingencies ...........
Sum of 1,2, 3
Projected minimum/maximum guideline levels 2004-05
Nillion $
$2.2
1.9
I..__~5
4.5
2.3/4.6
Page 9 of 12
Proposed minimum/maximum guideline levels 2004-05
Projected reserve beginning balance 2003-04 (unaudited)
2.3/4.6
For the Gas Distribution RSR, the adverse impact of a 10 percent decline in sales revenue
over two years is addressed as a situation because less revenue is available to cover fixed
distribution costs. To fund a rise in on-going operating expenses for two years, the
calculation is based on the difference between the average operating expenses and the
maximum operating expenses over the period 2001-2007. This difference, or rise in
operating costs, is doubled to cover a two-year period. The calculation for one-time
unanticipated cost contingencies is an estimate of the kinds of unusual expenses that
could impact the Distribution RSR such as the renovation of the Municipal Service
Center to comply with earthquake standards, a ramp up of Demand Side Management
(DSM) programs, regulatory and legal cost uncertainties, or a temporary ramp-up or
expansion of the Capital Improvement Program. The current guideline formulas appear
adequate for the Gas Distribution RSR and no revisions are recommended.
Water Fund RSR
Table 6
Water RSR
Estimated Revenue & Cost Contingencies
I) 15% sales revenue decline & impact on margin for two years ......
2) Fund rise in on-going operating expenses, including wholesale supply costs for two
years
3) Unanticipatedlunusual one-time cos~ contingencies
Sum of 1,2, 3
Projected minimum/maximum guideline levels 2004-05
Proposed minimumlmaximum guideline levels 2004-05
Projected reserve beginning balance 2003-04 (unaudited)
Million $
$4.4
7.0
:4,3
15.7
7.5/I 5.0
7.5/I 5.0
8.6
For the Water Fund RSR, the adverse impact of a decline in sales revenue is addressed as
a situation because tess revenue is available to cover fixed costs. To take into account the
higher consumer awareness to cutback during a drought, a 15 percent reduction was
assumed for water. To fund a rise in on-going operating expenses for two years, the
calculation is based on the difference between the average operating expenses and the
maximum operating expenses over the period 2001-2007. This difference, or rise in
operating costs, is doubled to cover a two-year period. A rise in wholesale Water purchase
costs was included as an operating expense. The calculation for one-time unanticipated
cost contingencies is an estimate of the kinds of unusual expenses that could impact the
Distribution RSR such as the renovation of the Municipal Service Center to comply with
. earthquake standards, a ramp up of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs,
Page 10 of 12
regulatory and legal cost uncertainties, or a temporary ramp-up or expansion of the
Capital Improvement Program.
Despite some significant purchased cost impacts related to the SFPUC Hetch Hetchy
upgrade as well as the significant cost related to rehabilitating Palo Alto’s distribution
system, the current guidelines appear adequate and no revisions are indicated. The current
formulas to calculate guideline levels are self-correcting. They are based on a percentage
of sales revenue and as sales revenue rises to meet increased operating costs, there is a
corresponding increase in the RSR guideline levels.
Wastewater Collection Fund RSR
Table 7
Wastewater Collection RSR
Estimated Revenue & Cost Contingencies Million $
I) 15% sales revenue decline for two years $3.6
2) Fund rise in on-going operating expenses for two years 1.9
3) Unantidpatedlunusual one-time cost contingencies ........2.___0_0
Sum of 1,2, 3 7.5
Projected..minimumlma~imum guideline levels 2004-05 ....... ...........31917.9
Proposed minimum/maximum guideline levels 2004-05 3.917.9
Projected reserve begihning balance 2003-04 (unaudited)3.9 ....
For the Wastewater Collection RSR, the adverse impact of a decline in sales revenue is
addressed as a situation because less revenue is available to cover fixed costs. Because a
decline in water usage adversely impacts revenue in the Wastewater Collection Fund, a
reduction of 15 percent was also assumed for wastewater collection as in water. To fund a
rise in on-going operating expenses for two years, the calculation is based on the
difference between the average operating expenses and the maximum operating expenses.
over the period 2001-2007. This difference, or rise in operating costs, is doubled to cover
a two-year period. The calculation for one-time unanticipated cost contingencies is an
estimate of the kinds of unusual expenses that could impact the Distribution RSR such as
the renovation of the Municipal Service Center to comply ~ith earthquake standards,
regulatory and legal cost uncertainties, or a temporary ramp-up or expansion of the
Capital Improvement Program. The current guideline formulas appear adequate for the
Wastewater Collection RSR and no revisions are recommended.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Approval of this proposal will increase the reserve guidelines in the Electric Distribution
RSR, the Electric Supply RSR and the Gas Supply RSR. None of the proposed RSR
revised guidelines automatically trigger a rate increase.
