The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Light and Power 1993-04-08AGENDA Light and Power Committee April 8, 1993 10:00 a.m., Board Room 1. Cable Television Franchise Issues 2. 1993 Purchase Power Rider Interim Retail Rates 3. Employee Recognition John McDougall 4. 1990 One Ton Utility Truck Performance Record ~ 5. Reports A. Financial Report B. Fall River Hydro Plant Progress Report C. Project Updates D. Platte River Power Authority NOTE: The Light and Power Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. -1-OVVN OF EST13 17\KI 1 j trfly"Aft \ % hirf. j" 4,4# f .. / r A *t. 51 f. ,17 -.. . . tÂ».At.2- riaÂ·-14 1~9 I. 14: +~4-i--.; . - -i~ j*f ~F-~-.. 1111. Â»Â·~ 4.4 ,' ' Â·-e-etÂ·.Â·Â·,4, '. r. 3-=-Â«Pt~TWKirfit3%;4.%,~0Â«~Â«1~~~-I UlIj.,z~lÂ£ee;* . 2*41;'6~44Â¢6-,*%442 ' /- 14*4.044 4,2/+442&61#4*9 Ifff~f.fl~/11 - .3/ *f'%Â¥.' f,wâ€¢'f#)4.14*L/94 '. t;'<.4/. /J '." -3{'./4-'-1- Im64*F - +743>*95*ipT,0. 1 ./-1...ED -d. 4 'ix-,31* - MEMORANDUM April 2, 1993 TO: Light & Power Committee FROM: Rich Widmer ~- Assistant'Town Administrator RE: CABLE TELEVISION PERMIT AGREEMENT ISSUES BACKGROUND The existing cable television permit agreement was approved by the Town Board on July 14, 1981. It was for a fifteen-year term, with an option for a ten-year renewal. During the 1980's, the cable television system was owned and operated by several different companies. Some of the original permit requirements were waived by the town when Cable Systems, Inc., took over operations in 1983. The cable industry was deregulated in 1984 with passage of the Cable Deregulation Act. Fanch Acquisition Group acquired the system in 1987. During most of 1988 and 1989, the attention of the town was focused on improving the quality of the system. The town required the cable manager to attend each Light & Power Committee meeting and report progress. In December of 1989, satisfied with the improvements made, the towh released the manager from attending these meetings. The Cable Act of 1992 r'e-regulated the industry, and further confused the requirements of the original permit agreement. It is unclear what provisions of the original agreement are enforceable, 1-1 fown 011-SIc,9 1'<Ill< I sl f Â·, 1 1,11 k, c 1( 31 ( 11,1 ( 11 ) : i { ) 1,1 7 Cable Television Permit Agreement Issues, April 2, 1993 - Page 2 or even needed in light of the new regulations and technical changes and improvements in the industry. In the Fall of 1992, the town was requested by the cable company to initiate proceedings to produce a new agreement. At that time, the town opted to wait for regulations to be issued by the FCC before proceeding. Subsequent demands by the public for clarification of the existing permit requirements resulted in the town deciding to proceed with the permit modification process in the Spring of 1993. For the last several months, staff has been researching the cable television practices of other communities. This research has involved telephone contacts, personal visits to other communities, study of existing permit agreements, and gathering of actual programming from local origination programs. The following paragraphs summarize this research, discuss several issues the town must decide before proceeding, and describe the permit procedure remaining. Although there are many technical and operational requirements in a typical permit agreement for cable television, there are really only two issues that need some direction from the Town Board before staff can proceed with negotiations: public access and emergency override. PUBLIC ACCESS Section 611 of the Cable Act of 1984 specifies in part that a franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity of public, educational, or governmental use, may establish such requirements for a franchise renewal, and may require rules and procedures for the use of the channel capacity so designated. There is no requirement for the town to establish or maintain public access, just a permissive "may establish requirements..."in the law. The original permit agreement, in paragraph 15b, required the cable operator to provide to the town, at no cost, one channel (until transmitting 80 hours per week), then two (until transmitting 80 hours per week), then three for "non-commercial public affairs service and educational programs for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town." It was not called "public access" and did not imply that public access was to be permitted. Light & Power Committee minutes of December 6, 1984, state that Channel 10 was designated as the "local access channel" and the minutes of March 7, 1986, state that the "Local Access Channel is in place". Over the years, public affairs programming migrated to Channel 8, which has become a leased commercial channel containing some public affairs programming. 1-2 i IC)Wil (,I Ihic'S I~,lili 1 'Â·,If'% 1 *All:, c .1 )1(11 '1(1(, ;1()'4 7 Cable Television Permit Agreement Issues, April 2, 1993 - Page 3 The permit agreement also required a studio and equipment to be provided by the cable company and available for loan to the public. This requirement was later waived by the Town Board with Resolution 30--831 The cable company provided the equipment to the school district. The high school auditorium was to be used as a studio as necessary, but was never hooked up to enable broadcasting. Staff has researched other communities to find out what they do for public access and community programming. Generally, larger communities along the Front Range have dedicated local origination channels, usually with paid managers and staff and a separate government channel run by the city, also with paid staff and ---2hequipment. The local origination channel is where public access takes place, subject to the rules and regulations of whatever governing structure is used by the channel operator. Most surveyed use some form of liability and waiver release when allowing public access. The government channel is usually for city council meetings, police and fire information, and other government information. Public access is usually not permitted on this channel. Staff also researched and visited other Colorado resort communities with comparable cable subscriber bases to compare requirements. A - videotape has been prepared with examples of local origination , community television in some of these communities. For comparison ' purposes, the Estes Park system has about 2,200 subscribers. The descriptions follow: Steamboat Springs: The local origination channel is information oriented; shows lists of community activities plus tourist-oriented videos; managed by the cable operator who hires the manager; programs are reviewed by the cable company for content; equipment is loaned to non-profit groups who want to produce their own programs; broadcasts 24-hours; no government channel; 3,006 subscribers. Vail: Vail has a government channel which runs a continuous scrolling bulletin board of community information and meeting schedule. The equipment for this channel was provided by the cable company. The Vail valley also has a community television station (local origination) supported mostly by 2% of the 5% franchise fee from Vail, Avon, and the rest of the county, with other funding from membership drives and dubbing services; it has a manager and 1/2 staff person; its 1992 budget was about $94,000; it averaged 15.5 hours of broadcast operations per day; its programming was governmental (16%), community related (24%), sports (21%), entertainment (20%), religious (16%), and consumer (3%); the station operates with a community board that prescreens and approves all programming; station is 10 years old, and it took that long to get it operating properly; ,10,057 subscribers. 1-3 lowll 01 I.51("4 i,Ilk 1.Sles I ',11 k., (. (11(,1,1(10 41(15 17 Cable Television Permit Agreement Issues, April 2, 1993 - Page 4 Glenwood Springs: Has a local origination channel, combined with a leased channel; a volunteer operates the community access portion of the channel, with a board of volunteers appointed by the cable company to oversee content; community programming is done from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.; advertising is sold to sponsor shows; 2 ,923 subscribers. Durango: Durango will soon have a government channel, operated by the city, with procedures for allowing public access; some local origination is shown on the leased channel from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., but it is mostly local events and advertising; 3,800 subscribers. Telluride: Community television channel, run out of basement studio; town gives all franchise fees, other funding raised through grants, sponsorships; total budget around $24,000; 2 part-time staff; carries Learning Channel and Bravo; community programming done from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; carries local concerts, plays,, lectures, school events (except sports) ; allows public access but has had little interest; has board of directors (volunteers, self appointed) to run operations; 1,000 subscribers. Aspen: Aspen Community Television is a government and public access combination; its $100,000 budget is funded from franchsie fees from Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County, plus grants , dues and sponsorships; 1 1/4 paid staff; studio is in middle ' school, staff teaches a high school video class in return for space; non-profit corporation, members who pay dues have annual meeting, elect board who hires director; on air seven days a week with community bulletin board plus public meetings, news, athletics, talk shows; 10,000 subscribers. Craig: Craig has had a community access Channel for about seven years; the channel operator provided the equipment, he advertises other cable programs, and for this the cable company provided a channel; programming is local news and sports, community events, public access on first-come, first serve basis; sells advertising; 2,412 subscribers. Rifle: Has a channel and equipment provided to the town by cable company, operated by volunteers and overseen by Cable Committee appointed by city council: 1 staff, 2 council, 3 general public members to advise on policy and programming; 24-hour operation; uses scrolling character generator, volunteer-produced video; no advertising or religious programming; in operation 3 years; thinks future may include city supported budget, paid staff; 2,000 subscribers. Most systems surveyed have some procedure for the public to have access to air time. Generally, most systems require at least the completion of a waiver of liability and release so that any 1-4 lown 01 I.,41('h P,IlL 1..'les 1,Â¢111.. C.(11("11(10 It().51/ Cable Television Permit Agreement Issues, April 2, 1993 - Page 5 liability incurred in showing privately produced video is -U~ trans ferred to the party producing the video material. - OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The various approaches used by other resort communities suggest the following range of options: 1. No requirement for public access. 2. Government channel provided, operated by town, with part of its programming to be public access and community programming. 3. Public access is blended into governmental and other community programming and is combined with operations of an existing leased channel or a new channel. Community programming would probably take place at a prescribed blocked- out time period. Town could appoint a station manager and a board to oversee operations and deal with public access issues. The channel could seek sponsors, grants, and memberships to support the costs of community programming. 4. Community Television Station - Similar to #3 but separate from any existing channels, funded separately, operated as non-profit corporation. Staff believes Option 1, No Requirement, is unrealistic in view of the long-term nature of the permit agreement and the desire of many in the community for some form of community-based programming. Option 2, Government Operation, is also judged unrealistic due to Amendment #1 restrictions and unknowns, and the desire of town administration to avoid adding additional staff. Option 4, Community TV Station, is probably the best from a technical and operational standpoint; however, it is unrealistic due to the relatively small subscriber base in Estes Park. It would require significant additional funding beyond what could be raised with a franchise fee. It may be the best long-term solution, but the time is not right for its implementation. Option 3, the combination of public access, governmental usage, and community programming combined with existing or new operations of a channel, seems the most realistic at this time. It is responsive to the public, while not being