5.3. ERMUSR 07-17-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NSW 114 i linnesota Municipal Utilities Association This is disconcerting, particularly Municipal and Co-op Growth,1974-2010 because Minnesota municipal __TOTAL MINNESOTA CUSTOMERS electric utilities have made such 800,000 - r significant efforts to work out 750,000 750,000 a solution to service territory 650,000 disagreements on several occasions. 800,000 550.000 _ 500,000 Efforts at Comprom1Se 500,000 iiiiiill1111111111114. Municipal electric utilities have 400,000 t.t� 350.000 , r�3�t x made three recent efforts to 300,000 find a compromise with electric 250,000 r�, '� cooperatives on the service territory 200,000 issue—as part of discussions 150,000 concerning industry restructuring in 100,000 199S, an effort at mediation in 2001 50,000 m;+_,' p - `v""""""c "" m��ma gym"�min�a and a joint task force that met in the m` - spring and summer of 2008. Munictpal Total Co-op Total The first of these efforts occurred municipal concessions.The municipals,whilT aches in 1998 and 1999 during a a series willing and ready to discuss a variety of app meetings between representatives of municipal electric utilities, which were held to accommodate the interests the fundamental cooperatives, to 411in d cooperative were not willing to relinquish to discuss issues surrounding le th there electric industry restructuring.While t here was little difference in right of municipal utilities to grow with their cities. groups on restructuring The most recent attempt to find a compromise to the positions the two g p itself, there re was no resolution no resolution of the disagreement the service territory dispute occurred in the spring regarding the service territory issue. The co-ops and summer of 2008.This effort was the most insisted that any change in state law allowing aroductive far, municipal and grow with their cities p so far with the municil utilities a number of significant municipal electric utilities to g expansion must include language uage that municipal exp the cooperatives making concessions. In fact, by the time a joint task force had its last meeting in July 20e a the two sides had p o position n restricted completely and eventually unacceptable tbeleto municipal agreement on nearly July all, the issues that had position was completely axnaccep reached ag representatives. The co-ops' subsequent efforts to been brought up for consideration. Unfortunately, r process ended without achieving a resolution pressure municipal utilities to accept their offer the p otation killed any further discussion at that time. because the co-ops terminated the negotiations. The second attempt to mediate service territory MMUA position disputes came in October 2001, in response to an state legislative leaders urging The designation of electric utility servicterr byy appeal from sta g is fundamentally a state issue, fully governed both h sides to come to terms on the issue. After state law in Minnesota and in other states.This preliminary discussions between the Minnesota issue should be left to the states—where it's always Rural Electric Association and MMUA, the been. There is no justification for Congressional parties embarked l a new round of negotiations the involvement in the service territory issue,or u a ,budget bill. with a professional mediator.Unfortunately, the in the Farm Bill, an appropriations ediation effort ended rather quickly because the 40 operatives seemed only interested in discussing 2012 Federal Position Statements/ 17