HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgainst Power Contract POWER
CONTRACT
AGAINST
'i
i
q
-ter_ r
i
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: bob.thompson [bob.thompson@tahoesystems.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:24 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal plant feedback
I received your letter several weeks ago regarding signing a 50 year contract for a coal-fired plant. I strong
disagree with us signing an agreement of this duration for many reasons but fiscal (I don't buy the whole writeup)
and environmental. This timing is maybe not so ironic since California is putting a freeze on these sorts of
misguided long term contracts. Guess that why you guys are doing this after the election and before the end of
the year.
Anyhow, maybe I have some fact wrong, so please enlighten me, but I side with the 5 year contract opinions.
Thanks for listening.
Bob Thompson
,�
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Bob Reed [bobreedhome@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:11 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal burning based electricty
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
We are home owners in Truckee, and I just received your letter dated November 17th informing TDPUD power
users about the potential plan to sign a 30 year contract to acquire coal based electricity from Utah. I would like to
register a vote Against a long term contract for coal based power. Our family is willing to pay extra for electricity
form alternative sources. We collectively are destroying our planet, and it seems to me that convenience and cost
are no longer good enough reasons to continue in our careless ways. We must start developing more cost
effective ways to power our world, and the sooner we transition to alternative based approaches, the better off
future generations will be. We will certainly have the inconvenience of higher cost early on, but as more people
accept the alternative solutions,the costs will drop, and the end result will be cleaner air, and hopefully stabilized
temperatures patterns.
Please feel free to contact me by email, or phone to discuss further.
Best regards,
Bob Reed and Family,
12684 Muhlebach Way
Tahoe-Donner,CA 96161
(530)550-9217
(650)740-3652(cell—best contact number)
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Carlos.Felix-Fretes@kp.org
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:40 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: contract for purchase of electric energy
Hello,
I'm a "part time" Truckee resident, owner of a 2nd home at Tahoe Donner. Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the issue of contract for electric power.
I am not insensitive to the hardships that can bring a significant rise in the electric bill, however, I would think it's
important to definitely move away from power derived from coal and exploring and moving towards "cleaner"
sources of energy. Coal derived energy is not favorable to the environment and sooner or later, we will have to
brake away from it. It seems to me that the longer we wait to change this trend, the harder it will be to face to the
new realities. I would favor a short term contract , such as a series of five year contracts.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice an opinion on this matter.
Sincerely,
Carlos J. Felix-Fretes
11539 Snowpeak
#629
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,you are prohibited from sharing,copying,or otherwise using or disclosing
its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any
attachments without reading,forwarding or saving them. Thank you.
12/8/2006
Peter Holuneister
From: Mary Lambert[marylambertrn@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:51 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: energy rates
Dear Sir:
We read with interest your letter re energy choices and feel a combination of sources,
with possibly shorter contract lengths, would be appropriate.
Thank you,
Mark and Mary Lambert
14200 Pathway Avenue
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: mminigan@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:49 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: EKMinigan@aol.com
Subject: Renewable power contracts: Citizen input
Peter,
We are land and homeowners at 12799 Hillside Drive in Truckee and we recently received
your letter concerning short and long term power contracts for the district.
We wholeheartedly endorse absorbing short term price increases in order to have
renewable sources of power online as soon as possible.
Our belief is that large challenges are met one small step at a time, and the sooner
organizations like TDPUD move toward renewable power, the sooner more organizations will
follow, and the sooner the prices for those renewable sources will come down. Simple law
of supply and
demand: as demand increases, supply will follow.
Thank you for your letter; good luck with your decision making, and we hope you pick the
renewable track in short order!
Regards,
Mike Minigan
12799 Hillside Dr.
Truckee, CA
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free
access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Thomas Grant[grant257@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal vs. renewable power
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
Thank you for your letter regarding TDPUD's contract dilemma. We strongly feel coal is a dinosaur whose time
has passed; we can no longer afford its extreme pollution. Whatever the cost to our individual bank accounts, we
MUST switch to renewable power sources. If it means an increase of 25-30%by 2009, as your letter states, so
be it; the more we require renewable sources, the more will come online, and the lower costs will eventually be.
In future letters, please remind your customers of this economic fact.
If any area should take proactive steps to respect the beauty of our land and to preserve the health of our planet,
it should be the Lake Tahoe area! We who take such pride in our little paradise should step up to the plate to
preserve it.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom and Mindy Grant
908 Providence Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
1 11 14 J11nn4
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Thomas Lowenstein [thjllowen@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:51 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: contract for purchase of electrical energy
From Tom and Janice Lowenstein 11832 Chateau Tahoe Donner
Regarding letter we received we believe that the view put forth for short term contracts would be the
best way to go.
Obviously, we could get out of a short contract much easier that at fifty year contract. The required
increase is minimal and
would be the least of the problem. We value a clean and healthy enviroment and feel the way to go
would be the short term contracts. Sincerely Tom and Janice
1 71A!7 nnF
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Lynne Cechettini [lc@lynne-healthadvisor.coml
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:06 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50 year contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I was unable to attend the meetings held on the big controversy on whether or not to go with the 50 year contract;
however, I watched them in their entirety on channel 6. I'm writing to you because I strongly oppose signing this
50 year contract, and frankly I can't believe it's even on the table because I think it is so absurd. Let's go with the
short-term 5 year coal contracts while we seek out green power. The expense of a short-term contract is
definitely worth it, and expense alone is a good incentive to propel us forward in renewable energy. I am willing to
pay more -anything to avoid that 50 year contract for coal. Honestly I think long-term it will cost us more anyway
with that 50 year contract it's a bag of worms on so many levels I think there is not even a decision here; it's a no-
brainer. One point that was not brought up on this coal-burning plant is the health effects of mercury. Doug
Hunter said the plant will release 6-7 Ibs of mercury a year, so this 50 year contract will release 300-350 Ibs of
mercury at the minimum assuming the plant is working correctly. I've attached some information on mercury
poisoning that I thought you might find interesting and informational. It is mainly about mercury in fish and health
effects of mercury; however, mercury in fish comes from coal-burning power plants. As a health advisor, I
personally am aware of many cases of mercury poisoning. The same goes for dioxins, which are carcinogens. I
understand that the plant will be built whether we sign the contract or not; however, it is fundamentally wrong to
knowingly contribute to environmental and health problems anymore than absolutely necessary (i.e.: 5 year short
term contracts for coal in the meantime). There are so many reasons why coal-burning is a problem, and there
are so many reasons why being locked in to coal-burning for 50 years is a problem; all of these reasons are very
significant.
If it doesn't make scientific sense and it doesn't make common sense,then it's nonsense-
Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Lynne Cechettini
(tahoe local for 35 years)
1'l I/n nnL
Message Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Beth Harris [beth@gauntzimmerdesign.comj
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: TDPUD contract
For my TDPUD Board of Directors to consider;
My name is Beth Harris, and I am a fairly new resident to the Town of Truckee.
As a young professional, one of the most important aspects in determining a qualifying community to be
a part of is their relationship to the environment.
I strongly disagree with the action of signing a 50 year contract to coal power. I understand that
currently, coal is pretty much our only option for a main power source. But I also understand that in
very little time it is very possible that there be better alternatives which would directly benefit Truckee.
I was at the public meeting on November 29, and stayed until I Ipm, (sorry to hear you stayed until
lam?) My main thought throughout the meeting was this: our world is in trouble. We KNOW that we
are destroying our environment, our health, our world. So why do we even consider locking in to a 50
year contract with a substance that we KNOW aides in this destruction'?
The argument that this particular coal plant is the most energy efficient it can be is irrelevant in this
discussion. It's not a matter of what regulations are currently in place or what regulations will
potentially be in place. It's a matter of making an absolute commitment to coal, and I choose
committing to change our world for the better, by NOT being part of a plan that is stuck in the cycle of
destroying our environment.
For the sake of our future, I strongly urge (practically beg) you not to sign us onto coal power for the
next 50 years.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Beth Harris
F41,
{_rAL.N,'1 -Z11,'I`y1FR L)1:SIGiti
:22 i Y tsS vk5 'r', K is i°JE I TE i 3
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Josip Huljev[Josip.Huljev@monolithicpower.com]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 3:40 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Utah power plant
Mr. Peter L Holzmeister
My wife Nada and I strongly supporting option to buy all power need for the District from the renewable
Sources. Yes it is more expensive energy but long term effected on environment and climate change
from Coal burning power plant , amount others , is so devastating that if society doesn't take strong
action as soon as possible to slow down and eventually reverse the trend cost to us all will be
enormous in the future. Let us take the lead on this very important issue.
Regards
Josip Huljev
This email message(including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
i NIS11 A
Peter Holzmeister
From: g david johnston [gdjgq@mac.comj
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:09 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: power contracts
Dear Sir: In response to your letter of Nov. 17th regarding contracts, I favor short term
contracts even though it would cost us more. It appeals more to me to make a statement on
the part of Truckee favoring a pro-environment posture than trying to save a few dollars.
Thank you for your consideration.
G D Johnston ( an owner at the Boulders)
1
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Cheryl [cherylsgiris@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:43 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Source of Power
Dear Peter,
We are a valued customer for over 30 years in Truckee. We feel that Truckee should make a stand on clean and
renewable energy sources. We feel that we can no longer gamble with our children's and grandchildren's future
and wish them have the same environmental joys that we have experienced in our lives. Yes it may cost us more
in the short term but for us to be proud of heritage we must make the difficult choices NOW!!! We can no longer
procrastinate on this issue. We also need to send a strong message to our politicians that this is an important
issue to all of us.
Thank you for listening.
Tim O'Brien
Cheryl Stearns
10208 Olympic Blvd.
Truckee, CA 96161
i �is r�nnc
Peter Holzmeister
From: John Hillstrom Ohillstrom@yahoo.comj
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:54 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal risks and power prices
Dear Board Member,
I'm a 9 year ratepayer of the PUD. I'm writing to urge you to reject the coal contract.
I believe that the risks of the contract combined with the well-known downsides of coal
outweigh the promise of cheap power.
There are a few points I haven't heard raised at the meetings or in editorials that I
would like to make:
We would only sign this contract for price reasons, correct? What percentage of TDPUD
customers are actually price sensitive? The 80% of off-the-hill residents of Tahoe Donner
sure aren't. . . nor any other wealthy second home owners.
It seems to me only a relatively small percentage of customers are price sensitive (or
have reason to be) and for them we should have a relatively low base rate that is
subsidized by an increasing rate structure for bigger power users. In addition, for our
poorest community members, we must have an even more affordable rate for their basic
needs.
As a point of clarification, Steve mentioned that if there are CO2 regulations that cause
power to be more expensive, then all power will go up equally. That's obviously totally
incorrect - even other fossil-fueled power, such as natural gas, emits less than 1/2 the
CO2 per megawatt of coal, and of course, renewables don't emit any CO2. So the burden of
CO2 regulation will hit coal at least twice as hard as any other power source.
If the CO2 tax that they currently have in Sweden, for example, were enacted in the United
States, it would add between $50 and $100 per megawatt depending the efficiency of the
coal plant. I believe we will see CO2 taxation at this level within the next 20 years so
I believe coal power will go up by at least $50/megawatt just in taxes.
In summary, I don't believe this contract is a good bet. If you feel compelled to vote
for it, please vote for the smallest slice of power that you can as that will minimize our
committed exposure to what I believe is the risky coal power market.
Regards,
John Hillstrom
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http: //music.yahoo.com/unlimited
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Sara Owens
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:58 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Stephen Hollabaugh
Subject: FW: Revised Comments on Proposed TDPUD Coal-Fired Power Plant
One more
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mowris & Associates [mailto:rmowris@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:50 AM
To: Sara Owens
Cc: 'Ronnie Colby, Truckee Biofuels' ; writetheworld@sbcglobal.net;
katy@zirbelarchitect.com
Subject: RE: Revised Comments on Proposed TDPUD Coal-Fired Power Plant
Please let me know if the TDPUD is willing to schedule a meeting to discuss other base
load power plant options such as natural gas combined-cycle gas turbines which can run on
bio-diesel or plant-based fuels. Compared to coal, this power plant technology emits 4
times less carbon and emits essentially zero carbon when operating on bio-diesel or plant-
based fuels. Thanks.
Respectfully,
Robert Mowris, P.E.
Robert Mowris & Associates
P.O. Box 2141
Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Toll Free: (800) 786-4130
Tel: (530) 583-1570
Cell: (530) 448-6249
Fax: (530) 581-4970
E-mail: robert.mowris@rma-energy.com
The information in this e-mail message is confidential and protected from disclosure. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, then you are hereby
notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, then please delete this e-mail
message from your computer. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mowris & Associates [mailto:rmowris@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:23 AM
To: 'saraowens@tdpud.org'
Cc: 'Ronnie Colby, Truckee Biofuels' ; 'writetheworld@sbcglobal.net' ;
'katy@zirbelarchitect.com'
Subject: Revised Comments on Proposed TDPUD Coal-Fired Power Plant
To Whom It May Concern:
Please delete the earlier draft comments and use these instead. These comments provide a
brief description of natural gas combined-cycle gas turbines which can run on bio-diesel
or plant-based fuels.
Dr. Jim Hanson is the atmospheric scientist who first testified to Congress on the threat
of global warming in 1988 (Footnote 1) . According to Dr. Hansen, global warming will cause
polar extinctions of 10 to 50% and sea level rise of 20 to 240 feet if "business-as-usual"
carbon emissions continue unabated. Approximately, 0.2 to 1 billion people will be
impacted by flooding from rising sea levels due to global warming.
The top two recommendations to reduce global warming are 1) Sequestering
CO2 at New Coal Power Plants after 2012/2022 in Developed/Developing Countries, and 2)
Bulldozing Coal Power Plants w/o Sequestration During 2025-2050 with a Decision required
1
by --2020. The proposed TDPUD coal plant will not be built with carbon sequestering
technology, and, therefore, it will probably need to be bull-dozed mid-way through its
useful life (i.e. , in 2025) .
The proposed cost of the TDPUD coal plant is 35 $/MWh, but this cost doesn't include the
cost for sequestering carbon from the coal. The cost of sequestering carbon is
approximately 28.4 to 85 $/MWh (Footnote 2) .
Including the environmental cost of sequestering carbon increases the cost of coal by 81
to 243 percent! The environmental cost of coal is 39 $/MWh (Footnote 3) . These costs will
double or quadruple the cost of coal-fired power plants. The current cost of wind energy
is 40 to 60 $/MWh (Footnote 4) , and the cost of large-scale solar photovoltaic systems is
$50 to 90 $/MWh (Footnote 5) . The true costs of renewable wind and solar energy are less
than the true costs of coal. The cost of natural gas combine cycle gas turbine power
plants is 63 $/MWh including environmental externality costs, and this is equivalent to
the price of coal at the low end cost of carbon sequestering.
The cost of reducing electricity demand through energy efficiency and conservation is
approximately 5 to 25 $/MWh. Energy efficiency can reduce energy usage and peak demand by
40 to 50% using existing technology. The TDPUD power supply alternatives did not include
an energy efficiency and conservation alternative. I recommend that TDPUD provide a fifth
alternative including energy efficiency and a conservation power plant with a savings goal
of 8 to 12 MW. This can be accomplished by implementing cost effective programs to empower
customers to use electricity more efficiently. I also recommend that the TDPUD include
more renewable energy in the fifth scenario as well as natural gas combined-cycle gas
turbine power plants (Footnote 6) rather than coal. Natural gas combined-cycle heat and
power gas turbine power plants are one of the most efficient fossil-fuel technologies with
the least amount of carbon emissions (4 times less than coal) . The plants can be designed
to run on bio-diesel or plant-based feed stocks which have zero net carbon emissions.
Footnote 1. The Threat to the Planet: Actions Required to Avert Dangerous Climate Change.
Dr. Jim Hanson, June 2006. In 1988 Hansen made the greenhouse effect world news when he
told a Senate committee, "The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our
climate now. "
Footnote 2. Carbon Sequestration R&D Overview, US Department of Energy,
http: //,aww.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/overview.html
Footnote 3. Climate Change: The Cost of Carbon, January 2002, Government Economic Service
working paper 'Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions' ,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/climatechange/carboncost/index.htm.
Footnote 4. Wind Energy Demand Booming: Cost Dropping Below Conventional Sources Marks Key
Milestone in U.S. Shift to Renewable Energy, Lester R.
Brown, March 2006
Footnote 5. Photovoltaic Industry Statistics: Costs,
http: //www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm
Footnote 6. Northwest Power Planning Council New Resource Characterization for the Fifth
Power Plan. Natural Gas Combined Natural Gas Combined-cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants.
August 8, 2002 .
Respectfully,
Robert Mowris, P.E.
Robert Mowris & Associates
P.O. Box 2141
Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Toll Free: (800) 786-4130
Tel: (530) 583-1570
Cell: (530) 448-6249
Fax: (530) 581-4970
E-mail: robert.mowris@rma-energy.com
The information in this e-mail message is confidential and protected from disclosure. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, then you are hereby
notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
2
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, then please delete this e-mail
message from your computer. Thank you.
3
Barbara Cahill
From: Patrick Fleming [patrickfleming2l @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Coal Contract
Hello Barbara,
Thank you for passing along my comments to the board. My objection to the proposed 50-year coal contract
is based on two main
considerations: as a parent raising two children in the Truckee-Tahoe region, and as a businessman.
1) As a parent, the thought that the largest municipality in our region will subject my children to 50 years of
coal burning is unacceptable. I am not overly idealistic --we may need coal for the immediate future, but with
the alternatives available and working effectively and affordably in Texas, Palo Alto, Germany, etc., etc. a 50-
year commitment to what may soon be an obsolete form of energy is poor policy and poor planning.
2) 1 work for a hedge fund head-quartered in the region. Significant capital is moving into the "clean energy"
space (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/04/BUG07M5S481.DTL
Saturday, November 4, 2006 (SF Chronicle) "Alternative energy lighting it up/Big venture capitalists pony up in
sizzling market . . .").
This investment capital is no longer the domain of investors accepting little to no returns based on their
worldview. The investment capital is going where the ideas and the opportunity for positive returns lie.
The only people/groups denying the imminent increase in alternative energy production on a significant scale
are doing so because of ideology -- not because of science, sound economics, or realistic geo-political
considerations. Ironically, these same groups often accuse others of acting on ideology. To commit to 50
years of a 19th century power source (coal) when the venture capitalists and even the oil-dominated state of
Texas are committing to new energy sources is , short-sighted economic planning at best. The TDPUDs
recent economic planning (millions of dollars wasted on buying out of a poor contract) coupled with this rushed
decision on such a major commitment is unacceptable.
Please reconsider your commitment to this 50-year contract.
Respectfully,
Patrick Fleming
Resident of Incline Village, NV
California tax payer
1
Alternative energy lighting it up/Big venture capitalists pony up in sizzling market that may get boost from Prop. 87 Page 1 of 6
ofi
SFGATE MOMS• BUSINESS• SPORTS• ENTERTAINMENT• TRAVEL JOBS• REAL-ESTATE• CARS
i bi af%1� _.r; SFGate News Web by Go, ali
Za11 0raltf6fu C,11rvuirlt
Alternative energy lighting it up
Big venture capitalists pony up in sizzling
market that may get boost from Prop. 87
Matlhew Yi,Chronicleacr�ments-Sreau
ifs
In the heart of Silicon Valley, David i
Pearce's startup Miasole is in a mad
dash to figure out a more cost-
effective way to manufacture solar
cells. ----
' (
So far, he's been getting help from Pnntab6 Version ChrunicieJubsEmail Tniy Article 1,011 1 1 11S
big investors including venture --
capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield _ j LL
ANALYST
& Byers, whose portfolio of success Deliver Price optim.
stories includes Google and Sun National solutions
Microsystems. ____
PSI -i 'e�1�4S€�t i I
I AUTO
But fledgling Silicon Valley firms like loft rebounds t4 �enat�_GOP� j SALES GENERAL SALES I
Miasole that are trying to make G �� MANAGER San
time
breakthroughs in producing energy General arks Senate for snore
Alternative energy lighting it up/Big venture capitalists pony up in sizzling market that may get boost from Prop. 87 Page 2 of 6
from alternative sources like the sun, 54sh renominates udaes corn or even bio-waste, may end up blacked before AUTO
SALES COME GROW R�, t i►„I , :W
finding a bigger boost if California State WITH US! Infiniti
voters approve Proposition 87 on San Francisco
Dellums issues call to improve III
Tuesday. fortune5-Qf.ygung_rni n of color
AUTOMOTIVE , 1
Malo..r deficits ahgad, warns Sales BEST JOB IN
The statewide ballot initiative seeks $Late TOWN *Requires
to raise $4 billion by taxing oil say Area - -- I A A30
production in California and using the Belmont_d dLeily�r_2n BIOTECHNOLOGY
funds for research and development, Smoking BIOTECHNOLOGY ;^
production and distribution of Berkeley passes camPr BIOTECHNOLOGYQm�se I '
alternative fuels. The ultimate goal is of ��creeks Dyadic International,,
to slash California's petroleum EI-ecUgn Page
consumption b 25 percent b 2017.
p Y p Y Mors SStzrlg;c
RIQTECHNOLOGY
Research Opps with
Companies like Miasole won't be the Novartis .--
only potential beneficiary if the
measure passes. The new public
ivQyarfis cry r
money would continue to fuel what ORMATI�c h
Get Quote: Full&Part time
has been a surprisingincrease In Positions Avail
venture capital investments in sda companies that are looking for
F�nas Chronicle a
commercially viable alternative fuels Detailed COMPUTER
and energy. _
--- Adobe Systems
Submit 1 Incorporated has
The trend is causingsome industry - - - --.
ry $ynibol Lookup
and financial analysts to liken __..e- COMPUTERS ''
venture capital flowing into "clean 'Main Susinerss&Finance Page: Associate, Sr. In -
tech"to the Internet bubble. stock quotes,portfolio,funds and frastructure
more...
•Small Uusmess CQnttr:A new CONSTRUCTION
"We've had eight consecutive resource for small businesses.Get Asst Project Manager
quarters of significant growth in clean expert advice,forms and more. Real
tech (venture capital)funding,"said •SFGate Technology:It's a high-
John Balbach, senior consultant for tech world we I plug lu you into
Cleantech Venture Network LLC, it... CONSTRUCTION
-- - - _ MAINTENANCE TECH
which tracks investment dollars in Salary range
that area.
CUSTOMER
In the second quarter of this year, $843 million was poured into SERVICE
clean tech, a 64 percent increase from the first quarter and 129 Hiring for all Locations
percent increase from the same period last year, he said. Mervyns
DISPATCHERS ADVERTISERS
The Dow Jones VentureOne and Ernst&Young, which has a more
911 Dispatchers
i
Alternative energy lighting it up/Big venture capitalists pony up in sizzling market that may get boost from Prop. 87 Page 3 of 6
focused "alternative energy production" category, also has seen a
l sty and Count o-f San i
significant uptick in venture capital activity in that group: 31 deals ftLirLgsco Emzr9encY
worth a total of$380 million in the first nine months of this year. prurums �� wUi�u.�1i,.+
DRIVER
In all of 2005, there were 18 investments worth a total of$178 CLASS A Semi/Local
million. Rte. San Leandro
"There are some who believe there is a bubble sense to it ... but we DRIVERS
think this is the beginnings of a long-term trend," Balbach said. "We Vehicle Lease/Own
believe this is one of the biggest economic drivers of the 21st Dpn'ame,Available
century.,, -
•About Top Jobs
Analysts say there are at least two major reasons investors are `View All Top Jobs
looking at alternative fuels. First, venture capitalists who have •Go to Chronicle Jobs
become gun-shy after the Internet bubble burst are now itching to
get back into action, and second, oil prices are skyrocketing.
Investor interest is also being fueled by government mandates such
as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's solar roof initiative that has a goal
of creating 3,000 megawatts of new, solar-produced electricity by
2017.
This is all a recent phenomenon, Pearce said, adding that raising
investment money just two years ago was notably tougher than it
has been in the past year. Now, he has eight venture capital firms
backing his company, which uses thin sheets of stainless steel to
manufacture lightweight and flexible solar cells.
The Santa Clara company's initial target market is for large solar
arrays, but lightweight and flexible solar cells could easily be used in
other ways, such as on tops of large trucks or tractor trailers to
replace gas-guzzling, fume-spewing diesel engines, Pearce said.
The growing excitement is becoming more mainstream within
venture capital circles as evidenced by investments from top-tier
firms such as Kleiner Perkins. And some of the key partners at
Kleiner Perkins have been at the forefront of supporting Prop. 87.
The list includes John Doerr, Ray Lane, Will Hearst and Vinod
Khosla, giving a total of$2.2 million to the Yes on 87 campaign.
The venture capitalist Khosla, who has been a vocal proponent of
�� - L,tt.,•!l......... .,F..,..,� ,�,....../.,..: L:__/_.__._ _1_ _ 7.1f'l i . .�nni.. . .n .m .�i..+. ram.. .n. ...... - .. ._ - -
Alternative energy lighting it up/Big venture capitalists pony up in sizzling market that may get boost from Prop. 87 Page 4 of 6
Prop. 87 and the campaign's co-chair, has been at the forefront of
investing in alternative fuels in recent months.
In fact, Khosla Ventures, a firm that he founded in 2004 to focus on
alternative energy, was the most active venture capital firm in the
third quarter of this year with three investments, according to the
latest Dow Jones VentureOne and Ernst&Young data.
Khosla Venture's investment portfolio includes a half-dozen startups
that all deal with ethanol.
-- Cilion Inc., Tulare County: A joint venture between Western Milling
and Khosla Ventures to build several ethanol-production plants.
--Altra Inc., Los Angeles: Building a network of ethanol and
biodiesel plants.The firm has a plant in Goshen (Tulare County)
and has broken ground in Ohio and has plans to build another in
Nebraska.
-- Celunol Corp., Dedham, Mass.: The firm is working with a
microbiologist from the University of Florida who has a patent in
producing cellulosic ethanol using the E. coli bacteria.
-- Kergy Inc., Menlo Park: A maker of alternative energy equipment.
-- Mascoma Corp., Cambridge, Mass.:The firm is researching ways
to turn agricultural and forestry waste into bioethanol.
-- LS9 Inc., San Carlos: A recently formed company that reportedly
is working on making biofuels commercially viable.
Several calls were made to Khosla requesting an interview, but
none was returned.
Khosla has been trumpeting the virtues of ethanol as a viable
replacement for petroleum in conferences and articles that he's
written recently.
"I believe we can replace most of our gasoline needs in 25 years
with biomass from our farmlands and municipal waste, while
creating a huge economic boom cycle and a cheaper, cleaner fuel
for consumers," he wrote in a Wired magazine article.
1)tIn-/11%NAI%A, dirt,, •nn%/,+.,: 6;_/.,.-,:•.I . :,14':1 , f ! t%flni n i .n A mr
Alternative energy lighting it up/Big venture capitalists pony up in sizzling market that may get boost from Prop. 87 Page 5 of 6
William Reichert, managing director of Garage Technology Ventures
in Palo Alto, said that while it's clear Khosla is focusing on ethanol,
he is also spreading his bets within that sector. "I happen to agree
with him that ethanol has the best promise to replace (gasoline)fuel
over the next two decades," Reichert said.
However, he said, he thinks the real breakthroughs will have to
come from making ethanol from something other than corn. "From
my point of view, corn-based ethanol is a short-term opportunity, but
a long-term dead end," Reichert said. "Corn is a bad source of
sugar, and fermentation is only effective if you have good sugar. It
just happens that corn has been a surplus crop."
Perhaps that's why Khosla is being smart about spreading his bets,
Reichert said.
"He's investing everywhere in ethanol right now," he said.
E-mail Matthew Yi at mylos..fchrpmcle.com.
i'rra t: C - 1
Ads Uy Google
what's This.
Ilthan4.l Technology
All under one roof solutions for Fuel Ethanol Plant& Equipment
California Solar
Spin your meter backwards to reduce your power bill with ARAM SOLAR
Cellut9sii;Ethanol Prod.
Ethanol from waste materials is here - BlueFire is leading the way.
,•.w��.t�i_:�ru�� n�zn�i •om
4Lr
Get up to 50'�off home delivery of the Chroewl6 for 12..weekks!
Ili _
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Val Kelly[valkelly@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:25 AM
To: William Thomason; Joe Aguera; Tim Taylor; Pat Sutton; Ron Hemig; Peter Holzmeister
Subject: no to 50 years of coal
Dear PUD Board Members,
I am writing to ask you not to sign this contract with UAMPS. The PEOPLE have spoken to this proposal and
they are not in favor.
We have a responsibility to this place we call home. This responsibility extends much further than our pocket
books. It extends to our health, our children and grandchildren's health. It extends to all life.
This is your opportunity to be forward thinking. Make a stand now to support and encourage newer, Green
technologies.
I voted for some of you, those of you who I have trusted over the past 30 years to protect our piece of paradise.
I will not hesitate to ask for a recall if you fail to protect me, my family and our community from this short-sighted
idea. Please look to the future for a better solution.
Thank you
Val Kelly (a coal miner's daughter)
(530) 587-6455
11/20/2006
Utah Coal Contract Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Steve Cherneff [schernef@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:58 AM
To: Ron Hemig; Peter Holzmeister; William Thomason; Tim Taylor; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Joe
Aguera
Subject: RE: Utah Coal Contract
Ron -
Thanks for the response. I do appreciate it.
guess my only point would be, why lock us into a 50 year contract. I think you woutd agree that the
landscape of power production and delivery will undoubtedly change in 50 years. Granted nobody knows for
sure what that landscape wilt look Like and what opportunities it will bring thus why lock us out of these
opportunities. It does not seem fiscally or environmentally responsible to put all of our eggs in one basket for
that length of time. Perhaps a 10 year contract would be more reasonable. Even if it meant higher prices.
Also, for renewable energies to become more cost effective they must start to become more mainstream in
their use. The problem is that no PUD is willing to pay higher prices to begin the "mainstreaming" process. I
think that we should have a percentage of our power needs supplied by renewable energy so we can
proactively help to accelerate the "mainstreaming" process, even if it means higher process. A 50 year coal
contract might limit our capability to invest in renewable sources.
Witt there be another hearing on this?
Thanks again,
Steve Cherneff
Truckee Resident
From: Ron Hemig [ma ilto:ron@ hem ig-erle.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:02 PM
To: Steve Cherneff; peterholzmeister@tdpud.org; witcpa@exwire.com; ttaylor@auerbachengineering.com;
resutton@sbcglobal.net; mrsmorticia@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Utah Coal Contract
Steve
Since you could not attend the meeting and I assume you did watch it on TV, here are a few important facts that
came out of the meeting:
1) TDPUD's principal source of power is coal, which has been the case for many years. Because of our
inconvenient location with respect to the grid and other sources of power like hydro, we have little to no flexibility
as to source. And, as a very small utility, we have almost no control over the make-up of our power portfolio. In
fact, it was only in the past few years that we finally wrested control of our transmission from Sierra Pacific. By
the way, please know that Sierra Pacific's power is heavily reliant on coal - and they just raised their rates 22%
(PUD is not raising its electric rates for 2007).
2) So we are not contemplating a change to coal power, rather we are trying to take control of our power future
by executing a favorable coal contract-where the PUD has control and at a much lower price—to just cove r_our
baseline needs. We must have a firm contract for our base power to keep the lights on 24-7. The remainder of
our power resource can then be filled in with emerging green resource as it becomes available. Over time we can
potentially have half or more of our portfolio in renewables - if we have the dollars to invest in its development.
11/20/2006
Utah Coal Contract Page 2 of 2
3) Other than a little hydro power allocation that we just acquired, green energy sources are simply not available
to us now. They will come onto the scene but they will require significant investments on our part and they will be
more expensive than mainstream resource, partly due to our burdensome transmission costs. The key -our
baseline power has to be low cost so that we have the discretionary dollars can justify the investment in new,
green technology.
4) Our evolution to a cleaner power portfolio will take many, many years. A brand new Rand Study forecasts the
possibility that renewable resource will make up 25%of the total power in the country by 2025. It is only 6%now!
It would be foolhardy for the District Board to cut its ties with our only source of mainstream power when firm,
renewable power is barely on the horizon. There needs to be a transition period!
So, my read on last night's meeting is that we all want the same thing—it's just a matter of determining the
smartest way to get there(and I think we will). You will receive a letter from the PUD next week which offers
estimates for rate increases if we don't execute the long term UAMPS contract. I would like to hear your
comments on the scenarios.
Thanks
Ron Hemig
11425 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, CA 96161
530 582 81 58
ron@hemia-erle.com_
www.hemig-erle_,com_
114n f Pass Rif.
Trwkw*.CA M41
FJk41G: F li d . 163et so$Iss r is t xaa-"x1
www.hemig-erle.com
From: Steve Cherneff [mailto:schernef@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:04 AM
To: peterholzmeister@tdpud.org; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; ttaylor@auerbachengineering.com;
mrsmorticia@earthlink.net; wltcpa@exwire.com
Subject: Utah Coal Contract
I am writing because I was unable to attend Wednesday's meeting on the 50 year long contract to get power
from a Utah coal plant scheduled to be built in 2012.
1 think it is very short sited to think that coal based power will be the preferred method of power generation in
50 years. There are already less environmentally harmful, renewable power generation technologies today that
are only slightly, more expensive than coal and renewable energy prices will most likely go down in the future.
Thank in advance for your consideration on this matter. I look forward to your reply.
Steve Cherneff
Truckee, CA
11/20/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: melissa melcher[meldawn108@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:36 PM
To: Joe Aguera; William Thomason; Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim
Taylor
Subject: My vote on tonight's meeting subject
Greetings and thank you for accepting comments on the energy source vote happening
tonight. I cannot make the meeting due to work, but want my voice to be heard.
I do NOT support the idea to enter a 50 year contract with a coal company in Utah for
Truckee's energy. I believe in implementing clean, sustainable alternative energy in
Truckee and would be more than willing to pay more for this option. Please, for the sake
of my family and all those around Truckee, do not enter into this contract - the people of
Truckee want clean and renewable energy, not coal powered!
Thank you for your time - Melissa Gassert P.O. Box 1205, Truckee, CA 96160
530-587-3771
1
Page 1 of 1
Barbara Cahill
From: Helen Shadowens [2gecko@infostations.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:21 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Coal contract
Importance: High
Dear Barbara:
My family is NOT in favor of our TDPUD entering a fifty year contract for coal.
Our environment and the earth as a whole is more important than some short term savings.
We all need to take a long hard look at the real consequences of how we live, how we
consume and how we do business, we need to think about next year, 5 years, 20 years and
our impact on the world will change it forever.