burdensome on the cable operator or 1-5 lown 011.sic's Pall< 1%1('s I'gilk, (.c,lcil,ic]â€ž 11{)517 Cable Television Permit Agreement Issues, April 2, 1993 - Page 6 the ratepayers. Costs could be born by sponsors; existing staff, facilities, and equipment could be utilized; and the public could still have access as appropriate. Staff recommends adoption of Option 3 as the basis for ne-gotiaticihs in the new franchise. Suggested community programming could include: local news coverage, community event coverage, town board, school board, and recreation district meetings, high school sports events, talk shows, cultural and recreational programming, community bulletin board, public service announcements, and public information programs. EMERGENCY OVERRIDE CAPABILITY The existing permit agreement calls for the cable system to have the capability to allow the town in times of emergency to override the audio portion of all channels simultaneously. Most other systems surveyed have similar requirements; some require the provision of a video crawl message as well as an audio override. The policy question is whether this requirement would be justified given the perhaps remote possibility of its use. Obviously, the c town does not have this ability with other forms of local media. The capability would probably require a dedicated phone line, and raises the question of who should pay the monthly cost to provide this line. If the town requires an emergency override, it should pass rules and regulations to control access to the system. OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. No requirement for emergency override. 2. Require audio override only. 3. Require both video and audio override. Although there are many good reasons to have this capability, there are questions as to whether this provision is worth the cost, which will undoubtedly be passed on to the ratepayers. Depending upon the emergency necessitating use of the system, it is possible power would be out to all or a portion of the system unless some backup power is specified. This requirement may be more attractive on its , face than upon closer inspection; however, it is probably better to have the system and never need its use, than to not have it at all and need it. Accordingly, staff recommends requiring the cable operation to provide Option 2 above. 1-6 I . 1 '.le: I ''llk, Colol,1(10 8(Fil i Cable Television Permit Agreement Issues, April 2, 1993 - Page 7 PERMIT AGREEMENT PROCEDURE REMAINING Staff will begin meeting soon with the cable operator to negotiate the outline of a -new pe'rmit agreement. These meetings will take place during April and part of May. A draft agreement will be prepared by the Town Attorney once these negotiations are complete. The goal is to take a completed draft agreement to the June or July Light & Power Committee for review, and then on to the Town Board shortly thereafter. 1-7 , Cable television rate regulation: Â·.Â· *3 =al t:* 1 C Â§(ffi, TjAA .. 's BAAAACK! (but you won't recognize it) by Ken Fellman I.October 1992,Congressover- usually smart enough not to offer it regulations (1) to assure that "basic rode fonner President Bush's as a topic of conversation at cocktail service tier" rates are reasonable, veto and passed the Cable parties. and -(2) to identify in individual Televison Consumer Protectionand Still, rate regulation will soon be cases "rates for cable programming Competition Act of 1992 (the 1992 upon us, and it willlook much dif- services that are unreasonable."1 Cable Act). This legislation was ferent than it did prior to the 1984 Basic tier service is essentially all partly in response to numerous Cable Act. Therefore, let's examine local commercial and non-commer- complaints by consumer groups some basic questions about cable cial educational television signals, over the substantial rise in cable rate regulation and the status of the and any public, educational, and rates and charges since the industry regulatory issues currently pending go vernmental (PEG) access was deregulated by the Cable Com- before the Federal Communications programming required by the munications Policy Act of 1984 (the Commission (the Commission). franchise to be provided to sub- 1984 Cable Act). scribers3 A cable operator may in- 1. Why are we talking about rate : Of major concern to local govern- clude other program services in its ments are the 1992 Cable Act's regulation now? basic tier as long as the charges for Congress painted the new re- provisions for reregulation'of rates gulatory scheme with very broad Commission's basic rate regula- those services conform to the for various cable television services strokes and delegated responsibility and equipment. to the Commission to craft the fine tions. The purpose of the regula- Admittedly, to matiy people lines and details of the regulations tions is to protect cable customers in material on cable television regula- which will govern the cable in- systems that are not subject to effec- tion is about as exciting as a dustry under the new law. On Dec. tive competition from paying televison test pattern. Even the most 10, 1992, the Commission adopted if the cable system were subject to higi~er rates than would be charged dedicated local government offi- its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking effective competition3 cials rarely spend more than a neg- (NPRM) covering regulation of ligible portion of their time thinking rates for cable service and sought 3. What is the local government's about cable television and rate cornments from interested parties. role in the regulation of basic tier regulation. Those of us who work in Rules are expected to be promul- cable service7 the area on a more regular basis are gated in early April. Any franchising authority which desires to regulate basic tier cable Ken Fellman is a shareholder and direc- 2. What kind of cable rates can be rates where effective competition tor in the Denver law firm of Kissinger regulated? does not exist must certify to the & Fellman P.C. He focuses his practice The rules promulgated by the Commission that (1) it will adopt on localgovernmentandadministrative Commission will govern rate regu- and administer rules with respect to law issues and has worked extensively lation for services of cable systems . in the areas of cable television and "not subject to effective competi_ rate