Tribune Fact-Check
So today’s sub-headline for the ECP article on the dead-tree edition reads: “Three are in favor of city continuing to run Electric City Power after 2011.”
Hmmm. Pretty sure I sat through that meeting myself, and heard nothing like that.
The Trib article itself observes that June 2011 is when some provisions expire in ECP customer contracts. I myself have never heard anyone suggest closing down ECP before that date — not Mary Jolley, not Fred Burow, not this blog. So, quite simply, when one gets beyond the untrue sub-headline, there’s not really any news there. Rich Ecke — please menace your copy editor.
The big news of the evening is that, on the recommendation of Fred Burow, the commission set a deadline of June 2010 to make a decision on ECP’s future. More on ECP shenanigans later. And we will also have a report on the City Commission meeting tonight, where Chad Parker’s “urgency measure” to impose a marijuana moratorium is being voted on.
Thanks Travis. Will Mr. Pancich correct the press on that? Not.
Travis: I appreciate your comments on this matter as well as other areas of interest. I mentioned several months ago that three members of the city comission (two yet-to-be elected candidates) would NOT end ECP. I believe you saw that prediction come true last night. Jones, Bronson and Winters will, in the end chose to continue ECP beyond 2011. According to the Tribune article Bronson specifically stated such would be the case as far as he was concerned. I like our new mayor as he is a definate improvement over the previous mayor, but I am afraid he will join Bronson and Jones and will continue ECP. If I were a current ECP customer and was asked to increase my contract by 10% (as recommended by the consultants) I would agree only if there was assurance of an extension to the existing contract of 3 or 4 years beyond the expiration date of the current contract. Otherwise why would a ECP customer agree to “voluntarily” raise their cost of doing business? In order to get the recommended increase the city commission will accept an extension with one or two members opposing. Plus, the ECP Executive Director is holding out a carrot with the “promise” of funding for the Highwood Plant that will provide cover for the commission. You will hear the “funding drum” beating quite loud leading up to the June 2010 commission meeting. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
Well, we’ll just have to see, won’t we?
I’m willing to be reasonable. As I see it, ECP can offer contracts that raise rates to align them with whatever electric power costs us, plus what is sure to be a hefty surcharge to recover debt invested in this scheme over what I hope can be a rather short term.
If the contracts really put the burden on customers and not City taxpayers…well, why would the customers sign them? Why would they supersede their big-wet-kiss contracts for something less favorable to them?
And there’s the problem. The “what’s in it for us?” position of the customers — as anonymous above is saying — would seem to make it necessary to add some kind of sweetener (like a longer term) to any proposed contract. At this point, personally, I would find most “sweeteners” unacceptable. But I’ll wait and see.
Of course, the moral point, which has nothing to do with contracts, is: These corporate customers *should have* been paying rates which were much higher — high enough so that the City treasury was not being used as a kind of slush fund.
I’m willing at this point to let the proof be in the pudding, a two-part process:
1) When the proposed terms of the contracts come to light, will we see that further taxpayer money is put on the line? Or will these contracts be set to an ironclad rate which sees us recovering our debt no matter what the cost of power? Some nefarious combination of the two?
2) And then, if the contracts pass the smell test, there’s the other big question: Will the customers sign on?
Good morning to all and Anonymous
Your City Commission is working the way a thoughtful and meaningful City Commission should work ie: listen and learn and do !!!
So in respect Sir ,don’t count your chickens before they hatch ,you may very well be surprised !! There are five very good people representing your interest
With respect
Michael J
Mr. Winters, the chickens have been hatching for a long time as documented by ECW. Where has the representation of citizen interests been?
“what’s in it for us?” That would be the ECP board members on the taxpayer funded rate plan.
Respectfully Mr. Mayor, the thoughtful and meaningful approach is appropriate when dealing with honest mistakes. Knowingly running ECP in violation of the ordinance year after year and stonewalling the public is calculated and deliberate. A good swift kick in the rear-end is called for.