Let's embrace progress now and focus on alternative energy.
Thank you.
Helen &Mark Shadowens
PO Box 8554
Truckee, CA 96162
530-448-1368
Barbara Cahill
From: Cathee&Greig St. Clair[stclair@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:47 PM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Coal
Dear Barbara:
It seems amazing that we would consider entering into any fifty year contract in this ever-changing world,
especially one endorsing the use of coal. The environment our children and grandchildren will be experiencing
in the future is more important than any short term savings we might enjoy now, don't you think? Looking into
healthy energy alternatives for generations to come is definitely worth its weight in gold, not coal. PLEASE
RECONSIDER.
Thank you,
Cathee and Greig St. Clair
i
Utah Coal Contract Page l of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Steve Chemeff [schernef@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:04 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton @ sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Utah Coal Contract
I am writing because I was unable to attend Wednesday's meeting on the 50 year long contract to get power
from a Utah coal plant scheduled to be built in 2012.
1 think it is very short sited to think that coat based power will be the preferred method of power generation in
50 years. There are already less environmentally harmful, renewable power generation technologies today that
are only slightly more expensive than coat and renewable energy prices will most likely go down in the future.
Thank in advance for your consideration on this matter. I took forward to your reply.
Steve Cherneff
Truckee, CA
Peter Holzmeister
From: Richard Anderson [calf lyfisher@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:38 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera;
wltcpa@exwire.com
Cc: sterrell@tdpud.org
Subject: TDPUD's Coal Contract
I'm writing to you as a private citizen, not as a member of Truckee's town council, and
these comments reflect my personal concerns, not those of the Town as a governmental
entity.
I very much appreciate the challenging decision you are facing. It's a decision, however,
which is actually rather exciting given that you as a board now have the opportunity to
fully evaluate power-supply options other than coal. Accordingly, you might want to
consider the following issues before deciding whether to enter into a 50-year contract for
electricity provided by a coal-fired power plant:
. Does staff's projection of the District's future electricity demand lead to a bias
toward the coal contract? If it does, then the projection should be examined closely and
objectively.
Actually, examining the electricty demand projection is probably a good idea irrespective
of its relation to the coal-plant decision. The graph Peter presented at your previous
meeting seemed to show demand having a geometric growth curve [I'm not entirely sure,
because the graph was hard to read on TV] . I have a difficult time believing electricity
demand will grow at such a rapid rate through buildout within the District's service area.
. Have you been given a thorough analysis of alternatives to the 50-year coal contract?
This analysis should at least identify electricity rates that an average household would
have to pay if the district entered into a shorter coal-power contract or if it pursued
"green" power options that are either now available or are expected to come on line over
the next decade or two. Ideally, such an analysis should also evaluate environmental
impacts.
By the way, the more specificity staff can include in its analysis, the better. The letter
recently mailed to ratepayers, for example, didn't indicate which specific non-coal
alternatives lead to power costs of $80 per megawatt. Perhaps other "green" options are
available that are less expensive. The public now, however, has no easy way of knowing
which options staff considered.
. Are there lessons to be learned from other California communities that currently have a
power portfolio that is "greener" that the TDPUD's? Surely a question that needs to be
addressed is why the TDPUD cannot follow one of the greener paths taken by others.
Again, I appreciate the challenging decision you face.
Apologies, by the way, for the last-minute aspect of this e-mail. I wasn' t sure whether I
should weigh in with my opinions, and only now decided that speaking up might indeed be
appropriate.
Richard Anderson
1
Comments to Truckee-Donner PUD Board and Staff
November 29, 2006: Workshop on Proposed Coal Electricity Purchase
Robert A. Johnston, Truckee resident, and Professor
Dept. of Env. Science & Policy, University of California, Davis
raiohnston(a_ucdavis.edu 530 582-0700 office; 530 559-0032 cell
1. Process.
The staff Integrated Resource Plan (power portfolio study) has not been on the PUD
website or available to us. The public and interest groups need at least two months to read
this report and do their own research on electric generation and conservation technologies
and prices. So, the Board should defer this very costly decision until at least ear
ly
Februarv, 2007.
2. Conservation.
The PUD does not seem to have an active residential retrofit energy conservation
program. My experience in requesting an energy audit of my house a few years ago was
dismal. The staff person did not have a laptop with energy models for typical house
types, on which to base recommendations. Many studies show that energy conservation is
less costly than new generation. An assertive conservation program could reduce energy
demand by 50% per person, over 20 years, in residential and commercial buildings.
3. The Proposed Contract.
This contract appears to not have cost limits in it. That is, we will pay the generator's
costs, whatever they may be. This seems to leave this alternative with a huge downside
cost risk for us. Due to the longtime period this seems to be a very poor choice. My
review of all proposed electric generation plants in all Western States (CEC web site,
today) shows that coal gasification is now taking off, with many more of these plants than
conventional coal plants being proposed and built. This shows that most utilities have
decided to avoid the downside risks of coal (enforcement of the long-stalled EPA air
quality regulations on new and modified coal plants, new pollution cost "adders" in some
states, likely national and global carbon taxes, normal cost overruns, etc.).
4. Need for Risk Analysis.
The PUD staff needs to produce a risk analysis that examines the range of costs for each
technology. A proper risk analysis assigns probabilities to each scenario for each
generation or conservation type, multiplies the probabilities by the costs, for each case, to
arrive at an Expected Cost for each alternative. Even a simple bar graph with ranges
depicted can illustrate this concept. The bar for the proposed conventional coal
alternative would be wide (to represent the 50-year lock-in period), while the other
technologies would have narrower bars, representing 10 or 20 years. The bar heights
would represent the likely costs. The conventional coal bar would have to show the
possible additional costs for pollution cleanup and for carbon taxes. The areas of the bars
represent the potential future stream of costs, for each alternative.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Tammey3@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:15 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Contract for electrical power
Hollo Mr. Holzmeister,
By now, you might have made a decision on the power contract, but unfortunately we did not receive
your letter until Monday and just too busy to respond until now. We appreciate being able to contribute
input.
After a lengthy discusssion, our opinion is that we would all like to use renewable power, but we believe
the right approach is using what is available now for Base Load. It would be wonderful if you could
negotiate a shorter contract with the Utah plant, because we feel that within 20-30 years renwable should
be more readily available. It might be hard to sell the remaining portion of our contract.
Giving the already expensive natural gas prices for the region, a 15-30% rate increase for electricity
could really hurt families.
Good Luck with this debate, and we look forwrd to hearing more about the outcome,
Earl and Tammey Tanner
i nni,)nnk
Peter Holzmeister
From: Marsha Calegari [mcalegariCcalegarisfrealestate.comj
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:54 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal vs renewable
Dear General Manager
I also would like Truckee to make a commitment to renewable energy and would gladly pay more and
conserve more if necessary. Therefor I think we should have short-term contracts. Thank you for
considering my opinion.
Marsha Calegari
Riverside Drive, Truckee
Peter Holzmeister
From: HolmesJim@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:53 AM
To: Peter Hoizmeister
Subject: Your 11/17/06 letter
Peter Holzmeister, General Manager, TDPUD
I wish to register my opposition to the proposed 50 year contract for "cheap" power.
Global warming is real. Carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to our climate,
environment, and future. As individuals, public utility, community, and nation, we must
accept this fact. Only by doing so, can we start preparing for a more responsible future.
In the 21st century, is it wise to encourage and support the construction of another
50 year coal fired plant based on old technology? At considerably higher upfront costs,
comparable operating costs, this plant could be a coal gasification plant such that the
pollutants could be separated, sold and utilized, the CO2 used for tertiary oil recovery,
instead of dumped into the atmosphere. How much better to encourage and support the
building of a power plant utilizing more up-to-date technology. I strongly urge the
District to encourage and support all newer, better, more responsible technologies.
The justification of the 50 year contract seems to be "cheap" power. But what is the
real cost in continuing to contaminate the environment? At one time, we used our rivers
as a "cheap" sewer system. We are still paying the financial and environmental costs of
that cleanup.
Let's not perpetuate old technology that we know uses our atmosphere as a sewer. Are
the customers of TDPUD unable to afford the costs of starting to move toward a more
responsible, sustainable future?
I am an old man and won' t live to see the end of a 50 year contract. I hope to live
to see a broad recognition of the atmospheric problems this world has created and the
utilization of technologies which will slow the destruction.
Jim Holmes
1
1��( �`� �NC� C #"-L.. r�00— � vs
Z
(� Yd S t rg Jer.7
We need to create our own statistics.
studies stating that the US will have only a small percentage statistics from various in years to come. These studies are blanket studies that ar
demographic, which includes all major US cities of renewable energy
renewable ever a taken from a
energy. There is abundant sunshine, reliable wind and hydro s an place for
generation opportunities. There are creative ways
sources now. to take advantage of th ower
ese
Empower us, your customers, through programs like Net Meterin
that PG&E started approximately 2 years g, a program
' . Net Metering is a metering and billing arrangement that lets
Q.YW solar s stem directly to the grid and measure the difference between you nett
electricity rom I�"utility company and the electricitythe
solar equipment. So during the day, when most homes solar
using
Power are producing more electricity than they are consuming (because people
are away at work), the surplus electricity is fed into the grid and electric meters
wind backward. A credit is given for the electricity supplied during this time.
There is no extra charge for Net Meterine, and standard residential or small
commercial electrical meters are capable of turning in both directions.
There is less sun in San Francisco yet a eustomer-in ine ouRset eisu4GI, Re
foggiest region of San Francisco, states that his meter runs backwards regularly
because the solar panels are producing more energy then they need. The excess
megawatts are put back into the energy grid and everyone benefits. We could
also do this with wind. +v P l 0 f VA%.S
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) plans to purchase at least 500 megawatts (MW)
�= of solar energy from Luz 11, a major green energy supplier, beginning in the
spring of 2010. The energy, said to be enough solar power for 350,000 PG&E
customers, would be produced through a serie§ of projects incorporating �, ,c�
LuzAETms hybrid solar-gas design.— £5� � r - � U- to u C
h-r of
aiity a "a€' ow
as ng
aldGT n, le, ci This system meets requirements of the California Renewables Program and can
dispatch electricity at any time of the d-�L
a
J
r
1
"Thirty percent of the power we deliver comes from hydroelectric and eligible
renewables, like wind, biomass, and geothermal facilities," said Fong Wan,
PG&E's vice president of Energy Procurement. "More than fifty percent of the
power we deliver comes from zero-carbon emission sources-- PG&E already
has one of the nation's most climate-friendly supplies of electric power, with
carbon emissions that are among the lowest in the utility industry."
W " c ,e� W E: '�>0 �S
This year, PG&E has entered into new agreements to purchase 274 MW of wind,
solar, geothermal and other renewable energy as it pursues its plan to add
renewable power resources to its supply by more than 300 MW per year.
A
These are things we should be looking at in greater depth here in Truckee.
Unfortunately, the information we&ETmve been given has been inaccurate and
misleading.
A qvC pF fA>
The price 4OF megawatts of renewable energy that wwe quoted in the meeting
and in the letter sent to customers are inflated, according to those cited by other
communities. I believe with a bit more research, we would discover more
favorable energy pricing that includes a higher percentage of green energy.
A
Your letter fails to mention that we will be purchasing an interest in a coal plant
that will essentially have no market value for the first 30 years and therefore will
be difficult to unload. You also failed to mention that one of the reasonslyou are
in a rush to sign this contract is that as of Jan. 1, 2007, California law will limit
non-green energy contracts to no more than five years.
A
I think there are good reasons for having this restriction and we should abide in
good faith for the benefit of Truckee and our natural environment.
Message Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Bud Carroll [bud_carroll@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:49 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Electricity contract
Peter, I read through your letter and had some comments on the issues. First, coal can be a clean source of fuel if
the plant is of the new scrubber-type facility, eliminating all carbon emissions and enabling only Co2 output. There
are also a few plants in the US that are working with Co2 injection into deep salt pockets for storing the Co2,
which would then make the coal plant virtually pollution free. This point should be addressed prior to a decision on
where to go. The general public knows very little about how coal fire plants work, therefore coal gets a bad wrap,
probably from historical viewpoints of dirty plants still used in the southeast. I hold to the decision NOT to use coal
energy from anywhere that is not aligning to these processes. The government is not mandating anything, so the
coal industry is only forced down the above road if it is mandated by the state. CO is a case in point; the coal
plant in Colorado Springs runs 24/7 and you can't even tell there is plant there. There is also plants in the central
valley doing the same thing.
I agree with the policy of short-term contracts, because nuclear is going to be back up and going soon (there is
push right now to retrofit the Sacramento plant for usage in 5 years), which would be a clean way to go. In 10
years there will be windmills off the coast of California generating megawatts of powers, along with below surface
power sources providing the same.
Also in 5-10 years will be very good systems for solar/fuel cell storage on a home to home basis - not necessarily
eliminating off of the grid, but limiting the need to totally rely on outside sources. Therefore, another avenue that
should be pursued is to provide rate reduction benefits to those homeowners that setup this type of self-sufficient
system in their homes, when the time comes.
I think in the end publicity should be used to force this issue in front of the national limelight, in that the community
is pursuing means to eliminate current dirty options. That is the only way that the state and federal governments
will force the issue of speeding up renewable energy options.
I was away and missed the meeting, but hope these comments can be brought up in the next go around.
Contact me if you have any questions.
Bud Carroll
2 Telephone: (800)831-3323 x206
Fax: 775-832-4709
E-Mail: bud_carroll@sbcglobal.net
Pleclse he careful to use the correct e-mail address furane return MCSs,r rS.
CONFIDENTIALITY.NOTICE: The itltormati(m (owained in this ele,troni(:Hari/and anY elet atrarltmenty are
Conjl"dential it is ifddws-red, ij thr wader of this
0leSS01('l.i not the intended recipient, toot are 1,(-)vb '11('tl f f'd that f:,lt d SS'c°1lllllatlon. di,u 7hlttlnll, r tr;lrlv'ntl1:>t(1t1, ,t( (l171'/et�
/t W1(S,1F(!N (lhe 01"1t.S t;t[fWhjnentS iS mlc1l1'Proffllinteet. Ir Vou have received this nle'SSliI'le 111 el"rOr.Pleclse notitC Its
hfWWdi(ttely by rc'Ply P-MISMiSSlon.
Thank Plit.
12/1/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Judith Rohlf Orohlf@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:56 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal plant
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
Thank you for your informative letter re the coal plant contract. I regret I can not make the meeting
tonight but I would like to give my opinion. I think it is time that the public in general consider the
high cost of our life style and the resulting degradation of our environment. I support paying a
higher utility rate in order to purchase energy from clean sources and support the further
development of these sources which will eventually be less costly. I think we can not all sit around
and wait for some one else to commit to this goal. Thank you,
Judith Rohlf, 14680 Royal Way
Glenshire Community
12/1/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Vicki & David Stolberg [dvstolberg@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:39 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: energy contract
Peter,
Thank you for your thorough explanation of the issues that face Truckee PUD.
In responding to your request for public input, we would like to express our preference
for the shorter term contracts.
It would seem easier to respond to the opportunity to purchase greener energy in the
future. The 50 year coal contract might become unsell-able.
David and Vicki Stolberg--owners in Tahoe Donner
1
Page I of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Richard James [rdjames63@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:02 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: future energy
HI- Thanks for the chance to be heard on this important issue. I support shorter 5 year contracts.
Dick James 409 Northwoods
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! N'lail beta.
12/1/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: PAUL and Dana ADAMS [pndadams@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:27 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net;Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William Thomason
Subject: coal plant
November 30, 2006
Mr. Holzmeister,
Although we could not attend the board meeting last night, we wanted to express our
strong disagreement towards the proposed coal based power contract. As voters in this
community, we felt that our voices should be heard. We are conf ident that you will listen
to the strong opposition of the Truckee community and will not go further in signing this
contract. Although we care about saving money, we care about the environment
more. We feel that other alternatives can and should be explored. Having clean power,
locally controlled, that does not harm the environment is within our reach. Please do not
settle for anything less. We are confident that you will not. Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Paul and Dana Adams
12/1/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Mary Chapman
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:20 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: FW: Please forward to ALL Board members thanks
From: Mike &Ronni Talmadge [mailto:truckeetals@ltol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:17 AM
To: Mary Chapman
Subject: Please forward to ALL Board members thanks
Friday, December 01, 2006
Dear Sirs,
I'm sending this email on behalf of my household. There are three registered voters in
this household, we live in Oly Heights. We believe that the board is taking the easy way out
and not doing the right and responsible thing by utilizing our natural recourses (Solar&wind).
We say NO TO COAL! and wish you would too. Thank you for
your time.
Michael, Ronda, & Justin Talmadge
11792 Highland Ave.
Truckee, Ca. 96161
12/1/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Rick[rick@audioonhold.com]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Contract
Whew!
Boy that Wednesday night meeting was a long one. Especially when every nut case in the
town came out to make their unending confused statement.
I guess it takes one to know one.
I tend to have greenish tendencies, but after listening to that cacophony of opinions, I
may not be so sure.
Anyway . . . . . to the point:
1. I am against a 50 year contract on ANYTHING! coal, solar, wind, whatever. . . . . 50 years
is too long to be an owner of any sort of power plant. My analogy is that it is akin to
being at the turn of the century and getting a 50 year contract (and ownership) of a
factory producing buggy whips.
2. The conservation power plant (although it would not be a primary source of power) is a
great idea. it would help stimulate the economy of our town, but recycling some of the
rate payer's money back into the economy of the town by creating a workforce of people
actively retrofitting energy wasting appliances. Not to mention the fact that it will
reduce some of the town's power loads.
Solution:
Purchase power on the open market until something better comes along.
You guys are pros at this, and eventually something better will come along.
Thanks for enduring that unending meeting.
Rick Solinsky
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Alan M. Marcum [amm@RhinoAviation.com]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:51 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: TDPUD, Contracts, and Renewable Source Power Generation
Peter, thank you for your letter of November 17th, to TDPUD customers, in regards the upcoming long-
term contract with the coal-burning power generation facility in Utah.
I am opposed to TDPUD entering into a long-term contract with a coal-fired power generator.
I am willing to accept the increases in my electrical rates that would accrue because of the alternative
contracts.
We must all be willing to take a long-term view of issues like this. If we're unwilling to start now to
address environmental issues such as global warming, when will we be? A new 50 year commitment to
buy electricity generated by burning coal is an inappropriate commitment. Saying that you'll simply sell
the contract later is not a solution: it foists the problem onto some unknown, unspecified party in the
future.
Take the long-term view. Don't mortgage the future for a small present savings.
- Alan
Alan M. Marcum
3097 Stelling Court
Palo Alto, California 94303
and
11333 Northwoods Blvd., #2
Truckee, California 96161
12/1/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Chris O'Malley[chrisomalley@cebridge.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: NO on UAMPS contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I wanted to express my gratitude to you and the Board of Directors for the opportunity you presented
last night to the public by holding a worthwhile public forum on the UAMPS contract decision. Last
night was the first TDPUD board meeting I have attended.
Based on the information presented last night, I strongly feel the proposed 50 year contract with
UAMPS does not make good economic sense for the public utility district. The potential for regulatory
action on carbon dioxide emissions and the general shift away from subsidizing carbon based energy
make the quoted price of$35 /MwH seem unrealistic.
I understand the nature of the intention in attempting to secure reliable and affordable power sources
for the base load of the district. I hope the district could look to less long term commitments in coal
based energy to satisfy those requirements.
I would urge the district to vote no on the proposed contract with UAMPS and create a citizen's
advisory board to begin to search for more appropriate solutions for the district's power needs.
Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Christopher O'Malley
Concerned Citizen and Rate Payer
12820 Rainbow Drive
Truckee, CA
i i nnnnn6
Electric Contract Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Matosian,Jon [JonM@allstate.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:12 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Electric Contract
His
I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, but would like to offer my input. Void of any other enlightening
information that may be available at the meeting which could possibly change my opinion, my current opinion is
that we should enter into short term contracts to leave the door open for renewable energy sources as they
become available. I'm aware it's going to cost us, but the cost to the environment has to be brought down also
and I'm willing to pay for that.
Thanks and good luck with the meeting,
Jon
1 1 nnnoni
Peter Holzmeister
From: jay grube Ugrube@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:20 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal contract
Peter - I wish to express that I do not support the 50 year coal contract. I think that
50 years is to long to commit to coal when cleaner options will be coming on line in the
near future. Furthermore I am willing to pay more for electricity that is generated using
cleaner technologies than coal. Thank you - Jay Grube 11442 E Ridge rd. Truckee
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Cathy Nason [cathynason@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:37 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Against Coal to heat water to produce electricity.
Dear Peter,
I will not be able to attend the meeting this evening, but I am adamently opposed to Coal to heat water to produce
electricity.
I believe that the Truckee community should make a clear statement that values clean healthy environment and I
am willing to pay more for my electricity in return.
Thank you for this opportunity to voice our opinions,
Sincerely,
Cathy Nason
Spirit Interior Design
Truckee resident and Business owner
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Ernie Brown [ebrown@constructionlawyers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:37 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Fifty Years is a Long Time to Speculate on Technology and Prices
Dear Board Members,
A fifty-year energy commitment is way too long.
Think about what Grey Davis got fired for...buying pricey,long term electricity contracts.At mini-bar prices.Think
in ten year increments.And use the market.
There is no way anyone can make a fifty year decision on the future of energy technology or environmental/market
factors influencing pricing.Just look at those factors fib years ago! Could a board in 1956 have made a rational 50
year purchase decision for computers or gasoline?
This decision puts all your energy eggs in one basket-the coal option.
For fifty years!
Economics - 1956
How Much things cost in 1956
Average Cost of new 11 -00 o« Average rent per
house month
Average Wages
Cost of a gallon of Gas -- >
Average Cost of a new ground Coffee per LB
car
"New" Technology - 1956
• First hard disk(5MB) invented by IBM.
• Black-and-white portable TV sets hit the market
• The first Transatlantic Telephone Cable goes in operation
• Tefal starts producing non stick Frying Pans
• Oral Vacine developed against Polio by Albert Sabin
Nuclear Power England's first power station at Calder Hall
Page 2 of 2
Video Tape Invented in the USA
Video Recorder Invented in the USA
What will be the energy technology of choice in 50 Years? No matter.
Our great-grandchildren will be stuck with coal in Utah if this prevails.
Best regards,
Ernest C. Brown, Esq. PE
Resident of Squaw Valley
Ernest Brown & Company
One Embarcadero Center
Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 800-832-6946
Fax: 415-276-1754
Cell: 415-317-1708
www.ernestbrown.com
e rniebrown@constructionlawyers.com
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any further disclosure or use, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received
this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at the above address, and delete the e-mail. Thank
you very much.
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: mjr27@mac.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:25 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Fwd:
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I am writing to you regarding your note of November 17th, 2006 seeking input on Truckee
Donner PUD's upcoming decision regarding the purchase of appropriate "base load" power
contracts to replace those that are expiring in 2009.
This is very likely a situation faced by a number of communities and municipalities across
the country and, more specifically, throughout the rapidly growing Mountain communities
in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain areas. While you make a good point that
current renewable energy alternatives are substantially more expensive than those you have
managed to negotiate with the coal-fueled Utah power alternative, I think that it is
imperative that the Truckee community continue its forward looking approach to
community sustainability and look at the long run viability of coal dependence.
It is always difficult to argue the math around alternative/renewable energy sources, but it
is also difficult to quantify the value of clean air, an unstripped mountain top and a robust
ski culture. I would argue that continued dependence on resources that are finite
and "dirty" coupled with the increased growth throughout the Sierras will significantly
reduce the quality of life that has drawn the majority of new residents (and second home
owners) over the past 20 years.
In public policy, it is important to be pragmatic, and while some would like the TD PUD to
immediately commit to renewable resources, the cost issues likely make a sudden
commitment unlikely. However, to commit to a coal solution for 50 years - though 2062 -
is patently impractical. Who knows what energy costs will be like in 10 years, let alone
50? And by eliminating our communities "need" to find an alternative, renewable base
load energy solution for 50+ years, we are ignoring the fact that our community not only
benefits more from such a solution, it is dependent on the discovery of such a solution.
Renewable energy solutions will only be "discovered" and commercialized if there is a
monetary commitment to dicovering and commercializing them. Truckee's inevitable need
for energy solutions going forward should be focused on growing the demand pool that will
spawn the renewable energy supply solution.
Let's face it, with poor air and global-warming-reduced ski season, Truckee will lose a
significant piece of what makes life in the Sierras so wonderful. The economics
of"Truckee living" may be difficult to accurately calculate in dollar and cents today, but
small changes to our environment will be felt so much more in Truckee than the urban
Page 2 of 2
areas of California.
Let's keep Truckee progressively focused on helping to solve the energy problems faced by
the entire US. I would strongly recommend that we NOT commit to a 50 year contract
with a non-renewable resource based power solution. Instead, let's keep our options open
and position ourselves as a demand driver of clean renewable energy solutions over the
next 20 years.
Sincerely,
Mark Roberts
11689 Kitzbuhel Road,Truckee, CA
mjr27 @_maccom
i i nn �nnc
Peter Holzmeister
From: Tom Chew [chewstr@sbcglobal.netj
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:06 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton @ sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: 50 Year Coal Fired Plant Energy
Dear Honorable Board Members,
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the meeting rearding the decision to contract energy
for 50 years with a Coal Fired Plant. As a TDPUD Customer, I feel that you should look
into other sources, such as green or renewable energy, to provide energy for customers.
Thank You,
-Thomas Chew, TDPUD Customer
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: John Jerger[codeman@covad.netj
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:01 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Nov 29 Meeting
Peter-
I realize I am a day late, but I was away and just got to my mail.
For what it is worth, my vote would be to use short term contracts and try to use renewal
resources as much as possible. I realize that it may cost more to be "green" . We recently
install solar for our home in Oakland, so we understand that there are costs involved when
trying to do the "right thing" .
John
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kathy Scopin [kjitalia@sierra.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:50 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No On Coal Power
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I am registering my opinion aaq;@J st coal power.
Thank you,
Kathy Scopin
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: elizabethsbell@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:35 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William Thomason
Subject: coal burning
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I ani writing to you as a very concerned citizen of Truckee. I understand that the PUD is
consi�ierin� si< nin�7 a long-term contract to horn coal despite the r7lany known adverse
health and environmental rarnifications brought on by such activity. I will not be able to
attend the final neetin- tonight, however, I wanted to voice my opinion oil this natter.
1 stron�.zly urge you to take a positive stand on this important issue; decline the contract! We
need momentum in the town of'Truckee to begin to turn the environmental tides and bring
about awareness and concrete change for the future. The environment --yes, it3chiding this
beautiful, natural place in A,vhich we have chosen to live-- is at great risk. Be responsible and
take action that keeps 'Truckee growing GREEN.
We have given you the voice; help take positive action for us all today.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Bell
f0563 Saxon Way
Truckee, CA 96161
1 1 i-►ni)nAK
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Beth Ingalls[electriklady06@yahoo.corn]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:07 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: Tony Lashbrook; mayumi; editor@sierrasun.com
Subject: Sierra Climate Action Network Comments for PUD Board
Beth Ingalls
Sierra Climate Action Network
11835 Highland Ave.
Truckee, CA 96161
Email: sierracan(g)care1com
Honorable PUD Board Members,
I want to thank you for your ongoing service to our community and for the opportunity to comment on
the issue before you, and before us as ratepayers in the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. While I
share an empathetic and unique perspective on the challenges you must be facing personally as Board
members during this time of controversy, my comments are made distinctly as an individual speaking
on behalf of a newly formed advocacy group, the Sierra Climate Action Network.
I would like to offer several solutions to the Board which are proactive and relatively easy to implement.
1) I suggest and support the formation of a Citizen's Advisory Group as soon as feasible upon
agreement by a majority of the Board. This Advisory Group would be comprised of a pre-determined
number of citizen stakeholders appointed by the Board, and would meet regularly to collaborate with
and assist the PUD Board and Staff in short and long term decision making related to renewable energy
alternatives and the creation a diversified energy portfolio, as well as a range of other related topics.
2)I would also like to suggest the creation of a new line item on the monthly PUD billing statement,
which would be a carbon offset option for ratepayers to choose. I have personally calculated the
amount of money I could pay monthly to offset my carbon footprint—it is very easy to do. The Carbon
Calculator on the website,Carbonfund.org, determined that as an individual I would need to pay $3.62
per month to get to zero-Carbon. I could choose to pay this amount, or any amount greater than that, or
simply ignore the item altogether. This money would automatically be set aside in a special PUD Fund
for Carbon Neutrality, that could be used to purchase green credits, renewable power, fund the Advisory
Committee overhead costs, support local Green energy development, or whatever the Board chooses.
Taking these two steps would go a long way to ease the tension in the community and make progress
towards the sustainable Truckee we all want, turn the PUD into a leader on the issue rather than a
villain, and better position the District for compliance with the regulatory authorities who are currently
in the process of deciding the paramenters of enforcement measures for agencies related to non-
compliance with SB 1368.
I would also like to make the PUD and community aware of the following meeting where this and other
matters will be discussed.
FRIDAY, December 8, 2006
Page 2 of 2
10 a.m.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 Ninth Street
First Floor, Hearing Room A
Sacramento,California
Many thanks,
Beth Ingalls
Sierra Climate Action Network
SierraCAN!
Cc: Tony Lashbrook
sierra sun
moonshine ink
Peter Holzmeister
From: Patrick Callaghan [topbar@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:10 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal plant
Peter,
I have lived in this area off and on since the mid sixties, so this is my home. As
such it is my feeling that I would prefer that we don't use electricity produced from
coal. Ply home is 1, 100 sq. ft. I believe I can afford to maintain it in an environmentally
sustainable manner. Perhaps those with ridiculously large homes may have a tougher time,
too bad.
Patrick Callaghan
10130 Donner Tr. Rd.
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: c m [mccartchris@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:27 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Green Technologies
Dear TDPUD Board Members,
Jared Diamond, in his best selling book Collapse, discusses how numerous civilizations
have faced their demise after ignoring the environment. He explains...
"Our world society is presently on a non-sustainable course... Because we are rapidly
advancing along this non-sustainable course, the world's environmental problems will get
resolved, in one way or another, within the lifetimes of the children and young adults
alive today. The only question is whether they will become resolved in pleasant ways of
our own choice, or in unpleasant ways not of our choice. "
One must understand from these words that the time to start planning is now and it is far
better to plan for the worst-case scenario than to wait to find that we didn't do enough.
If using clean energy sources costs us more now, these costs will be much less than they
will be in the future. The market approach of "business as usual" that is being
postulated by your staff creates a negative externality. Markets by themselves lead to
too much pollution of the atmosphere and without forethought; there will be long term
losses. Short term thinking in this matter will be an extreme detriment to the long term
viability of the community.
The major issue at stake is whether demand is driving supply. Logistically, Truckee is in
a situation where it has very little say in its electricity purchases. Your staff
promotes signing into a 50 year agreement to limit the volatility of the market for
Truckee and in the future promote an option for demand to dictate the diversity of green
technologies. This approach is too hypothetical at this stage and the time to influence
the market mechanisms via our electricity demand is now. Note the electric plant in
Gerlack, NV that was not built due to the lack of demand from California.
The likelihood of better technologies being developed depends in part on incentives. As a
Public Utilities Organization, you must use what purchasing power you have to promote
incentives to alternatives. If that means hedging higher costs on the market, then so be
it. The power of your decision has greater implications than you realize. Please act
accordingly in this matter.
Best regards,
Chris McCart
The United States emits 25 percent of all greenhouse gases. Wyoming, the least populous
state, with only 495,700 people
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business web site from Microsoft Office Live
http://c I k.attdrit.com//MR T/go/'7,crssaubOO 0001411,nrt/direct,/01/
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Tamara Perlman [tperlman@coldwellbanker.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:47 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; ron @ hemig-earle.com; resuffon@sbcglobal.net
Cc: Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William Thomason
Subject: Vote NO on 50 year contract!!!!!
Dear Board--
I request a NO vote on the 50 year contract for coal power. I'd hate to see my daughter and her children locked
into an outdated and environmentally unfriendly technology for DECADES!
I'm sure you've heard all the environmental sides of the issue already, so I won't take more of your time.
Respectfully,
Tamara Perlman
Tamara Per/man ,
Your Truckee/Lake Tahoe Real Estate Connection
7a'd GREEN BUILDING RESOU SCE
Previews Property Specialist, ePRO
Certified Home Marketing Specialist
Direct: (530)550-3212
Mobile: (530) 414-4459
Fax: (530) 579-3380
Email: tperlman@coldwellbanker.com
website: http://www.TamaraPeriman.com
12068 Donner Pass Rd.,Truckee,CA 96161
Peter Holzmeister
From: Konrad Motzek[k_motzek@yahoo.comj
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:10 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Interunit Moutain 3 Project- Power Sales Contract-Questions
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I am a TDPUD customer and I am taking the opportunity to respond to your offer to send you
opinions about the proposed contract for the purchase of electric energy from a power
plant in Utah. I don' t usually get involved in these types of debates but the recent
TDPUD broadband discussions make me a little more interested in how the TDPUD provides me
top value for my dollar.
Firstly, in the short to medium term, I agree that in the US steam coal energy will be
part of the power portfolio for most public utilities, and it should form part of TDPUD's
portfolio. I have questions about the 50 year contract, portfolio diversification, some
other aspects raised in your letter, and the draft Power Sales Contract.
Following are my questions and opinions. Sorry for asking so many questions, but for me
to provide informed feedback I need to understand the situation. Unfortunately, in a
public forum you have folks like me who know very little about the energy industry, so
some of the questions and comments are based on my lack of knowledge and pre-conceived
perceptions and assumptions. But I do look forward to hearing back from you.
a) I would like to confirm this is strictly a power purchase agreement and TDPUD is not
proposing to acquire an interest in the Utah plant. From a quick read of the draft Power
Sales Contract, I see that a Participant cannot have an ownership interest, but it looks
like there are many costs TDPUD will have to contribute to the project. I do not work in
the energy sector so I don't know if this is normal course of business - is it?. Is it
similar to TDPUD's existing power purchase agreements?
b) The letter says the District's idea is to have a fifty year contract that can be sold
to another party if we choose to, and if we have a willing buyer. I think the
probablility that you could sell the contract is relatively low, at an acceptable price.