regulation that are consistent with the Commission's prescribed utilityfranchising. tion." The Commission willdevelop 20 1-8 Colorado Municipalities/March-April1993 1 .. rules; (2) that it has the legal dictional issues discussed above, 7. How will the Commission authority to adopt these regulations the Commission will develop rules determine whether basic tier and the personnel to administer Covering the length of time for the cable rates are reasonable7 them; and (3) that the procedural process, procedures for challenging The Commission has identified rules governing rate regulation certification, notification require- two generic approaches for rate re- proceedings by the local franchising ments to interested parties, and gulation: benchmark and cost- authority provide a reasonable op- revocation of certification. The based rates. Benchmark rates are portunity for consideration of the Commission's preliminary findings rates that would be established by views of interested parties.4 inthis area suggest thatitwillforthe the Commission based upon Franchising authorities are pre- _ most part keep the administrative selected general industry character- empted from adopting rate regula- burdens on franchising authorities istics and against which a cable sys- tions more stringent than those at a minimum and attempt to effec- tem's basic tier rate would be com- promulgated by the Commission. tuate the congressional goal of seek- pared.1'Cost-based or "cost ofser- ing "to reduce the administrative vice" rates are those which are de- 4. If we only have one cable burdens on subscribers, cable termined by examining the parti- company in our community, can operators, franchisin~ authorities, cular costs of each individual cable we assume that the system is "not and the Commission." system, using rate-making prin- subject to effective competition"7 ciples set by the Commission. Cost- Not necessarily. 6. What happens if the local of-service regulation is traditionally In the NPRM, the Commission government does not choose to applied by the Commission to suggested that local franchising regulate basic tier cable rates? public utilities such as common car- authorities might be required to Some franchising authorities riers of interstate communication provide specific evidence ofa lackof may not have the resources (or the services.11 effective competition as a threshold desire) to regulate cable rates. If The Commission has made a matter of jurisdiction. The franchise your cable system is not subject to preliminAry determination that a authority would be required to pro- effective competition and your com- form of benchmark rates would be vide, in addition to the information munity chooses most appropriate to described in response to Question 3, not to assume the create a more easily the factual basis for its finding that regulatory juris- Local franchising verifiable system of the cable operator is pot subject to diction, will basic authorities might be regulation and to effective competition. tier service rates In comments filed with the Com- be regulated by required to prouide meet the statdtory goal of reducing the mission, local governments argued the Commission? specific evidence of a administrative bur- that such a requirement would be The Commission lack of effective dens on cable unfair since many franchising has made a and operators authorities do not have the data preliminary con- competition as a franchising author- necessary to make such a finding. clusion that it tliresliold matter of ities. The Commis- Competitors ofcable operators such only has the jurisdiction. sion, however, may as "wireless cable systems" are not power to regulate include as part of its ordinarily regulated by local gov- rates for basic tier regulations a cost-of-service alter- ernments, and information on the service if it has disallowed or pre- native that could allow cable competitive effect of those systems viously revoked a local franchising operators to justify higher rates than would not be readily available. authoritfs certification.8 those considered reasonable under The local government comments Local governments point to the a benchmark standard.12 suggested that the Commission's congressional intent in the Cable The Commission must also con- certification procedure should in- Act of 1992 to protect subscribers sider in its determination seven clude a presumption that the cable from unreasonable rates in all sys- statutory factors which include system is not subject to effective tems not subject to effective com- rates for cable systems that are sub- competition, and then the burden petition. Because local franchising ject to effective competition, direct operator to supply its own readily ces to assume this responsibility, the costs of satisfying franchise require- should be on the cable system authorities may nothavethe resour- costs of providing basic tier service, 2 available data to overcome that Commission has been urged to fol- ments to support PEG channels, : presumption.6 low tile congressional intent and as- and a reasonable profit.13 5. How will the certification are reasonable for all subscribers.9 (continued on page 12) sure that rates for basic tier service process be set up? 4 In addition to the filing and juris- 1-9 Colorado Mumicipalities/March-April 1993 21 3,WABI@Ilten'01111818*30&72261@7*232Â«Kâ‚¬3.'~~3 .Â·Â·.t .:.,PG~/4.3!.t'.;....,..'Â·I:&,t&,i<U:Â·4,-k.'044.k.- f.,Â·,:,/1*,WAR,U,-dA,ViÂ»G,L-Â· 416Â»40, Local governments have , advocated that local franchising authorities be pennitted to conduct the initial review Of rate complaints, CABL other regulations promulgated subject to the benchmark and by the Commission. 