Page 11 of 12
ALTERNATIVES
Staff evaluated other alternative guideline levels. However, such levels were either too
high or too low but and therefore did not meet the goal set forth for the reserves in this
report.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This proposal meets the following Utilities Strategic Plan objective to "provide superior
financial service to the City and competitive rates to customers". Approval of the
proposed reserve guidelines does not represent a change to existing policies.
TIMELINE
The effective date of the proposed guideline revisions is July 1, 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the resolution does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act; therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Karla Dailey, Resource Planner
Lucie Hirmina, Mgr. Utilities Rates
Shiva Swaminathan, Sr. Resource Planner
~’~ BALDSCtlUN
Assistant Director of Utilities, Adm. Services
)A’ffsistant Director of Utilities, Resource Mgrnt
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
es
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENT B
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
OCTOBER 1, 2003
Drai~ Minutes
Recommended Revisions to Utilities Rate Stabilization Reserve Guidelines
Ulrich: Folks if it is okay with you, you can just tell us what you like in our report and
we can go on to the next item.
Rosenbaum: That may well be the case. Is there a staff report?
U!rich: There is not a slide show or anything like that. I think you will find that by going
through the report, we put a lot of work and people that are involved in doing this have
attempted to make this one divided up by commodities so you can take each one of them
at a time and with the tables that are listed there is a summary on Table 1 of all the
commodities and then they are broken down on subsequent pages. Table II has electric
supply, Table III has electric distribution, Table IV has gas supply, Table V gas
distribution and so forth. If you like we can go through each of those and then walk
through the summary how we got to it. This is probably the first time, and as I promised,
we would go through all the potential risks that we have; both ones that can be ongoing
and, in some cases, so-called one time risks that .we see are there but if they occur,
would not happen again. So we have broken it down that way so feel free to ask us some
questions about if you would like to do the work for the electric first.
Bechtel: Alright. Shalt we try the electric first Dick?
Carlson: I have a question on the gas area. But I want to say that this is a very valuable
exercise. It is a good job. But one of the interesting thing is it kicks up where the big
risks are. We can focus on can you avoid some of these things? There are two things.
One is how much money do we need and (B) if there are some big items maybe we get
out of them.
Ulrich: Well the attempt is made in one sense is that when we look none of these things
ever happened. But what we are also trying to do is give you a worst case. It is not trying
to say that we are going to work real hard but they don’t happen because many of these
things are out of our control. Whether there is an earthquake what kind of damage. On
-DRAFT-
UAC Minutes October I, 2003 Page I of 7
the other hand, we are trying to be realistic.by saying look, here is a number of things in
this business that can occur. Not that we can do anything about most of them but if they
occur how much money could we have. That’s what the focus in on. I hope that never
happens.
Rosenbaum: Can I ask perhaps a general question. Table 1 the last column. Proposed
formula to calculate maximum guidelines suggesting that regardless of some percentage
of purchase cost there is a reality, I would think then, in Table II there is summed up a
whole bunch of individual items and come up with a number but nothing to do with a
percentage or revenue. Am I missing a point?
Baldschun: Well it has nothing to do with revenue. It has to do with primarily the
purchase cost because you are talking about supply reserves. The formulas if it is a
supply side it has to do the link or the yard stick as some percentage of the cost purchase
cost. If it is a distribution reserve it is some percentage of the revenue. The way we have
done in the past all that is doing here is recalculating the percentages based on raising the
guideline ranges as we have indicated here.
Rosenbaum: The suggestion is that the numbers calculated by taking 103 percent of the
purchase of the cost while that is really just a
Bechtel: That is the result.
Baldschun: Every year the guidelines change. There is self correcting into our extent
because as purchases go up or revenues go up the guidelines always go up. These are the
formulas that we are proposing to use again to meet the proposed maximum guidelines.
The old formulas are set up for 103 percent purchase cost I think it is 80 percent right
now. So it has gone from 80 percent to 150 percent and that is to achieve this increased
guideline of 42 million to a guideline of 54 million.
Rosenbaum: You are saying that in the future that if purchase cost changed this would
adjust automatically.
Baldschun: Correct, and we are doing that right now.
Rosenbaum: On the other hand our one time cost contingencies that have nothing to do
with purchase cost that are involved here so that it wouldn’t seem that you want just to
take a percentage of purchasing cost.
Baldschun: Well it seems to work out pretty well. You need to have some formula to
develop the guidelines so you look for some similarities and commonalities in what is the
cause and effect which is primarily on the purchase side. It is the purchase cost and you
are right. We want to keep the formulae simple and this is what works and again what
we have been doing it changes the numbers to a little bit to arrive to the new guidelines.