At the time TDPUD would want to sell the contract it is likely that other public utilities
will also be forced to diversify their energy sources (either by social pressure,
government legislation, or new technologies, etc. ) and coal may no longer be the fuel of
choice.
c) It appears the community would like to get more exposure to clean power, and there is
a relatively high probability that cleaner energy production will be legislated before the
50 year contract comes to term. How does a 50 year contract provide TDPUD sufficient
flexibility to manage diversifying the portfolio? As a customer, I'm not sure growth in
the future base load is a good enough answer (and as noted above, I think relying on being
able to sell the contract at a favorable price is a low probability proposition) .
d) The letter says the District's goal is to secure low cost power from the Utah power
plant for our base load. I am unsure how TDPUD assesses risk, but to lock in 100% of the
current base load with a 50 year contract sounds like a high risk proposition. What is
your view?
e) You state cost to generate electricity at the new Utah plant will be approximately $35
per megawatt of demand (I think you mean per megawatt hour) . In the next sentence you say
the cost to acquire power from other available sources is $74 per megawatt of demand.
What is the cost to acquire (not generate) electricity from the Utah plant, or is it one
and the same (but that doesn't give the power plant owner a return on investment so they
logically should not be one and the same) ?
f) $35 per megawatt (hour) sounds enticing, but usually a deal that sounds too good to be
true, is too good to be true. If short term contracts are demanding $74, $72 or $80 per
megawatt (hour) , why and how will TDPUD get power at less than half the price?
1
g) I could not find an exhibit in the draft Power Sales Contract providing the formula
how the cost of power purchased by TDPUD will be calculated. You say approximately $35
per megawatt (hour) , but how will the cost to purchase be calculated - is this a fixed
price contract, cost plus a profit margin, etc? What are the escalation clauses? How
will it tie to the actual steam coal power market and the market price of steam coal?
What happens if the plant is not as cost efficient as the state-of-the-art plant is in the
feasibility study?
h) Related to the cost to acquire power above, how do the the Capital Cost Payments
impact the cost to acquire power? How will the Capital Cost Payments be accounted for in
TDPUD's books (this is where I get confused between a straight PPA and having an interest
in a plant) ? Basically, what is the full cost of power acquisition associated with the
proposed Power Sales Contract?
i) It is likely there will be requirements to decrease power plant emissions in the
future. Although you say the plant in Utah will be state-of-the-art and can be modified
as further technnological improvements are developed, the cost of modifications can be
significant. How will that impact the cost of power acquired by TDPUD? And what is the
impact if the plant is forced to purchase CO2 credits on the open market if modifications
are uneconomical or it is impossible to meet government regulations?
j) When you say the plant is state-of-the-art, I assume the plant will surpass best in
class emissions standards. How good is the plant? And will it be good enough to use as a
selling point with your stakeholders? Can you provide the stakeholders comparisons to
major power producers and alternative energy sources (incorporating apple to apple
comparisons - ie, steam coal power plant emissions don't come only from the plant, but
also the mining process, etc.
Fuel cell technology may be zero emission but I believe energy (and therefore most likely
emissions) is required to produce the hydrogen) to demonstrate that this contract will be
more environmentally conscious than TDPUD's existing contracts.
k) I believe most power plants have a useful life of 20-30 years before they have to be
re-powered, which is an expensive proposition. What makes this Utah plant a 50 year
plant?
1) Assuming the plant will need to be re-powered before the 50 year contract comes to
term, who funds the capital costs associated with re-powering and how will that impact
TDPUD's cost to acquire power through this contract?
m) Where is the steam coal coming from? Is this a mine-mouth power plant or is the coal
being transported? It is rare nowadays to find 50 year deposits of decent quality steam
coal. Relating to the cost to produce power, what is the relationship between the steam
coal supplier, the ultimate cost to produce power, and the price TDPUD will be required to
pay? Any risks which need to be discussed here?
n) There have been issues in the US in the recent past with respect to transmission
breakdowns and overload. As far as I know there is not a lot of new transmission capacity
being built in the US. How does TDPUD address this risk when 100% of our base load will
come from the new Utah power plant?
o) Associated with above - what if the plant goes down for an extended period of time or
any thing else which may cause production to stop or slow down (eg, strikes, mother
nature) ? Buying power on the spot market would be expensive.
p) You haven't published any sensitivity analysis to address risk areas and the potential
impact on costs, both economic and social, of the risk areas (the assumptions could be as
misleading as the assumptions TDPUD used when preparing the broadband feasibility study) .
Neither TDPUD management nor TDPUD's stakeholders can discuss/debate in an informed manner
without better data and analysis.
Regards,
Konrad Motzek
2
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Linda George[georgestruckee @ sbcg lobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:53 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: tonight's meeting
Hi, we recently received your letter and wanted to send comments, since we can't be at the meeting
tonight. We are strongly in favor of renewable power, and against investing in the construction of new
coal power plants. We would prefer to have our bill increase, and trust that a solid commitment to (and
investment in) renewable power will bring less costly power in the future.
I assume you've searched hard for other alternatives to the Utah investment; perhaps some additional
ideas will come from the meeting that could produce a solution more amenable to everyone.
Thank you for your communication about the matter- not an easy thing to resolve,
Linda & Dave George
11722 Bennett Flat Rd.
PO Box 10844
Truckee, CA 96162
530-414-1848
11/29/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Thomas, Colleen [colleen@meglaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Coal Contract
ABSOLUTELY "NO" to the Utah coal deal.
. Tell me this was some kind of sick joke to get everyone's attention.
Well, now you got it.
ABSOLUTELY NO to such a ridiculous and dangerous thought.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Colleen M. Thomas
Legal Assistant
Law Offlces of Michael C. Graham
10343 High Street, Suite One
Truckee, CA 96161
530.587.1177
11/29/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Morgan Staines [mstaines«surewest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:29 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: FW: Power Contract
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Power Contract
We oppose a long-term contract for coal-generated power. A 50-year investment in old
technology, even updated old technology, does not seem wise. Simpler still, a 50-year
commitment to a commodity, any commodity, stretches so far beyond our ability to project
needs, options, opportunities, etc. , that it can only be considered speculation. The
district should not engage in speculation. We understand that this risks higher costs.
Anne & Morgan Staines
12531 Pine Forest Dr
Truckee, CA
530-587-0343
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date: 11/29/2006
1
R. W. BUTLER
P. O. Box 2507
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 96160
November 27, 2006
RE: Utah Energy Contract
Dear District Directors and Mr. Holzmeister:
At this time I am adamantly opposed the District entering into a fifty year contract to
purchase coal generated electric power for the base load of our power needs. My
opposition is based on the following reasons:
1. California Utility's Record with Coal is Dismal
California's largest "for profit", investor- owned utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE), have rejected a large exposure to
coal-generated electricity. In the early 1970s PG&E unequivocally stated that their
proposed Collinsville, CA coal plant was essential to meet power demand needs and
to prevent massive brown outs in their service area. After examining the economics
of Collinsville PG&E totally dropped the proposal. In the late 1970s SCE became a
majority owner in the Mohave Generating Station, a coal fueled plant in Laughlin,
NV, which was also represented as state-of-the-art technology at the time. In a bit
over 20 years the plant has shut down. The plant cannot meet the air quality
standards—after having hazed the Grand Canyon National Park for decades. More
importantly, the Navajo and Hopi Nations refused to meet for negotiations after
portions of their reservations have been desertified from ground water pumping and
mining on Black Mesa. The Mohave partners had promised there would be "no
significant impacts" to the tribes when the project was proposed. In June 2006 SCE
announced it is abandoning efforts to restart Mohave and its share is now on the
market through Salt River Project—the third largest generating utility in the U.S. and
second largest partner in the Mohave plant. Despite Herculean efforts by the vast
legal, engineering, financial and resource staff at SCE to restart Mohave, it had to be
abandoned. I would urge all to visit the SCE web site at www.sce.com to see the
aggressive actions SCE is now implementing to secure alternative, renewable energy.
With due respect, TDPUD has a minute portion of the expertise of PG&E and SCE. I
believe there is high risk to the TDPUD getting involved in yet-to-be-built coal
generating plants.
2. TDPUD Needs to Make a Full Public Disclosure of the Economics of the
Proposed Contract in Relation to the District's Existing Debt Load
I have heard the total debt load now exceeds $60 million dollars. This is a significant
amount for the number of customers in the District. Will the buy in for the yet-to-be-
built Utah plant be financed by more debt or by rate increases? If a debt vehicle is to
be used, will the District's ability to use debt for other worthy purposes be impaired
(e.g. borrowing capacity)?
3. Previous TDPUD Contract Decisions are a Serious Concern
The $26 million still owed Idaho Power to break a previous power contract has
created gnawing questions in my mind. I have been an investor in Idacorp for over a
decade. In their last quarterly newsletter the utility announced drastically lower
electric rates than from what we have from TDPUD. For a 1200 KWH residential use
for summer months the bill is $71.93, and for non-summer months $65.72. A
TDPUD bill for 1200 KWH would be $144.00 at the current rate of.12 cents per
KWH. Idacorp is a for-profit utility and pays a respectable dividend to investors. All
I'm hearing from TDPUD is how all the rates need to increase and/or are already
scheduled to increase. It's obviously time for the TDPUD to re-examine every single
policy, goal, operation, and expenditure. Any advantage of being a public entity is
losing its relevance under current operations. The proposed coal generation contract
appears to be literally a dark pit of unknown financial obligation for District
ratepayers.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please enter these comments into the
public record.
Sincerely,
s/ Ray Butler
Via electronic mail
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: kelleherl4@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:54 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: brehellek@aol.com; rrehellek@aol.com
Subject: Energy Contract
Mr. Holzmeister:
After reading your letter regarding the purchase of a long-term energy contract at significant cost
savings, we came to a few conclusions:
--Though the power plant may be state of the art, and capable of upgrades to further reduce emissions,
the energy industry has proven time and again that it is not to be trusted to act in an environmentally
responsible way. To trust that technology to make fossil fuel emissions cleaner will be used (or even
available) is risky at best.
--Given the overwhelming evidence of environmental harm caused by fossil fuel use, there may be a
greatly reduced market for your long-term contract in the future.
--The higher costs associated with short-term contracts and use of green energy sources should not be an
issue with many residents who have the fiords to enjoy ownership of vacation homes. However, the
increased rates will assuredly impact low-income and fixed-income households significantly.
Our suggestion: Opt for the short-term contracts, and utilize green energy sources whenever possible.
To offset the impact of higher rates on limited-income households, look to other energy providers for
ideas on reducing rates for those low- and fixed-income households that qualify.
Thank you for soliciting input from the community; it's cooperative government as it should be, and we
very much appreciate it.
Raymond and Bernadette Kelleher
Kevin Kelleher
759 Tamarack Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Truckee Residence:
14916 Davos Drive
Tahoe-Donner
11/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: atchisonl4Ccomcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:33 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: your energy letter
Dear Peter and interested others,
Thank you for your letter informing us of the current electric contract status in Truckee.
We believe that the use of coal should be abandoned as soon as possible. It's hard to believe that a new
facility is even being built in Utah! It is important and urgent to develop and use clean renewable
energy sources. Please do not enter into long term contracts with the coal plants.
We have noticed an out of control growth and development trend in Truckee. If that would slow down
maybe there wouldn't be such an energy problem. But since your job is providing residents with a
source of power, 1 beg you and the Board of Directors to pursue renewable energy sources, and stay
away from coal burning and the polution that comes with it. We're willing to pay more.
Thank you for your interest in our opinion.
Sincerely,
David and Laura Atchison
143 Purcell Drive
Alameda, CA 94502
14303 Davos Drive
Truckee,CA 96161
11/28/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: mickikelly@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:33 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Energy source
Peter,
Thank-you for the well written, informative letter about the choices that the TDPUD is
facing.
It
contribute important towminimizeWOur communitiports es
use
cof
energy sources such as coal that
contribute to global warmingcritical part of our eccnom�(and other environmental damage) through using coal source
Power doesn't make sense.
We would be contributing to our own economic decline.
As a professional consultant who's clients are(including new building and infrastructure) shiftwwitho market sdemand.
T the marker_
renewable resources, the more they will be developed. Everytime we buyThe more we demand
Power we are
"voting" for a direction that we want the power generation business to
clean, renewable energy, even if the cost is higher. go• Lets vote for
Micki Kelly
Kelly Biological Consulting
Phone (530) 582-9713,
1
REC D
Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon @elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthli nk.net>
Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
November 25, 2006 2:34:34 PM PST
mcadent@jps.net
This message was created automatically by email delivery soft'I'lare.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. T he foi!ol,vinq address(es) failed-
peterholzmeister(,�tdpud.com
host lookup did not complete.- retry timeout exceeded
——— This is a copy of the message, including ail the headers. —
Return-path: <mcadent(Pjps.net>
Received- from [71 .129.87.156] (helo=[142. 1168.1 ,671)
by 4--lasm'.p-mealy.a"Ll.sa.aarth link.inet �,vith asrntp (E:xirn 4 _34)
id 1GnOXT-00039x-7k
for peterholzmeister@tdpud.com; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17,225:55 -0500
Mime-Version- 1 .0 (Apple Message frarnework v624)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
0)
Message-Id: <Oaced6bOcc3l826971��bO-b4ba4b42fdbl ,'-j p s.-e t>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII-I format=flowed
To: peterholzmeister(,-Dtdpud.corn
Prom: Pamela McAdoo <mcadentr,&jps.net>
Subject: no to coal
Date: Yled, 22 Ncv 2006 14-24,01 -0800
X-Mailer: A pp!e Mail (2.624)
We won't be able to make it to t-he hearing on 11,129 'Cut vianted to make
G,ure you know our thoughts'. in 'these days of global pollution v4hen the
planet is finally having to fact the effects of our irresponsible
actiors, using coal -would be like takir^g several giant steps backwards.
It would be a terrible position 4f.,,,r the PUD ro lake. Pease do
a�verything in your power to fird another way.
thanks you.
'iVi!liam Oentcn
Pamela McAdoo
!2670 PA Blade St
Peter Holzmelster
From: nanceforart@ltol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:22 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Electric Energy Source
Dear Peter Holzmeister:
Take notice of what the Cape Cod area is doing to make their area less dependent on
tourism and at the same time lowering their electic rates. NPR has had a report about it
j-ist today and can be reheard ovar the in ernet. They are p .rchasir_g wind turbines to
harness the energy and sell it back.
1 am totally opposed to coal as a fuel source and believe if it is encouraged, the
Pyramid Lake area will eventually be -ised for strip ,z,iLng and processing. It would
eventually have devastating effects on the watershed as far reaching as Lake Tahoe. It is
ti e to encourage wind generation and solar power and then it will become subsidized the
way oil and coal are subsidized.
Phis is an expensive place to live and build, yet to make it affordable through saving
n(Dw at _he expense of the future loss of our environment is short-sighted. I built passive
soLa r and electric 24 years ago and have lived comfortably all these years. I want to see
more green sustainability encouraged and the PUD is the agency co take a true and honest
stand.
Sincerely,
Nance Leikhim
1
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: daniel mairani fdanielmairanidds4sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: power source
Mr Holzmeester,
You didn't mention in your letter what you currently pay for megawatt. More than $35. `'? I'm for the
cheapest power available. How difficult is it to sell the proposed 50 yr contract? Wouldn't it be great for
us all to have a renewable power source. If technology becomes available, absolutely you should persue
it. Until then, I feel you need to provide the least expensive alternatives. Maybe those opposed should
stop driving there SUV's.. We pay enough in TD already... I'd love to know who wants to pay more for
power. Probably people who don't own anything.. We already pay to much for water.. I'd be willing to
pay more for electricity, if I paid less for h2o.. The flat rate you guys charge is criminal.. Most folks
don't use nearly that much.. So.. the vacationers ( weekend homeowners) pay for the rest.. wrong.. I
make my sacrifices in my own way. I don't drive a car.. BTW why do we pay more than anywhere I've
every lived? If you can buy it from anywhere.. Dr. Daniel Mairani...Homeowner in TD
t 1/2 S/2006
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Glenshire Residents Assn. [glenshirel @'sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:48 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: power contract
November 28, 2006
TDPUD
Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160
Re: Power Contract Comments
Dear Peter,
You and the board have a difficult road ahead. We do not know what the "perfect" course of action
should be, but here is our input.
I think everyone (including us) was .surprised at the percentage of coal based power we have received in
the past and are receiving now. We agree serious efforts to reduce that dependence should occur.
That being said we do not support going "cold turkey". A comprehensive analysis should be done and
presented to the public to "weep" us off coal and toward new green technology for power. We do
understand there might be a rate increase but maybe not. This rate increase would be a hard cost, and
substantially different then (providing comment on) your districts current operating/reserve/capital
budget philosophy.
We are opposed to the 50 year commitment. If things go south with this contract (as they did with Idaho
power commitment) finding a safe way out may not be available.
Questions:
• The current contract expires in 2009. When that contract was signed and how long was the
contract'?
• The new plant will not be built until 2012. Where will we be getting our power from 2009 - 2012?
How much will that power cost'? Will rates go up during that period if the district decides to enter
into your preferred choice of the 50 year coal contract'?
• How can we ethically enter into a contract that would be illegal in California in six weeks?
• What are other California utility districts doing? How many are entering into 50 year contracts?
I would like to be present at the meeting but I have a prior commitment. I'm having dinner with my bride
(it's our 20 year anniversary), I don't dare miss that meeting.
1 1/2 8/2006
Page ? of
If you have any questions of its please call.
Good luck
Geoff S. Stephens
General Manager
Glenshire/Devonshire Residents Association
1 1/?8/2 006
Page 1 or 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Draught Beer Services [Vaidezer@cebridge.net]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:27 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: My opinion regarding November 17th letter
Dear Mr Holzmeister,
First, we would like to thank you for this opportunity to express our opinion. Unfortunately, we will not be able to
attend the November 29th meeting. We are eight-year local homeowners living in Sierra Meadows. We
love Truckee so much (the good and the bad). This community truly is a great place to live and raise a family.
This topic is of great interest to our family as it should be to all.
Of course we do not want to have to budget more money for our utility costs every month. But! And it is
a BIG But(no pun intended). Our take on it is one that is similar to organic farming. Sure, that organic tomato
does cost alot, but it IS worth it. That cheaper non-organic tomato has so many hidden costs that one must
consider. If we only consider the dollars and cents we are missing most of the picture. Remember cost is a
relative term. $35 per megawatt or$74 per megawatt is not only a difference in dollars, it is also a difference in
quality of life for now and for generations to come. We all know the harmful effects of coal burning, that alone
should push us to consider alternatives--no matter the "cost". Dollars are just one of many variables to consider
when one makes such an important decision for our community and planet.
Now we realize that"alternative" power sources are few and farther between. But they do exist and are a
cheaper option in the long run for sure. We look at it this way, for those technologies to succeed they need to be
supported. The market dictates what is produced. If we as a community continue the cycle of coal burning it will
continue to be the power of choice. Alternatively, if we choose to support alternative power options they will
eventually become more readily available. Producers react to consumers. Back to the tomato for a great
example of this: organic farming used to be few and far between, now because of consumer demand it is readily
available. As a matter of fact, it is one of the fastest growing segments of grocery purchases nationally. If you
haven't noticed, our local Safeway is increasingly offering more organics. Nationally, Wal-Mart has gone to
organics. Why? Consumer demand. Sure we are absorbing those higher prices, but eventually as this trend
continues, those prices will drop (as they already have).
We as a community need to be a part of the solution. We suggest that we invest in coal in the
short-term only. Supporting coal burning for a 50 year contract seems to be a step in the
wrong direction just to save a few bucks. We can secure shorter term contracts and support
as much alternative options in the meantime. This will show that our community demands
better. We would be supporting more of the solution in that case. Plus, who is to say that the
proposed power plant will be built on time anyway. Most large projects that I have
seen rarely get done on schedule let alone budget. What happens in that scenario? Having a
state-of-the-art coal burning plant designed in 2006 scheduled to be built in by 2012 really
wouldn't be state-of-the-art would it? That is not even to mention burning coal is a losing battle
anyway. It is very inefficient. Our community would be better served to educate its citizens on
energy conservation. As you well know, just replacing your light throughout your house to
compact fluorescents saves a bundle. Plus, cheap energy is easy to waste. If our energy
costs were higher maybe we would consider conservation more often. I know for us it has
worked with gasoline. Due to this expensive energy, it has caused us to
consider how we use our cars. Before, we were less considerate. So price increases
aren't always bad from that perspective.
Do yourself a favor and check out www.newbelguimbrewing._com. They not only brew
tasty beers, they also hold dear corporate responsibility. They are the only brewery in the U.S.
11 i?ur1nn6
Page 2 of 2
to be wind-powered. They feel so strongly about "doing the right thing" that they helped start a
wind-power farm in southern Wyoming by supporting them with a long-term contract. They do
so many more responsible things related to the topic that I feel good about buying their beers.
would love to feel the same about my power supplier too.
We do realize that it is not an easy decision that we have to make. We are also not naive to
the reality of the current market. Coal will be with us for years to come. The question is do we
want to support that future or one where we feel good about our decisions, decisions that
affect everyone and everything for year to come. We would hope that you would consider
more than just dollars in this equation. Make a statement, invest in our future, choose
alternative power sources. Common sense dictates that they must be our future. The choice
is ours.
Thank you for your time,
The Valdez Family
Tullin, Jen, and Marley
11/2 8/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Tony Lashbrook flash brook 0 cebridge.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 6:34 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Energy Sources
Peter- Thank you for your letter of November 17, 2006 explaining the
decision alternatives the TDPUD Board faces related to new power
contracts. Having discussed this issue in our household we feel strongly
that we would willingly pay 25-30% more on the electrical portion of our
PUD bill for the environmental benefits associated with using power from
clean, renewable sources.
Our residence is located at 12416 St. Bernard and we have been PUD rate
payers and voters for nearly 13 years.
Thanks again for seeking our opinion.
Tony and Jan Lashbrook
11/28/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Suzanne Duerksen [sue_duerksen4yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday. November 28, 2006 8.58 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: UAMPS Contract
Dear Peter,
Baned on what I have leaned about coal burning power plans and the tone of the last p"blic
eeting, I was anger- d by the letter sent to the public dated No7ember 17. I think it was
misleading, and dil not clearly represent the f zctors influencing the Pt.DEJs -.ecision to
enter a 50 year contract for coal fired power.
More importantly, I chink entering a 40 year contract is foolish and short sited given how
fast technology is changing. When I consider where we were 50 years ago in terms of
communication, transportation, building methods and materials, I can only imagine what
greac things will come to pass in the next 50 years. Wile contracting with UAMPS for
power might secure lower power rates for the District_, there are other costs associated
with burning coal that are not accounted for in tAe contract: increased CO2 production,
increased health care costs, and the environmental and economic problems that we are
leaving behind for the next generations.
I encourage the PUD to not enter the contract, and explore other alternatives for power
sources. I understand that some of the other communities that had interest in the same
UANSS contract have discontinued their s%pport. ' r
- I would be �n_eresced no see what they are
considering as an alternative.
:hank your for you time and diligence,
Sue Duerknen
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger' s '_ow PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
1
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: hhonath@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:31 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Long Term Coal Contract
Peter
Thank you for your letter regarding the potential 50 year power contract with a coal fired power plant to
be built in Utah by 2012. My opinions regarding this matter are:
I believe that we as a nation need to start reducing CO2 emissions immediately to lessen the impacts of
global warming.
I am willing to pay higher utility rates to meet this objective. Coal power may be cheap, but it may not
include all the costs from the detrimental affects of global warming.
I strongly encourage the Truckee Donner PUD to pursue alternatives to the 50 year commitment to this
coal tired plant.
Thank you agian for soliciting input on this matter from the rate payers.
Sincerely,
Harold Honath
14519 Copenhagen Drive
Truckee, CA
1 1/28/2006
Page I of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Sara Owens
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:48 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: FW: New contract proposal in Utah
For you.
From: Janet Sturtevant [mailto:jansturtevant'-'&sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:42 AM
To: Sara Owens
Subject: New contract proposal in Utah
Dear Ms. Owens,
To be honest, I'm not sure if I got the letter from the PUD outlining the proposed plan in Utah. We did
however, receive a flyer about the contract. As I am not able to attend tomorrow's meeting, I wanted to
represent my family's opinion as well as many others I know.
First, and foremost on my mind is that 50 years is an awfully long time. On this earth at present, we
need to be looking for and adopting new green technologies. In Truckee and the Lake Tahoe area
especially, we should be leaders in the movement to produce less impact with our power needs.
Technology is moving at such a rapid pace that it seems foolish to me to sign a contract for a proven
polluting energy source.
Has the board of the PUD watched, "An Inconvenient Truth"? Al Gore puts it in simple terms. If we
don't change our habits, there is an end in sight. We need alternatives, quickly and there are alternatives
out there. Coal is one of the most expensive power sources out there, both financially and
environmentally. My family and I are strongly against this move.
Thank you for listening. I believe that an issue this large should be put to the owners to vote.
Sincerely,
Jan Sturtevant
110z0 WiA
Peter Holzmeister
From: Legan Featherstone[Ifeatherstone@boothcreek.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:06 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Utah power plant
we object to the 50 year contract with Utah. If you must out source our power, %e suggest
the 5year contract or less and pay the rates as they come some years would be higher while
other years would be lower. Exactly, how will the $35 megawatt verses the $75 megawatt
affect the consumers bills?
Ghat percentage of an increase are we the consumer looking at ? How much will you be
charging the community to build this "new plant"? We aren't exactly thrilled to hear about
this, but growth usually increases demand . . . . I am interested in receiving answers to my
cpsesticns along with minutes from the meeting on November 29th. Legan & Mark Featherstone
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Thaddeus Henderson [tad@beyondthedialtone.comj
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:21 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Tahoe Donner resident - energy source debate
Hi Peter -
we are in favor of shorter contract that might be more expensive in the short nun but better for the
environment in the long run. We should be moving to renewable sources of enegery as soon as possible.
Thank you for your letter.
with thyat said - while i have your attention - i have a question. Do you know of any one in the
truckee/tahoe/reno area that does home energy consulting'? 1 am looking for some one who can help us
make out tahoe donner house more energy efficient.
thank you in advance for your help.
Best -
Tad
Tad Henderson
tadhenderson@sbcglobal.net
(o)415.389.1022
(c)415.640.7480
11/28/2006
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: marilyn disbrow [mmdisbrow@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: TDPUD scorecard
Topic: Communication
Grade: F
Last Board meeting, when confronted with the question of why the public was being informed of the
Utah contract this late in the game, the response was "we told the Sierra Sun to get the word out in the
beginning of the month". This shows a TOTAL lack of understanding of the Board's fiduciary
responsibility to its customers to communicate actions that directly impact the publie.This is YOUR job,
not the Sierra Suns - your letter of November 17th is one year too late.
Topic : Goal Setting for TDPGD staff
Grade: F
Clearly the Board has not been engaged in the details on the upcoming contract. You entered too late in
the game. The staff was obviously told to get the cheapest power available for the longest period of time.
They did that and now we have minimal detailed information on other options. For example, who has sat
down with USFS and actually proposed usage of their land for renewable power generation. - No one!
Topic: Accuracy of info to public
Grade: F
Your letter states that the plant to be built in Utah will be the state-of-the-art. Slightly misleading. You
did NOT state that this plant has no CO2 emission protection and there is no contractual obligation for
this plant to be retrofitted to the "new standard".
In addition you state that the contract can be sold to another party in your letter. A few details missing in 30 years, this can be sold, and only then. Also the party has to buy our entire allotment. True??
You are omitting details that are salient to this purchase agreement which the public has a right-to-know.
Topic: Contractual Negotiating Skills
Grade: F
A fifty year contract is ludicrous for ANYTHING. The public needs a specific table with year
committments (5 year, 10 year, 20 year) and the relative rates you have negotiated. The public also
needs to understand how you have worked with other parties signed up for this plant in a consortium
mode to obtain the best rates. My understanding is that you have not done any of the above.
The Board should be taken to task for all the above. You have failed to do your duty.
Marilyn Disbrow
Truckee resident
I 1/2 8/2006
Page 2 of
Want to start your own business'? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
11/2 S/006
Page I of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Andy Scott [andys@tellme.com)
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:04 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Truckee Future Power Supply
Dear Mr. Holzmeister:
Thanks you for the thoughtful letter regarding the future energy situation and decisions we need to make in the
short term.
I wanted to let you know that I very much support the"shorter coal contracts"approach vs. the 50-year deal. I
realize this will result in much more expensive energy rates in Truckee in 2009 vs. rates of the 50-year deal. I am
a full time resident. Frankly, I would pay 2x to 3x current rates and I hope gas and all the fossil fuel based energy
we consume in the U.S. continues to skyrocket. Americans act in their own financial self-interest for better or
worse and only when people feel the pain in their checkbook will they start acting in a way that slows down our
ongoing destruction of the planet. I am not a saint in this regard (I live in big wood house,etc.) but I do and will
continue to support ways where 1 can optimize my use of the earth's resources 'especially'when that means a
direct financial tie.
Also, on a$50/month electric bill an increase of even 50% is only$25 month. I know that is a lot of money to
some people. I would rather pay higher taxes to subsidize those bills than 'solve' for the 'cheapest energy' in a
way that is not 100%optimized for the environment and world we live in.
Thanks again for your energy and effort on this matter.
Regards,
Andy Scott
530.550.1921
l 1/27/2006
Page I of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Lhernandez9180aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:03 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Renewal of electrical supply contracts
Dear Peter:
Thanks for the letter re your decision options on the new contracts.
I am a strong supporter of renewable energy. I fear that if the commitment is not
made decisively and soon, the technology will NEVER get the capitalization traction that it
needs and the "keep it cheap now and worry later . . ." policy will prevail forever.
That said, I am a second home owner and the relative costs of a 30% increase to me
are small. Frankly, I doubt that there will be much of a market for the balance of your fifty
year contract if alternative power sources really take off, but again, I am not an expert.
Here are some questions that when answered would help me to form an opinion on
which way to go.
Is the plant being built in Utah "State of the Art" with scrubbers, etc.?
What will the emissions of this plant be relative to older coal fired plants?
Is $35 per megawatt hour electricity cheaper that what we are paying now?
What are we paying now?
I can't be at the meeting but I will give you a definite opinion when I know the answers
to these questions.
Sincerely, Larry Hernandez
TDPUD acct#7600040026
I 1/`'7/`_'006
Peter Holzmeister
From: cenglandl @earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:55 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal power plants.
Dear Mr. Holzmeister
Thank you very much for ;your letter advising of the choices for length of contract. As I
will not be able to attend the public hearing, I am sending this email. (And thank you
also for offering the channel of communication for those who are unable to attend. )
My first choice is to pay the extra money for the alternative energy source for
electricity.
My second choice is the series of short leases.
A long term lease with a coal power plant is not a choice.
Just a note which, I hope, will resonate with you. Most of us mean well . . .we just don' t
recognize the incremental damage we cause when we allow short term financial savings to
override our environmental concerns.
The problem is that, while 70% of us are concerned about global warming, only 15% of the
70% are willing to bear the short term financial pain of reversing it.
I'm sure you see these 'disconnects' every day. Otherwise moral and environmentally
concerned people don' t think twice about buying stock in companies building coal power
plants or constructing processing refineries for black tar sands.
I'm not suggesting we all move in to yurts, but less investment in fossil fuel power
plants means an exponentially greater effort toward developing alternative energy sources.
And our decisions - those made at this level - really matter.
As long as we look to our short-term financial well being first, we are passing our"
problems (problems caused by us in the past 50 years) onto our children and our children's
children.
In the short term, I will happily pay not to have to do that.
Again, thank you for giving me an �pporunity to share -ty views.
I wish you a happy holiday season.
Christine England
1
PUD energy contracts Page t of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Creekside Landscaping [creeksidelandscaping@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5.54 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: PUD energy contracts
Hello Peter,
Thank you for the thoughtful letter regarding the choices that TDPUD is considering for energy supply. It is, as
you outline, a complex set of choices we face. I would love to see TD taking action to demonstrate the demand for
clean energy, and would personally be willing to pay the estimated 20-30% in increased fees to do so. I am aware
in saying this, however, that our family uses our home in Truckee as a vacation home, and so our expenses for
energy are not as high as those of year-round residents. I would likely be less inclined to make such a
commitment in my primary residence where our energy bills are quite high (generally$700-$1,200 per month).
I wonder if you have any sense of how likely it is that TDPUD would be able to sell any remaining balance of the
proposed 50 year contract with the Utah company? Is this definitely allowed, and if so is it a right to sell the
contract outright, or is it a sub-contract structure that will require ongoing management by TDPUD?At the root of
my question is this: What is the risk to us (financially and in terms of staff resources) in committing to the Utah
contract? Is there anything to show we may end up in an era where cleaner energy is available at a comparable
or lower cost, and yet we would be stuck using a coal based supply?
If we are confident that we can sell the contract in the future, and that we will be willing to make the leap to a
clearer source as soon as a viable option is available, then I would say it is fine to move forward. If these items
are unsure, I would tend to lean towards making a leap now--even with the likely increased fees in the near
future.
Best of luck in navigating these considerations. Thank you for your leadership.
Warm wishes,
Michele Wheeler
12209 Greenleaf Way
11/25/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Michelle F Gartner [michelle.gartner@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:05 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Rules governing the board
Hello Peter
Is there a document that gives guidelines for the board. A rules and regulations, how your
elected and what powers the public has.
I want to know how we can get the power contract put to vote by the people.
Thank you
Michelle Gartner
1
U'1'AH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS Contract Page I of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: LinZ[linz @ Itol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:40 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: linz@ltol.com; Barbara Cahill
Subject: UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS Contract
Dear Peter:
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to TDPUD's consideration of entering into a coal powered
electricity generation project with UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS. After reviewing
their web site and skimming the proposed contract, I am now convinced that this contract would be a
very bad idea.
My reasons include:
1) Nothing in UAMPS's web site indicates that they have given any thought to or consideration of
ecologically responsible or environmentally friendly modes of coal plant design, construction or
operation. There is no mention in either the draft TDPUD/UAMPS contract or UAMPS's web site of the
design approach being taken for the new IPP3 plant.
There is new coal technology readily available in the US that is much cleaner burning and would also
allow for sequestration of CO2 produced. This technology is called IGCC for Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle. Some utilities, such as the notorious TXU, are building coal plants using old
technology that burns pulverized coal. There is no morally responsible excuse for building a coal plant
these days that will not be as environmentally clean and efficient as possible.
There is nothing in the TDPUDIUAMPS contract or on UAMPS's web site that indicates in any way that
this plant won't be built using old standard pulverized coal technology. Also, I used to live in northern
New Mexico and let me say that UAMPS's San Juan plant was well known for generating a dirty plume
risible in much of the northern part of the state.