8. Can rates for programming CNN, ESPN, TBS, WGN) will not be franchising authorities be permitted services other than basic tier be regulated insofar as the Commis- to conduct the initial review of rate , regulated, and if so, by whom? sionsettingratesfortheseexpanded complaints, subject to the In addition to ensuring that rates tier services. They will, however, be benchmark or other regulations for basic tier service are reasonable, subject to regulatory procedures set promulgated by the Commission, to the Cable Act of 1992 directs the by the Commission which could re- determine whether a specific rate is Commission to establish criteria to ' quire cable operators to roll back unreasonable, and if so~ what a identify rates for cable program- rates and rebate money to sub- reasonable rate would be. ming services thatareunreasonable. scribers if rates for this type of pro- 9. Will there be regulation of Cable programming services are gramming are found to be unrea- cable television equipment and generally defined as any video sonable. The Commission's goal is installation charges? programming over a cable system to develop complaint procedures Rates for installation and equip- (other than basic service tier "that are not only fair to all parties, ment utilized to receive cable programming and programming but are also simple and ex- â€ž15 television services (converter boxes, offered on a per channel or per pro- peditious. remote control units, etc.) come gram basis) and installation or rent- While the NPRM appears to as- within the statutory definition of al of equipment used to receive that sume that all complaints regarding 14 "cable programming services," and programming. unreasonable rates for cable pro- the rates for such equipment and Video programming which a gramming service would be made installation service will be based cable operator chooses to include in to the Commission, local govern- upon direct costs.17 Local govern- a second tier o f service (for example, ments have advocated that local ments have argued that the cost of equipment should be limited to a cable operator's actual cost for that equipment as determined by the price paid. Local governments have also encouraged the Commission to establish benchmark rates for instal- #;2.91 FROST MCGAHEY INSURANCE INC. lation services, since the actual costs are not readily identifiable.18 10. What kind of implementation Now with two offices to serve you better. and enforcement powers might we have as local franchising P.O. Box 8410â€¢ Breckenridqe, CO 80424 POf,Clta Spriligs 1-800-488-FROST 1 -800-745-6460 authorities? The Commission has made a Providing insurance for Municipalities, preliminary conclusion that en- Water and Sanitation Districts, forcement of cable regulation School Districts and Fire Protection Districts. shouldoccuratthelocallevel, when the franchising authority is certified to regulate rates for basic cable ser- vice. At the same time, it raised a EMC Insurance Companies number of questions without really Des Moines. Iowa 50309 indicating which direction it was 22 1-10 Colorado Municipalities/March-Apri11993 leaning with respect to the extent of motions will be heard the franchising authority's enforce- , and decided in March. Can the franchising authority ment powers. ~ The result ofthe litigation These questions include: Can the may delay or even order that refunds be made if a franchising authority set its own preclude the promulga- cable operator fails to comply rate for basic cable service when it tion of these rules. with the rate decision? denies a rate increase? Can the A follow-up to this ar- franchising authority order that ticle will appear in refunds be made if a cable operator Colorado Municipalities after final Association of Counties, Jan. 27, fails to comply with the rate passage of the Commission's rules 1993, at pp. 23-25, Federal Com- decision, or must a court order first governing rate regulation, probably munications Commission MM be obtained? Are special procedures this summer. Docket No. 92-266 (hereinafter required in such a case to ensure due "Local Government Comments"). process rights of a cable operator? 7 Communications Act, Â§ 623 Whatotherremediesmightbeavail- (b)F)(A), 47 U.S.C. Â§ 543(b)(2)(A). able under state and local law719 Footnotes NPRM at 1 15. 1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 9 Local Government Comments, Local governments have sug- In the Matter of Implementation of gested that franchising authorities Sections of the CableTelevisonCon- Ppi~1-22. can impose any remedies under NPRM at 1 33-35. state or locallaw, so long as they are sumer Protection and Competition 11 NPRM at YI 39,57. not inconsistent with the Commis- Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM 12 NPRM at 1 36, 40, Docket No. 92-266 at l[ 3 (hereinafter 13 Communications Act, Â§ 623 sion's regulations. Since the Cable â€ž14 PRM"' Act of 1992 provides that the 2 Communications Act, Â§ 623 14 communications Act, Â§ 623 (b)(2)(C), 47 U.S.C. Â§ 543(b)(2)(C). franchising authority, with Com- mission certification, must assure (b)~7)(A),47 U.S.C. Â§ 543(b)(7)(A). NPRM at 1 30; Communica- (1)~25), 47 U.S.C. Â§ 543(1)(2). that basic tier rates are reasonable, NPRM at ~ 98. tions Act, Â§ 623(b)(1), 47 U.S.C. 16 Local GovernmentComments the franchising authority must have Â§543(b)(1). the authority to order rate reduc- 4 Communications Act, Â§ 623 PPi 772,73. tions when the finding is made that (a)~), 47 U.S.C. Â§ 543(a)(3). 18 Local Government Comments NPRM at 1[ 66,68. basic tier rates are unreasonable. NPRM at 1 17, 19. With respect to ordering refunds 6 p. 47. Comments of the National As- 19 NPRM at 1[ 86Â· and imposing fines, local govern- sociation of Telecommunications 20 Local Government Corrunents, ments have argued that the Com- Officers and Advisors, National mission should afford a wide range League of Cities, United States Con- PP' 63-66. O of flexibility in the franchising ference of Mayors, and the National authority's range of enforcement powers, so long as the actions taken by the franchising authority do not specifically conflict with the Commission's own regulations.20 - 1 1 11. What happens next7 The comment period to the .- -I---- -Il--- INC NPRM expired Jan. 27, 1993. The Engineering Consultants Commission is expected to promul- gate the final rules on rate regula- Fort Collins Colorado Springs Volt Longmont (303) 226-4955 (719) 598-4107 (303) 476-6340 (303) 678-9584 tion in early April. A number of law- suits have been filed by the cable industry challenging various sec- â€¢ Water Resources/Augmentation Plans tions of the Cable Act of 1992. Much â€¢ Water Supply and Treatment of the litigation attacks the "must â€¢ Wastewater Collection and Treatment carry" rules, which essentially in- ,<:47.4 â€¢ Drainage and Flood Control 47-11* volve the relationship between the â€¢ Highways and Bridges Ge,61 cable. industry and broadcast -\ e.1-L/ â€¢ Utility Mapping \tuly television stations. At least two cases, however, directly challenge rate regulation. Summary judgment 1-11 Colorado Municipalities/March-April 1993 23 TOWN OF ESTES PARK April 7, 1993 OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Light and Power Committee FROM: Richard E. Matzke-742Ry*L SUBJECT: 1993 Purchase Power Rider Interim Retail Rates Attached is a new retail electric rate summary reflecting the change in our wholesale rate from Platte River. The new Purchase Power Rider is a reduction of $0.00118/kwh applied to the energy charges in all of our base rates. The previous Purchase Power Rider was an increase of $0.00234/kwh. This change is an overall reduction of 4. 