-DRAFT-
UAC Minutes October I, 2003 Page 2 of 7
Carlson: Okay let me be sure because I was lost. You came up with this mechanism
today’s percentage but for thefuture you want to use a flat percentage as a way of having
giving us a variable reserve.
BaIdschnn: The process was that we got the order of magnitude of our cost purchases in
the millions. Then we translated that figure to a common denominator either purchases
but the purchases budget of the sales revenue budget and develop this percentage of
formula is what is going to develop the actual guideline every year in the budget and that
guideline is going to change as they have changed since 1993 when we developed the
first rate stabilization.
Dahlen: So they are going up now for some of these but they could considerably go
down then in the future.
Baldschun: It will be great if it went down because that probably means that revenues are
going down, salesrevenues are going down.
Carlson: We have had some decreases, John.
Bechtel: Do I understand Randy, that this is probably the first time you have done a
Bottoms Up Contingency study maybe in some time. But you review this every year now
and see if you are 103 percent and the case is accurate. Or every other year?
Ulrich: For the record I must point out to you that Randy is going to be retiring in
December so if you ask him a specific question you need to direct that to me because
Randy will not be here.
Carlson: So the part of the purchase here is to not have to do this level of analysis every
year because it is a big job.
Baldschun: It is a big job and this is the first time we have done this level of
comprehensive analysis since 1993. That is when we initially established the rate
stabilization we tweaked them a little bit I mentioned that in the report but this is the first
time it is about six of them.
Ulrich: As we recall, when we embarked on this we had a lot of discussion with you
about perceptions. There were times that looked like these stabilization reserves should
go down because competition is going down, wherever that stabilization is. So it is
important that we go through the Bottoms Up and look at it. I think you should look at
the specifics of what went into coming up with that number and quiz us about whether
those are valid or not. We are going to follow this, as Randy said, and going forward
until we do this again.
Bechtel: I would like to echo what Dick Carlson said I think this is (_~) first time I
had seen this. Then it occurred to me. May be I should ask the question of the minimum
guideline which looks like a very straight forward formula; Min -- .5 max. Right? Why?
UAC Minutes October I, 2003 Page 3 of 7
Baldschlm: Because you want a range. You want your reserves to float up and down
before you trigger something. You either trigger the need for rate decrease or you
trigger a need for rate increase. The whole purpose of this to stabilize rates. That is how
we use the reserve. That is why it is called stabilization rates.
Bechtel: I guess the question around the assumption of half of the maximum is a good
minimum and going through this analysis you know the details do you still say that
because some of these contingencies may not really go in half or are you saying that the
probability is half of them will occur and so on and so forth.
Baldschun: No. No signs of probabilities here but you need to have for a minimum so
that you are always aware of when your reserve stuff gets signaled. Then you start
getting closer to the minimum and you start getting closer to maximum that tells you that
now either you are going to have a reason for those reserves to be below minimum and
we did that with the gas crisis we purposely broke it to zero. But about the maximum
you need to know or explain to Council why-you don’t want to decrease the rates because
you may see something that they don’t see a year or two down the road that says that you
are going to need that money. When you see that stuff in the 10-Year financial forecast
because you see a lot of that in the long range financial planning that the Council needs to
see. That’s how you decide.
Dahlen: I had a question on the item #3 for the electric Calaveras Plant Outage being 1.5
million. Is that Palo Alto share or is that ?
Baldschun: That is Palo Alto.
Dahlen: Not 22 percent of that stuff.
Baldschun: 22.9percent
Carlson: In other way of when expressing the minimum if you look at this one in
particular is you want to at least have enough in the rates stabilization reserve to get
through two dry hydro years and have something else happen. And that is not a bad
minimum because we know we are going to get two dry hydro years once a decade or so.
Ulrich: I hope not.
Rosenbaum: And the philosophy to the maximum since nobody expects all of these
things to happen, why do you simply add them up to get the maximum.
Baldschun: Because we did not expect to have to draw down our reserves to zero and the
gas supply and the distribution supply to energy crisis. I mean you can’t predict any of
this stuff. I think it is just a good insurance policy, for a couple of reasons, to have. To
plan for potentially the worst. We did see the worst happen. We saw it three years ago.
I think what has changed this time around compared to ten years ago is that now you are
UAC Minutes October I, 2003 Page 4 of 7
seeing, particularly in the electric supply with the Western hydro production, the two year
high of 18 million. 18 million, that is a pretty large number and we didn’t have those
kind of cost contingencies before. Now we are close to 2005 we are seeing some of these
big impacts and that is a big change. We’ve added a number or new cost contingencies
that we haven’t had in the past in electric. In the water situation you have seen the
impact you see in the huge CIP projects in San Francisco and now, also our own. It is not
surprising that out of the six reserves the three that are changing are the three businesses
that are facing the most uncertainly and the most challenges in the next five or ten years
certainly electric supply, water supply and water distribution and the gas supply
businesses. The other ones are fairly stable businesses.