2) It is also unwise to enter into any contract of 50 year duration. If not yet, within 5 or 10 years, most
Americans will realize that fossil fuel generated power is a bad idea and there are (or will be 5, 10, 15
years from now) much cleaner alternatives. Then when TDPUD decides too later that this UAMPS
contract is a fiscally or environmentally bad idea, there won't be any buyers, or at least none willing to
pay its true cost.
3) If it is indeed true that TDPUD must enter into the proposed contract with UAMPS before January 1,
'1007 in order to avoid new California clean air or power generation regulations, then entering into this
UAMPS contract is ethically very troublesome.
4) I will gladly pay the possible 30% additional cost that environmentally responsibly power would cost.
It is my moral duty to do so if I do not want a planet wherein millions, if not billions, of my fellow
human beings will lose their homes and livelihoods to rising ocean levels and thousands of species will
become extinct.
11/25/2006
UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS Contract Page 2 of 2
I would much prefer that TDPUD purchase short term power contracts until cleaner generation
technologies are available and then invest longer term to support such a plant's construction. Given that
AEP(American Electric Power) is building such a plant now, why can't TDPUD take the extra months
or years to find or grow a consortium to build such a plant?
Regards,
Lin Zucconi
13964 Copenhagen Dr.
Truckee, CA 96161
PH: 550 9504
CC: TDPUD BOARD
- There are two means of refuge from the misery of life - music and cats. Albert Schweitzer
- They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin 1759
- The world is like it is because those who could change it walk away.
Karl Reed
1 1/25/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Stephen Hahn-Smith [shahnl @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: electric energy contract
Peter,
I read through your letter dated Nov 17th on the decision to sign a long-term coal contract from Utah
versus a shorter, but more expensive, option of seeking alternative fuels. It's a difficult decision to
make, but I'd have to argue AGAINST signing such a long-term contract, despite the intitial lower cost
per megawatt. It is my position that we should all be contributing aggressively to a solution toward
renewable fuels, even if they do cost more initially. The costs will go down if we all follow this course
of action, and the costs to the environment and future generations of fossil fuels and its consequences
cannot be underestimated.
My secondary reason for not signing a 50-year agreement is because of the length of the term. Energy is
an extremely volitile industry and will be even more so in the coming years. We might enter an
agreement that is difficult to exit, selling off our interest, precisely because it is based on coal. There's
no doubt that alternative energy sources will become more and more efficient and less costly over the
next couple of decades.
Moving electricity from Utah is inefficient and simply moves the pollution to another state. I'd suggest
seeking local production as much as possible. For example, peak energy use is a daytime event,
precisely the time when solar
energy production is at its peak. This could theoretically completely eliminate the need for peak power
sources. Consumers will need help with this and other alternative fuels in the form of rebates because,
as you state, alternative fuels are expensive. However, this is a one-time fixed cost. Solar panels have a
shelf life of over 30 years. Options such as this should be considered in the long-term equation.
I'm sorry I won't be able to make it to the public hearing on Nov 29. I'd like to see Truckee become a
model city on the energy front and not stuck with a long term contract using an archaic energy
production method.
Thank you for your time.
Stephen Hahn-Smith
14016 Northwoods Blvd.
1 1/2 5/2006
Page 1 of L
Peter Holzmeister
From: TL Thompson (ttC NewRideMedia.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: alternative energy
Those that make great strides to do what is right may carry a larger burden, but they live knowing that the path
they choose is ultimately more rewarding for themselves and for those that they care about.
Go for the alternative... find ways as a community to pay for it. It will be worth it in the long run.Truckee can get a
lot of mileage on "Truckee Goes Green", it's the right thing to do.
Tammie Thompson Perkins
15119 Cavalier Rise
Truckee, CA 96161
11/`_'5/2006
Peter Holzmelster
From: Donna Novitsky[dnovitskyC mdv.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:15 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: John Novitsky
Subject: coal contract opinion
Dear Peter,
Thanks for sending your thoughtful letter. This is, indeed, a delimira. I work in venture
capital and many of the new deals we are funding are addressing the problem of cost-
effective, clean power generation. The situation will get better, but it takes tire to
perfect the technology and get it into production.
I would like to be supportive of the long term coal contract, but 50 years is a lifetime,
and these new technologies are on their way. Is there a way to negotiate a 20 yr contract?
I believe the situation will be dramatically different in that timeframe, with reasonably
priced, clean alternatives available. I don't have a feel for what the odds are of being
able to sell the remainder of the contract 20 yrs from now but I suspect it won' t be
attractive.
Your letter outlines 2 choices - a 50 yr contract or a 25-30% price increase on 1/1/09. I
wonder if there are any in-between solutions that might be more palatable to both sides.
Thanks again for asking.
Cheers,
-Donna Novitsky
Donna Novitsky
Mohr, Davidow Ventures
Stanford University, School of Engineering, MS&E 271 <mailto:donna@mdv.com> donna@mdv.com
office (650) 854-7236 cell (650) 533-0938
Confidentiality Statement: This e-mail message, and all attachments, may contain legally
privileged or confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual,
agent, or entity named in the e-mail. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, distribution, copying, or taking of
action based on its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from your system.
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Ivan Kohler [ivan@420.am]
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:33 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: clean power
Hi Peter,
Thanks so much for your letter from the PTJD.
Let me first just say that I would gladly pay 30% more for my electricity if the PUD would
agressively seek renewable and alternative energy sources. A recent newsletter from the
PUD claimed Truckee as "the greenest town in America" . I think the PUD should put some
substance behind those words.
At the very _least_, please give individual rate payers the ability to buy 100% renewable
energy via those renewable energy credits.
(p.s. for anyone concerned about the bottom line, a 30% hike in electricty rates could be
*more* than offset by replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluroescents)
Ivan Kohler
Truckee Resident
TDPUD customer
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Christopher McCart[cmccart@washoe.k12.nv.us]
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:21 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
As a Truckee resident for the past_ twenty years, please take my words into consideration.
Although it will be more expensive to purchase power from renewable sources, Truckee, as a
progressive town, needs to make the sacrifice and pay a higher ccst in order to promote
renewable sources of energy. it is of vital importance that we do not allow pure market
forces to work their course in this matter. While economic markets have been the basis of
growth for the past fifty years in this country, there are many examples that have proven
that markets may lead to the underproduction of some things, like basic research, and the
overproduction of others, like pollution. Please do not make the mistake of solely
pursuing the least expensive, short term, solution.
The intangible costs that cannot be cpiantified into an economic model need to be realized.
You, as a public utility district, can play an essential role in not only mitigating these
market failures, but also in ensuring social justice. As a consumer of your product, I
urge you to purchase Truckee's energy from the cleaner sources of energy.
Best regards,
Chris McCart
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: blissabsolute®netscape.net
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:11 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Green Truckee, NOT COAL!!
Dear Board members, i just wanted r_o let u know that buying into a non-sustainable,
environmentally crushing 50 year contract_ using coal power would be a very un ethical,
unintelligent decision. . . let's explore other op_ions for our power needs. . see you on the
291-h at she next meeting to support you and the other board members to making the right
decision. . . . vote NO to coal power! !
Sincerely, Nick Bliss
Truckee Resident
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email
virus protection.
1
Page 1 of t
Peter Holzmeister
From: NSilverzz@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 8:41 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Proposed contract
Although I understand and appreciate the need for acquiring power at competitive rates, I would be very
hesitant to enter into a long term contract. Realistically, if renewable power plants become readily available
TDPUD will not be able to sell its 50 year contract. Additionally, I believe the citizens of Truckee need to make
a statement with their pocketbooks that they are concerned about their environment. I know that some citizens
have little or no excess income and perhaps grants or subsidies can be made available to offset the higher
costs of electric power..
Accordingly, I am not in favor of the proposed long term contract, and would support shorter term contracts with
negotiated options to renew.
I also would like to thank you for the objective letter you sent. I appreciate your taking the time to describe all of
the competing factors .Unfortunately I shall be out of Town on November 29th, but I am sure you will have full
house.
Yours very truly,
Naomi Silvergleid
10065E Nicolas Drive
Truckee,California 96161
(530) 587-2286
(951) 784-3800(Riverside)
(909) 528-7715 (cell)
(530) 587-2251 (fax)
l 1/2 4/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jason Matthews Bmmatthews�@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:46 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal debate
Peter,
Thank you for your very clear and informative letter. I watched the past meeting on tv, but I will attend the next
meeting and have a few thoughts, though probably not original.
1. 50 years doesn't make sense. Even if we wanted to sell our interest in 20 years, what makes us think there'd
be a buyer? Isn't it likely that 15 to 30 years from now some outstanding renewable sources might exist? It's even
possible that within 5 years(before the Utah plant is finished)there may be an excellent alternative.
2. A 25-30% rate increase by 2009 is not very scary. I bought my Sierra Meadows home 7 years ago in '99, and
my rates have already increased by about 100%. I'm sure a lot of residents would be willing to pay a little more if it
meant investing in a better way, not just cleaner but eventually more cost efficient too.
3. Why aren't there wind plants in Reno?This must be one of the most consistently windy places on Earth. Has
wind power in Reno been looked into?There's a lot of land, a lot of wind, and a lot of potential financial interest
from the casinos (who must spend millions in electric bills). Is Reno wind a possible part of the solution?
Again, thanks for the letter and for your efforts on finding an elegant solution that makes the most sense.
Jason Matthews
11/24/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kris Thomas(Kris@ exposureskimag.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:20 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal Vs renwable
Peter-
Thank you for taking the time to send the letter about the upcoming decision on our
choices for energy sources to your customers. While I understand that our need for power
is ever growing, our need to make socially and environmentally ccncious decisions on
topics such as this is getting more important daily. If our only option to secure the
power that we desire is through the support and development of the coal fired plant in
Utah, it seems that we are up against a wall and need to find other answers to this
problem that do not involve signing a fifty year contract.
As a community that depends on snowfall and clean natural resources for a majority of our
income every year, we need to also address the problems that will be caused by the
construction of this plant. The neighbors of this plant, locally as well as nationally
will have to deal with increased emissions and the problems associated with them. Utah is
also a place that depends on their clean environment and low winter temperature for a
large portion of their income yearly. Please do riot forget that we are all neighbors on
this planet; even if they are situated 600 miles from us.
While coal has been increasing its efficiency and lowing emissions over the years, it
still produces huge amounts of greenhouse gasses. The production of these gasses has been
proven by the worlds scientists to speed the rates of climate change here on earth.
Global warming is happening; and coal helps it on its way.
We cannot support the construction and implementation of outdated technoigy by purchasing
energy this way as a community. As Truckee residents, we all espouse values that require
investing in new renweable technology. Please do not sign a long term contract with this
group.
Saving our planet for our children and grandchildren is something that we will need to
make sacrifices for. While a 30% increase may sound high, imagine if you had to purchase
air to breathe in 50 years after we are all choked out by noxious emissions and sweltering
heat. If energy prices grow too high for residents to deal with, changes in lifestyles
will soon follow. This may seem harsh but to change the path we are on now, we need to
make drastic changes in our energy consumption levels. Maybe a 30% rise in price will
help prompt this!
We need to make a change and this seems like a great crossroads to make a responsible
decision. Please do not sell c-.lr future short for a small savings in our pocketbooks now.
If you must; sign a series of short term contracts while we find more appropriate energy
sources. Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Kris Thomas
530.414.1149
i
Peter Holzmeister
From: nsilverzz@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:08 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: More cities reject coal-fired power
This story was sent_ to you by: Naomi Silvergleid
Please note that So. Cal. where I used to live is not noted for its environmental
sensitivity. Please do not enter into the proposed 50 year contract. See my e-mail of this
date.
--------------------
More cities reject coal-fired power
--------------------
They join L.A. against contract renewal with a Utah plant as pressure over pollution
mounts.
By Janet Wilson
Times Staff Writer
November 22 2006
In an abrupt about-face, Burbank and several other Southern California cities are joining
with the Los Angeles Department of plater and Power in abandoning plans to renew 'Long-term
contracts for coal-fired electricity from a Utah power plant.
The complete article can be viewed at:
http:/;www.latimes.com/news/local/inland/la-me-coal22nov22, 1, 6274355.story?coll=la-
editions-inland-news
Visit latimes.com at http:/;waw. lat_imes.com
1
Page 1 of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: BILL LANG [billyjoelang@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:02 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50 yr. Coal Contract :
Mr. Holzmeister,
Thank you for the letter and the opportunity to respond to this issue.
It is my contention that the TDPUD should be vigorously pursuing non-
polluting, renewable energy sources. We need to be producing power
not buying it. Locking up a 50 year coal contract (or any contract for that long)
is simply imprudent, too many unforeseen variables. A fifty year contract will only encourage lassitude
in developing renewables; whereas shorter more expensive
time frames should encourage renewables development both from your customer
base and the TDPUD. Were at a crossroads what initially appears more expensive more complex will in
fifty years be commonplace. Your decision here concerns between two and three future generations.
Don't relegate Truckee to coal fired
power. Power Up The High Road!
Sincerely,
Bill Lang.
11/2 4/2005
Page 1 of l
Peter Holzmeister
From: Michael Fajans[mfajans@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:40 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: long-term contract for coal-generated power
As TDPUD customers, we received your letter regarding this matter. We urge the district not to commit to a 50-
year contract on coal power. While we appreciate the arguement that the contract could be sold once alternative
power is available, I believe the district would likely take a foss on the sale.
While I realize that moving to renewables will increase our electric rates, I think we have to take these steps to
move toward solving the greenhouse problem.
Michael Fajans
Merle Fajans
11/27/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: rmithun@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:55 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Purchasing electric power for the Truckee Donner PUD
Peter,
Thank you very much for taking your time to write us regarding some of the options for
purchasing Po-wer for the TD PUD. I do think this is an important issue and I'm
sure that the population of TD will provide varied opinions regarding this decision.
I think it will be best for all of is if the PTJD does NOT proceed to purchase electric
Power `rom this Utah utility and instead contracts with, providers of ren sable,
or
"cleaner" electric energy. your informative letter was very clear that this would be,
-east initially, signficantly more expensive for base r ' at
markets do vary dramatically over time. Choosingan electric
a energy
as you know these
cleaner sources of energy c..ric energy provider that uses
all of us from TD, but alsoriauaffectsotheotarket.only woIndtheklongere an mvviewaeverytiment DatPUD for
makes this decision it creates and demand and market receptive for more competitive clean
energy and at volumes that permit others to invest capital necessary to provide this more
economically. My sense- is that future legislation will also create tax incentives for
cleaner energy once it is more clear this is necessary.
Thanks again for asking. I strongly Feel the most responsible action is to contract with
providers of electric energy that use cleaner and renewable sources of energy production.
I also suspect that the net present value of these future costs will be much less than the
current double premium cost.
Robert Mithun
14500 Hansel
TD
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Steven Coniglio[townbard@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:08 PM
To: Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor;Joe Aguera; William Thomason
Cc: Peter Holzmeister; editor@sierrasun.com
Subject: 50 Year Utah Coal Contract
To E,�-eryone,
This last `Joverrber 15th, I attended my first TDPUD meeting. I have already lashed
yself fifty times cn my back, and wore a hair vest for several days for h
first attended TD?UD meeting in over 20 years in this t y awing t_a s be my
m
this proposed 50 year coal burning plant cont_ own. But the i.ipact of financing
just for m rar_t in Utah propelled me to attend .
y current status as a rate payer and resident, but for the legacy I will leaveot
behind.
Somewhere near the end of the meeting, board member Tim Taylor referred to the
attendees as "this group" - as in "this group wants no coal based energy,, was a
wrong statement for some who attended this meeting. Sure, I wore a ,No Coal" sticker, but This
chat was because I didn' t know how mach attention would be given to the crowd.
If I didn' t_ have a chance to express myself verbally, I wanted
at least get a visual of where I stood. I, as I hope many others, came You, as toa this rd emeetingtto
learn - not to preach or demand.
But I want you to know that people were listening.
from the board that: I want you to know I learned
-Post of our district 's current energy is already created by coal burning
y f g plants.
-There are ver
,� few avenues for delivery to this area, and most of trrem carry mainly
coal based energy.
-1,;e already have "dirty hands" with the majority of our current electricity coming
from coal based plants.
-The TDPrJD is way above r_he average in finding "13-16% of our total energy - compared with a 2-3% by manyecommunities. Mostn" sources of rco between
-Personal judgement- Every board member would love not to rely on coal h seddenergy,
And desire to go as "green" as possible. But they have researched and dealt with the
reality, that, right now, this can' t happen.
-Bottom line- the board is responsible for us turning on the lights at night, as
cheaply as possible - regardless of where the energy comes. This is one of the main
reasons why we elect them.
- Going tot-ally "green" is not feasible at this time - there is
rot enough sources and transmission lines to us capable of providing
the power to meet our base energy consumption.
-The board was extremel
-'re pure is had to s.Ay. y 3j'✓ing and ar_tentive, without any t e restrictions on what
-One of the main qualifications of becoming a board member is a
really strong bladder. They listened to us for nearly four hours
without taking a break!
Now to what I believe. I don' t think we should commit to this 50 year contract. 50
years of energy at wholesale cost? Sounds t
saying, "if it's too good to he true uo good to be true. and we all know the old
than theory tlwiplorisebabl isn't" . And I believe it 's more
nat taxes on coal based energy
Centi_11.ally rise with each passing tax l Then our wholesale expense will
-_`finance this acy. TDPUD is 1;39t_h of the proposed energy plant, yet to be , spokes on the wheel to
alre red down this
ady balked and tit °'lilt, in 1012. other Call'forr_ia cities have
offer. I think the Goa.-based InteYmountain Power
Agency and their lawyers have figured out this scam far further than our locally
ynappreciated and overworked board of directors.
I have voted for all of you on this current board. I have_ av_ )t ed f or
<tn.7 :ow :ac ou a you to represent
voted for all cf you to handle t' - 1' cu what I say, b_cause I
n research and tough decisions so that
crow -- hat
deal ith them. I have entrusted y ha� don' t have to
�.,u to act in the best interests of my
I nnlore you to vote against this contrac- L1' urfe.
but I ;will respect o,
other,vise. y ar decision if you do
O-,er a decade ago we purchased a family
"as 4 'rya A r t• ami�Y Plot up at the town graveyard. ti
�: -_ �p_n And sunny -
�*�ny with r_e -at o` Sack t.�er., '*
BY the t i:.,e L 'm the freeway sounds nearby. My Dad's the
buried tr:ere, I will be surrol<n e� - re `low.
Narriot_ ?esi lence d 1 by togn.hous�s on or.2 side, and the
Hotel on the other. ibis kir_d of changes I von' - mina. R, t - ��= ii a,i d
1 y
if SOIL' future ri?S_dent sY'iIr,bi.'s 'ipen i-LY ']r.�Vesite and curses P.le for approving the bti-_- en
Or filthy 19tn c nL,iry energy ; �,
Y sc ir_ s _ .z which 0hev wili nc�v be D�:nd-
�rycrd our crvn li res and, by ec' d. _et us al-I Icak
flltUre. r J` ii t..iS CG trclt�t� sand a miiessag,3 0, hope =0 011r
See yOa all on the 29..h!
Steve COni,lio
P.O. Box 21S4
Truckee, Ca 96160
530-412-25i9
2
Peter Holzmeister
From: jnovitsky®sbcglobal.net
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:56 PM
To: Donna Novitsky; Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Re: coal contract opinion
Peter-
I'm Donna's husband, and we have soar panels on our primary residence.
Here are my thoughts (in addition to Donna's ex,•allenr_ point below) :
I votes for cleaner more expensive energy. Dumping the carbon into the atfrRosDhere might
ruin the very skiing that attracts pis to this second house in T.=hoe Donner. is1..
warming has drastically accelerated the rate of melting on the , obal
already drastically shortened their ski seasons. It seems to me1trat: wegare1oftendon the
cusp of rain vs. snow already, and if we warm up a few degrees, skiing as we know it
may
well qo away in the Tahoe basin - in our lifetime. what a terri leave our progeny. ble, selfish legacy to
- Might there be a way for Truckee to encourage more resident-s/2nd home users to install
solar panels? Our house is on Muhlebach, and _nets full, bright sun for most of the day.
Can the Tcwn of Truckee work with a few contractors, to make it "easy,, at,d cheap for us to
install solar panels on the homes where it makes sense, reducing th-a demand? (or even for
those of us with great roofs on houses that are used rarely, for the Town to "rent_"
the roof space, insr_all solar panels, and thereby dramatically reduce it' s need? Lastly,
there are huge winds coming down from Donner Pass. Carl the Town look into a wind farm,
for example on the north side of I80 between Donner Pass and the Town?)
Thanks for investigating all the options, and for asking us for guidance.
(I'd also imagine that you could ask
for citizen volunteers to investigate these
alternative options, and to present them for consideration to the Town. There have to be
several people that have expertise in energy ,
Population of residents and of tad home owners.) cheers,�tjohnve PNoviitspyoduction, out of the
12698 :huh lebach
Tahoe Donner
Cell 4 650-387-3172
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Novitsky° <dnovitsky@mdv.com>
To: <per_erholzmeister@tdpud.org>
Cc: :ohn i�iovitsky„ < inovitsky4shcglobal.net>
Sent : ,aturday, Ncvember 25, 2006 8:15 AM
Subject: coal contract opinion
Dear Peter,
Thanks for sending your thoughtful letter. This is, indeed, a delimma. =
work in venture capital and many of the new deals e are funding are
addressing the problem of cost-effective, clean power generation. The
situation will get_ better, but it takes time to perfect the tect.nology and'let it into production.
I would like to be supportive of `^e ion term g coal contract, but 50 years
is a lifetime, -
and r_hese new technologies are on their way. -
- r I b s
tuation :will be lramatica-LL f
different 1n t a- timet ram
e, with reasonablyPriced, i
available. I don' clean a_t rnatives
_ are a feel for -;that the odds are of being able to sell
the rerrainder of the contract 20 yrs from now but I -
attrac -i�,�� suspect it won' t be
•.our letter Out1inPS 2 choices es - a 50 yr contract or a 15-305 price increase
on :'1/�9. I :yonder if there are y in-bet: t
veen solutions hat ^igtt 'ce -.ors
palatabie to boot sides. -
1
Thanks again for askin:l.
Cheers,
-Donna "OVitsky
Donna i3ovitsky
^- )hr, Davidcw -Ient,sres
Stanford University, SchGol of Engineering, MS&E 271
<ma i i to:-3cr_na�s:^dv.com> donna@mdv.com
office (650) P54-7236
cell (650) 533-0933
Confidentiality Statement: Tais e-mail message, and all attac'lmr,ents, may
contain 1-=gally privileged or confidential infor-aation intended solely for
the use of the individuj:-il, agent, or entity named in the e-mail. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any reading, " istr4bution, copying, or taking of action based
on its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from
your system.
2
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Matt Majersky [gooutandplay@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:53 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
thanks for sending out that letter Peter. I as well as many others I'm sure are greatful. Please do
whatever you can to do the environmently friendly thing my family and I would rather pay more now
than see what the environment can afford later. No coal please. Any prospects on wind or solar energy
for the town'?
thank you so much for your dedication to our town!
Matt & Debbie Majersky
Stay up-to-date lth,yr►ur lrierids t;hro gh the Windm s Live Spaces friends list._
1 1/27/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: PlappTahoe[plapptahoe@cebridge.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Plant Contract
In reference to your letter dated November 17, as a Truckee resident, I also believe that we, as a mountain
community, should commit to renewable electricity sources with reduced global warming effects. With future
technology that may include coal but currently that is not the case. As a homeowner 1 am concerned about rising
electricity rates but I am willing to accept that rather than commit to a 50 year contract which may not be able to
be resold. Perhaps, TDPUD can research the feasibility of increased connection rates for the new trophy home
developments within the district.
Michael Plapp
11/27/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Merriam Saunders [merriaml 1 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:32 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: plant in Utah
Thank you very much for soliciting the opinions of your customers - we value the opportunity to tell you
how we feel. We believe in the short term contracts - no matter the cost. It is our firm belief that we are
long past the Iuxury of using coal burning plants just to save money, because in the long term, the cost is
our health and ultimately, our planet. We understand that TDPUD is restricted by its choice of energy
sources at the moment, but we would hope that your company will have the courage to make the
statement that you are entering into a coal contract, and a short one at that, only because you have no
choice - and that when a more environmentally sound choice is presented, you will take it. It is only by
making these bold statements that the "powers that be" will hear that we WANT more of those
alternative choices. We understand we will ultimately pay double for our electricity - we have three
children - for us, there is no price too high for their future.
Thank you,
Merriam and Greg Saunders
11805 Sitzmark Way
Truckee
415-264-7918
.. ........... ..
Access over 1 million songs - Yah0o' Music Unlimited.
11/27/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Ken & Brigitte Kaneda[kbkaneda@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:20 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Your letter
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
My husband, myself and the whole neighborhood are dead against your 50 year proposed coal contract. Your
letter to "Dear Valued Customer" leaves much to be desired and you left out many important facts.
WE DO NOT WANT A 50 YEAR CONTRACT. You have almost 2 1/2 years, which is plenty of time, to find
another source of electricity.
Sincerely,
Ken and Brigitte Kaneda
11/?7/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Syndi [skeats @ exwire.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:30 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: re: new energy contract
Mr. Holzmeister,
Thank you for allowing me to make comments via email as I will be working and cannot attend the meeting.
I think this contract is a terrible idea.
First, how could we possibly contract with a plant that isn't due to be built for 6 years? What guarantee do we
have that it will be built? How much money are we going to be out if it never gets built? I think this could easily
be buying "a pig in a poke"that will put us more in debt and cost us more than ever.
Second, a 50 year contract is way too long in an age where things change so quickly. Ten years from now there
may be new, cheap, clean technology. Where are we then? You say the contract would be sellable. But if we're
looking to sell because there's something better available, who would want to buy? So our grandkids are stuck
with this contract. Bad idea.
Third, it's still coal. I would rather pay extra and hold out for something cleaner to come along in the next few
years. Why can't we invest in solar or geothermal technologies? Why can't the PUD encourage more people to
Put up solar panels? I have a solar array behind my house. In the summer I make more electricity than I use. It
keeps my energy bill way down. If we encourage clean technologies, they will become more available and
the price will come down and we won't have to mortgage our kids future.
Thank you,
Syndi Keats
14246 Wolfgang Rd
Truckee
11/27/2006
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: christafinn7Cyahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:55 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Utah coal
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I would like to thank you for the PUD letter detailing the issues surrounding the potential new power
contract for Truckee. I think you did a thorough job explaining all of the issues. However, I still
have questions: What does "state of the art" mean in reference to the as yet to be built power plant?
Will it use carbon sequestering technology? What about other waste products such as mercury? Will
there be a clause in the contract to allow us an out if the plant is built using less than "state of the art"
technology?
As an American and a capitalist, I feel strongly that the fastest way to effect change in our country is to
put your money where your mouth is. In other words, I find it perfectly acceptable to pay more for my
power, because we need to clean up our act. We are busily destroying our livelihood and our lifestyle
here in the Sierra, where a one degree shift upwards in winter temperatures often means the difference
between a great day on the hill and a flood. A thirty percent increase in my power rates will mean that I
will pay about $100/mo. in the winter months. Not unreasonable. Granted, I run a fairly effecient
household, but we all should.
Does the PUD have any sort of solar panel incentive (other than the state's)? We have more sunny days
that we know what to do with up here! I can't imagine a solar panal on every southfacing roof wouldn't
make a difference! I know it would cost me as an individual approx. $15,000 to install a comprehensive
solar system (minus Pluto`') in my household which would get me off the grid altogether. That's less
than$100/mo. for the next 12 years. Would a bulk purchase bring the price down any? Can you help
the town negociate such a deal'? Then our PUD could sell our excess summer generation to Reno. I
seem to recall that the distribution system that connects to us comes from the east, that no power lines
cross over the summit...So many problems, such a complicated issue!
Can we somehow cushion the electricity cost increases by metering water use? What are the pros and
cons? Goodness knows, I love being able to water my vegetables as much as I want for 54/mo., but that
is an extravegance. How about all of the golf courses in the area? Do they pay the same'? They must be
making good profits or they wouldn't keep popping up here...
You would know better that I the level of interest in and seriousness of the people in our town for
renewables. I personally feel that we must truly start to exert ourselves and make some sacrifices.
Global warming is the most serious problem to ever face humanity. It is overwhelming for an individual
who is trying to make a difference. A whole town can do more. The least we can do, literally, is pay
more for the power we use. At a minimum, it will make tis turn out the lights when we leave a room and
dry our clothes on the line.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the Nov. 29 meeting but I am a very concerned citizen and I
think we :,hould throw our weight behind clean alternatives as soon as possible. This precludes a 50
year coal burning contract. In 50 years, at this rate, Truckee won't be here anymore. Because we won't
have snow.
11/27/2006
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Christa Finn
Christa and Dean
The Pour House
10075 Jibboom St.
Truckee, CA 96161
(530) 550-9664
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://maii.yahoo.com
11/27/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: susan sheffield [susanksheffield@yahoo.comj
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:10 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: future power supply
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your recent letter informing us about future options for power sources for Truckee. After
reading your letter, my husband and 1 agree that we are willing to pay the increase in rates that you refer
to in order to benefit the environment. Coal burning for power is no longer a long-term option now that
we know the damage it does.
We cannot make the meeting, but support the idea of multiple short-term contracts in order to facilitate
the change to renewable power sources as soon as possible.
We look forward to hearing from you again once a decision has been agreed upon.
Once again, thank you for your letter.
Sincerely,
Susan Sheffield
Doug Thomson
......... .......
Access over 1 million songs - Yalx?o' Music Unlimited.
I 1/27/2006
Barbara Cahill
From: Rolf Godon f rgodon @ pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:28 PM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: proposed energy contract and more
TO: Board members and staff:
I write this and intend to be present at the upcoming meeting to present it orally. My concerns are at two
levels; level one being the present issue regarding the proposed contract, and the other ; the bigger issue; of
how business is done in my (our) PUD. ,
Regarding the first issue:
I. I wonder just how knowledgable members of the board were/are regarding specifics of the 50 page
contract??? It certainly appeared the last meeting that by and large, board members relied on their answers
from Staff.
2. Significant areas of concern were brought up by members of the audience, some who had read the
contract in detail. Important questions were glossed over by staff. Such as; Is there a way to sell off our
shares of the ownership if down the road we choose to do so??Yes was the first answer, then it could be sold if there was a willing buyer, then , has that happened in the
past, well, one time. It seemed that some board members were lulled into the idea that the sell off would be
easy. Is that really so???? Hard to believe.
Another area that was skimmed over and not addressed in a detailed and knowledgable manner
had to do with our liablilty, as owners, of additional costs relalted to the coal plant or transmittion.
Clearly, as owners we would be liable for our share of any additional costs. That needs to be clearly state
and just what does that mean specifically. Again we were lulled into believing that the $35 rate quoted by staff
was essentially set in stone for 50 years. If that is true, than we must be liable for additional assessments for
additional costs. Very clear answers are needed. Also, I imagine for us to buy into this ownership we have
come up with a sizeable up front payment, is that so??? to
3. The way this is presented is that we really have no good alternatives but to go with this contract,
and that the only way we can get the contract is to sign up for 50 years. I am certain that staff has done a lot
of work and research leading to this and truely believe
that it is the best way to go. ---this the segue into my second issue:
Second issue of concern:
I. My sense is that PUD staff/board has been conducting their business in a certain way for a very
long time, given the tenure of the director and some staff and board members. TINS appears to translate intoa closed system wherein it must be assumed that the decisions reached by staff and presented to board ar
by definition in the best interest of the owner/ratepayers and that these decisions by and large get translated,
e
with a bit of discussion by the board, into action. ted,
2. There is a strong sense of defensiveness by staff and board when questions are raised. The last
meeting is a perfect example. There were some very good questions, knowledgeable questions raised that
deserved good and factual and knowledgeable answers or , at least, acknowledgement , and hearing of the
questions, with the promise of factual answers forthcoming. There tends to be a definite sense of a we/they
mentality. It feels to me like a parent -child dynamic wherein you, the parents know what's best for us , the
kids, so don't question us, just accept what we do and say because you don't have the wisdom to know what i
right for you. While you more than likely have our best interest at heart, I believe you frequently don't know s
what our best interest really is and you don't bother to ask. We have to confront you and you don't like that.
3. These, crisis meetings, more than likely don't have to happen. The broadband issue is another
example of what I am talking about.
My suggestions:
I. Does the Utah power plant need us and our money as much
as we need the power?? Is there a waiting line to sign up with them??
i
I would hope that at this hour our back isn't against the wall and that we should negotiate further with them
around the length of the contract, real and probable costs to us, and so forth. I am sure that the contract wa:
written by them in their best interest.
2. The immediate shift from the way "business is done" to one of transparency , open and full dialo u,
and the full utilization of the knowledge at hand in the community. Additionally, and very importantly, a g
change in attitude to "looking and working outside the box". This can be implemented at least in part, b
Putting into action those dynamics called for in the first sentence. The other part of achieving this equation is
staff and board members commited to opening and promoting this way of "doing business".
3. The creation of a broad based ratepayer advisory group to work with staff and board to manifest
this new vision/mission.
4. Use of a monthly newsletter to all rate payers presenting data openly, asking for and promoting
feedback by easy methods of doing so (easy for the rate payers), and truely promoting an open look at how
we use energy and ways to create it.
--it has come to my attention, a bit late, that the IRS allows moneys spent on alternative energy or
eneergy efficient devices to come directly off the net tax. This would be a great interest to many of us along
with information and help in what are the options. You even have someone on your staff whose job that
would seem to be.
--as became evident last meeting, who of us know about this underground heat pump you have
had around for years, almost none.
--reported in sierra sun last week that Sierra Pacific Power is installing a photovoltaic system on
their five story office building in Reno. Further reported is that they also previously installed a wind turbine a
another solar array at their office complex. Do they know something we don't know??? Why are the nd
to do these alternative things and we not???? y willing
--why is the best we can do is a defunct biomass project???
Summary:
1. We can avert these "crisis" situations by changing the way business is done including more forward
thinking and action.
2. We the rate payers need to be informed fully and equally.
3. We the rate payers need to be involved , reached out to,
and fully heard as having useful knowledge. This needs to come from the top in a manner not
accoomplished to date.
4. We keep our options open for an energy contract more in our best interest.
Respectfully submitted,
Rolf Godon
2
UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS Contract
Page 1 of 2
Barbara Cahill
From: LinZ[linz@ltoi.coml
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:40 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: Iinz@ltol.com; Barbara Cahill
Subject: UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS Contract
Dear Peter:
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to TDPUD's consideration of entering into a coal powered
electricity generation project with UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS. After reviewing
their web site and skimming the proposed contract, I am now convinced that this contract would be a
very bad idea.