Hard not to agree with that, LT. The ECP dudes seem pretty clueless to me, and I really don’t think they have a grasp on some of the issues. Mayor Winters and Fred Burow both noted last night the inactivity with which the ECP Board had approached its duties. Unfortunately, the ECP Board doesn’t really seem to have redoubled their efforts; last night, for instance, they came up with all of three questions for the consultants — and two of those were, “Why reduce the ECP Board to 3 members?” (as if that were the most pressing matter facing ECP!). There was no discussion of natural-gas prices and HGS’s capital costs, no discussion of the dangers of the PPL contract, or the YVEC lawsuit, or the “secrecy” issue, or what the City’s contractual obligations actually are. There are so many issues that should be on the table, but I’ve still not heard a fair number of them even mentioned.
After last evening joint meeting we the public still do not know what questions are going to be asked of the consultants. Will the public (Gallery as referred to by the mayor) only hear these questions when they are presented to the consultants? Will the public (Gallery) be allowed to add to and possibly correct questions presented?
By the way Mr. Mayor please look up the meaning of “Gallery”. We the public are not mere spectators in this process.
Commissioner Burrow asked a very good question (why have you, the ECP Board, not taken action to become profitable or to break even after all these years of losing money?) and got no acceptable answer except that board member Bill Ryan blabbered something that the legislature was at fault for all their financial problems. The rest remained very silent and had no response on that pointe and very relevant question! We still need an answer to that one ECP Board and also why is it you have never reported to the city commission all these problems over the past five years?
Thanks to all citizens for participating and submitting arguments and to Mayor Winters for staying engaged. Commissioner Burow ‘nailed’ it down rather well.
A phased exit strategy – like what our US Army is executing in Iraq right now – should be seriously considered.
US Army problem-solving process:
Determine the Problem Statement
Collect facts the bear on the problem
Develop assumptions
Develop essential criteria
Devepop courses of action
Analyize each course of Action (ALL pro/cons)
Compare all courses of action (compare all pro/cons)
Brief command
Make decision
This applies to our new police cars also, and I didn’t see any comparison of
new police cruiser qualities – faster, fuel efficient, etc. – or is the Charger
and Impala the same?
Lt. Col,
whereas they taught the same problem solving process in the Air Force, we as a city must remember that it is not that simple when dealing with a legal contract. The city does not have the luxury of just deciding one day to stop at a certain predetermined time ( Commissioner Jolly pay attention here). We must first consider that the city signed a contract with SME for SME to provide electricity to the city (ECP) until the year 2048 (ref: 19 (a)). The idea that the City (ECP) can just not renew with its customers and then take the position that “no more customers, no more power requirements, no more contract” is far from the truth. According to 5. Contract Demand the City (ECP) must present what is refered to as Exhibit B, this is an estimated demand for the customers of ECP. This must be filed on or before 1 April of each year and must project the required kilowatts for ECP customers for the next 5 years. The key here is 5 years. So if we cut the head off we (the City tax payers) could be held liable for the costs associated with the purchase of power that was estimated for the next 5 years. Why? Because SME uses this data to secure these power requirements in advance on the market from third party suppliers, remember HGS is not producing electricity and SME has the obligation to provide this estimated power whether HGS is in operation or not.
Is there a way around this? I do see a possible way but I will not speek about it on-line as for all I know SME, ECP, or City Government Officials that are pro HGS, ECP are watching.
Mark, can you include links to the provisions you’re referencing. I am curious whether I would agree with your analysis, but first I want to make sure we’re looking at the same documents.
Links, no it is not in electronic form that allows links, it is in paper form. The one I was given to review is dated 2 October 2007 and stamped 000532 thru 000553. if you have another version please send it my way I would like to read it. If you have the same one, read 5. Contract Demand on pages 8 and 9 (000539-000540) “On or before the 1st day of April of each year the City shall submit a revised Exhibit B to SME setting forth the estimated maximum number of kilowatts the city and ECP’s customers will require at the respective point(s) of delivery for the following five (5) calendar years”.
I appreciate your comments Mark J. I didn’t intend to convey the problem-solving process as an instantaneous solution, but a model that we could have considered before
we became decisively engaged. The consequences were not
fully considered as you aptly show the contracts we’re entangled with and the legal obligations that go with them of course.
We must carefully construct a reasoned, phased exit strategy
that we’re conducting to withdraw from Iraq is my comparison, an issue of even more complexity than than
ECP.