92% of total electric sales revenues. The new electric rates are effective with the first billing period beginning April 1, 1993 and will be reflected in electric bills in May. REM 2-1 . 43 a.; 2 OO ~ w <It 0 .C ral .8 $ m .Â§.2 Egg R U L.f Â·C 8282 ~Skew 0.5 BO ~g~ E5 ~E M A 4 8 t-n Net-4 Ol * 12 R.ov Rig! OÂ·2 w, O -2 FE'.2 %0 28%~ &2& 8 k 5& 1 Al N 44 44 AM,4 3 S .3 U b US iÂ° a m 8 0 M 8 '4 & & to M Lid M â‚¬ 4 W O M O *08 4 -- N .-I W 6.â‚¬ A 0 0 E N*82~111/1% ~ 8 8 & 1 2 0 0 1 M a. 2 9 a 2.5 6 â‚¬ 3Â¤ 51*2&.53 . EN ~Ellailm 2 - d U LId F %.8.I %.0 E f f -105 0 -1< 6 B &1 04)01. O M 4 4 bo 0 .../ -0 mt on 8. Orn rn *-- les all RO M O w 2 U -rn By -MU 00 U O U h W 2 0 6. 60 -- La -8 - 2 2- a- E E e 0.9 T B -C @= 2 9 -9 2,6~ 9 8 3-m E di E O Â¢1 0 U.N -~**21Â¤ 9: EM *** ge-@ 0 %1 O\00 8888* *18Â§ gog 000 01010 CROO UN .-222 Ki 16 ee 44 44 Â£4 r 4.4 0 &4 0 W, 4,} 4,> u Alot< EM O| ~ Ch ,0 00 M d o en ZE Â· 81 3 Ull 5 0 4, a 8 LU 2 && E-4 0 4 - & Co k 5wAAâ‚¬ 4#8 51#41 tfif=E waw Ag 2%2 % 1 3 S .3 tz.B k 2 M =98 2~3 ~~~~~ ~~ 56100- - LU E-1 -9 0 Lue S M E b a 0- 0 4. 44 ' Â¤ 71 - *@ 9 U ~ 9 83,3,E ili' 8 ~ LIC % Im 23 2 *2 LI] > oIL u Ad<.14 M <.54 CE < zl J; e 2-2 Â£66I '9 Iudy 'NMOUSI IOO-0$ 30 lunOUIE 041 m uouonpal .I@PRI Johiod aseqoind E apnpul se}El IIV ilable for existing residential service with electric heat using under 20,000 mmercial service with demand of 35 kW or less. ,ith demand exceeding 35 kW in any two $9.6 x minimum monthly billing demand or $55 o.u KIm III /Al 5Â£ 80!p@Joxe primu (#01 pd uo BInpmox@ lunome) Â§$ lo pmfulap Sum!q Xmwom unm Sleqo KS.Igue Xmluom snId '10101 ~81311@g @41 10j pUEUI@p UInUIIUTUI luom gu Â·poued ZI 2%:or ~~P~~15~3'~~37*AVE 101 pnemap ILIntUIUFUI KIIBUOUI 041 1811 I[Bnolqi JaqUIOA jO Sq]UOUI * lISno.rqi JaqUI@AON Jo Sqlu SInpcocid em Supn UO Â»R !4 041 Jo 96 09 @q HEI~S @le.1 XEG SIDENTIAL (CODE 71 or 81) SMALL COMMERCIAL (CODE 74 or 84) TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO HT & POWER RATE SUMMARY RESIDENTIAL RATES COMMERCIAL RATES Energy charge Minimum ric space heat or more than 15,000 tive months. Effective 4/1/93 harge ergy charge exIlunuue q,Mi 000' (AVI )lead uo Su! le@q GoucIs ouloop Summn 100 sao Ales MOU pim Knenuue rn*E 00:9 01 'm~d IO :SlnoH Xea Jo em!.L spoued emn 19910 luomdmbe Supplam luuor]!ppe Jo UORBII,lsm 10; ingmXEd 91!nbal solul Kup JO emu Customer charge Minimum TOVMN OF ESTES PARK April 1, 1993 OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Light and Power Department Personnel and Town Department Supervisors FROM: Richard E. Matzke>EZ-771 SUBJECT: John McDougall Promotion to Lineman II John McDougall has been promoted to Lineman II in the Light and Power Department effective April 1, 1993. John has made excellent progress in our Journeyman Lineworker Apprentice Training Program and is now in the final year. John is developing into a skilled lineman and this promotion is a recognition of his accomplishments. Please join me in congratulating John and wishing him continued success in the Department. REM / 3-1 SYSTEM KW JAN FEB -- i MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG - SEP _- OCT NOV - i DEC 5a-1 9391 KW.XLC 4/7 193 000' L L - 000'EL I~ 000'9 L 1661 7 - 000'L L 19,000 - 21,000 - PURCHASE POWER - DEMAND TOWN OF ESTES PARK >1Â¥3d 06 330 ------- Â£66 L --- - 1991 E-es AON F 8. 13 -<3Â§KE::. ia 23*tl 130 ER}19}%*228:*2*,9 dBS mo~'ammu;,9~*air*&Â·1:.-::ARW:-:..,t?31.*,MtE Dn V 6~**:2;0***4**xkÂ·.Â·i:<blbli~NYÂ¢:ES*%~5>:~.NE:kk::2<<-fÂ·.~<*:<..:...:4 1nr K*22*s{MU bldg Il Ill 1111 l 111Illl1Ill UJ]JJJ]JJ]JUJ]JIJJ]JJ]JJJ]j]IJ!#Jl]JIJ] jil 11]%!JjJJIJ] fl Â©1*&:%1*.2422 -1. Bvvy [11111111 ! 1111] 11 1111] l i l i [1111] 1 U ! 111 ! 1111 [1111! 111111!1 ! l i l l i l ! 111111! 11-11 ! 111111 l I l i ! !11! 111 [1 ! il111111111111liliI[lilli[1111!!11111[1111llillilillillillilill]1111llillilillmililillillilimmlillilillimmilmilillmilimilll E >79Â·3: 9â‚¬sda#*3*@Sfs*%&93{Â§-3 -6 t,sm >:f.{ti:= *int:pj Y N v r HMM V\I31SAS 9391 KWH.XLC 4/7/93 U 1991 166 L ~ - 000'009'L E66L TOWN OF ESTES PARK PURCHASE POWER - ENERGY 9,500,000 - 9,000,000 - 8,500,000 - 8,000,000 - - 000'000'L - 000'009'9 - 000'000'9 000'009'9 E-es 33a | AON 130 1 , d3S CD 2% inv Z LU CC Lu lAP 0 0- Nnr LU U) . -- t I O AVIN CC 1 1- HdV UVIN r..:Â·ERâ€ž4546 83=1 ~. NVr 1 HAA>I WBISAS 9391KWHA.XLC 4/7/93 E 1991 Z66 L m Â£66 L El TOWN OF ESTES PAR ACCUMULATED YTD BY MONTH 95,500,000 - 85,500,000 - 75,500,000 - 65,500,000 - - 000'009'99 - 000'009'917 - 000'009'SE - 000'009'dz - 000'009'9 L 1 1 1 5 000'009'9 D-eg T 611Â£/kium.c..*m.Litid.:.i:.....r..Â£.:..:id; E<~21:252.3462 E.32--1~..2.2.~l,gR..a=.I~12:*~.12-:2-:Al.1 Bia==42%%:.8#fa&=jAW=> .1 . 1.94.- XIA..I:-./.4.-4.-Il -642......4Â».2â€¢â€¢â€¢. I .......9....... i. . .....~. 0-lk:-L.... ($) 931VS A 9091 SAL.XLC Afl 193 / 1991 166 L El Â£66 L m 080 AON 100 deS 5nÂ¥ Inc unr AelAI Jdv Jel/\1 qed uer ELECTRIC SALES BY MONTH 600,000 - 550,000 - 500,000 -7 * 000'09* 11 1- 000'00* i. 9 000'098 1 f , 1 Â·~ - 000'008 5-es T N*44*4*110?!45:3tteâ‚¬QMfg~1438*Gr~*:,.Nli S Â¢1,194439*1.,I~.i'Y~~~~:4, &%2*75*!Ei**44'44**8*#*1&!~d?E.gpÂ£&~~9~6*,~~~ki..~1~~$~1~~~- Z -EfÂ©49*08#*hit*%&*1*it.**%~',40?Ii#*24,4#* flitti'r~,y;:t,~;'!*i Elit.11:09 1Â·1461!&7,1&(,9,9(' Rfj'*.Br;{1'6~*~:'.M:#112.iub?,f:il#tj~;iii Â¢.'.frij,{{iffi,;2*ri'if..ER#:%?*j:Mil~9<12:fit#?Â§94ilÂ·iit#,it.Kti 51*%%4*r,<Ff E~,1~:.441,9#Eq,359%*73>,it,jif; 10/44/4:/f,ir,gu.+Mk, P.:4&55142 F.00'.it.-P, t' 5{*At,{%!d{}fottl~80%1Rff{PRÂ¢Â¢ Â¥4:44,4(44*ND?*%11:Uiff),;S :94 PÂ¢.159/Wip#*4~W'Â·131 0.9 fie HNÂ¢.421% iff.kÂ¢494% 0 3190 01 HV3A ($) S31VS '1 9091 SALY.XLC 4/7/83 080 Ao 100 deS 6nv Inf unr AelAI Jdv Jel/'\1 qa=1 uer ELECTRIC SALES ACCUMULATED BY MONTH Â¤ 1991 YTD E 1 992 YTD O 1993 YTD 6,000,000 - 5,000,000 - 4,000,000 - - 000'000'E - 000'000' L - 000'000'Z AGENDA Light and Power Committee March 11, 1993 10:00 a.m., Board Room 1. 