Nly reasons include:
1) Nothing in UAMPS's web site indicates that they have given any thought to or consideration of
ecologically responsible or environmentally friendly modes of coal plant design, construction or
operation. There is no mention in either the draft TDPUD/UANIPS contract or UAMPS's web site of the
design approach being taken for the new [PP3 plant.
There is new coal technology readily available in the US that is much cleaner burning and would also
allow for sequestration of CO2 produced. This technology is called IGCC for Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle. Some utilities, such as the notorious TXU, are building coal plants using old
technology that burns pulverized coal. There is no morally responsible excuse for building a coal plant
these days that will not be as environmentally clean and efficient as possible.
There is nothing in the TDPUD/UANiPS contract or on UAMPS's web site that indicates in any way that
this plant won't be built using old standard pulverized coal technology.
o, I used to live in northern
New Nlexico and let me say that UANIPS's San Juan plant was well kit wn for generating a dirty plume
visible in much of the northern part of the state.
2) It is also unwise to enter into any contract of 50 year duration. If not yet, within 5 or 10 years, most
Americans will realize that fossil fuel generated power is a bad idea and there are (or will be 5, 10, 15
years from now) much cleaner alternatives. Then when TDPUD decides too later that this UAN[PS
contract is a fiscally or environmentally bad idea, there won't be any buyers, or at least none willing to
pay its true cost.
3) [f it is indeed true that TDPUD must enter into the proposed contract with-X UAN[PS before Janua ry 1
,
2007 in order to avoid new California clean air or power generation regulations, then entering into this
U, ?vIPS contract is ethically eery troublesome.
4) I will gladly pay the possible 30% additional cost that environmentally responsibly power would cost.
It is my moral duty to do so if I do not want a planet wherein millions, if not billions, of my fellow
human beings will lose their homes and livelihoods to rising ocean levels and thousands of species will
become extinct.
UTAH ASSOCIATED INIUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEINIS Contract page 2 of-2
I would much prefer that TDPUD purchase short term power contracts until cleaner generation
technologies are available and then invest longer term to Support such a plant's constriction. Given that
AEP(American Electric Power) is building such a plant now, why can't TDPUD take the extra months
or years to find or grow a consortium to build such a plant'?
Regards,
Lin Zucconi
13964 Copenhagen Dr.
Truckee, CA 96161
PH: 550 9504
CC: TDPUD BOARD
- There are two means of refuge from the misery of life - music and cats. Albert Schweitzer
- They that give cep essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety desen e neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin 1759
The world is like it is because those who could change it walk away.
Karl Reed
Peter Holzmeister
From: Gary McCurdy[gmccurdy@cal.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 7:59 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: We favor short-term contracts rather than the 50-yearcontemplated contract
'fir. Holzmeister, we are owners of a home in Tahoe Donner and current customers of TDPUD
(although from December through April the account is placed in the name of ski lease
tenants) . It is not our primary residence.
Thank you fcr your letter dated November 17, 2006, in which you explain the options TDPUD
is facing regarding the purchase of electric energy under a long-term 50-year contract or
a series of shorter-term contracts.
Though they are more expensive at the moment, we prefer the short-term contracts that
would allow early abandonment of the use of polluting sources of energy, and that TDPUD
vigorously pursue securing energy from environmentally friendly power sources.
I do not snow the average income of the typical TDPUD customer, but there are at 'east
3, 700 "second homes" in the Tahoe Donner complex, based on an the information that there
are at least 4,462 lots developed as of almost five years ago, per its web site, and that
80% are not primary residences, also per its web site. And 55% of those second-home
owners are from the Bay Area. My point? There is a substantial base of customers who
have no right to complain about their pocketbooks! One cannot own a second home in the
Truckee area without having a whole lot more wealth than probably 80% of the U.S.
population. From what I've seen, I'm included in that top 20% bracket, and I feel an
obligation to spread my good fortune, even if it nears I have to pay more. (-My wife feels
the same way. )
I suspect studies reveal that the wealthy are among the most vocal against taxation and
increases in costs. But they should follow the example of the wealthiest (Bill Gates and
Warren Buffet, to name at least two who oppose the stringent platform of politicians who
are constantly trying to give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% of Americans) and invest in
AMERICA. Enough of my soapboxing, however. I just believe that it is vital to us and our
successors (our children, their children, their children's children, etc. ) to get on top
of this energy consumption and pollution as soon as possible.
It's going to be expensive in the beginning. So were VCR's in the early 1980' s, when they
first came out (but the rich didn't seem to have a problem buying those, did they? Oops,
sorry, more soapboxing) !
:moo please, even the'agh our = erg`i/ costs ;^.a.y ^e higher becausje cf r�er `=?r t
in the long run it will pay off--maybe not in money saved (I might have to live to be 120
years old before the savings in ecofriendly energy sources reach my wallet) , but in the
health of the planet. Please pursue environmentally friendly energy sources as soon as
possible, and let the customers and TDPUD be able to get away from the polluting sources
as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Gary and Mary McCurdy
owners of 13656 Skiview Loop, Truckee
916-441-3792
i
Peter Holzmeister
From: James C Wiseman owiseman@cebridge.net)
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:27 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50 years
Your consideration of a 50 year contract is on a par with your attempt
(failure) into the TV industry. The world is changing so fast that it is impossible to
know what the future holds; certainly not for 50 years.
Planning for the future is a function of any board of directors but certainly not locking
ourselves into something that is known to be as harmful as coal . There is a reason why
California is to outlaw these contracts after the first of zhe year. Lets ;oir.
in trying CO save our world. California
1
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Cristina Wooley [wooley@tahoepropertylaw.coml
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:33 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Consideration of 50 year Coal Contract
Hello Mr. flolzmeister,
I was thoroughly impressed to receive your recent letter. It is reassuring to know that the PUD is
seriously soliciting and considering community input. Most of your customers, myself included, have
very little knowledge about how to run a utility district and the very real challenges you face. It is for
this reason that you rarely hear from us. With our lack of specific knowledge, we leave it in your
capable hands to nun our utility district. Admittedly, I do not pay as much attention as I should.
I was extremely surprised and disappointed to learn of the 50 year coal contract under consideration. I
watched the PUD's last meeting (on our local channel) and feel it would be a very large mistake for our
PUD to enter this contract. To purchase coal on short term contracts is one matter. To help fund the
construction of a new plant is entirely different. It is environmentally irresponsible, at best. But it is
also financially risky. Entering the contract with the assumption that the PUD can sell its interest seems
shortsighted. It assumes there will be a willing buyer, which is unlikely if the bottom drops out of the
coal market, or if environmental regulations become increasingly strict (I was SHOCKED to learn
that mercury contamination is entirely unregulated at this time).
Also, please consider the wisdom of the soon-to-be-effective Assembly Bill. I do not believe our PUD
should rush to enter a 50 year contract one month before such contracts would be prohibited. One PUD
board member seems to feel the PUD is justified in doing so because the Legislature did not make it an
emergency measure. This is a thin excuse. We all know better.
I am asking the PUD to please reconsider. I want low utility rates as much as the next person. But
sometimes cheap is not cheap - we are merely not taking the full costs into consideration. It is the
PUD's responsibility to consider those external costs. I understand you are balancing environmental
concerns against your commitment to obtain energy for your customers at good rates. I mist that the
PUD can equitably distribute the increased cost of short term contracts such that those on fixed incomes
are protected, while the rest of the customers pay a few cents more. Keep in mind, a large number of
your customers are second home owners with million dollar homes. If TDPUD can't make a stand
against so-called "cheap" coal power, who can?
Sincere thanks for your consideration,
Cristiraa Woolev
Truckee resident
Cristina Woolev
.attontev at Law
P: 530.550.9990
r: 530.579.5681
11/27/21006
Page 2 of 2
e: woole-xC@tcrhoepropertylcaw.ccoin
This transmission contains information that may be confidential and that may also be privileged. Unless
you are the intended recipient of the message (or authorized to receive it for the intended recipient), you
may not copy, forward, or otherwise use it, or disclose its contents to anyone else.
l 1/2 7/21006
Page 1 of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Roland Lee [rolo3@mindspring.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 9:10 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Alternative Idea
Dear Mr. Holzmeister
There are alternative proposals for electricity that would have a less detrimental affect on the Global warming.
Steam/Geyser wells at Geysers , California. Produce Electricity that turn turbine generators which in turn make
electricity is an alternative proposal.
When coal is used up then where will you go? Not to mention the the side effects that the coal produces in
addition to the pollutants emitted, that the coal produces from it's residue. I for one am not in favor of burning
more non renewable fuel.
In fact Electricity generated by CAL-Pine could supplement the electricity at Tahoe. Has Truckee Donner PUC
investigated that alternative. The electricity generated is renewable. Injection wells pumping waste water back into
the steam wells is renewable.
What exploration has the PUD done in this area?
I await your ready reply.
Sincerely
Roland Lee
Roland Lee
rolo30)mindspring.corn
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
11/27/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: sandra baldocchi [bigmamadoc@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 9:15 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Alternative electric power source
My concern is the 50 year long term contract!
I 1/27/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Sue Cauhape [scauhape2002@yahoo.coml
Sent: Sunday, November 26.2006 10:03 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: power alternatives
Dear Peter,
tiIy family and I have lived in Tahoe Donner for twelve years in a house loving referred to
by the real estate community as the Bunker. During these dozen years, though, we've
enjoyed cozy winter nights in a house heated only with passive solar and four cords of
wood.
Our PUD bill is averaged out at $125 a month. Total!
In trying to sell our house this past two years, we've found that people simply don't get
it and will go out and purchase the lovely 6K sq/ft mountain cabin with cathedral
ceilings.
In hearing and reading about the hoopla about the PUD's desire to commit to a 50-year
contract for energy from an as-yet unbuilt facility only shows that the mindset at PUD
matches the current crop of home buyers. You just don't get it. I'm not even impressed
with PUD's lip service toward alternative sources of power. From what I've seen, one guy
at PUD has a friend off the grid who sells a few alternative energy products. Gosh!
I just went on the bergey.com website just for a brief look at their prices for a small
wind turbine. A kit for a 10k/W turbine for pumping water would cost a little over $7K.
Have you thought of purchasing such kits to pump water into the holding tanks around town?
In giving cost figure comparisons for the coal burning facility in Utah and other sources,
you're a bit vague as to the total dollar commitment over fifty years.
I'm wondering if the PUD could assist people in buying home turbines with net metering,
thus satisfying your base and high peak energy needs. Is this idea too far out of the box?
A really serious campaign in this town toward alternative energy sources requires that we
tweek our aesthetic sense a wee bit and all of us produce the power this town needs. There
are a lot_ of houses in this town that could install some sort of power generating
equipment that would be giving power to the PUD while the house is unused. A patch of
solar tiles on the roof could supply power and also look good.
There's even a new photo volteic technology out of South Africa that is being manufactured
in Germany that will blow the doors off of the present technology ,and costs. Take a lock
,at.
thefraserdomain.typepad.corn/energy/2006/02/south_africa_cl.html.
You've undoubtedly heard a lot of emotional ear-banging out of the local population. We' re
all a bit bewildered how our PUD can take such a giant step backwards. Although the coal
processing technology has been updated to be cleaner, coal in that particular part of the
country has a lot of "dirt" attached to it.
I would like to kr_ew where this Utah plant will get the coal it burrs. Will it be buying
coal from Black .Mesa on the Dineh-Hopi reservations? This operation has done a lot to
destroy life on the reservation.
Land has been stolen under false pretenses -- surprise
-- and left the Native communities in poverty and in some cases, a state of war.
-S ';^, Ccal f•acilLty goii'.g to be buiit in an environmentai-y senslti e urea: it
you've ever been to rtah, you will know that the entire state is gorgeous and frag= '_e. Its
environments afford a wilderness experience unlike anything California has to offer.
The absoi-_;te silence, the awesome beauty is indescribeable. You HAVE to be there to know
:,that I 'm talking about. Coal processing plants, while providing jobs, are spoil ry the
nature of Iris place. And the employees of these plants probably aren' t getting as -uch as
they thought oat of the plants' earnings, either. The money is undoubtedly sJ-Phoned off to
somewhere far away -;vi_h a pi tance going to the workers.
1
So you see, Peter, there is a lot at stake from this coal project. Earnest research `nto
new technologies will vastly prove to be the better investment of our r1ollars. and when
your cl.stomers push for something more ecologically acceptable, Push back and ask t'.,em if
they are willing to give up some of their "style. "
We in Tahoe Donner just voted NO on putting poweriines underground. Apparently aesthetics
lost in that race.
During the meetinq on Wednesday the 27th, ask people if they would be willing to install
solar panels and wind turbines for net metering throughout the town -- in Tahoe Donner and
Gray's Crossing .and Lahonton, etc.
etc. , as well as in every other neighborhood. Ask us if we'd rather spend the money
outfitting every home with "unsightly" equipment to show our commitment to the
environment. Or are we all just paying lip-service to politically correct ideas that we
know will never come to fruition? Are Truckee people just about looking good?
Thanks for reading this long missive. I hope I've given some information that will lead to
new research and implementation in Truckee.
Sincerely,
Sue Cauhape
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/'r-index
2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Yulia Levin [yulial@gmail.coml
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:12 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Electricity Contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
my husband and I own a "arge vacation house in Tahoe Donner and therefore pay a good
amount for our energy bill.
Still, we would like to see the District go into a series of short contract instead of a
50 year one with the coal burning plant even if the cost of such energy is higher. One
hopes that with all the attention to global warming the opportunities to purchase
affordable renewable energy will come sooner rather than later and the District will be
able to reduce the use of coal.
Thank you for asking our opinion on the topic,
Sincerely,
Yulia Levin
Los Gatos, CA
1
Page 1 of l
Peter Holzmeister
From: Tim Murphy[usamurphy5@rcn.comj
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:21 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: November 17, 2006 Letter - Energy Contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
Thank you for the letter and opportunity to comment.
Briefly, we feel that Keep Tahoe Blue should also apply to Utah as well in principle.
We realize that there will be an unfortunate impact on all business and full time residents in the area in the form of
high prices; however, we feel that the long term objective to seek to address renewable sources is necessary;
increase in demand will eventually drive more supply at lower cost.
So our opinion is to develop long term plan that includes renewable energy sources.
Kind Regards,
The Murphy Family
14194 Northwood Blvd.
Truckee, CA 96161
1 i/27/2006
Mingle& Wymso
MIRRIS S8adier WVM3111989 TfdSL Daniel and Victor Wyman,Trustees
3215 Benton St.
C/O Victor M.Wyman
Santa Clara,California 95051
U.S.A.
Phone 408 261 1712 Fax 650 969 0169
e-mail wymanvic 4gravers.com
Peter Holzmeister, General Manager, and November 27, 2006
the Directors
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
via e-mail ceterhoizmeis`er(?�fidpud org
Dear sirs and madam,
I am writing in response to Mr. Holzmeister's letter dated November 171h.
Each new increment of carbon dioxide which goes into the atmosphere brings forward the time when all
life on earth will become extinct. As a homeowner on Northwoods, I oppose any new agreement for
power sources which are not environmentally friendly. In particular, I oppose longer term agreements.
I have made this a clear and succint statement of my position because I do not want any interpretation
which could 'soften' this position. Nonetheless, I am not satisfied that Mr. Holzmeister's letter satisfactorily
frames the issues. There is no analysis of cash flows, no information about price escalation over time, no
projection of the cost or availability of `green power'over the coming fifty years. And, no one can predict
the future marketability of power from coal fired power sources; Mr. Holzmeister's attitude and comments
are nothing more than wishfulness.
I don't know if the PUD's franchise permits the District to generate power. If it does, I would be in favor of
developing wind power facilities. The District's high mountain location with continuous winds would be
appropriate for this kind of power generation. The aboundance of nearby public land should make it
economical to negotiate sites. I would be in favor of a bond issue to finance such a project. If the District
cannot develop its own power, I suggest that a wind power project be solicited from private enterprise.
Meanwhile, the PUD should offer a'green power' option to subscribers, as is done in Santa Clara and
other California communities.
Sincerely,
s/s
Victor M. Wyman, Trustee
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Ron Elvidge[elvidge@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 7:52 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Future contracts
Dear Peter: Thanks for your letter dated November 17th. I don't usually respond to letters like yours but in this
case I'm compelled to. I understand this is a difficult decision for some people as the extra cost in taking the
responsible rout will be a burden. However, the long term benefits will far outweigh the short term costs. I urge
TDPUD to sign up for short term contracts and see what happens with alternative sources over the next few
years.
Thanks,
Ron Elvidge
L343 locust Street, #204
WJI'lut Creek, C4 94596
Once 925.988.0222
Eix 929.988.0401
Cc/ 929 708.J292
elvidge @sbcglobal.net
�teJsv go seethe r»ovie 'An Inconvenient Truth°and try to take it easy on the fossil fuels. Thank You
1 1/27/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kevin Dewald [kevin_dewald@gymboree.comj
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:21 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: we prefer environmentally friendly power
Peter - thank you for your letter of November 17, 2006. As Truckee Donner PUD customers,
we strongly prefer to obtain electrical energy from envircnmentally friendly sources, even
if this means paying much greater rates for our electrical pcwer.
thanks - kevin, jenni, John and stephanie dewald
582-4923
I
Peter Holzmeister
From: tmrogers [tmrogers@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:45 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Power contracts
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
Thank you for your letter outlining the issue to be hearing regarding Future power contracts. AssI will discussed
Jed at the November meth public
person, I will send you m o � able to attend the meeting in
Y p�n on via email. First, as a power clatomer, I appreciate
order's efforts to keep my power bill as low as possible. HoweNer, I also realiz
order to use more enviror:mentally friendly sources of e that in
to intermediate term, but we will all benef' power, it may cost more in the near
Unfortunately, at present the difference in cost between gcoal mand alternative power
sources appears to be prohibitively large. As you've hinted in your letter, the cost
difference is likely to decline in the future. I suspect this will occur within the fifty
year life of the proposed contract_. I'm concerned as to whether you will be able to
abandon the coal contract should other alternatives become more
existence of a willing buyer) . It seems to me that attractive (especially the
contract terms in between the two extremes under considerations better option would be
versus 50 year contract) . (series of 5 year contracts
Contract terms in the 10-15 year timeframe seems more likely to coincide with more
alternative energy sources becoming available at reasonable prices relative to the coal
option.
Sincerely,
Tracy Rogers
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Miranda Holback[bellozucco@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:08 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal issue
My husband and I will be unable to attend the next meeting, but we wanted to express our opinions in
the matter of the Utah contract. We both agree with shorter contracts. Renewable energy is so 'hot' right
now, we feel that .shortly we will see some better alternatives for us here in Truckee. It is unclear to us
what this option will cost, but I feel some sacracfice by ourselves is in order.
Thank you for opening the discussion to the public.
Mr & Mrs Kory Holback
11200 Tamarack Way
Truckee, CA 96161
.. ....._....... .................. ..._............._..._............... .. ........ .... ........ . ............ ......
..........
Check out the all-new Yahoo! h'lail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
11/2 7/2006
Page 1 of 1
Barbara Cahill
From: Helen Shadowens [2gecko@infostations.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:21 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Coal contract
Importance: High
Dear Barbara:
My family is NOT in favor of our TDPUD entering a fifty year contract for coal.
Our environment and the earth as a whole is more important than some short term savings.
We all need to take a long hard look at the real consequences of how we live, how we
consume and how we do business, we need to think about next year, 5 years, 20 years and
our impact on the world will change it forever.
Let's embrace progress now and focus on alternative energy.
Thank you.
Helen &Mark Shadowens
PO Box 8554
Truckee, CA 96162
530-448-1368
11/16/2006
Barbara Cahill
From: Patrick Fleming [patrickfleming2l @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Coal Contract
Hello Barbara,
Thank you for passing along my comments to the board. My objection to the proposed 50-year coal contract
is based on two main
considerations: as a parent raising two children in the Truckee-Tahoe region, and as a businessman.
1) As a parent, the thought that the largest municipality in our region will subject my children to 50 years of
coal burning is unacceptable. I am not overly idealistic --we may need coal for the immediate future, but with
the alternatives available and working effectively and affordably in Texas, Palo Alto, Germany, etc., etc. a 50-
year commitment to what may soon be an obsolete form of energy is poor policy and poor planning.
2) 1 work for a hedge fund head-quartered in the region. Significant capital is moving into the "clean energy"
space (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/04/BUG07M5S481.DTL
Saturday, November 4, 2006 (SF Chronicle) "Alternative energy lighting it up/Big venture capitalists pony up in
sizzling market . . .").
This investment capital is no longer the domain of investors accepting little to no returns based on their
worldview. The investment capital is going where the ideas and the opportunity for positive returns lie.
The only people/groups denying the imminent increase in alternative energy production on a significant scale
are doing so because of ideology -- not because of science, sound economics, or realistic geo-political
considerations. Ironically, these same groups often accuse others of acting on ideology. To commit to 50
years of a 19th century power source (coal) when the venture capitalists and even the oil-dominated state of
Texas are committing to new energy sources is , short-sighted economic planning at best. The TDPUDs
recent economic planning (millions of dollars wasted on buying out of a poor contract) coupled with this rushed
decision on such a major commitment is unacceptable.
Please reconsider your commitment to this 50-year contract.
Respectfully,
Patrick Fleming
Resident of Incline Village, NV
California tax payer
i
Barbara Cahill
From: Cathee & Greig St. Clair[stclair@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:47 PM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Coal
Dear Barbara:
It seems amazing that we would consider entering into any fifty year contract in this ever-changing world,
especially one endorsing the use of coal. The environment our children and grandchildren will be experiencing
in the future is more important than any short term savings we might enjoy now, don't you think? Looking into
healthy energy alternatives for generations to come is definitely worth its weight in gold, not coal. PLEASE
RECONSIDER.
Thank you,
Cathee and Greig St. Clair
i
POWER
CONTRACT
AGAINST
RECO
Barbara Cahill
From: Pia Chamberlain [piac@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:17 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Utah contract
Hi Barbara,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to this contract. That it's even on the docket is, in my opinion, an
outrage. Trying to "slip it in" before the law that our legislators rightly enacted goes into effect is a disgrace. I
am a local property owner and utilities customer, and I do not accept this being done in the name of lower
rates. What happens when this country finally wakes up about global warming and enacts stringent fines or
restrictions? So it isn't even a reasonable course of action from a fiscal perspective, much less an
environmental or ethical one.
Please urge the board to reject this contract.
Thank you very much,
Pia Chamberlain
Page I of 1
Barbara Cahill
From: abinik@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:21 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Letter to the Board - please share before Wed. mtg.
The issue of the new coal-fired power plant is a thorny one, and I feel for both Truckee
residents and the TDPUD board members. Still, I urge the board to reject the new contract,
despite the temptation of cheaper power. The proposed contract is quite flawed, not even
guaranteeing the touted lower energy costs. What it will guarantee is 50 years of a significant
contribution to global warming; even if it is eventually sold to someone else, this plant will be
built at TDPUD's behest and will therefore remain yourethical responsibility. Please don't sell
out your residents kids and grandkids, and the planet they will inhabit, simply to save a few
dollars now. How viable do you expect the Truckee economy to be once winter snow levels
have significantly decreased? Instead, please continue to buy power from your current
supplier while seriously exploring more-benign long-term options, such as participation in
Nevada wind-farm development.
I've always loved visiting Truckee, in both summer and winter. It's a charming town,
with very friendly people. So, it's with considerable regret that I now make the following
commitment: If this contract is approved, I will work hard to spread the word about the tourist
boycott of Truckee that is now being organized. I would not do so to be punitive. Rather, to
continue spending my tourist dollars in Truckee would be to support a decision that, while
understandable, I find morally repugnant.
Back at home I'm working hard, along with many others in my Bay Area county, to
develop an energy-aggregation alternative for ourselves so we can utilize more renewable
power. You already have such an enviable opportunity—please utilize it. Ultimately, you'll be
able to tell your grandkids you displayed leadership by being part of the solution rather than
adding to the problem.
Alexander Binik, 7 Meadow Way, Fairfax, CA 94930 (415) 454-9844
Page 1 of 2
Barbara Cahill
From: James Herzman aherzy@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:45 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: vote against power contract
I am writing this letter to voice my opposition to the power supply contract.
Putting our environmental concerns aside, economically this could be suicide. (However, I must state putting our
environmental concerns aside does seem slightly crazy. Our main winter tourist industry is skiing, and Tahoe ski
area's are particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming due to their relatively low elevation and our
already temperate climate. I know the idea of this contract is to guarantee us enough electricity and to do it at
affordable rates. However, to enter into a contract which produces more green house gasses which in turn will
raise temperatures, thus raising snow lines and decimating our economy seems a little like cutting off the patient
to save the arm.)
As the meetings on this have made clear, the two main concerns of citizens are a) entering into energy contracts
which create greenhouse gasses and b)the length of the contract. These are the reasons that I feel this contract
DOES NOT MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE.
My understanding is that the current rates are being quoted on a lot of what if's. I will address only a few of my
concerns to keep it brief.
1. The price of this contract is dependent on putting in a rail line to carry the coal. What if this rail line is not
put in, runs into environmental holdups, or becomes more expensive then originally projected, our rates will
rise.
2. Our rates are quoted on CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. As the board is well aware, and
hence the reason to rush this to vote, is the current change in California laws concerning green house
gasses. I know if approved it will be grand fathered in. But lets look at the bigger picture. Both the Senate
and Congress are now controlled by democrats, and they have already made it clear that one of their big
pushes is going to be for environmental concerns, particularly GLOBAL WARMING. In fact, the Senates
Environmental Committee is being chaired by Barbara Boxer, who is one of the if not they most
environmentally active senators. If the democrats are successful in passing green house gas bills, coal
burning power plants will be required to retrofit their plants to bring green house emissions up to 2007
California standards at substantial cost which will be passed on to us, the ratepayers.
3. My understanding is even if the plant construction falls through, we are still on the hook for a lot of money
(concern here, environmental groups are already lining up to challenge new coal fired power plants).
4. If I read the contract right, Section 18 b 2 (page 32) prohibits us from entering into other energy contracts.
Considering this is fifty year contract that seems a little short sited (see below)
5. According to the contract, nothing prohibits the sale UAMPS to another entity. What if an Enron decides to
acquire UAMPS 10 years from now and double our rates, we will be locked into another forty years.
6. My understanding is these rates ARE NOT LOCKED. They could easily increase to the rates of renewable
energy if the extraction of coal or it's transportation increase in cost.
7. Your projected energy graphs were based on an ever increasing demand without taking into account
conservation. If I remember correctly, a 10%reduction in demand is better then a 50% increase in power
output. As new energy saving technology's come on line, consumption should stabilize or even fall.
8. Lastly, on the economic side, I do not have one single friend that complains about their electricity bill, if
anything they complain about their water bill (generally our water bill is almost double our electric bill). I am
not quite sure why we need cheaper dirty energy.
The other concern is the length of the contract. Once again I will cover a few points to keep it brief.
1. First and foremost, in these rapidly changing times, is it really prudent to invest in the same technology for
a FIFTY YEAR TIMESPAN? Think back to 1957, about the only technology I would want from that time is
a 57 Chevy. Or think back only 30 years to 1975, do you still go to the bank on Friday to get cash for the
weekend, still using your rotary phone? Technoloqy is chanaina sn rnniriw that-ifk;- tf%
Page 2 of 2
energy may be CHEAPER THEN COAL(See December 2005 Scientific America for both an update on
emerging solar technology and an excellent article on turning recycled nuclear waste into energy). Yes,
these technology's are down the line, but how far, five years? Ten years? If we are locked into a fifty year
contract we will not be able to invest and save money as future technology's come on line.
2. More and more energy experts are recommending a decentralized energy generating system. Why not
look at energy(I.E. hydro) closer to home and think towards the future when small wind generators, small
scale solar(which can be made to produce hydrogen to drive generators at night)and other small scale
technology's implemented by a large number of individuals will drive down both demand and cost of
renewable energy.
3. Lastly, I believe some board members may be under the assumption that it will be easy to get out of this
contract. My understanding is that it will be next to impossible to get out of this contract and would require
a large amount of money from TDPUD which would then be passed on to rate payers.
I would hope that you will examine these issue's carefully before your vote.
Sincerely,
James S. Herzman
0-1
is not in proximity to the transmission lines that serve Truckee. As the availability of renewable
generation increases we will be able to add these kinds of power sources to our portfolio.
As already stated in this letter, for many years the primary source of electric energy
Truckee has been coal fueled generation. Our proposal to secure energy from the plant in Utah io
controversial because the fuel is coal. Coal is a concern because when burned it emit s
into the environment and contributes to global warming. Advances in technology continue to
improve the cleanliness of coal plant emissions. This plant to be built in Utah will be state-of-the-art
and can be modified as further technological improvements are developed.
The District's goal is to secure low cost power from the Utah power plant ($35 per megawatt) for our
base load and use the savings to secure alternate fuel power for our peaking power needs. The
reality is that plants that burn coal are the only realistic option we have for serving our base load
Some people are genuinely concerned about the side effects associated with burning coal. They
believe that the Truckee community should make a clear statement that it values a clean and
healthy environment by rejecting this long term contract with a coal burning
plant.
suggested that the District should use short term contracts with coal plants ($72 per megawatt) and
take advantage of renewable power plants as soon as possible to eliminate coal. We can do this
but the cost is high. It would require a rate increase of 15 to 20% beginning on January 1, 2009. if
we also seek to secure renewable power plants, a very expensive source of power ($80 per
megawatt), we will need an additional increase of about 10%, as soon as January 1, 2009. So he
electric rates in Truckee could increase by 25 to 30% on January 1, 2009.
Both sides of this dialogue agree on the importance of developing renewable Power
Truckee power supply portfolio. Both sides agree, I think, that coal is anecessary fuel foe
generating electricity until renewable plants are available. We disagree on the appropriate length of
the contract. The District's idea is to have a f'
an be sold to
choose to, and if we have a willing buyer. The other view beli year cntract hat Lthat we should have other party if we
contracts, a series of five year contracts for exam le so that it is easier to abandon coal co t�acts-term
A special public hearing will be held to discuss this issue at 7:00 PM on November 29, 2006 at the
Truckee Donner PUD Board Room at 11570 Donner Pass Road. You are encouraged to attend. If
You cannot attend the public hearing I would like to hear your opinion regarding these alternate
ideas. Please send me an a-mail at netPrholzmeister@tdnud.orq_ or send me a letter to P.O. Box
309, Truckee, California 96160. Thank you for your input on this matter.
Very truly yours,
A a,
Peter L. HolzmeisterRE
! EC ) } ?
Barbara Cahill
From: mark—blum e @ patagonia.com
Sent: Tuesdy, December 12, 2006 11:01 AM
To: Barbara Cahill; Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No Coal Contract
Importance: High
I am a 10-year resident of Truckee asking you: Please do not sign any long-term contract with coal-fired power
plants.
The reason that you are being asked to do this is that coal-burning has a VERY UNCERTAIN FUTURE that
will likely include SEVERE TAXES AND POLLUTION OFFESETS IN THE FUTURE.
OF COARSE THE COAL INDUSTRY WANTS A GUARANTEE OF TRUCKEE'S MONEY - NO OTHER
COMMUNITY WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY SIGN THIS CONTRACT.
Vote against,
Mark Blume
15456 Waterloo Cir
Truckee, CA 96161
ph: 530-582-8815
Message left on Barbara Cahill phone: December 13, 2006
Al Glenn, 10587 Jeffrey Way, Truckee, 916-771-9440
He knows the District is trying to keep the price of power low. But he
is not in favor of a fifty year coal contract. He would be willing to pay
more so the PUD can access some other kind of power in the future
that is not generated by coal and alleviate the global warming
problem.
Page 1 of 1
Barbara Cahill
From: Christine Rourke [christinerourke@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:49 PM
To: Barbara Cahill
Cc: ChristineRourke@yahoo.com
Subject: Coal Contract-Christine Rourke RN and Realtor-Truckee Resident since 1984
Please forward to all PUD Board Members---Many of you consider yourselves as experts on reading
contracts. I am sure you by now have found numerous items that you would never advise your own
clients to agree to. I believe that if you agree to this contract, your own clients will have second
thoughts about your abilities and expertise with them.
Secondly, If you have any political contacts at the State Capital, by now you should have already
researched the reasons why our Calif. State Governor has given us a Jan. 1. deadline. It has been very
obvious to our state government and agencies that these contracts are a huge mistake and financial
disaster could occur. You should be aware that he has been made aware of the financial consequences
of these contracts in the future as to clean up and emission controls. California does not want to
economically contribute to other states containing coal companies. This deadline was placed in effect to
protect the California consumer as well as their prospective utility districts. The state will not be
financially bailing out companies who proceed forward with these coal contracts. Each utility district
who "makes their bed will lie in it." I would encourage you to look very closely at any member who
intends to pass this contract.
Third please refer to the article in the Reno Gazette 12/12/06 which discusses signing a contract such as
the one before you will end up costing you significantly more than going to the open market in the long
run. If you are considering a 50yr. contract you must consider the long run.
Fourth, Have you investigated the individual stockholders for conflict of interest?
Please do not sign the 50yr coal contract before you.
Christine Rourke
Rn at Tahoe Forest Hospital since 1984
Realtor Tahoe/Truckee/Sierra Valley/Summit 3 yrs.
Call Christine Rourke for real estate in Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Serene Lakes, and Sierra
Valley. I really know the current market and use the latest technology to help you to be
the first to know the best and newest properties on the market. For your convienence
you can reach me at 530.559.9595 email Christi neRourke@yahoo_coin To easily view properties
you can access my mis area through my company website www.CliristiiieRourke.com
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Members December 12,2006
11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee,California
Dear Truckee Donner PUD Board Members,
I own property in the Truckee area and am a utitilities customer_I am writing to you
today to strongly oppose the contract with the coal-burning plant in Utah. Signing such a
contract would be to ignorc the cvidence of global warming,as well as thumb your nosc
at Sacramento and cause your Utility District to become a pariah. That it is even being
considered is an outrage.
Please vote against this contract.
Sincctcly,
Pia Chamberlain
1563 Minnesota Ave.
San Jose.CA 95125
Local address:
6068 River Road
Truckee,CA
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Richard Spotts[spotts @ infowest.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 2:50 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Please Oppose IPP Contract
December 9, 2006
Peter Holzmeister, General Manager
Truckee Donner P.U.D.
