My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.4. ERMUSR 05-14-2013
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2013
>
05-14-2013
>
5.4. ERMUSR 05-14-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/30/2013 10:45:15 AM
Creation date
5/30/2013 10:45:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
5/14/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Missouri River Energy Service(MRES), and Minnesota Municipal Power Agency(MMPA). Around this <br /> time,Connexus and GRE had also expressed interest in resigning ERMU to a power contract. ERMU <br /> began an analysis comparing the options of renegotiation with Connexus, entering into an agreement <br /> directly with GRE, or joining a municipal power agency. The high level results of this analysis helped to <br /> establish the criteria most important to ERMU for a wholesale power supplier: competitive rates, stability <br /> and positioning for reduced risk associated with regulation, sharing of information and advocacy,and <br /> ability to have control of our future. Late in 2012 with these criteria in mind, ERMU narrowed the <br /> options to focus on down to three: GRE,MRES, or MMPA. <br /> DISCUSSION: <br /> There has been concern with the limitation of ERMU's current power supply agreement with <br /> Connexus/GRE that there is not always"like interests." In addition to the differing interest associated <br /> with the current agreement, ERMU has no board seat or vote at GRE. ERMU is at the mercy of the <br /> member cooperatives that do not always have the same interests. This puts ERMU in a position where we <br /> cannot influence the direction of our power supply but are rather captive customers. This is an important <br /> issue to address. These realizations caused ERMU to be forthcoming with Connexus and GRE about our <br /> desire to have a say in our future and a need to have"like interests." Connexus and GRE both <br /> communicated that these concerns could be addressed if ERMU where to sign an extension to the current <br /> power sales agreement. To satisfy ERMU's other interests,GRE would need to allow ERMU to have a <br /> board seat that is eligible to vote. This would not completely address the concern of"like interests." This <br /> repeatedly comes up when GRE's interests do not align with ERMU's because the makeup of our <br /> customer base is different than that of the typical electric cooperative member of GRE. <br /> MRES and MMPA both offer advantages compared to GRE with respect to this issue. Because the <br /> memberships are made up of municipal utilities and not cooperative electric utilities,the interests are <br /> more likely to align. MRES has 61 members and there is no guarantee of a board seat for ERMU. <br /> MMPA has 11 members and ERMU would have a guaranteed board seat. MMPA, however, has strict <br /> guidelines establishing separation between governance and operations. So ERMU would have a vote on <br /> the MMPA board,but would not be involved in the day to day operation of the agency. <br /> Another concern with our current power supply agreement is competitive rates. ERMU currently receives <br /> the same rate signal that the other GRE non-fixed cooperative electric members receive. This rate is <br /> currently and historically higher than other options being considered. Although there is no guarantee for <br /> the future,historically MRES and MMPA have the ability to maintain rates lower than GRE. <br /> One of the greatest exposures to risk with our current power supply contract is potential carbon <br /> regulation. GRE is deeply invested in coal. MRES serves members who have WAPA hydroelectric <br /> allocations with the balance of their power supply coming primarily from coal generation. MMPA is in <br /> the best position to mitigate the risk associated with carbon regulation because of their generation <br /> portfolio. This puts MMPA at a significant advantage compared to GRE and MRES for providing <br /> competitive rate into the future. <br /> Based on the criteria established for the analysis, MMPA stands out as the top choice. Although there is <br /> no way to guarantee the future,a rate analysis indicated significant saving in power costs compared to <br /> GRE. MMPA has positioned themselves well to protect their members from the risk of carbon <br /> regulation. This regulation may never come, but if it does, MMPA will be able to adapt quickly without <br /> extreme volatility in rates. The size of the MMPA board,the guaranteed board seat with voting <br /> privileges, and the similar sized municipal utility members indicate that ERMU would have the ability to <br /> provide input towards decisions involving our future with a greater level of influence with results. And <br /> PBuEREB B1 <br /> Page 2 of 3 INATURE <br /> Reliable Public Power Provider POWERED To SERVE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.