1993 Electric Rate Update Authorization to Contract With Rate Consultant 2. 1993 Capital Projects A. Highway 34 Rebuild B. Joint Trench with U.S. West 3. Reports A. Financial Report B. February 16, 1993 Peak C. Project Updates D. Platte River Power Autliority NOTE: The Light and Power Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. TOWN OF ESTES PARK March 10, 1993 OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Light and Power Committee FROM: Richard E. Matzke 723-7" SUBJECT: 1993 Electric Rate Study Attached is a proposal from M. E. Kiburz and Associates to perform an update of the 1991 Electric Rate Study. Mr. Kiburz has included in the proposed scope of services the rate issues which were discussed at the February Light and Power Committee meeting. Mr. Kiburz estimates that the cost of the study will not exceed $8,000. The Light and Power Department budgeted $5,000 in 1993 to perform a rate update. The Department also included $11,000 in the 1993 â€¢ budget for energy efficiency programs. Since many of the issues to be addressed in the rate study will directly affect energy efficiency programs we may want to pursue, it would be appropriate to fund the amount that the study exceeds $5,0000 out of the energy efficiency line item. The 1991 Rate Study performed by M.E. Kiburz and Associates was completed at $2,100 under the original estimate. The Light and Power Department recommends that the Town contract with M.E. Kiburz and Associates to perform the rate study at a cost not to exceed $8,000 and that the study be funded as described above from the Rate Update and Energy Efficiency line items. REM 1-1 MAR:-10-93 LÂ·15D 10:59 KIBIJRZ M E P.02 M.E. KIBURZ AND ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers 443 Sugarloaf Min Rd Boulder, Colorado 80302-9639 (303) 442-6450 TELECOPY 303-442-7472 March 10, 1993 Mr, Richard Matzke Director Light and PoK er Department P, 0. Box 1200 Estes Park, C D 80517 Dear Rich: lapprE clate the opportunity to present this proposal for an electric rate design study for the Estes Park Light and Power Department. This letter outlines the scope of services and estimated cost for the 1993 electric rate design study, The scope of services would Include the following: 1, Incprporate the new (4/1/93) PAPA wholesale purchased power rate changbs Into the Estes Park rate schedules. To Include adjusting tile Estes Park Flurchased Power Rider to make the current PAPA rate the schedule which becon-'es effective 4/1/93. 2. Thq change In the PRPA's metliod of determining the monthly billing demar~ds would be assessed as to the impact on the following rates and clauses In the Estes Park rate schedules. a) The appropriateness of the current seasonal demand rates, b) The appropriateness of the current demand ratchet clauses. ~ c) Evaluate the need to modify the rate schedules with time of day 1 ~ demand rates. 3. Ev~luate and prop6se new rate schedules for the following types of service. a) Residential time of day with only a customer and energy rates. b) Security Lighting schedule which would Include the cost of power and ' maintenance. 4. Prepare cost comparisons of proposed and present rates to show dollar Impac~ on varying energy use for the various customer classes. 5. Th~ results of the 1993 electric rate design study will be summarized In a bound report. The estimated cost includes providing fifteen (15) copies of the report,, 1-2 MAR-le-93 1.Â·-1 ED le:5 9 K IE:LIRZ M E P . 03 6. Pr~vide copies of computer programs developed to make the analyses outlinÂ¢ above. The analyses above will be prepdred using the Microsoft Excel spread sheet software, 8. Prepare and present testimony In support of the results of 1993 electric rate destgr, study at a Public Hearing. I estln ate the cost of a study, as outlined above Including the public hearing, not to exceed $8,000. The cost estimate Includes three trips to Estes Park; one trip to collect basic *ata; one trip to present the final report and one trip to make a presentation Â¢t the Public Hearing. Charges associated' with this study will be Involced monthly. My labor charges will be on the hours spent on the study at my current labor rate of $65.Od/hour, Surface travel and duplication will be charged at. my current rates of $.26/mile aid $.10/copy. All other charges will be Involced at my cost. The attached work schedule sets forth time requirements by study milestones. The total timeto complete the study without the public hearing and associated testimony pre~aration Is approximately six to eight weeks. The stpdy will be performed by the undersigned whose resume and specific work experience is attached, For your consideration, review and comment, l have also attached a draft copy of a possible Agreement. If you have questions or require additional Information please feel free to give m e a call. Sincerely,. Max Kitfurz <~~ attachments: Schedule Draft Agreement Specific Work Experience Resume 1-3 MAR-le-93 W ED 1 1 :00 KIBURZ M E P.04 Work Schedule Estes Park Light and Power Department Electric Rate Proposal i Milestones 1 Initiate, study with trip to Estes Park to collect basic data and discuss Light and Power Department ideas for the Electric Rate Study. (Approximately four to six weeks to next mliestone) Il Completion of preliminary draft of report for review and comment by Light and Power Deparment staff. (Approximately two weeks to next mllestone) Ill Flnallze Electric Rate Design Repon and presentation. (Approximately two weeks to next milestohe) IV Preparati in of Public Hearing Testimony and Exhibits (Based on date set by Estes Park) V Public Hearing 1-4 TOWN OF ESTES PARK March 10, 1993 OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Light and Power Committee FROM: Richard E. Matzke- SUBJECT: Joint Trench Project with U.S. West U.S. West has informed us of their plans to extend telephone fiber optic cable from Â·the south side of CO Hwy 34 near Roth's Restaurant, then north and east around Lone Pine Subdivision to Dry Gulch. The underground cable will then extend north along Dry Gulch to a location near the entrance to the Honda School. The total length of this installation is approximately 14,000'. U.S. West has offered us the opportunity to place a conduit in their trench during this project. Our typical cost for a trench containing primary cable is roughly $5 per foot. To take advantage of this opportunity, the Light and Power Department will have to furnish the conduit at the time of installation at approximately $1 per foot. In addition, U.S. West may impose a charge for occupying their trench. U.S. West will also install some underground facilities in the Allenspark area as a part of their rural improvement program and there may be some areas where we would want to share their trench. We have a total budget of $85,000 in 1993 for underground construction. The Light and Power is requesting authorization to commit an amount not to exceed $25,000 for participation with U.S. West in this joint trench program. REM 2B .. 