PO Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160
Dear Mr. Holzmeister:
Please oppose and work to deny the proposed 50-year contract with Intermountain Power(IPP) in Delta, Utah to
purchase electricity from its proposed 900-megawatt dirty coal-fired power plant. The Truckee Donner P.U.D.
should not help enable IPP to secure the financing needed to build this$2.1 billion dollar west desert power plant
that would send hundreds of thousands of tons of more nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, and mercury into Utah's
air for another 50+years, not to mention nearly 8 million tons of CO2 annually. When added to IPP's current CO2
emissions, this will make it the nation's 2"d largest CO2 emitting coal plant in the nation. In essence, Truckee
would get the power but Utans like me would get more pollution.
Specifically, please consider the following points:
• The City of Truckee should consider the impact on its neighbors in Utah. In spite of what IPP's proponents
are telling you, this plant is NOT new, cleaner technology. It will continue to spew hundreds of thousands of
tons of pollutants into Utah's skies, and directly downwind towards approximately 1.5 million people along
the Wasatch Front.
• Utans along the Wasatch Front are already suffering from terrible wintertime inversions and very dirty air.
Utah needs help in cleaning it up, not making it dirtier.
• Global warming is a major issue. Truckee should be looking at ways to decrease its carbon footprint, NOT
INCREASE IT. At 15 million tons of CO2 annually, IPP is already the nation's 24th largest CO2 emitting
coal plant in the nation. If a third unit is built, that will increase to 22 million tons, making it the nation's
second largest emitter.
• By the time IPP is built 6-7 years from now, global warming will be an even bigger issue. Most energy
experts agree that we will see some form of carbon cap and/or carbon tax in the not-so-distant future. It is
virtually impossible for IPP to be guaranteeing rates 7 years from now. Combined with fossil fuel volatility
and increasing transportation costs, buying into a dirty coal plant now is incredibly risky for rate payers.
• Other California cities are trying to respect the spirit of California's new greenhouse gas restriction laws by
not buying into new contracts with IPP. Truckee should follow suit.
• New renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, PV solar, concentrated solar, and biomass are coming
on very strongly and getting cheaper every day. The more cities that shop for such sources, the quicker the
market will respond. In other words, Truckee should not close the window of opportunity for renewables by
buying into old king coal.
Page 2 of 2
Again, please oppose entering into any contract with IPP to purchase power from this polluting coal-fired power
plant.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Spotts
1125 W. Emerald Drive
St. George UT 84770-6026
spotts_ Infowest.com
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: william calder[willyjohn_82@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 3:15 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Power Contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister-
I understand that your city will be voting on whether to buy a contract of coal powered energy from IPP. I am an
earth science student focusing my research on global climate change and I would hope that you and your city will
have the foresight to not make decisions that are going to negatively impact the environment.
Thank you for your time-
John Calder
_._�...........
_ __.,._..__,_ _._ _.___..._............
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo'
:answers.
....._............ .....
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jack Greene Backisgreene@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:29 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: IPP concerns
Dear Peter:
The City of Truckee should consider the impact on its neighbors in Utah . In spite of what
IPP's proponents are telling you, this plant is NOT new, cleaner technology. It will
continue to spew hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants into Utah 's skies, and
directly downwind towards approximately 1.5 million people along the Wasatch Front.
We are already suffering from terrible wintertime inversions and very dirty air. We need
help in cleaning it up, not making it dirtier.
Global warming is a major issue. Truckee should be looking at ways to decrease its carbon
footprint, NOT INCREASE IT. At 15 million tons of CO2 annually, IPP is already the
nation's 24th largest CO2 emitting coal plant in the nation. If a third unit is built,
that will increase to 22 million tons, making it the nation's second largest emitter.
By the time IPP is built 6-7 years from now, global warming will be an even bigger issue.
Most energy experts agree that we will see some form of carbon cap and/or carbon tax in
the not-so-distant future. It is virtually impossible for IPP to be guaranteeing rates
7 years from now. Combined with fossil fuel volatility and increasing transportation
costs, buying into a dirty coal plant now is incredibly risky for rate payers.
Other California cities are trying to respect the spirit of California 's new greenhouse
gas restriction laws by not buying into new contracts with IPP.
Truckee should follow suit.
New renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, PV solar, concentrated solar, and biomass
are coming on very strongly and getting cheaper every day. The more cities that shop for
such sources, the quicker the market will respond.
Thanks so much for considering my concerns, Jack Greene, Smithfield, Utah
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Todd Agulnick[todd@foxmarks.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:52 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No More Coal Plants
Hi,
I'm writing in response to your recent letter to urge you NOT to engage in the proposed long-term
contract for power from a new coal-fired plant in Utah. Understanding now, as we do, the relationship
between burning coal and various environmental hazards (global warming, mercury emission, etc.), it
would be immoral for the PUD to continue to vote with its dollars in support of the expanded use of
coal.
Higher cost for power is inevitable anyway, and forestalling it for a few years at the cost of furthering
the disruption of the environment is short-sighted. And now that the Truckee story is getting some
attention outside the region(see this Story in the SF Chronicle), the PUD's responsibility is even greater,
as the outcome of this debate will serve as a precedent for other towns and municipalities around the
country who face the same decision: continue ravaging the environment by succumbing to the easy
temptation of cheap coal power, or make the tough decision to start being responsible in our relationship
with the environment.
Sincerely,
Todd Agulnick
13008 Muhlebach Way
Truckee
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmelster
From: Cari Bivona [ecowaverider@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 2:52 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Appeal from Sweden
To: Peter Holzmeister, Ron Hemig, Pat Sutton, Tim Taylor, Joe Aguera, William L. Thomason
From what I understand, the coal power deal has been a contentious matter. First, thank you for
diligently tuning into the myriad opinions and patiently listening through some heated debates.
Education and understanding is crucial when making complex decisions. Because it is easy to get caught
in the details and drill holes of experts and lose sight of the magnitude of a 50-year commitment, it is
necessary to inform the decision making process with a systems perspective.
From a system's perspective, we understand the biogeochemical cycles of nature and how society
manipulates earth's natural resources to fulfill our basic human needs. This brings a scientific awareness
to the global economic engine created to fulfill our needs. If we nest Truckee in the biogeochemical
cycle, as a town, it is our responsibility to contribute to the success of the planet and ourselves through
the kind of economic throughput we choose to support.
We have been systematically undermining the integrity of system Earth through the extraction of fossil
fuels and mining of coal. It is not a matter of whether or not we've hit Peak Oil, or that we have enough
coal reserves for hundreds of years. It is a matter of whether we'll be able to inhabit a planet that has
been systematically forced into a state of irreversible change. Global climate change is a serious issue
that demands our attention. It calls us to action to make strategic decisions that will see Truckee into a
successful and economically stable future. We are currently living at the capacity of 5 planets and it will
take diligent action and tighter legislative incentives and disincentives to see that we survive.
We are in an era of global carbon mitigation and decarbonization. The carbon contained in the earth's
crust in the form of coal and oil took millions of years to form. It has been extracted with such voracity
that we have knocked our global climate out of a state of equilibrium not seen since 420,000 years ago
as evidenced by the Vostok Ice Core data. In July 2006, our carbon dioxide levels were 377ppm, up
from 280ppm in 1750. CO2 levels continue to rise 7Gigatons/Carbon year. This means that in 2055,
roughly 50 years from now, we will have doubled our present rates of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The world is shifting its energy policies away from subsidizing fossil fuels and towards "polluter pays"
fines and carbon taxes. This is a double whammy for the coal industry since the associated negative
externalities will become fiercely internalized. At the same time, legislation is favoring renewable
energy technology and subsidizing efforts to wean ourselves from a fossil fuel addiction. These costs
will come directly to us locked into a 50-year contract.
I am in agreement that providing affordable energy for Truckee is a top priority. Carbon sequestration is
expensive and risky, and better scrubbers to reduce pollutants to make so-called Clean Coal are a "too-
little, too-late" attempt by coal companies to gain market shares in a dying industry. The downstream
solutions that coal companies are touting as technological advances will not help tis move into a
sustainable future and will only limit our potential investments in renewable energy.
Page 2 of 2
A 50-year contract is irresponsible both economically and in lieu of the pollution that Truckee residents
will be doling out to the state, the planet, and ultimately our local health. Who wants to turn on their
lights at night, power up their computers, and go to work day in and day out with this on their
conscience?
Because there is time for us to make a strategic decision, we should allow other options to unfold and
diversify our energy portfolio. Perhaps even a 10-year contract would be a more prudent decision.
How do you imagine Truckee in 50 years? Will we raise our children and grandchildren in a vibrant
community with a thriving ecosystem, unique mountain culture, and a strong economy? Will Truckee
understand that being sustainable is good business sense, and avoid the legislative laws set in place to
curb our fossil fuel addictions and mitigate global climate change? Will Truckee choose a sustainable
future and be an important leader in the bioregional economy by selling renewable power?
Alternatively, in an unsustainable 50-year future, will Truckee residents contribute to global climate
change and the degradation of distant Midwestern ecosystems? Will Truckee citizens be hit with
legislative costs that the coal industry has strategically locked us into paying?
We have the choice to be strategic and align Truckee's vision within the vision of a sustainable world.
Ultimately, if we believe in a prosperous and sustainable future, the decisions we make today will help
us move towards such an existence.
Should we sign a 50-year coal power contract? In.strategic sustainable development, it is necessary to
ask three questions when making decisions that are ultimately affecting the system.
1. Is this in the right direction?
2. Does this decision provide us with a flexible platform for future decisions?
3. Does this decision provide us with a return on investment economically, socially, and
environmentally?
What do you think?
My Best, Cari Bivona
I am currently in Sweden pursuing a Masters degree in Strategic Leadership Towards Sustainability. We
work closely with The_Natural_Sten
I will return home to Truckee this summer...been emotionally, physically, and spiritually bound here
since the day I arrived in April of 2000. I think you know what I mean. Please e-mail me if you would
like to further discuss the future of Truckee's energy. cari@sustaintahoe.com
Check out the.all_-new Yah-oo!Mail_beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Peter Holzmeister
From: Lisa Dobey[Iisa@ttcf.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 5:10 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal
Hi Peter - read the article in the SF Chron. Count me in as one OPPOSED to the 50 year
contract for coal. And, missed you at the Rotary holiday party!
/lisa
Lisa Dobey, President
Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation
P.O. Box 366
Truckee, CA 96160
lisa@ttcf.net
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Sharon Collier[sharon @ adifferentangle.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:12 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Renewable Energy Preferred by Homeowners in Truckee
Peter L. Hotzmeister
General Manager
please also forward to:
Joseph R. Aguera
J. Ron Hemig
Patricia S. Sutton
Tim F. Taylor
Bill Thomason
TDPUD
To Peter Hotzmester and Directors of TDPUD:
We, as homeowners in Truckee, CA, appreciate the fact that the current power contract expires on April
1,
2009, and that you have been investigating various ways to best secure an economical electric power
supply;
and that there seems to be some interest in considering renewable and environmentally friendly energy.
We are strongly opposed to and genuinely concerned about the side effects associated with burning
coal. We
believe that the Truckee community should make a clear statement that it values a clean and
healthy environment by rejecting this long term contract with a coal burning plant. The District should
use short term
contracts with coal plants and take advantage of renewable power plants as soon as possible to eliminate
coal.
It seems irresponsible to rush into a 50 year agreement, two and a half years before the current one is up
for renewal,just a few days before the state law that would prohibit California utilities from contracting
with high-polluting power plants will take effect.
Please do not sign this agreement now, it will not be good for the environmental issues that are so
critical to so many, and will not be helpful to the largest industry of Truckee, which depends on a more
consistent snowfall and is already being adversely affected by global warming.
Sincerely,
Sharon Collier and Patrick Wildi
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jerusha Hall Uerushah@sbcglobal.netj
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:33 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Please reconsider signing contract
Please, please, please reconsider the PUD signing a 50 year contract with a
coal plant for our power here in Truckee. There are other options out there
and the decision does not need to be made so quickly. Thanks for your
consideration.
Jerusha Hall
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kimberly Bullock[kimmiebullock@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:10 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: DO NOT sign coal contract
am writing to urge you NOT to sign a 50 year contract with a coal plant for our power. This company is one of
the largest producers of greenhouse gases in the US. As a region highly dependent on snow, it is ironic to
imagine making such a poor choice for global warming.
Thank you,
Kimberly Bullock
Kimberly Suilock Pacific Crest Properties
Tt kt:, A `j{ i{ 1 I(
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jeff Kuehn [jeff@designmind.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:50 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: IPP Plant
Hello! I'm a concerned citizen of the great state of Utah. I just got wind of the proposed construction of a new
coal power plant that that will make the air quality around here even worse than it already is.
Please reconsider! This sounds like a long-term committment to coal power, when I think we should be more
focused on renewable, cleaner energy alternatives.
For what it's worth,
Jeff Kuehn
eff(?�d es ign mi nd.com
(435)647-0271
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jan Johnson Oan.johnson@ucn.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:57 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Truckee and the IPP
We've been watching with interest the situation in southern Utah with the IPP plant and Truckee's interest in
buying from this old plant. If this deal goes thru, that plant will be sending hundreds of throusands of more
pollutants into the air, which flows into the major metro area of Salt Lake City. If Truckee does not impose
responsible restrictions on this plant, I think it is possible to consider that those inside Utah who must breadth the
resulting air will do what they can to impose more responsible operations on the IPP.
Please consider this a time to inspect and research the CO2 situation, among the many other pollutants this old
plant produces. Is this really the partner Truckee wants for the long term? Or is there a more responsible set of
criteria that could be imposed on this relationship?
Best Regards
Jan Johnson
........ ..... ............... ... ...... ...... .. ............... ..
............._..............................................._................
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific
individual(s) and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message.
Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is
strictly prohibited.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: scott whitaker[scottyscrapmetal @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:19 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton C sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason; tim.wagner@sierraclub.org; Chris Cline
Subject: utah citizen weighs in on Truckees decision to purchase energy from IPP
To whom it may concern,
Please consider the following when making the decision to purchase energy from the IPP in Delta Utah.
3 of my family members are suffering from cancer. My Father, my Brother and my Niece all have
cancer and have been through every medical process known to man. Needless to say, this is has been a
huge struggle for my family emotionally and finacially. I know that these illnesses may or may not be
directly related to your purchase of energy from IPP, but I would like to take a moment and
simply state that people have become very acustomed to purchasing energy for 8 cents a kilowatt. That
is pretty cheap. The actual costs of this energy are being born by people like my 14 yr old niece who has
been through 5 yrs of chemo, a bone marrow transplant and is now considered terminal. This isn't a sob
story. This is the real deal. We have the ability to stop needless polution, we just need people like you to
make the right decisions. Please consider investing in next level renewable energy and putting an end to
old school technologies which cost us so much more down the road.
Sincerely,
Scott Whitaker
Everyone is raving about the_all-new_Yahoo! Mail beta.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Peter& Carrice Marcovich [pcgarbs@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:26 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Stephen Hollabaugh
Subject: AGAINST THE 50-YEAR COAL CONTRACT
Dear Mr. Holzmeister and Mr. Hollabaugh,
Please note our adament opposition to your proposed 50-year contract for coal based power. We agree
with the many letters and arguments against this contract and will therefore not reiterate all of the
comments. However, we would like to add that we do not buy your argument that you will be able to
sell this contract in the future to pursue other options. When you find other options to your liking, why
do you think that others would want this horrific contract when they will also be pursuing those other
options`? We feel that if the district enters into the contract, the individuals voting for the contract are
bordering on unethical behavior since this action would be illegal in just a few weeks, and are certainly
immoral for not considering the future of our planet.
Again, we are absolutely opposed to this contract are appalled that it is even being considered. Since you
do not list the board members email addresses on your website, we request that you please pass on our
comments to them.
Sincerely,
Carrice and Peter Marcovich
10684 East Alder Creek Rd.
Peter Holzmeister
From: jmverde@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:56 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: NO ON COAL!
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Jess Greene
PO Box 3223
Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Randy Colquitt[randycolquitt @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:19 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Truckee CA and Utah
Please do not allow Truckee CA to purchase it's power from Delta Ut's IPP. We do not want t IPP to set
up business in Ut which will inevitably cause us more smog.
Randy and Stephanie Colquitt
Bountiful, UT
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo!
Answers.
Peter Holzmeister
From: anna demm [ademm7O@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:20 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal decision
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I am writing to express my opinion about the purchase of electricity from a coal powered
plant. After reading numerous letters against it, and many valid points as to why it
would be a bad decision, I am inclined to agree with the majority of the residents here in
Truckee who are against it. I have seen several letters/opinions in the Sierra Sun
(including one that I
wrote) against the 50 year contract, and only two letters for it. The current online poll
for the Sierra Sun shows the majority of people are against the contract. Not to mention
all of the people at the two board meetings. It was so disappointing that all of the
information about this proposed contract has come out now, after the election and with
only a short timeline to make a decision that will affect our future dramatically. I
think that there are better options than signing this contract. There is a reason why
California is passing the law to prevent contracts from being longer than five years. Our
"debate" was even in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday, and Diane Feinstein has even
sent a letter disapproving of the signing of this contract.
Please ask the board to really consider the gravity of this decision. The impact it will
have on future generations and on the environment. Yes, it is expensive to live here in
Truckee, I know, I have a huge mortgage and two very young daughters. But cheaper is not
always better, especially in this case! I really hope that the board takes its
responsibility seriously and does not opt for the power from the Utah plant, I believe
that a better solution exists, and I am willing to wait for it even if I have to pay a
little more right now. The cons of this 50 year contract far outweigh any pros. Thank
you so much for your consideration—please make the ethical decision.
Anna Demm
Truckee
V'_sit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50, 000 in Holiday cash from MSN
today!
http://www.msnho14daychallenge.com/index.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Phebe Bell [phebe@ttcf.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:26 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal issue
Hi Peter- I am writing to strongly encourage the PUD NOT to sign a 50 year contract committing us to coal
produced power. I understand that in the short term, coal burning plants are a necessary part of the power
system, but I truly believe that over the course of 50 years, technological advances will allow us to find less
damaging means of producing power. I also realize that this power appears to be less expensive than other
options—but if you factor in the vast environmental costs, this is a very expensive way to get power! And in a
mountain community heavily dependent upon snow fall for our economy, contributing to global warming is such a
way seems very short sighted. Please do NOT sign this agreement! Phebe Bell
Phebe Bell
Program Officer, Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation
(530) 587-1776
Page 1 of 4
Peter Holzmeister
From: kasha Rigby[kasharigby@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:11 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton @ sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Re: Please act on this....Here is your chance to save the planet!!!
hi guys!
please do not buy power from intermountain power in utah. you have such a beautiful clean town. i
love truckee and my many friends that live there. i have already contacted them and asked them to
please come to your meeting on the 13th.
we need to buy and support clean energy. you know these facts. by signing a 50 year deal with
intermoutain power you support dirty dirty power! i thought truckee would be a much more forward
moving community.
i love my utah home. i love our dessert and our mountains and we are working as a communty to
improve our quality of living and that of our planet. please do not support more poisons in our- all of
our- environment.
thank you! kasha
scott whitaker<scottyscrapmetal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Please take a second and read this, you can really make a difference.
Just thought I'd forward this as an interesting example of how "acting locally" at the
very bottom of the chain can start making real changes at the top.
cool!
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Michele Evans <micheleevans@macdialup.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2006 5:46:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: need calls to Truckee, CA today!
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Tim Wagner" <tim.wagner@sierraclub.org>
Date: December 9, 2006 10:57:49 AM MST
To: "Tim Wagner" <tim.wagner(0sierraclub.org>
Subject: need calls to Truckee, CA today!
Dear Smart Energy Activists,
Page 2 of 4
1 don't ask for much from you but here's something we really need help with in the
next few days. The small but beautiful community of Truckee, CA, located about 20
miles west of Reno, NV is considering entering into a 50-yr contract with
Intermountain Power(IPP) in Delta, UT in order to purchase electricity from its
proposed 900-megawatt dirty coal-fired power plant. Such action will further enable
IPP to secure the financing needed to build this$2.1 billion dollar west desert
dinosaur and will also send hundreds of thousands of tons of more nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxides, and mercury into Utah's air for another 50+years, not to mention
nearly 8 million tons of CO2 annually. When added to IPP's current CO2 emissions,
this will make it the nation's 2nd largest CO2 emitting coal plant in the nation. In
essence, Truckee will get the power and Utans will get even more crud.
Truckee's Public Utility Board is scheduled to vote on this contract on the evening of
Dec 13. Please consider taking 2 minutes from your busy day and call the Truckee
PUD directly to voice your concerns over this proposal. Talking points that can be
made are the following:
• The City of Truckee should consider the impact on its neighbors in Utah. In
spite of what IPP's proponents are telling them,this plant is NOT new, cleaner
technology. It will continue to spew hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants
into Utah's skies, and directly downwind towards approximately 1.5 million
people along the Wasatch Front.
• We are already suffering from terrible wintertime inversions and very dirty air.
We need help in cleaning it up, not making it dirtier.
• Global warming is a major issue. Truckee should be looking at ways to
decrease its carbon footprint, NOT INCREASE IT. At 15 million tons of CO2
annually, IPP is already the nation's 24th largest CO2 emitting coal plant in the
nation. If a third unit is built, that will increase to 22 million tons, making it the
nation's second largest emitter.
• By the time IPP is built 6-7 years from now, global warming will be an even
bigger issue. Most energy experts agree that we will see some form of carbon
cap and/or carbon tax in the not-so-distant future. It is virtually impossible for
IPP to be guaranteeing rates 7 years from now. Combined with fossil fuel
volatility and increasing transportation costs, buying into a dirty coal plant now
is incredibly risky for rate payers.
• Other California cities are trying to respect the spirit of California's new
greenhouse gas restriction laws by not buying into new contracts with IPP.
Truckee should follow suit.
• New renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, PV solar, concentrated
solar, and biomass are coming on very strongly and getting cheaper every day.
The more cities that shop for such sources, the quicker the market will
respond. In other words, Truckee should not close the window of opportunity
for renewables by buying into old king coal.
Call or fax a letter before Wednesday evening!
Truckee Donner P.U.D.
Truckee, California
530.587.3896 phone
530.587.5056 fax
Mailing Address:
PO Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160
Or you can call or email the Truckee PUD General Manager and board members
directly.
Page 3 of 4
Peter Holzmeister, General Manager 530.587.3896, peterholzmeister gidpud.erg
<maifto:peterhoizmeister @ tdpud.crg>
Ron Hemig, 530.582.8158, rc.n ?hemig-erle.com <maifto:ron(9_hem ig_erle.com>
Pat Sutton, 530.587.4161, res.ittow—&sbcglobal.net<mailto;resutton(dsbcglobal,net>
Tim F. Taylor, 530.581.1116, ext. 17, ttayior@auerbacheng�neerng com
<maifto:ttayiorCn`auerbacheng neering.ccm>
Joe Aguera, 530.587.5481, mr.smorticia@earthlink net
<mailt_o:mrsmorticia 4earthiink.net>
William L. Thomason, 530.582.0112, wltcpa@exwire.com
<maifto_wltc.pa'_d e_xwire.com>
Background-
Intermountain Power near Delta is one the West's largest dirty coal fired power plants.
They were granted an air quality permit in October of 2004 by the Utah Division of Air
Quality to construct a third 900 MW pulverized coal plant. Over 75%of IPP's power
already goes to California. But the cities of southern Cal are already saying no to
renewing their contracts with IPP's current facility beyond 2027. And California
passed laws this year that restricts utilities from future contracts to buy power from
sources dirtier than natural gas fired power plants, thereby shutting the door on dirty
coal plants like IPP. This law does not affect existing contracts however.
These laws take effect Jan 1, 2007 so IPP has been trying to get renewal contracts
for its existing plants as well as new contracts for its proposed Unit#3. In order to
continue our efforts of pushing back against IPP and their good-old-boy tactics, we
have been working hard convincing municipalities around the West that investing in
dirty coal is bad for our air, bad for ratepayers, and an even bigger problem with
global warming. You may have heard in recent weeks how several major cities in
southern California rejected proposals to extend their long-term contracts with IPP out
to the year 2044, in spite of intense lobbying by IPP officials to sneak these contracts
in place before California's new global warming laws take effect. These successes
were a direct result of citizen outcry in those cities. Truckee is just another one in the
list of municipalities who are vulnerable to IPP's scare tactics.
Tim Wagner
Director, Utah Smart Energy Campaign
Utah Chapter Sierra Club
2120 S. 1300 E., Suite 204
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
office: 801/467-9294
cell: 801/502-5450
fax: 801/467-9296
www._utahsierra_.club.org
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! M til beta._
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo!_.answers. Try it now.
Page 4 of 4
.................... .
..............._..................... ..... .... ._..._........................ ... . ............._............................
. .. ............... ...
Everyone is raving about the_all-new Yahoo, Mail beta.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Debbie Cole [debbieintruckee @ sbcg lobal.net)
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50 years of Coal
Peter-
Been watching you on TV of late... pretty fascinating...
Please add my name to the list of those who don't want us locked into 50 years of ANYTHING....
including Coal.
Can't wait for the next episode.... better than reality TV....
Debbie
Peter Holzmeister
From: anna demm [ademm70@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 20061:23 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal decision
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I am writing to express my opinion about the purchase of electricity from a coal powered
plant. After reading numerous letters against it, and many valid points as to why it
would be a bad decision, I am inclined to agree with the majority of the residents here in
Truckee who are against it. I have seen several letters/opinions in the Sierra Sun
(including one that I
wrote) against the 50 year contract, and only two letters for it. The current online poll
for the Sierra Sun shows the majority of people are against the contract. Not to mention
all of the people at the two board meetings. It was so disappointing that all of the
information about this proposed contract has come out now, after the election and with
only a short timeline to make a decision that will affect our future dramatically. I
think that there are better options than signing this contract. There is a reason why
California is passing the law to prevent contracts from being longer than five years. Our
"debate" was even in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday, and Diane Feinstein has even
sent a letter disapproving of the signing of this contract.
Please ask the board to really consider the gravity of this decision. The impact it will
have on future generations and on the environment. Yes, it is expensive to live here in
Truckee, I know, I have a huge mortgage and two very young daughters. But cheaper is not
always better, especially in this case! I really hope that the board takes its
responsibility seriously and does not opt for the power from the Utah plant, I believe
that a better solution exists, and I am willing to wait for it even if I have to pay a
little more right now. The cons of this 50 year contract far outweigh any pros. Thank
you so much for your consideration—please make the ethical decision.
Anna Demm
Truckee
visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50, 000 in Holiday cash from MSN
today!
http: //www.msnholidaychallenge.com/index.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Hedy Govenar[hgovenar@govadv.comj
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal contracts
Thank you for putting the contract debate in perspective. For whatever it's worth, our view is that contracts of
sufficient length to keep costs down, but not so long as to keep coal plants burning beyond the time an alternative
is available would be ideal. Fifty years seems beyond that limit and 5 year contracts would not seem cost-
effective. Did you reach consensus at the meeting?
Hedy Govenar
David Knight
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Mark Estee [mark@moodysbistro.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:14 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal
Hello
Please do not sign this contract as from all the information that I have seen, it is bad for the environment
Thank you for your time!
Mark Estee
MARK ESTEE
MOODY`S BISTRO & LOUNGE
530-587-591 1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Gordon Bosworth [gordon.bosworth @cache.k1 2.ut.us]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:16 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: IPP contract please say NO!
Peter I appeal to you, from here in Utah, not to approve IPP's renewal contract for Truckee power. I know the
solution is not easy but the effects to my life and my family's health are huge and measurable. To think this
company would fool us all with the 'new and improved' rhetoric for coal plants is demeaning.Truckee power will
not be from a new generation plant,
And too, the thought of passing the buck so to speak, by damaging Utah's air for power generation to Truckee
seems like a big plot to divide and conquer.
We must help each other work toward better intermountain energy security through more progressive
technologies; guaranteeing better air quality for all of us.
Don't let IPP hook you and us into this regrettable option.
Gordon Bosworth
public school teacher
seasonal ranger
city councilman
bee keeper
father
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kim and Gabe Shacter[shacter@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:31 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal power
Please do not sign a 50 year contract with a coal plant for our local power. We urge you to consider
other options that may prove to be more environmentally friendly. We realize this will cost more
initially. Thank you for your consideration.
Gabe and Kim Shacter
Truckee
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: sheila greeno[sheila_greeno@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:05 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No to Coal
I vote no to Coal. We all have to take some money from our pockets to keep our earth healthy and
would rather pay higher electric prices. Don't sign a contract that binds us to such a dirty source of
energy. Sheila Greeno
... .... ............................ ....... ......_. .._.... .. ... ....... .......... .
Stay up-to-date-With your friend~ through the Windows_Live_Spaces__friends list.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Stephen Hollabaugh
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:13 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: FW: coaled fire-plant
From: Chris Carroll [mailto:carroll@ltol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:12 PM
To: Stephen Hollabaugh
Subject: coaled fire-plant
Hi Stephen—our family has been living it Truckee full time since 1980—we are completely against this 50 year
agreement---Kevin, Chris and Allyson Carroll
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: vicki isacowitz[vickisara28@hotmail.comj
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:17 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Contract
Hello Peter,
I am writing to inform you of my opinion regarding the potential coal contract. I urge you NOT to sign
this. I will happily pay the necessary costs for a cleaner and healthier environment. Please take this into
consideration. I am unable to attend this Wednesday's meeting as I will be at a school board meeting
during the same time, but would like to attend if time permits.
Sincerely,
Vicki Isacowitz
NISN Shopping_ha. ever hi y oi2_yOur h�li__day�_list._Get_expert_pic ks, by stylc,age,:,nci_prite...'rryit.!
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
....... ... .......
From: ksmith@powerlight.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:34 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Truckee Coal Contract Extension -Oppose
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
Please see attached letter from PowerLight Corporation opposing the Truckee Donner Utility District contract
extension to buy dirty, coal-fired electric power from IPP3 in Utah for financial and environmental reasons.
Regards,
Kari Smith
Ms. Kari Smith
Sr. Manager, Regulatory Affairs
PowerLight Corporation
2954 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley CA 94702 USA
R5�m—ith-@—poweqi,ght.com
hnP.-//wmcpqwerlight.com
510.868.1230 Direct
510.540.0550 Main
510.540.0552 Fax
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this
information by a person other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized and may be illegal.
Dec 11 06 05: 14p Roberts Farm
435 896-4805
p. l
Cirdu 1' oAer�s
PO -2ox 570081
E t i
Siourj, Utah, 84657
Telep�one 435 896-4805
Monday, December 11,2006
Truckee Donner P.U.D.
Truckee, CA 530
Faxed to 530 587-5056
Dear Board Members:
I would like to take this opportunity to voice my concern with buying generated from coal-fired power plants. The nation as a whole must g more electricity
toward the future with clean and renewable energy generation forward to look
that is paid in terms of the respiratory ills borne out of coal burned time
goes on the price
stifle the construction of more coal fireds. p wer is enough to
clean up the existing coal fired power plants and certainly not It is �]]o belief that
t we should
constructing any more of these plants as I fear the ossibilit exists the e a party to
before the construction is even complete. Technolop Y Y will be outdated
world of clean technology and certain] gY Is moving at lightening speed in the technology. Y you want to be on the right side of that
Carbon tax is a certainty aloe
Years from now. Certain] Prudence
g�� carbon caps, heap power will not be so cheap a few
contracts for power generated�m comust
l because of the be exercised efore entering into long-term
consumer, higher costs passed on to the
Here in Utah we are privileged to participate in Rocky Mountain Power'
Program- Consumers buy blocks ofpower that is generated from clean sources sky
Program is making huge strides in fPromoting tand the
and building clean sources of energy.
I am writing to ask you to vote no on coal fired coal. The future generations to come deserve our thoughtful erated from cons de a for pow onons and tons of
for"clean energy generation". Take the Opportunity and foresight
will stand the test of time and opt for the bt available technology foegeneration that
to make intelligent decisions now to ensure a future of hope! future. Its time
CVery sincerely,
Cindy Ro erts
Peter Holzmeister
From: Brooke Landis [brooke.landis@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:50 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Please don't sign the contract with the coal power plant. I would
rather pay more than use them as a rescurce.
Thanks,
Brooke Landis
10863 Dorchester Dr.
Truckee CA
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Daniel Faiver[dfaiver@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:08 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net;Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Don't sign Coal Contract!
TDPUD Board,
Please don't sign the coal contract. I spoke against it at your first open board meeting,
but have not emailed you until now. If you are making the decision based on how many
emails you receive, then
count this message as strongly opposed to signing the contract.
However, I think the decision should be based on more than that. I know you have the
information. Please use your wisdom to make the right decision. Anything less is to
settle for not being the best we can be.
Just to clarify, I am NOT asking you to stop using coal right now.
Use coal if you have to, just don't sign this contract. In addition, keep working on
alternatives.
I think you should contact the chief engineer of the biomass plant at Collins Pine up in
the Quincy area. I was one of two people on a several hour tour he led of his plant. He
could have any power plant job he wants, and yet he moved here because the job fit with
his ideals. in other words, the Sierra region offers a great opportunity for biomass, and
I 'm directing you to someone who can back that up with expertise.
I also think you should consult Congressman Jerry McNerny. He has practical experience in
wind energy and is a politician in the Sierra, albeit a different region. He may be able
to help you bridge some of the difficult issues you are grappling with.
Sincerely,
Dan Faiver
13464 Moraine Rd, Truckee
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Roberheath@aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:53 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Contract with the Coal Plant
Please Peter, do not sign this contract. If we, the people of Truckee, who live here because we have a deep
abiding love for nature, don't take care of the environment, who will?
Thank you for considering this decision carefully.
Lauri and Bob Heath
14475 Skislope Way
Truckee, CA 96161
..,1.1 1rk--I
Page L of L
Peter Holzmeister
From: Teri Andrews Rinne [t.rinne@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:28 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Contract
Dear Peter:
We are not in favor of TDPUD entering a fifty year contract for coal. Our environment is more
important than some short term savings. We all need to take a long hard look at the real consequences
of how we live,how we consume and how we do business. Let's embrace progress now by facing the
reality of our nation's shortsighted energy policies and leading our community toward responsible
energy usage with a focus on alternative energy.
Sincerely,
Tom and Teri Rinne
Tahoe Donner
Vage t of t
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kevin Dewald[kevin_dewald@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11,2006 6:32 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: dumb idea
Dear Peter,
Please be smart and do not ruin our beautiful town of Tnickee. My husband and I are appauled that the
coal option is even available.
Jennifer and Kevin Dewald
Pace 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Lisa McPherson [Ismcpherson @ sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:51 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal contract
I want to express my opinion on how WRONG it would be to sign a power contract with a coal company. Are you
not concerned about the future of our planet? I personally would like to leave Earth the way it is so my children
and future grandchildren can enjoy this beauty besides the fact that much of Truckee's economy is based on
snow!