Carlson: What else can we start?
Baldschun: We can always start collection. You know. Gas distribution, and I guess
that’s it.
Rosenbaum: Do we have further questions on electricity. Dick you had a question on
gas.
Carlson: I have a question on gas. I have one question on gas. It is something resulted in
the analysis that brought to my attention it is that G-7 rate I thought we got rid of that.
Baldschun: What you remember was during the budget process we decided not to
decrease the G-7 rate. We came back during the middle of the meeting and said if we
forget our proposal we are not going to decrease G-7 and we are going to leave it where it
is. And what that did is was it kept that rate high which meant none of our customers
switched to it. Now even better than that is lets just terminate the rate schedule, just get
rid of it and so that is the plan.
Carlson: So we are fairly quickly going to get that because that is an important risk in
those kind of areas where people have been ought there and if they have an unlimited
right to come back at a below market rate we are forced to go out and buy those stock
markets then we have got a problem.
Baldschun: Karla might want to speak on that. When you did your initial analysis.
Dailev: Right, when we looked at that, I am Karla Dailey, sorry we haven’t met yet. We
looked at what that one time risk is if all of the customers at once came to the G, to rate in
a high market price environment we had to go out and make up for that gas it was about
2 ½ million dollars one time risk. We thought a couple of ways to try and mitigate
against that risk; one was since we buy on a three year basis we could require customers
to give us three years notice before they want to come on to rate. This is a sort of
outlandish ideas but that is one way to get rid of our risk is to have that kind of a lead
time and another solution is to have some sort of entry and exit fee on to and away from
the rates so that the utility was kept whole if customers wanted to move in and out of that
rate. It could get fairly complicated and difficult to administer. So just given that the risk
-DRAFT-
UAC Minutes October I, 2003 Page 5 of 7
was there and none of the mitigating solutions were very attractive and the customers
really haven’t expressed any interest in that rate. I have sat down with key account reps
on more than one occasion with large customers and said what do you think about G-7
and they don’t like that it is uncertain, that the council can change their rate at anytime
and it has been lower than the market price on more than one occasion and I don’t know
how big that difference would have gotten to and send those customers to move to that
rate. But they weren’t expressing any interests in it in the last couple of years.
Carlson: Lets get rid of it because at the state level back in 2000-2001 that is one of the
things happen. Number of major customers they supplied the gas prices, they defaulted
and the customers came galloping back to PG&E and they had the right to buy below
market power and that was in billions.
Dailes~: PG&E does not provide gas commodity service to any large customers.
Carlson: This was in electricity. It was really big bucks.
Ul___fich: That is the reason that at this time there is nobody on the rate and so our
recommendation is suspension of it.
Rosenbaum: Is there anything else on gas? Questions on water or wastewater?
Dahlen: Actually can we go back to gas. I had a question on item #1, the 10 percent
whole consumption explain where the 2.4 million comes from?
Daile2: That is a scenario where the consumption of the customers that we do buy gas
for and have a set rate. Their usage goes up and at the same time the market price is high.
So we have to go out and buy additional gas for these customers at a high price. And in
this particular analysis I used a 1 and 3 high price. High price has 1 in 3 chance of
happening and it is not outlandish scenario. Not a super high case that came out to be
like 7 little less than 8 dollars and may be cheap gas in that case. And so that resulted in
2.4 million dollar cost increase.
Rosenbaum: Any other discussions or questions. This is an action item that is looking
for motions.
Carlson: I move we approve staff recommendations.
Bechtel: Second.
Rosenbaum: We have a motion by Carlson and second by Bechtel to approve the staff
recommendation on the subject of recommended revisions to Utilities Rate Stabilization
Reserve Guidelines and that motion includes suspension of gas rates schedule G-7. Any
further discussion? All in favor.
Carlson: Aye.
-DRAFT-
UAC Minutes October I, 2003 Page 6 of 7
Bechtel: Aye.
Rosenbaum: Then it passes unanimously.
Balachandran: Dick, I just want to thank Shiva, and Karla and Lucie for working on
these rate analysis.
Baldschun: Yeah they have being working on this reserve now. We also had Karl Van
0rsdol and some ASD folks. The reserves by committee.
Rosenbaum: Well as you can tell by comments we thought this is a fine piece of work
and we appreciate your efforts here.
Ulrich: Thank you. Maybe we’re beating this to death but it is a very important area for
us and we want to feel confidence that we are collecting information and right on the
money.
-DRAFT-
UAC Minutes October I, 2003 Page 7 of 7