1 It 1 1 111 ImhNINI MONâ€¢1'000 14'1 00101 m i cr, 11 1 N l.D (n I CO I Oomt-not,OM Itil O I Lot = 1 m It a 1 .-tem i m , Alâ€¢N.-101- 1 01 I tri 141 1 .1, O 11 â„¢11 . ..1 -1 . . . . ..1 .1 .1 -1 .1 -11 ME-1 tomit aol NNOWWN IN 1 Ullâ„¢l Ull r.1 11 e Itm 1-1 r-1 I lnI ON Oorlâ€¢40 toi LO) 1 LA 1 10 1 O 11 r-1>4 to toi r--1 tri .-1 10,1 .-11 , 0, 1 .-1 11 1 . 1 .1 1 1 1 + 11 If-1 1.4 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 11 1 1 11 Illilli 1 It , 1 1 1 1 11 1 0. m .-1 1 9 1 WOLONOO 1 1- I h 1 00 I in I cn 11 Imâ„¢01<01 000,-11'LANIr-11 1 1 'O 1 CO I r- 11 O 1 Lnt.no 101 Nt-Nu)000 1 W I 1 It- i mi W 11 Mil . ..1 .1 ... 1 .1 .1 -1 -1 -11 A E-1 1 O lo~.0 INI 41 04 co O r-1 1 .-1 1 01â„¢1 411 r- 11 0,1 ILD 1 00 1 4' M =r N ID IMI Ul/MI LDI 1-4 11 â€¢-12 1 / . 1 1 , ca 111 1 1 11 404 11 1*# 1 1 1 1 111 " 1 1 1 1 11 1 11, 1 1 11 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1,1 .r m IN 1 Lr,LrILI,Ulmr-Itt-(11 1- 1 1 1 01 1 0 11 I m =r N 10 1 IDNOON.-11 lt-Al 7/mt 0 1 r-1 11 I w LA 1- 1 0, 1 O LO h O LA =1' 1 ('1 1 111.1 011 9 11 . ..1 .1 . . . . ..1 .1 .1 .1 . 1 .11 rn 1 1 Ul CA r--1 1 LD t' NOOho.-11001 00 1 W 1 1-0 1 .-1 11 O El 1 1 .-1 1 '.0 1 O 0 * r Ch 1 CO I 1- I r-11 0 1 0 11 C,1/1-1 1 .-1 1 .-1 lo r--1 I m I .-1 1 1 0 1 - It 1 .1 1: i .4 : .11 1 r-4 1 .-1 1 1 1. 1 1 lili 1 N i :i 11 1 H 1 1 1 1 % 1 11 11 11 1 I r-1 N tr) 1 00 1 mmhoomi Imi LO I W I Chi crâ€¢ 11 0 PC; W O , r.1 r.-1 in 1 1- 1 m[-unmooo 1 01 1 00 tool h I Ch 11 cowez O 1 co 0, r -1 1 co 1 1'01.Or-Ir-IlD 101 1- 1 'D I 1- 1 O 11 E-13 F< H mil . ..1 .1 --- 1 .1 .1 -1 .1 .11 00 E-10 m E--11 0=Â· w 101 w Ul 00 1-1 10 1 00 1 Nimt r.-11 Ch It Ed A U]Z 0, It 1 1 lot 1 0,0 m i I Col 1-1 1 011 lc) 11 M r-IE 1 1-0 ILA I rN 1.,1 1 1 1 1 t,4 Ga 14 1 - 1 1 , 1 111 - 11 O EU] 1 1 1 1 11 i i: 90% ti" Z W O E-1 20 Z Z O H 1-1 O ea z Ed 'It 11111 - 11 1 1-nOO 1 tO i 00(NOhOO I ,-11 11(NI m I 00 11 9 1 0000 i 00 i 1- 0 N h M 0 1 LD I NINI 001 0, 11 *Imoolmi NOIn Â·1' O, O IN I 0 1 1.0 1 00 1 / 11 M M 0 1 . ..1 .1 .... ..1 .1 .1 -1 -1 . 11 0 m 0, 191â€¢00 1 Â·1â€¢ 1 00 0 r-1 lA Y 1 1 41 1 OINI Wl N 11 CL, m '0 1 10 1-01 1 ,-1 1 Lot-nommr--1101 r-1 1 00 1 00 1 r- 11 r.4 j 1 0, .-11Nt L,1 Y COM lo la) 1 .111 NI 44 11 mi . 1.1 . 1 -1 1 1 -1 - 11 1 LA I 'D I 1 Ln I 1 1 <0 1 I tA- It 11 1 1 11 1 11 1 H Ul,< 0 M 0 ME-4 4) b M D H W E-1 0 W Z 01 0 H Z 0 87*< 41 0 M Z > O -1 7 > M 1-1 + mme > 0 0 Mm Â¢ At M W W D~ 4) >4 tzâ€¢ O 4 W FA C OA X O ~ Rod TAce 0 0 0 00 W W .4 M po m - r-1 C\ r-4 9 3 E-1 0, 00 M 41 EH 1 C O â€¢A 05 -r-1 61 0 0 4-1 1-1 D Al .r-1 1 (16 Ue rd 0 01 44 -P W 1-1 1-1 U MCO:juuÂ·1-1 ELI C 0 4_) r-1 04 -4 A (1) (4 0 M 7 -1-J C) C A D -P (D Â·,4 E Â·rl G) AM C 0 01 (D (D E-I rd U k.1 0 C 1-1 01 6) Ell W k.1 0 . H U R Â·P *J -A W >4 4 D ro k.4 0 ma)=10[02#J W W Z 43,3Â·r-1 7 01 0 4-1 51 1 Â¢ , MOUZ MOU]AUKH M U At m M 0 3A FEBRUARY 28, 1993 & 1992 FUND for Services aneous Transfers ( ADNTEI , SSEDXS S3MniIGN3dX3 MaAO 3IDI.aEG) SSEDX3 1 1 1 1 1 .r 9' r-4 1 0, 1 10,-Nwa, 1 1- 1 CO 9 61 1.-1 1 OlmmLOr-1.-1 1 LA A 1 1-09'M I Y I 01-01-nOR tA Ntt - ..1 41 . . . . ..1 . a~E-1 0 or-co i t.0 1 00 N 4â€¢ t.0 00 .-1 1 .-1 Willa , r. 1 ul h m ,-1 00 It- r-4 >1 1 Ul I Ul I N 1 91 1 4, 1 1 1 It 1 It 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I m m 00 1 /10 1 p,Nonooer- 1 N INMLOINI mu,Nooot.r,|to 'COQU)101 w .cr .-t oo 91 PÂ· 1 N 01 ...1 .1 .... . 1 - Mill,19'Inlt.01 Ln in N ul O 10 a,E-1 1 0, toi U) O 9' rl' Ul 10 01 liu-1 1 ~0 1 rn , A r'>1 1 0 1 1 1 It 1 1 1 It I 1 1 1 1 0 ft; WME-1 8-13Â« 1 11 1 t/] 0 E-1 b 11.000 'Ull OONROO 1.-1 WA,01 10000 tool >ON:*-070 1 0 Plmoolml NOUIVAO toi Eut.0 WE MQI ...1 .1 .1 . OREE Cho,INIOO 1.01 COOr-lu,9â€¢911-1 O, 'O 1 Ul h 0, 1 .-1 1 LDU,Omm-10 Z te U Z ,-1 =11 0 ,-11Nt Un i00 1140 1 CO )OZW mi - 1 /1 - 1 . O â€¢-1 )-1 1 LA 1,Â£,1 I lA E-,61 ~ 11* 1 1 1 1 It Z 0 Z W Vi D: 4 O 4 0 tn 4) 0 0 U â€¢rt 4) 1/1 > 4-11 >1 41 14 - C 4, c al 0 16 04 0 1-4 Â¤ CO U O e W o u U U) 0% 44 +1 4 Â·rl Â« Id W C O U 1-4 .1-1 U to U M Â·rl .0 d) 14 14 0 C B % Su 81 Z 52 ,--tk. 204-r44) 10 3-1 a) S U} 0 E'J .C S -rl * C O â€¢rl Â¤ u Â¤ UUZ WOU]Â¤00<H 8 3A-1 ANUARY 31, 1993 & 1992 3nN3AZI-bI UY:Lom, IelaueD/UOT REVENUES scellane us . - 03<1 - AON - 100 - daS - 9nV -- inr - Nnr - AVIN - bldV , - EIVIN - 83=1 NE M>I I/yalSAS 3A-2 9391KW.XLC 3/9/93 - 1991 /66 L v - 000'L L Â£66 L --c- >1Â¥3d 06 330 ------- TOWN OF ESTES PARK PURCHASE POWER - DEMAND 21,000 - 19,000 - 000'9 L - 000'EL 000' L L %:%9**%%: ,*%~%4 't'*#%%,"*.41%%;" '.':j@%*14**01%**%1~*4%32.'51 **4** 330 *>%1****%Â¢**%*{ 130 < 9,626.:liZE25,212&3Â£IZEd_ 9 fl V Nnf IMM#*b#** AVIAI ~ EldÂ¥ 1 EIVIN 1 , Ilm[[1@1*111'111Â®- liT -- -----1-11111-1-*E*f 21-itt y--- L&Â§88&2*2Â§.*11 93 8 E!Â®IE[[[1[18[1 ]11.11@1[[1[1N[[f[- - 11- -1[In-Iml-[1111111.- 1-_Illik .i NVf HMM V\131SAS 3A-3 . 9391 KWH.XLC 3/9/93 E 1991 166 L // - 000'009'L Â£66 L 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PURCHASE POWER - ENERGY 9,500,000 9,000,000 - 8,500,000 - 8,000,000 - - 000'000'L - 000'009'9 - 000'000'9 000'009'9 03a AON 130 d3S Â» 1- eO M a 9nV u.1 > , 00 DC O 1Af U.1 1- R> r .2 2 Nnf AVIAI EldÂ¥ EIVIAI 83=1 -D,Z 4 NVF 1 1 HAAN IAI31SAS 3A-4 9391 KWHA.XLC 3/9/93 Â£ 1991 Z66 L m Â£66 L KU TOWN OF ESTES PARK PURCHASE ACCUMULAT 95,500,000 - 85,500,000 75,500,000 - 65,500,000 - - 000'009'99 - 000'009'917 000'009'98 - 000'009'dz - 000'009'9 L 11 1 1 1 1 1 ImJ-1-1 000'009'9 . - DE -- EE -- ZE 1 -LE - OZ - 6L - 8L -- LL UJ - 9L > DC -- 91 D 2, 0 - V L ZO O< -- EL ZO - EL - LL -- 0 L -6 -- 8 -L -- 9 -- 9 -- D E -Z L U AA>I I/\I31SAS 3B-1 FEB93LD.XLC 2/23/93 Â£6/Z W L m - 000*L COINCIDENT AND COINCIDENT ESTES PAR BnOH PEAK DAILY L 17000 - 16000 - 15000 - - OOOEL - 000ZL ' 000LL