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Tanya Barron [tanya_paulino52@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:55 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal
Please help support a greener future. Do not sign the contract.
Tanya Barron and family
Truckee, CA 96161
Peter Holzmeister
From: Alaina Reichwald [sproutyoga@yahoo.coml
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:58 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: PUD Contract Signing
Dear Peter,
Considering where we live and for most of us our feelings towards supporting -he health of
environment, it seems painfully foolish and shortsighted to be considering signing a
contract to purchase power from a coal powered plant for ANY extended period of time.
This especially knowing that other alternatives are in the hopper in the next some years.
Please reconsider signing such a contract!
Let Truckee make a statement for the health of our planet!
Alaina Reichwald
10640 Mougle Ln.
Truckee, CA 96161
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
1
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jim and Cindy Burson oimandcinCsbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:25 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: DO NOT SIGN
I am not interested in the 50 year contract with the coal plant.
Please do not endorse this.
Cindy Burson
Full time resident Truckee
1')/13/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Lisa-Hazardous Disposal Spec. [hds@onemain.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:49 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50-yr. contract
Dear Peter & all members of TDPUD,
We own a house with property just below Tahce Donner on Stony Creek Court and definitely
ARE NOT in favor of the 50-yr. contract with the coal plant. This is not a good proposal!
Sorry we could not make it to the last meeting. PLEASE before voting in favor of this,
have another meeting & see how many people WILL make the time to come & voice their
opinion! Thank you for taking the time to read this & pass on to the other board members.
Lisa Lynch
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Peggy Lindsay[pm lindsay55@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:00 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal contract
Peter,
You requested input from the community about the coal contract. I will summarize briefly my points.
• Our community should take the initiative to move away from fossil fuels. Why preach "green energy" if we
are not willing to make the bold decisions and encourage other energy sources.
• Our community should be an example to the rest of the country of an area that is willing to be creative in
promoting alternative fuels and willing to pour our resources into the development of these fuel sources.
• INSTEAD of investing into broadband TDPUD should invest into solar resources and sales of such to our
community. Our 300+ sunny days/year are literally going to waste. We should be using our investment
resources to develop many green resources in addition to solar.
• Let's put our creative energies to good use and develop a sustainable plan for our community that can be a
model for all communities.
Please vote against the coal contract. Our community is willing to pay a little more and work towards a fossil free
energy policy.
Thanks you,
Peggy Lindsay
1�/11/?.006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Justin &Gia[giggle@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:03 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton @ sbcglobal.net;Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: pud -coal contract
short and sweet.......50 years is too long.
please dont lock us into a contract with so much time for technologies to change. my 4 year old son will have a 4
year old grandson by the time this contracts ends. 50 years ago a computer filled a large room. we now have 1 gb
flashdrives smaller than a pack of gum.
in summary, 50 years is too long.
thank you
justin and gia states
donner lake
12/13/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jacqueline sanders Oacgsand@yahoo.comj
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:29 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: "50 year contract"
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to you as a Truckee resident to express my very strong desire for the TDPUD
not to sign a 50 year contract with a coal plant for our baseline power. I don't think it
is necessary to point out to you the environmental ramifications of burning coal for an
energy source. It is my feeling that all power providers, TDPUD included should be doing
their best to pursue alternative, renewable, clean energy sources rather than commiting to
the use of coal.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jacqueline Delaney
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: lisa raffaeli [lisaraffaeli@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:42 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Power Plant Proposal
Dear Mr. Holzmeister and TDPUD Board of Directors,
I am a paying customer and a residental home owner in Truckee for the past ten years. I
am writing to you in regards to the UAMPS Intermountain Power Project Unit #3 Proposal .
On November 29, 2006, I attended a meeting at TDPUD and had the opportunity to 'Listen to
Steven Hollabaugh' s presentation, Doug Hunter's comments, as well as the concerns from
well over sixty Truckee residents, not to mention those people who were present but did
not speak.
I do not believe that this contract is the solution to our problem.
Additionally, the most immediate "cost based solution" may not be the best solution for
this dilemma. The Town of Truckee has the potential of setting an example as a community
in pursuit of and in support of alternative energy resources. To begin with, CONSERVATION
and education should be top on this list. I understand that it is necessary to secure our
baseline use from coal power plants in the moment, but I feel it is a bit extreme signing
a 50 year contract with a coal power plant that will not start producing electricity until
2012 . It may sound like a bargain now, but we do not really know what this project will
cost and what our costs will be if CO2 emissions' regulations are passed. In signing a 50
year contract, we are not giving our generation a chance to develop a solution that will
not contribute to global warming.
Global Warming has the interest of the nation now that scientists are in agreeement that
global warming is occuring and is a problem. Global warming should be of major concern to
the Town of Truckee since our economy is driven by the ski industry.
Technology changes on a daily basis. Within two years, a computer becomes obsolete with
new technology replacing the existing technology, making it faster and more efficient. We
do not know what the future holds in regards to alternative energy resources and
"greener" options.
There are many problems with this proposal:
1. There is no ceiling costs for the construction of this powerplant.
2 . We will be responsible for the costs when and if CO2 emissions are regulated.
3 . We will be responsible for paying a coal power plant until 2064 even if other viable
and more cost-effective solutions arise in the future.
Why let a 50 year contract limit our potential?
I am willing to pay the costs involved by not signing a 50 year contract with UAMPS
Intermountain Power Project Unit #3 . I cannot urge you enough to riot sign this contract.
Please forward this email to all other board members.
Thank-you for your time.
Sincerely,
Lisa Rarfaeli
10449 Snow Shoe Circle
Truckee, CA 96161
(530) 550-8200
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http: //clk.atdmt.com;MSN/go/msnnkwio0050000002msn/direct/01/?
href=htto: //clk.atdmc.com/MSII/go/msnnk,alo0050000001msn/direct;01/?
1
href=http: //www.w4-ndowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
2
Page 1 of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Fred Penfield [ffred@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:45 PM
To: Ellie Hyatt
Subject: 50 Year contract
Nlembers of the TDPUD Board
I know you are all probably overwhelmed at this point and are struggling with making probably the
biggest and certainly the most far reaching decision that the board will ever make. I have attached a few
articles about the long reaching effects a new coal fired plant may have. I say may as I am not totally
convinced about global warming, but I do believe in the next 50 years much research will be done and
just as proving smoking causes cancer we may find out about the truth of global warming. I spent a
week in Utah visiting Zion and Bryce and they are truly beautiful and special places, the rock formations
against the brilliant blue Sky's are spectacular. I hope they will be preserved for generations to come. I
have attached a few of my pictures to remind you all of what we may be damaging in pursuit of cheaper
electricity.
Please think about what 50 years may mean.
Sincerly
Rate Payer
Voter& Concerned Truckee Resident for 25 years
Ann Penfield
12/13/2006 ____
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jennifer Ellermeyer[aspens04@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:05 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: please don't sign us up for coal
Hi Pete. I'm writing concerning the idea chat the PTJD has for signing a 50 year contract
for using coal for an energy resource for cur unique and small mountain town.
As a Truckee resident who plans on living here for several decades and is concerned about
the responsible renewable energy resources, I
would like to plead with you to discontinue this course of action.
50 years is a long time and it would be foolish to s4gn such a long term contract. What
ever happened to the slogan that many of our local citizens hold dear "Keep Truckee
Green?"
I believe that you and your counterparts at the PUD will make the right decision and not
sign a contract for 50 years of coal consumption.
Thank you, Jennifer Ellermeyer
1
Page 1 of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Marjie Prisco[mdpriscoCsbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:07 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: NO on coal!
Clear Mr. [Jolzmeister.
I am writing to express my concern about the. contract which may be signed on Wednesday. I urge
yoi.r to put our environment and our local industries first . As a region highly dependent on snow, 'tt is
ironic to imagine choosing a coal plant for power and making such a poor choice for global
warming. Please consider this and all messages from those who ask you to NOT sign the 50 Fear
contract.
Sincerely,
ylarjie Frisco
'Truckee resident
FREE Emoticons for your email! Click Here!
New Power Contract Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Chris (chris@blackdogtech.us]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:22 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: New Power Contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister-
As a full time area resident (since 1992), Truckee homeowner (since 1998) and small-business owner (since
2002), I urge you to reject the proposed 50 year power supply contract with the greenhouse gas producing,
coal fired power plant company in Utah.
I believe the decision to purchase power, for 50 years, from the coal plant in Utah is detrimental to the
environment and completely short sighted. Who can say what types of alternative energy will be available in
5, 10, 20 years?To enter into this contract for our power needs should not be based on a deadline, but on a
dedication to the welfare of our environment and responsible investigation into other types of resources (wind,
solar, hydroelectric).
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Chris Loughlin
12/13/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Lizbeth Doving[lizbeth@digitalbiology.comj
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:53 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal contract
Please vote against.
-Lizbeth Doving
12/13/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: lisa raffaeli (lisaraffaeli@hotmail.coml
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:08 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Power Plant Proposal
Dear Mr. Holzmeister and TDPUD Board of Directors,
I am a paying customer and a residental home owner in Truckee for the past ten years. I
am writing to you in regards to the UAMPS Intermountain Power Project Unit #3 Proposal.
On November 29, 2006, I attended a meeting at TDPUD and had the opportunity to listen to
Steven Hollabaugh's presentation, Doug Hunter' s comments, as well as the concerns from
well over sixty Truckee residents, not to mention those people who were present but did
not speak.
I do not believe that this contract is the solution to our problem.
Additionally, the most immediate "cost based solution" may not be the best solution for
this dilemma. The Town of Truckee has the potential of setting an example as a community
in pursuit of and in support of alternative energy resources. To begin with, CONSERVATION
and education should be top on this list. I understand that it is necessary to secure our
baseline use from coal power plants in the moment, but I feel it is a bit extreme signing
a 50 year contract with a coal power plant that will not start producing electricity until
2012. It may sound like a bargain now, but we do not really know what this project will
cost and what our costs will be if CO2 emissions' regulations are passed. In signing a 50
year contract, we are not giving our generation a chance to develop a solution that will
not contribute to global warming.
Global Warming has the interest of the nation now that scientists are in agreeement that
global warming is occuring and is a problem. Global warming should be of major concern to
the Town of Truckee since our economy is driven by the ski industry.
Technology changes on a daily basis. Within two years, a computer becomes obsolete with
new technology replacing the existing technology, making it faster and more efficient. We
do not know what the future holds in regards to alternative energy resources and
"greener" options.
There are many problems with this proposal:
1. There is no ceiling costs for the construction of this powerplant.
2 . We will be responsible for the costs when and if CO2 emissions are regulated.
3 . we will be responsible for paying a coal power plant until 2064 even if other viable
and more cost-effective solutions arise in the future.
Why let a 50 year contract limit our potential?
I am willing to pay the costs involved by not signing a 50 year contract with UAMPS
Intermountain Power Project Unit #3 . I cannot urge you enough to not sign this contract.
Please forward this email to all other board members.
Thank-you for your time.
Sincerely,
Lisa Raffaeli
10449 Snow Shoe Circle
Truckee, CA 96161
(530) 550-8200
Stay up-to-daze with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list.
http: //clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkrjsp00700000Olmsn/direct/01/?
href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
I
Peter Holzmeister
From: celeste lynch [cellynch@hotmail.coml
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:02 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Peter,
Do not sign the contract for coal power for Truckee. We have to think about the effects
of the choices we make now for the future. Global warming is something that needs to be
addressed and this contract for coal power is a step in the wrong direction. Please think
about our planet and do not sign anything.
Sincerely,
Celeste Pevy
truckee resident
Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces friends module.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?
href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Dr. Amy Vail [drvail @ exwire.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:17 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: please don't sign
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jim Zellers oim_zellers@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:33 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig;Joe Aguera; William Thomason; resutton @ sbcglobal.net; Tim
Taylor
Subject: Intermountain Power
Hello all,
I wanted to ring in in the proposed Intermountain Power deal Truckee is considering. I have lived here in town for
25 years, gone through both incorporation efforts and played a strong part in the 2nd one. Being a land use
planning major from UNR I was extremely involved as a private citizen in the town's efforts as we grew and
developed our general plan. I became disenchanted in the process as I found out how, in the end, money made
the final decision, and that that decision was made long before public input was received and or completed.
This IPP deal stinks of a decision that has already been made and the money we save as Truckee residents will
not outweigh the statement we will be making in supporting "Stone Age" power. This deal will make IPP one of
the largest coal fired powered plants in the country wielding a lobbying power on the scale of big oil. Ever been to
Salt Lake City during an inversion? If the deal goes through our Great Basin neighbors will not be looking on us
so kindly as the air quality during their inversions get worse. My vote as a native Californian is to remain in the
spirit of the state and LEAD, as we secure other sources of energy. Support the research into other sources and
create industry in our own state while securing OUR economy. 6000 home owners never seem to mind when
Tahoe Donner arbitrarily increases homeowner's dues 10%annually, so I doubt the declining costs of cleaner
energy would bother anyone either.
I'm hoping this time the decision has not already been made,
Jim Zellers
Thanks-
Jim Zellers
530.587.2081
12/13/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
..... ..... .._. .........
From: JAMIE YOUNGFLESH [youngfjl@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:37 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal power
Please reconsider signing the coal deal. I am strongly aganist it. I have been a resident here in
Truckee for 12 years. I would rather pay more for power then have cheap coal power which is not very
efficent energy. How about leading the way for our future instead of being the laughing stock of the
state.
Charles Youngflesh
Peter Holzmeister
From: ccokinos@cc.usu.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:08 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Please say no to Intermountain Power
To whom it may concern:
I am writing as a Utah resident who lives in a beautiful mountain valley--that also has
some of the worst air in the country each winter. I ask that you carefully consider the
long-term and long-range consequences of signing a multi-year contract for power generated
by a coal-fired plant in Delta, Utah.
This state is having great difficulty coping with air-quality issues, and this proposal
would make things worse. Finally, there is the bigger question of finding sustainable and
clean sources of energy. Please turn this proposal back.
Thank you.
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmelster
From: Mike Blide [ctnwood@telis.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:24 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: COAL
Peter...We would pay triple rather than contribute to our greenhouse gas dilemma. Do the right thing for our
earth.
Mike and Jennifer Blide
Cottonwood Restaurant
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Diane Petersen [dianepetersen@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:19 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: no on coal contract!
I have lived in this community for almost 20 years and by no means have I had an easy time affording to
live here. It has been my choice to spend more of my hard earned money to live in this amazing place.
It's hard for me to imagine that it's okay to draw the line now, so to speak, with the rising costs of living
and make such a selfish decision to be in support of this proposed coal contract. The bottom line is that
we need to start thinking differently about our choices. I'm willing to cut back on power usage in order
to afford to live here. It's not that difficult a decision when you realize that every choice you make has a
powerful consequence. And, until we understand that we are responsible now for the planet our children
inherit we are destined to continue making poor, short-sighted decisions that may ultimately be
irreversible.
Please make the right decision! We owe it to our community, local and global, to make a responsible
decision on Wednesday!!
Diane Petersen and Family
Check out the all-new_Yah�o!_Ma�il_beta- Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
12/13/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: DANAE ANDERSON [danaeanderson @ mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:22 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal plants
Dear Peter.
As a resident of Truckee, who choose Truckee living for quality of life, I must object strongly to having
my PUD sign a long term contract to purchase coal fired electrical energy. The reasons are numerous.
Please go to one of the video rental stores tonight and rent and watch An Inconvenient Truth. Then consider
other options to coal. We as a community need to pressure industry and our governments to provide power from
sources that are less invasive to our planet. This needs to be done now!!!!!
As a community we need to follow in the footsteps of some of our business leaders such as Sugar Bowl and
Northstar in purchasing clean power. We will reap rewards as a community.
Sincerely Yours
David Kennedy
50 Years of Burning Coal? Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: McDermott.Tim@synthes.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:10 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50 Years of Burning Coal?
Hello Peter,
My name is Tim McDermott and I am writing to you in regards to the current PUD power proposal for
burning coal to receive cheap power for the town of Truckee. Now, I'm not going to go into the "global
warning" speak because I know you have an idea on how it works. I STRONGLY encourage you NOT
to sign a 50 year_contract for the burning of coal to receive cheap power! First off, yes it's crazy that a
town such as ours would support the burning of coal because our economy depends on SNOW. But
most importantly, signing a 50 YEAR contract with anyone is absolutely irresponsible on your part. I
would not encourage you to sign a 50 YEAR contract with a Solar Company either. 50 years is too long
for any contract! So if you need to do something fast, which I never encourage anyone to do, at least
sign a 3 to 5 year contract not a 50 year contract.
Finally Peter, you must have some little voice in you that knows right from wrong. It would be hard for
anyone to consider a decision such as this without looking seriously at the long term ramifications of a
decision like this. Burning coal will only lead to more global warming, not to mention a list of other
environmental consequences.
Do the right thing Peter, do NOT vote for this COAL BURNING power source for our town of Truckee.
Thanks, Tim
7/1'1/2D06
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Todd Burks [burkstmr@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:46 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: PUD coal contract
Dear Peter,
As a 16 year Truckee resident and one who is concerned about the longevity of this community, I am
encouraging you and your colleagues not to embrace the impending coal contract with PUD. The past 7
years here have been a proverbial "canary in coal mine," suggesting that continued growth in the
region will require increasing power demands. Let's not place our community in the hands of coal. A
known pollutant and large greenhouse gas contributor, coal is an undesirable and unnecessary choice.
Quality of life and my surroundings is why I choose to live here. It's a beautiful place and I don't want
to compromise it's future. My family and I urge you to Not sign the contract on Wednesday and
to consider the longevity and sustainability of our community.
Sincerely,
Todd Burks
Truckee, CA.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Marina MacLean [marinam@usamedia.ty]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:49 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50 year contract
Dear Peter,
I am emailing you with regards to the 50 year contract that the PUD is planning to sign this Wednesday.
I would like to encourage the PUD to not sign this contract.
Marina MacLean
Truckee Resident
12973 Hillside Drive
Truckee, CA
P.O. Box 1132
Tahoe City, CA 96145
12/13/2006
Page I of I
Peter Holzmeister
From: Curley Ucurleyk@mindspring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:00 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: New Contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister:
I would like you to know that I am against the contract with the long-term contract with unbuilt power plant in Utah.
Thank you.
Joanne Curley Kerner
11415 Sitzmark Way
PO Box 8669
Truckee, CA 96162
530-587-1199/ fax: 530-587-1221
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jan Murphy Bannielee@msn.comj
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Jae Aguera;William
Thomason
Subject: IPP Contract
Dear Sirs,
Before you vote to renew the contract with IPP in the State of Utah, please consider the
following.
At 15 million tons of CO2 annually, IPP is already the nation's 24th largest
CO2 emitting coal plant in the nation. If a third unit is built, that will increase to 22
million tons, making it the nation's second largest emitter.
IPP's plant is currently spewing hundred of thousand of tons of pollutants that end up
along the Wasatch Front significantly adding to our poor air quality, especially during
Winter months.
Already other California cities are trying to respect the spirit of California's new
greenhouse gas restriction laws by not buying into new contracts with IPP. I would hope
Truckee would follow suit as we as a society are coming to the realization that we have
some serious environmental issue starting with global warming.
I would ask the city of Truckee to be looking at ways to decrease its carbon footprint and
to better serve it rate payers by doing so. By the time IPP is built, six to seven years
from now, global warming will be an even bigger issue than it is right now. It is
virtually impossible for IPP to be guaranteeing rates 7 years from now as it is very
likely that we will some form of carbon regulations through caps or taxes in the near
future.
Renewing a contract with a dirty coal plant is a risky proposition for rate payers.
Please consider using new renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, PV solar,
concentrated solar, and biomass. These renewable sources are being better developed less
expensive with each day. Development will happen even more quickly if more cities,
corporations and individuals begin to demand cleaner renewable sources. The more cities
that shop for such sources, the quicker the market will respond.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these pleas. While I am from Utah, my late
husband grew up in Northern California and Truckee was a very special place to him and
became a special place to me. When I take my teenage daughters to visit the places that
were important to their father is his childhood, I would hope that they will find people
who care about what happens to California and how it affects its neighboring states.
With much appreciation,
Jan Murphy
1417 East Hollywood Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: mark_blume@patagonia.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 200611:01 AM
To: Barbara Cahill; Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No Coal Contract
Importance: High
I am a 10-year resident of Truckee asking you: Please do not sign any long-term contract
with coal-fired power plants.
The reason that you are being asked to do this is that coal-burning has a VERY UNCERTAIN
FUTURE that will likely include SEVERE TAXES AND POLLUTION OFFESETS IN THE FUTURE.
OF COARSE THE COAL INDUSTRY WANTS A GUARANTEE OF TRUCKEE'S MONEY - NO OTHER COMMUNITY
WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY SIGN THIS CONTRACT.
Vote against,
Mark Blume
15456 Waterloo Cir
Truckee, CA 96161
ph: 530-582-8815
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: lisa@customlearning.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Truckee Resident input
Greeting Mr Holzmeister,
I would like to put forth my opinion regarding the 50 year contract using coal as our primary source of
power at the PUD. Please know that it is not a choice I would support as coal is not clean burning and
does not promote our environment. Please reconsider any alternatives.
Thank you,
Lisa Crosby
Truckee Resident since 1992
121317 Viking Way, Tahoe Donner
Lisa Crosby, M.Ed.
Educator& Executive Director
Custom Learning Academy, Inc.
P.O. Box 9133
Truckee, CA 96162
(530) 587-5420
Ii sa:(�customlearning.grg
ww W.customlearning.org
i pit znnn6
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jon Weedn ponweedn@yahoo.coml
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Energy Resources
Dear Peter .....No Coal Please!! I know that we look for solutions to our energy needs and want them to
be economical. ,but for me responsible is much more important .. If we have to pay more for electricity
or even have shortages of supply that is better than supporting an industry that has not yet cleaned itself
up ...And by the way the technology for clean energy production from coal is available ...most choose
not to implement it as it has a cost . The cost of such a facility is about 15-20% more yet in the industry
only 9 of 75 plants on the drawing boards are slated to be "Clean".
Even with clean emmissions you will not stop the enviromental disaster that is coal mining and its
relevant cost in Human terms.I hope that you and the PUD will choose to make a responsible rather than
a " convienient" decision tomarrow night. Sincerly Jon L Weedn
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.
t'Vi 3/2006
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Heidi Hunter(hhunter@boothcreek.coml
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:44 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: NO COAL PLANT!
DO NOT SIGN A 50 YEAR (:C)ti'I`RACIT THAT WILL DE:S'I' -A THE
Ilello Peter E lozmcithcr,
I hear that by agreeing with this contract that it �xill save the cost of utilities, however the
long run of this is deadly to our precious environment. I am a single mother barely malting it
here in Truckee but I would rather work lotiger hours to pay- niy utilities than ruin the Sierras
for my son.
Please do not signs any long term deadly contracts!!!L!!
Sincerely,
Heidi Hunter
530.448.9575
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: natasha matt[natmatt2002@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal
please dont make a deal with the coal company,truckee is suffering enough,this deal would be a terrible
mistake.
Peter Holzmeister
From: Lindsey hatch [Iwhatch@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:50 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No to Coal contract
Hi,
I just wanted to send a quick email asking that the Truckee Donner PUD NOT sign the 50-
year coal contract you are currently considering. Not only would the contract be a
mistake, it would be an extremely LONG-TERM mistake. Thank you for your consideration.
Lindsey Slocum
15862 Sherwood Dr.
Truckee, CA 96161
Do you Yahoo! ?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
1
Page 1 of 3
Peter Holzmeister
From: david yardas [dyardas @ pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:12 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50-year coal contract-- PLEASE DON'T!
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
Please share this email with all TDPUD board members
As a 6-year Truckee resident and father of three elementary school aged kids I strongly urge you to VOTE NO on
the proposed 50-year coal contract
For my kids' sake, we need to find a better way forward than relying on carbon-intensive energy generation for the
next 50 years
For our snow-dependent community's sake, we need to do whatever we can to do our part to avoid the impacts of
global warming (and this would be going in exactly the wrong direction)
As a matter of fair process and good government, we should not be rushing to judgment on a matter of such
import (why weren't these issues highlighted and debated during the recent board campaigns?)
With regard to transmission concerns, we need to explore locally-based distributed power alternatives, incl.
comprehensive efficiency improvement efforts and funding support for 10,000 solar roofs, that will not be
vulnerable to such concerns
We also need to look closely at the fine print and logic of the contract— I have not been able to do so directly but
a recent Sierra Sun op-ed by John Eaton (included below) raises many troubling Q's about its purported
advantages that simply cannot be ignored at this point in time
We also need to grapple with energy affordability concerns, however we really need to do that no matter what
I would also urge affirmative consideration of Mr. Eaton's closing suggestions: establish a citizens adv committee
to work with TDPUD board & staff to develop a"black to green"alternative plan of action, and secure 10-year
contracts in the interim
We might even want to seek approval of a rate surcharge with low-income rebates to develop a community-based
climate action plan of our own
BUT ABOVE ALL, PLEASE DON'T LOCK US INTO A 50 YEAR COAL CONTRACT—PLEASE VOTE NO AND
LET US COME TOGETHER AND FIND A BETTER WAY FORWARD FOR ALL!!!!
Thank you and sincerely,
David Yardas
11899 Frond Road
Truckee, CA 96161
(530) 587-2674
dyar_das @ pacbell.n_et
The realities of a 50-year contract
John Eaton
My Turn
Page 2 of 3
December 6, 2006
The heated debate over the merits of the 50-year contract for coal-fired power has been aggravated by
significant misinformation. Reading the contract is highly enlightening and I recommend it.
Claim: The contract will lock in low rates for 50 years. Reality: We are being offered a teaser rate like
the creative financing that fueled the housing bubble. Like a"pay what you want" mortgage, this
contract will come back to bite us.
As Mr. Douglas Hunter of Utah Associated Municipal Power System (U.A.M.P.S.) said last Wednesday
night: "there is no cap" on what we can be charged for their electricity.
The contract lists 20 reasons why they can raise prices, and in fact there are even more that are not
mentioned. You can be sure they will use these reasons to their best advantage. In addition, if the plant
is started and not completed we will be responsible for our share of the bond payments for the frill 50
years, even though we get no electricity. If another participant defaults, we can be made responsible for
a share of their expenses.
Global warming due to carbon dioxide is here, and it will only get worse. Coal is an inefficient fuel,
generating more carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity than natural gas. Probably in the next
decade, almost certainly in the next two decades, there will be serious financial penalties for using coal,
which will drastically increase our rates.
For all these reasons, under this contract, your rates will go up as fast or faster than a series of shorter
contracts. Fifty years of risk is not a wise decision.
Claim: If it doesn't work out, we can sell the contract. Reality: This will not be easy. U.A.M.P.S.
requires four months notice, and can then spend another 45 days looking for a buyer among the other
participants. After that, they can also spend another four months approving any prospective buyer we
have been able to come up with. We will be bleeding money throughout this process, and will very
likely have to pay somebody a lot of money to take the obligation off our hands. Remember Idaho
Power?
Claim: The technology in this plan can be updated. Reality: This is at least partially true, but your rates
will be raised to pay for it.
Claim: Little "green" energy is available at the present time. Reality: This is true, but more will be
available in 10 years and much more in 20 years. We can't even imagine the technology that will be
available in 40 years.
Truckee Donner Public Utility Board President Ron Hemig said he would like to find a collaborative
solution.
So would I, and here is my suggestion: Form an advisory group, like the Airport advisory board,
composed of people concerned about rates, people that know about green power, and representatives of
the PUD board and staff. This group will provide concrete recommendations about how the PUD can
take action to make a transition from black to green energy. In the meantime, enter into a series of the
best available 10-year contracts, generating less carbon dioxide with each.
Rather than fighting with one another, lets get together and solve this problem.
h',tp:/,/www.sierrasun.ccm/article/20061206/0PIN ION!61205004
Peter Holzmeister
From: Alison Shelling [ashelling@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:56 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: to PUD and PUD Board
To All Concerned,
This e-mail is to ask the PUD Board of Directors not to lock the people of Truckee into a
snot sighted, "quick fix"??? contract with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems. The
contract is vague in its quanative discriptions of the bernefits of such a long term caol
burning contract (50 years) .
We want you to think for our childrens future and we are willing to pay the real rate to
generate power while helping to encourage alternative fuel sources.
We think our childrens future is worth paying for.
Sincerely
Alison Pratt Shelling
The Camden Building
alison pratt shelling design
project management
development 831 624-3673
po box 866 carmel ca 93921
ashelling@hotmail.com
1
Message Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Bryan Hassemer[bryan@gauntzimmerdesign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:41 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William
Thomason
Subject: Truckee is growing up... and COAL just doesn't fit anymore!
Dear TDPUD Board Members,
A decision of momentous proportions looms ahead of you all. Coal has played an integral role in shaping
Truckee, California, the Greater US, and the modern world; however, conservative, traditional measures are met
today with options that will not only please our pocketbooks but also satisfy our desire for sustainable, health-
conscious power alternatives.
Your decision to support or deny the 50-year coal contract will undoubtedly receive local, state, and national
attention. Organizations down to individuals are working hard to maintain the mantras, "Keep Truckee Green",
"Keep Tahoe Blue", etc; and whether the coal is burned in Utah or within our own furnaces, it still has the same
negative environmental impact.
I recently moved from Milwaukee, WI to be part of your environmentally-conscious community; and as a young
member of the design community, I do not support the choice for coal power. Your decision for coal will set the
scale of Truckee's "green" reputation out of balance, tarnish our environmental image, and deter those who
support Truckee for its environmental measures. The image of the town where we all live, work, and play will soon
be as clouded as the smoke-stacks of the satellite plants burning"our"coal.
I have never received a lump of coal as punishment, so please, for the sake of our present and future - Leave the
coal in the ground and DO NOT metaphorically pile it in front of my front door!
Sincerely,
31ryan Hcssemel'
GAUNT-ZIMMER DESIGN
12219 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TRUCKEE CA 96161
530.581.0900-V
530.581.4949-F
i I/I'Allnnd�
Peter Holzmeister
From: adelolvera@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: your 7.5 mil tons of pollution affects us all!
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrcng. If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7.5
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of 1.3 million
cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
I urge you to reject this proposal and seek alternative energy solutions, for the sake of
us all.
Sincerely,
Adel Olvera
1635 Ivyglen Dr.
San Ramon, CA 94582
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: bob@pop-ink.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:34 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: PLEASE Consider Safer Options
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7.5
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of 1.3 million
cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
R Fryer
1692 Camberwell P1
Westlake Village, CA 91361-1507
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: charloff@ucracl.ucr.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:49 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal-fired power plant
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I hope you will vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to supply Truckee
with energy from a coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sighted. If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7 .5 million
tons of global warming pollution every year. That' s the equivalent of 1.3 million cars on
the road. There are other, cleaner sources of energy that could be considered
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant.
This is a terrible idea, and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Ruth Charloff
1293 Hillcrest Dr.
Pomona, CA 91768
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: lesommer40@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:52 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Please don't approve power contract
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
It goes without saying that Truckee and Tahoe is home to incredible natural beauty. And
yet, how responsible is it to preserve this beauty at the expense of another spot.
California is moving forward with alternative energy, and is embracing progress. I'm
astounded that Truckee would remain in the energy Stone Age, and would even consider
contracting with a dirty coal plant.
Please vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to supply Truckee with energy
from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7.5
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of 1.3 million
cars on the road.
Global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras. I urge you to reject this
proposal.
Sincerely,
Lauren Sommer
832 Las Trampas Rd
Lafayette, CA 94549
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: mestrote@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:43 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: more power
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sighted and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit up to
7.5 million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of 1.3
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , iz is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Mary Strote
475 Stunt Rd
Calabasas, CA 91302-2329
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: thrace_44@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:35 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Power in Utah for Truckee - No Way
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7.5
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of 1.3 million
cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Laura Manning
6041 Suellen Ct.
Goleta, CA 93117
i
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: tj slocum [stillnow@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: stillnow@hotmail.com
Subject: From someone working in Solar Power...please take the time...
Dear TDPUD Board - I am currently in the process of moving from Truckee to Colorado to work in the
solar energy industry. We are currently 300% above our sales targets for the year. Albeit, we are a
young industry,but the future looks exceedingly bright. There is a modest rebate offered by the local
utility of$4.50 per watt. Which includes a payment of$2.50 a watt to own the Solar Renewable
Energy Credits produced for the next 20 years. I have no doubt they see value owning the SREC's
beyond their current rebate outlays. How can TDPUD get involved with the states million solar home
project.? How can you work toward a better renewable portfolio? How do you set yourself up to
flexible in what will be a dynamic industry for the next 20 years, let alone 50?
Look, I understand the concept of base load power and for now, coal will be providing us with the bulk
of our needs but signing on for 50 years, especially now...oil nearing peak production, natural gas doing
the same...we need you to lead us...to see where we may be going...to give us options down the
road...What would a fifty year contract signed in 1956 look like, would we own a nuclear reactor with
the promise electricity to cheap to meter. I just toured NREL last week, the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. The technology coming down the pike...cell efficiencies hitting the 40% target...our
learning curve in our industry for both the technology and the nuts and bolts of installations-work in
energy storage devices...all lead most experts to believe solar will play a key part in our energy future.
And the price will be able to be the preferred alternative for many applications with no rebate in 10 to 15
years, far sooner than our 50 year deal to produce.
There are many more good reasons to look for shorter term solutions to provide base load power. Please
do not sign the 50 year contract.
Sincerley,
T.J. Slocum
- rJ.
"All nature's differences keep all nature's peace." - Alexander Pope
Get the latest_Windows Live. *vlesseng r_8.1 Beta_version. Join now.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: ASRTAHOE@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:07 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: PUD Contract
Please do not-sign the proposed contract with the coal company as our power source here in Truckee.
Environment issues should take precedent over economic ones in this instance.
Thank you,
Andy Reichwald
Concerned Truckee Resident
I' /1 i/?on6
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Tom Alden ftzah@jps.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:31 PM
To: peterholzmeister@tdpud.org
Subject: NO TO ANY 50 YEARS OF COAL
At this day and age, at this time in history,how could you be considering a 50 year contract with coal.
I'll pay more if need be. And the possibility of that contract costing us even more also needs to be
considered by you.
Tom Alden
�Sri�nnn�
Peter Holzmeister
From: bsmd@uhs.berkeley.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:36 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal-fired power plant
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
As someone who visits Truckee on a regualr basis, I am writing to urge you to vote NO on
the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to supply Truckee with energy from a dirty,
coal-fired power plant in Utah.
If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7.5 million tons of global warming pollution
every year. That's the equivalent of
1.3 million cars on the road.
This proposal is very short-sighted, and at a time when global warming is threatening the
ski industry in the Sierras (not to mention countless other communities across the
planet) , it is also wrong to approve a dirty coal-fired power plant -- particularly since
there are other, cleaner sources of energy that could be considered.
I think this is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Robert Stuart
13149 Clairepointe Way
Oakland, CA 94619
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: edina72@rcn.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:40 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Filthy power will pollute the Sierra and hurt Truckee tourism
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7.5
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of 1.3 million
cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Judith Kirk
272 Nevada St.
Redwood City, CA 94062
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: gchaney8@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:41 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Voting on Truckee Power
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
Having read a reasonably detailed piece in the Sacramento Bee, I think half a century is a
long contract to supply Truckee with energy from a coal-fired power plant in Utah without
a larger percentage of power from cleaner sources.
I urge you to reconsider alternatives, of which you must surely be aware.
Sincerely,
Gene Chaney
3609 Orangerie Way
Carmichael, CA 95608
1
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Sandra Ericson [sf ericson @earth link.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:49 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Decision
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
As one of the co-chairs for the Climate Protection Task Force in St. Helena, Napa County, I urge your Board to
seek energy supply options other than coal. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to spend less on the problem
now and then see the whole economy go down later as the earth warms. The front page of the Chronicle this
morning carried new predictions that there will be no ice at all at the North Pole by 2040 and many are believing
that the tipping point -- the point in which no recovery is possible, is more rapidly approaching than previously
thought.
Truckee's children will pay.
It is hard to do triage with generations but the cost to older people with shorter futures must be spent to assure
a viable life for those with the longest futures. In other words, the generations that have contributed greatly to
the problem must step up to the bat to fix it. We are preparing to do just that here in Napa. It will not be easy
but it is critical that we make a wise decisions instead of political ones.
Please advise your Board to vote against coal. Forward this email if you think it will help at all.
Thank you,
Sandra Ericson
11/13/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Celest Fournier[celest@cebridge.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:55 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: Pat Sutton
Subject: Coal Contract
Dear Mr. Holzmeister:
There is no time like the present to change direction. There is always a choice to make: Good or Bad, Right or
Wrong, "Stay the Course" or Cut and Run.
It's hard to turn our backs on what we know about the dangers of global warming because someone made the
decision to study global warming and it's the read deal. So now that we know what we didn't know a few years
ago. We cannot go back. The door has been opened to the knowledge that we have to change our ways or our
future generations will suffer dearly for our unwillingness to make a difference and to take a stand against any
further damage.
We are at a cross roads and it is time to protect and improve our planet. We need to stop living in fear of how
much energy will cost if we don't jump into a 50 year contract while we still can legally. But can we enter into this
contract morally knowing that it will be illegal to do so in less than a month?
It is time to stop and make a change for the better of our future. I believe that if we believe that there is a better
way than a coal fired power plant for our future, there will be a better way.
Knowing what you know now, would you buy a car without airbags, safety glass, and anti lock brakes?The same
applies with energy and pollution.
Think Globally....Act Locally!!
Thank you...
Celest Fournier
12/13/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: jade@pacific.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Are you crazy or do you hate your grandchildren??
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit up to 7.5
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of 1.3 million
cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
James Tippett
814 Jackson Ave
Ukiah, CA 95482-3721
1
No to Burning COAL Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: McDermott.Tim@synthes.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12,2006 4:08 PM
To: Stephen Hollabaugh
Cc: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No to Burning COAL
Hello Stephen and Peter,
I would just like to say that I am "stunned"that we as a small mountain town are considering a contract such as
the one currently proposed at the Intermountain Power Project. I see no reason whatsoever to accept this 50
YEAR contract. Don't get me wrong, I believe you have done a good job on working this out but I would never
sign a 50 year contract with anyone, even if it was a Solar Energy Project. I understand why it needs to be for 50
years but I STRONGLY believe you should NOT do this to save us dollars. The ramifications on our environment
are more important than saving us money. Not to mention, we depend on SNOW to make our income. If we
keep doing what is cheaper, we will not be better off in the long run. After all, will you be around in 50 years to
see the consequences of your decision today?
Thank you for considering us and saving us money, but burning coal is not the answer. Neither is this project.
Thanks,
Tim
12/1 3/`_'006
coal Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Ryan Matt[Ryan M @ ttico.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:14 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal
Don't side with the devil,the coal idea is evil its bad for our future
12/13/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Sharon Dillon [sadillon@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:13 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: pollution
I am dismayed that your PUD Board is considering a 50 year contract with a Utah coal
burning power plant. How could you even consider such an option when it contributes so
substantially to global warming. I am always amazed that we humans seem to look no
further than the end of our noses and rush into things so foolishly. When people settled
in the Truckee area, did anyone bother to consider the aspects of living in a harsh winter
climate? I moved in the late
170's to the Eastern Sierra after living in Berkeley for 20 years.
It was an interesting experience to encounter very conservative people and how they choose
to live their lives. Most people heat their homes with wood fires during the winter, and
when you drive down the hill into Bishop in the winter and see the entire valley clogged
with smoke much worse than any L.A. smog, it is a revelation.
I urge you to consider environmentally friendly options for your town, and not a coal
burning plant. If the alternative is more expensive, then so be it. One must choose what
is best for the planet and future generations, not simply the least costly alternative.
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Konrad Motzek[k_motzek@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:08 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Interunit Moutain 3 Project- Power Sales Contract-Questions
Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
I have not heard from you or any member of TDPUD's management regarding the e-mail I sent
you about the proposed 50 year power sales contract on November 29. I have the following
comments:
a) I read in two places over the last two weeks, the Sierra Sun and San Francisco
Chronicle, that TDPUD's customers overwhelmingly favor TDPUD entering into the contract.
I trust that TDPUD did not count me as being in favour. I am AGAINST TDPUD entering into
the contract until I better understand the results of any due diligence TDPUD peformed and
the results of any feasibility study associated with the project. I don't know how any
customer can provide an informed opinion about the contract with the extraordinarily
limited information TDPUD has shared with the public.
b) With all the controversy surrounding the proposed contract, I find it astounding that
TDPUD management and the Board have not shared more information regarding how the
management team arrived at the conclusion they did. I know nothing more now than I did a
few weeks ago. While I didn't expect TDPUD to respond to me directly, I did expect TDPUD
to respond in writing to its customer base about the important factors impacting the
decision, especially the risks (of which there are plenty or the proposed contract
wouldn't be so
controversial) and what TDPUD is doing to address those risks. A lot of people in the
community have raised a lot of important issues which, to me, the lowly customer, have not
been addressed.
c) The questions and comments in my original e-mail below are, in my opinion, basic
business questions. I haven't heard anything from TDPUD (personally, in the press, or
correspondence to your customers) to support the proposed contract other than we will get
power at 50% below market rates (which still raises red flags with me) . I would like to
know what due diligence TDPUD management and the Board performed with respect to the
contract.
d) Incredibly, TDPUD has not updated its website since before the last public hearing on
November 29. How does TDPUD expect to win support within the community if it doesn't
communicate with the community in an open and honest fashion?
I am very disappointed in the manner TDPUD and its Board of Directors has managed this
important decision with the public. Tranparency would have served TDPUD well.
Regards,
Konrad Motzek
--- Konrad Motzek <k_motzek@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Holzmeister,
> I am a TDPUD customer and I am taking the opportunity to respond to
> your offer to send you opinions about the proposed contract for the
> purchase of electric energy from a power plant in Utah. I don' t
> usually get involved in these types of debates but the recent TDPUD
> broadband discussions make me a little more interested in how the
> TDPUD provides me top value for my dollar.
> Firstly, in the short to medium term, I agree that in the US steam
> coal energy will be part of the power portfolio for most public
1
> utilities, and it should form part of TDPUD' s portfolio. I have
> questions about the 50 year contract, portfolio diversification, some
> other aspects raised in your letter, and the draft Power Sales
> Contract.
> Following are my questions and opinions. Sorry for asking so many
> questions, but for me to provide informed feedback I need to
> understand the situation. Unfortunately, in a public forum you have
> folks like me who know very little about the energy industry, so some
> of the questions and comments are based on my lack of knowledge and
> pre-conceived perceptions and assumptions. But I do look forward to
> hearing back from you.
> a) I would like to confirm this is strictly a power purchase
> agreement and TDPUD is not proposing to acquire an interest in the
> Utah plant. From a quick read of the draft Power Sales Contract, I
> see that a Participant cannot have an ownership interest, but it looks
> like there are many costs TDPUD will have to contribute to the
> project. I do not work in the energy sector so I don't know if this
> is normal course of business - is it?. Is it similar to TDPUD's
> existing power purchase agreements?
> b) The letter says the District's idea is to have a fifty year
> contract that can be sold to another party if we choose to, and if we
> have a willing buyer. I think the probablility that you could sell
> the contract is relatively low, at an acceptable price. At the time
> TDPUD would want to sell the contract it is likely that other public
> utilities will also be forced to diversify their energy sources
> (either by social pressure, government legislation, or new
> technologies, etc. ) and coal may no longer be the fuel of choice.
> c) It appears the community would like to get more exposure to clean
> power, and there is a relatively high probability that cleaner energy
> production will be legislated before the 50 year contract comes to
> term. How does a 50 year contract provide TDPUD sufficient
> flexibility to manage diversifying the portfolio? As a customer, I'm
> not sure growth in the future base load is a good enough answer (and
> as noted above, I think relying on being able to sell the contract at
> a favorable price is a low probability proposition) .
> d) The letter says the District's goal is to secure low cost power
> from the Utah power plant for our base load. I am unsure how TDPUD
> assesses risk, but to lock in 100% of the current base load with a 50
> year contract sounds like a high risk proposition. what is your view?
> e) You state cost to generate electricity at the new Utah plant will
> be approximately $35 per megawatt of demand (I think you mean per
> megawatt hour) . In the next sentence you say the cost to acquire
> power from other available sources is $74 per megawatt of demand.
> What is the cost to acquire (not generate) electricity from the Utah
> plant, or is it one and the same (but that doesn't give the power
> plant owner a return on investment so they logically should not be one
> and the same) ?
> f) $35 per megawatt (hour) sounds enticing, but usually a deal that
> sounds too good to be true, is too good to be true. If short term
> contracts are demanding $74, $72 or $80 per megawatt (hour) , why and
> how will TDPUD get power at less than half the price?
> g) I could not find an exhibit in the draft Power Sales Contract
> providing the formula how the cost of power purchased by TDPUD will be
> calculated. You say approximately $35 per megawatt (hour) , but how
> will the cost to purchase be calculated - is this a fixed price
> contract, cost plus a profit margin, etc? What are the escalation
> clauses? How will it tie to the actual steam coal power market and
> the market price of steam coal? What happens if the plant is not as
> cost efficient as the state-of-the-art plant is in the feasibility
2
> study?
> h) Related to the cost to acquire power above, how do the the Capital
> Cost Payments impact the cost to acquire power? How will the Capital
> Cost Payments be accounted for in TDPUD's books (this is where I get
> confused between a straight PPA and having an interest in a plant) ?
> Basically, what is the full cost of power acquisition associated with
> the proposed Power Sales Contract?
> i) It is likely there will be requirements to decrease power plant
> emissions in the future. Although you say the plant in Utah will be
> state-of-the-art and can be modified as further technnological
> improvements are developed, the cost of modifications can be
> significant. How will that impact the cost of power acquired by
> TDPUD? And what is the impact if the plant is forced to purchase
> CO2
> credits on the open market if modifications are uneconomical or it is
> impossible to meet government regulations?
> j) When you say the plant is state-of-the-art, I assume the plant
> will surpass best in class emissions standards. How good is the
> plant? And will it be good enough to use as a selling point with your
> stakeholders? Can you provide the stakeholders comparisons to major
> power producers and alternative energy sources (incorporating apple to
> apple comparisons - ie, steam coal power plant emissions don't come
> only from the plant, but also the mining process, etc.
> Fuel cell technology may be zero emission but I believe energy (and
> therefore most likely emissions) is required to produce the
> hydrogen)
> to demonstrate that this contract will be more environmentally
> conscious than TDPUD's existing contracts.
> k) I believe most power plants have a useful life of 20-30 years
> before they have to be re-powered, which is an expensive proposition.
> What makes this Utah plant a 50 year plant?
> 1) Assuming the plant will need to be re-powered before the 50 year
> contract comes to term, who funds the capital costs associated with
> re-powering and how will that impact TDPUD's cost to acquire power
> through this contract?
> m) Where is the steam coal coming from? Is this a mine-mouth power
> plant or is the coal being transported? It is rare nowadays to find
> 50 year deposits of decent quality steam coal. Relating to the cost
> to produce power, what is the relationship between the steam coal
> supplier, the ultimate cost to produce power, and the price TDPUD will
> be required to pay? Any risks which need to be discussed here?
> n) There have been issues in the US in the recent past with respect
> to transmission breakdowns and overload. As far as I know there is
> not a lot of new transmission capacity being built in the US. How
> does TDPUD address this risk when 100% of our base load will come from
> the new Utah power plant?
> o) Associated with above - what if the plant goes down for an
> extended period of time or any thing else which may cause production
> to stop or slow down (eg, strikes, mother nature) ? Buying power on
> the spot market would be expensive.
> p) You haven't published any sensitivity analysis to address risk
> areas and the potential impact on costs, both economic and social, of
> the risk areas (the assumptions could be as misleading as the
> assumptions TDPUD used when preparing the broadband feasibility
> study) . Neither TDPUD management nor TDPUD's stakeholders can
> diSCUSS%debate in an informed manner without better data and analysis.
> Regards,
3
>
> Konrad Motzek
>
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs.
> http: //music.yahoo.com/unlimited
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
4
Peter Holzmeister
From: ericwass@pacbell.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal-fired plant
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
No doubt you've received countless form emails on this subject and mine is no exception. . .
but I wanted to insert a line or two just to remind you that there are real people behind
these words, real informed, active people who care about the environment and won't settle
for short-term damaging solutions.
Please take our future and your own into account when making this decision. Thank you. .
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Eric Wasserman
438 N. Kilkea Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: cd33333@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Clean Power Only
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
Please vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to supply Truckee with energy
from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierra (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Valerie Zachary
PO BOx 6656
Los Osos, CA 93412
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: annleevestal@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:18 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Stop dirty coal-fired power
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emir_ nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
ann vestal
1737 Indian Wells Way
Clayton, CA 94517
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Sue Swanson Stallcup[sueswan@deadcentral.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:17 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Power Supply
Dear Peter,
As a part time Truckee resident I am uncomfortable with the possibility of the upcoming
contract with a Utah firm for Truckee power. I believe we should be looking at "green"
sources of energy for the future. If the best compromise now is the short term 5 year
contracts solution, then so be it. A 50 year contract with a coal burning power company
is not a good method for encouraging non-polluting sources of energy. We have to find a
way to make "green" profitable.
Thanks for listening to my point of view, Sue Stallcup
12153 Nuthatch Ct
Truckee,
CA 96161
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Bill Gentry[billgentryl @hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:33 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal contract
No thank you, not in our backyard. No to the coal contract of 50 years!
Sincerely,
Bill Gentry
View Athlete's Collections with Live Search
http: //sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01
1
Page 1 of 2
Peter Holzmeister
From: Beth Christman [bj_christman@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:51 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Power Contract
Dear TDPUD Board and General Manager,
I am writing in response to the letter sent to ratepayers dated Nov. 17, 2006 regarding the proposed
signing of a contract for purchase of electricity from a coal plant in Utah. There are several reasons why
I think that the Board should vote no on this contract:
1. A fifty-year contract for coal power does not seem to be prudent. Carbon regulations are changing
almost daily, and it is reasonable to assume that significant legal challenges to both the construction and
operation of a coal fired plant will be faced in the near future. In fact, California has passed regulation
that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2007 (AB 32) that would make this proposed PUD contract illegal.
Also, there is currently a legal challenge before the Supreme Court that has huge potential to increase
the costs of energy from coal (Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
California is one of the plaintiffs). This case calls for the regulation of carbon emissions by the EPA
under the Clean Air Act and would significantly affect the construction and operation of new coal fired
plants if the Court rules for the plaintiffs.
Because the TDPUD would be responsible for a portion of the legal costs of operating the yet-to-be built
proposed power plant,the costs are extremely likely to go up as the legal environment surrounding coal
power changes.
2. "Getting out" of the contract will not be easy. Statements made at TDPUD Board meetings indicate
that at least some Board members think that exiting the contract will be easy. This is not the case and
will likely only become more difficult.
3. The price is not fixed. The letter sent to rate payers on Nov. 17th strongly suggested that electricity
rates would be fixed at$35 per megawatt, there was no mention that costs are not fixed. The PUD keeps
stating that the written responses to the letter were in support of the proposed contract. I believe this is
because misleading information was contained in the letter. The rates are NOT fixed, and there is no
reason to believe that they would stay at $35 per megawatt given that the plant isn't even built, there is a
question of where the coal is actually coming from, and the uncertain legal environment we are entering
into. (The letter also implies that exiting the contract is a simple process, also a misleading statement).
4. Climate change directly affects our economy. Truckee depends on snow to support our winter
recreation industry. We should be at the forefront of efforts to curb carbon emissions, not bringing up
the rear. We are starting to look foolish in the regional press (see recent editorial in the Sacramento
Bee). The future of our ski industry depends upon reductions in carbon emissions (see Sierra Climate
Change report at: ww-w.sicrran,evadaall_iance.org). Once our economy collapses because all our ski areas
close, who will foot the bill for this power contract'?
I am frustrated by the shortsightedness of the Staff and Board of the PUD. I am really disappointed in
Page 2 of 2
the misleading letter that was sent to rate payers in the district and I am disappointed in the apparent lack
of consideration by the Board of the extensive effort that members of the community have put into
explaining why this contract is bad for Truckee. I hope that you will reconsider signing this contract.
Sincerely,
Beth Christman
Resident and rate payer
,ni1 ')III nnc
Peter Holzmeister
From: weesap@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:53 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: eradicated coal-fired power for good!!
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Frankly, as a California resident I'm shocked and disappointed that such a terrible idea
is even being considered! Our state leads the Union in environmental activism AND activity
-- and we should be doing more towards those goals, not less.
Coal is a bad idea all the way around. Not only is it disastrous for the environment, it's
none too healthful for those working around it. Let's continue to be progressive rather
than regressive. It is LONG SINCE PAST TIME to identify and utilize alternative, non-
polluting sources of energy -- period.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Piner
1651 Iowa St Unit C
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-2066
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Andrew Guldman [gnaryak@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:37 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: no coal, please
Hi Peter,
I would prefer that TDPUD not purchase our power from the coal burning plant in Utah. I
think it is irresponsible to acquire our power from such an ecologically irresponsible
source. I would gladly pay higher rates for environmentally friendlier power.
Best regards,
Andrew Guldman
13232 Hansel Ave
Truckee, CA 96161
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: par@schat.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:40 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Against coal--but not a form letter!
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I come to Truckee several times a year to ski.
Coal fired powerplants are a major and growing source of greenhouse gasses, which threaten
the ski industry and your local economy.
I also come to Truckee for the beauty of the mountains. Coal mining is removing vast areas
of Appalachian mountaintop and filling in mountain ravines will the spoil. I once hiked
the Appalachian trail, so perhaps I feel closer to this issue than you may, but, I think
its unconscionable for the PUD of a small community like Truckee to participate in the
destruction of so many other mountain towns.
Contacting for coal-generated energy is a bad plan and I urge you to reject this proposal
in favor of greener alternatives.
Sincerely,
Steve Parmenter
617 Grove Street
Bishop, CA 93514
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: howard5@apple.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:45 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Please say NO to polluting power sources
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
Global warming is already threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to mention
countless other communities across the planet) . Every project started today should take
into account how that project will affect global warming.
The proposed contract to supply Truckee with energy from a polluting, coal-fired power
plant in Utah it is short-sighted and irresponsible -- particularly since there are other,
cleaner sources of energy that could be considered, such as wind and solar.
Please vote NO on the proposed contract to supply Truckee with energy from a polluting,
coal-fired power plant in Utah. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7 million
tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1 million
cars on the road.
This is a terrible idea, and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Brian Howard
59 Linaria Way
Portola Vally, CA 94028-7425
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: rgrindle@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:08 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Stop the dirty coal plant
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
Are you kidding? This is not funny. 50-years of particulate emissions equal to the entire
San Francisco bay area's cars to supply the city of Truckee with energy from a dirty,
coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This short-sighted proposal is wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year.
It is wrong to approve this dirty coal-fired power plant, which will adversely affect the
surrounding states. There are better ways to meet the needs of your small city. Surely you
would not even consider this project if the plant were situated in Truckee. Who wants to
visit black snow?
Please reject this outrageous proposal and devote your energies to promoting a cleaner and
less hazardous energy source.
Sincerely,
Russell Grindle
1331 Buckingham Dr
Fairfield, CA 94533-1856
1
Page I of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jim-Paula Begg [brass-cowgirl C earthIink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:21 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: NO on coal power!
Hello Peter,
You've heard all the pro's&cons.This is my own appeal to reject this backward step to sign on with coal
power. Invest our money in sustainable, sound technologies. More expensive perhaps, in the short term,but
much wiser in the long run.This issue is reaching a national audience and we have an opportunity to set a smart
example, if not a precedent.Please look beyond simple economics and vote with a consciousness that embraces
the health of our planet.
Thanks, Jim Begg
12/13/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Cadie Olsen [cadie@trinity-water.coml
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:28 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Please Lead our Town to Better Energy Solutions
Peter,
I understand the complexity of the decision facing the PUD Board this week.
Please exercise your leadership by listening to the overwhelming opinions of your rate-
payers opposing the signing of a 50 year contract committing us to coal as our primary
energy source.
You serve at the pleasure of the Board. The Board serves at the pleasure of the Community.
Please respect the Democratic Process and use your authority wisely.
Thank you,
Cadie Olsen
Catherine D. Olsen
Principal Hydrologist
Trinity Restoration Consulting
P.O. Box 548
Truckee CA 96161
cadie@trinity-water.com
530.582 .4732
Land Water Community--
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: richard @ nielsenschuh.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:00 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Please oppose coal power for Truckee
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
Please vote NO on the proposal to supply Truckee with energy from a new coal-fired power
plant in Utah. Truckee has the opportunity to set a forward thinking example and choose
and alternative that will not contribute to global warming and will not pollute the air or
require destructive mining.
This proposal is wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7 million tons of
global warming pollution every year (in addition to other pollution) . That's the
equivalent of nearly 1 million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could and should be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Richard Schuh
1346 Legs Lane
Sonoma, CA 95476
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: glgl@hotmaii.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:12 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: No more coal
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Gregory Gibson
161 Henry Street #4
San Francisco, CA 94114
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: ocean@snarfbargle.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:24 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Will Have California Surcharges
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am a former utility commissioner for the City of Pasadena, California; this conservative
town, based on the opinion of our citizens, just decided NOT to pursue a contract
extension of our existing coal plant very much like the action you are considering.
Aside from all the other reasons to avoid additional coal power, there is a very strong
probability that the California Legislature will pass a surcharge for large coal
commitments entered into in an effort to curcumvent the California ban on coal power. Then
instead of having cheap but dirty power, your ratepayers will be paying *more* than their
non-coal neighbors.
You need to check with the state *right now* to see the potential for your contract
becoming a true albatross around the neck of your utility. Even the City of Los Angeles,
usually the 400 pound gorilla in the room, backed off when it heard what is in store for
the last-second coal contracts.
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Roger Gray
902 N. Madison Ave
Pasadena, CA 91104
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: rory koff [rory@acmesnowremoval.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:45 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: 50 Year Coal Plant Contract
Dear Peter Holzmeister and TDPUD Board of Directors,
Two weeks ago I was fortunate to attend the meeting and discussion on the
coal burning plant proposition that will supply energy for the town of Truckee. I was
very happy to hear the community's overwhelming support against the proposal. I was
inspired and educated by the great ideas and options discussed by the community. I
believe it would be a poor decision to lock Truckee into such a long route being dependent
on coal power, for 50 years starting in 2012.
I hope that the Board of Directors can hear what our community wants.
Furthermore, there are VERY high open-ended costs associated with building such a
polluting plant. Not only our community, but also many other communities in Utah oppose
the construction of this plant. There were so many great ideas and energy alternatives
presented to the council at that meeting. It is appalling to think, that anyone would be
in favor of such a power plant.
This decision will have such a significant impact on Truckee that it
warrants a vote by the community. If this is a clean contract, then why is there pressure
to sign before the New Year when new laws go into affect? I can not help but believe that
the board is being pressured, or influenced by UAMPS, to go the route of this very one
sided contract, that does NOT protect the community's money, the environment, and voice of
the people.
I really hope the community is heard, and that TDPUD does not make the
horrible mistake of getting Truckee into a 50-year contract. At that meeting, only one
person was in favor of this contract and at least fifty people addressed their concerns to
the Board. I find it hard to believe that so many individuals support this issue,
illustrated by the number of emails you received. Where were all these people at the
meeting?
This contract will tie our hands. Now is the time for change! With
technology, innovation, and overwhelming will for alternative energy, the choice is clear.
Please listen to a community think tank, and what is truly best for all.
NO 50-YEAR coal power contract!
Thank You,
RORY KOFF
Truckee resident of 14 years
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: michelej@saber.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:57 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Truckee Utility board decision regarding coal fired plant
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Michele Johnson
PO Box 1132
Willits, CA 95490-1132
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: zillafishl1@hotmaii.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:16 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Keepin Tahoe Brown are we
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to
supply Truckee with energy from a dirty, coal-fired power plant in Utah.
This proposal is short-sited and wrong. If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7
million tons of global warming pollution every year. That's the equivalent of nearly 1
million cars on the road.
At a time when global warming is threatening the ski industry in the Sierras (not to
mention countless other communities across the planet) , it is wrong to approve a dirty
coal-fired power plant -- particularly since there are other, cleaner sources of energy
that could be considered.
This is a terrible idea and I urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
brett hutchinson
5663 n. arlington blvd.
san pablo, CA 94806
i
Peter Holzmelster
From: kaytaff@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:23 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: don't violate the goal of clean energy
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
Please vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to supply Truckee with energy
from a coal-fired power plant in Utah. We know we can do better as a nation than destroy
our atmosphere even more and contribute more to climate change.
If approved, this power plant will emit nearly 7 million tons of global warming pollution
every year. That' s the equivalent of nearly 1 million cars on the road.
Don't use a deadline to justify making a bad decision before it is illegal. It is simply
wrong to buy 50 years of energy from a coal-fired power plant . It can be cleaned up, for
starters. Or solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources can be brought on line.
Please reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Katherine Stewart
2750 Wheatstone St. # 102
San Diego, CA 92111
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Toni Robinson [toinette.robinson@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:33 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Burning
Dear Mr Holzmeister,
As 16 year Truckee residents we are opposed to the plan to sign a 50 year contract
for coal plant power.we would prefer a greener source of energy even if this means higher
rates. As a community dependant on snow for our economy why would we buy into a plan that
increases greenhouse gases? Our vote is NO.
Sincerely,
Toinette & Erik Robinson
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kevin Dewald [kevin_dewald@sbcglobal.net)
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:39 PM
To: Stephen Hollabaugh; Peter Holzmeister
Subject: coal contract
Hello - I wish to communicate to you that my entire family (Kevin, Jenni, John and Stephanie Dewald)
all feel strongly regarding this issue. We all believe that this is an ethical decision, and that we would
rather pay higher electrical rates than to enter into the proposed 50 year contract. Our number one
objective is to obtain power from a clean and environmentally friendly source, no matter what the costs
or risks of disruption.
thank you
Page 1 of 3
Peter Holzmeister
From: Joanna Walters [mamasafari@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:41 PM
To: resutton@sbcglobal.net; Tim Taylor; Joe Aguera; William Thomason; Ron Hemig; Peter
Holzmeister
Cc: Joanna Walters
Subject: The 50-year coal contract: an economist's perspective
Dear Board Members,
After attending the meeting on Nov 29, I have much more sympathy for the difficult decision you
are facing now. You have been extremely patient with the often lengthy and sometimes incoherent
public comments. Also, I believe you have not been getting full information or accurate analyses about
the various options for buying power. Unfortunately, there is no more time to study every last detail of
every possible option.
The proponents of this 50-year contract want to frame the decision as a black and white choice:
. <!--[if !supportLists]-->Sign this contract now or rates will go up 30% if not more.
. <!--[if !supportLists]-->Sign the 50-year contract or we won't be able to do any conservation
programs.
. <!--[if !supportLists]-->Sign this contract or we will be totally at the mercy of the spot market.
The reason this is a difficult decision is precisely because there is no cut and dried answer. This contract
will definitely not solve all the issues that have been raised. I think there are many actions that can
reduce our exposure to the marketplace which don't seem to have been taken into account in the plans
released to date.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->Price Increases and the Supply Gap: This contract has
been presented as a solution that will allow the PUD to keep electric rates at their current level.
However, this ignores that fact that there will most likely be a rate increase needed in 2009, due
to the fact that current contracts expire and the rates for power are now much higher than we
currently pay. By ignoring this supply gap from 2009-2012, the costs of this contract is being
compared to numbers we know already are not accurate. If current market rates for power in
2009 are $70-$80/Mwh (or whatever they are quoted at now), how is a power supply in 2012
going to keep our rates stable?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Market Expectations: All parties to this discussion have
consistently assumed that the market rate for power in 2012 will be 2-3 times the price we are
currently in contract for($70+/Mwh vs. $55/MWh). I don't have the details of how this estimate
was calculated, but there are some major changes coming that will definitely have an influence
on the market. First, all of California (one of the world's largest economies) will now have to
buy more power that is generated with renewable resources. The RPS bill (attached) has
requirements for utilities to use 20% renewable power, increasing from the current base by I%
every year until this 20% goal is reached. There is some interesting reading in this actually —
including the benefits of using renewable power. Even though the TDPUD is excepted from this
Page 2 of 3
law, the vast majority of power companies are affected and this is already having a major effect on
the market. Additionally, the law coming into effect on Jan 1 limits non-renewable power
contract lengths to 5 years will only add to the expected demand for renewable power. This will
force power generators to supply more of what the market demands in order to secure their own
future revenues. By 2012, we know the market will be demanding renewable power sources, not
coal power. As you have often admitted, you can't predict the future, so why would you
constrain our future to a power source that we know today is being phased out by law.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->OwnershipRisk: The UAMPS representative went on at
considerable length about how they had used the most conservative estimates to come up with
the $35/MWh estimate of cost. However, he was unwilling to back up those "conservative
estimates" by putting a cap on the rate for the power we would be obligated to buy— whether we
need it or not. These estimate do not include costs for equipment upgrades for CO2 emissions.
We don't know now whether or not these upgrades will be required,but a"conservative
estimate" should include this cost. What other items are not included in the $35/MW cost? There
will almost certainly be considerable legal costs required to start and/or continue the operations
of the IPP3 plant. The UAMPS representative was also very adamant that the TDPUD would not
be an owner, but something else. This raises a red flag in my economist-trained mind. This
contract seems to transfer all the ownership risk from the actual owners to the small and
fractured group of power buyers. Why should we take all this risk, but none of the control?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->Availability and Accessibility: I took away from the
discussions that the TDPUD can only buy power from suppliers with access to the Sierra Pacific
Power transmission grid. However, on SPP's website it states there is a transmission line
connecting Reno to the OR-CA border and the Bonneville Power Administration.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5) <!--[endif]-->Conservation: The programs of the TDPUD have been
quite minimal to date. If power costs are expected to rise as much as stated earlier, it's seems it
would be a much more prudent financial investment to spend money now investing in permanent
improvements that reduce demand on an ongoing basis. All available funds should be spent by
the PUD to major power users (the water company, the hospital) to create alternative local power
sources (wind, solar, geothermal) that will reduce their demand. As the saying goes, pick the
low-hanging fruit first. The CPUC has set targets of reducing energy usage 55-59% between
2004-2013 just from efficiency programs.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6) <!--[endif]-->Alternative/Renewable Sources: I found in my research
that SPP currently has an open RFP requesting "companies that own, propose to develop, or have
rights to a non-solar renewable energy generating facility larger than IMW" to supply power to
SPP. Why can't we do the same thing? The time needed to design and build a wind farm is just 3
years (SF Chronicle, 11/16/06, http://www. sfgate.conVc2i-biii/articiec i?
f-/c/a/2006/I.1/_16/B,XGGK_ti1DO2R1.DTL). This wind plant also uses new technology so that
the turbines turn at a slower rate, and reduces the risk to birds.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->7) <!--[endif]-->Optimist or Pessimist: Essentially, if you are an optimist,
you will vote against this contract. If you are a pessimist, you will vote for it. Approval of this
contract effectively locks in the future generations to an already old technology. Would you want
to be working on a Commodore 64 or the latest Apple g4 notebook? Do you want to be watching
TV on a black & white set without a remote control? The utility generation industry may not
develop as rapidly as consumer goods, but the industry is changing much more quickly than it
used to. Ten years ago, no one would have thought they would use recycled grocery bags to
build a new deck. Ten years from now, maybe we could assume that every roof has a solar panel
Page 3 of 3
and a wind turbine on it, like nearly every house has a satellite dish.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->
I ask you to consider the market for power in the same way you consider your financial investments in
the stock or real estate market. This contract is like buying an asset you can never sell. Although
UAMPS says we are allowed to sell, who would buy it if we don't want it? I don't see a big rush to buy
Betamax players or flopply disks. Would you buy a stock(or a house) if you knew you could never sell
it? At the same time, you wouldn't have the ability to change anything about it either. If you had $5
million to invest, would you buy stock in a coalmine or a VCR company? Probably not. Either you
would find a company in a growing and sustainable industry or wait.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->
Thank you for your willingness to consider the public input on this. I hope you view this event as an
opportunity to mobilize the PUD to be more creative about their approach to electricity supply and
demand.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->
I will see you at the meeting,but have to leave before it ends. I hope you agree with me that this contract
is not the rosy deal it's been presented as and reject it. Although this contract must be decided on now, I
believe we have time within the next 5-10 years to create solutions that will minimize our financial risk
and provide sustainable reliable energy.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParasj--><!--[endif]-->
Thank you,
Joanna Walters
Truckee business owner and resident
B.A. Economics, Brown University
M.B.A. Operations and Entrepreneurship, the Anderson School at UCLA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
mamasafari@yahoo.corn c: 415.710.1934
P.O. Box 8431 h: 530.582.4036
Truckee, CA 96162
www.SierraCostManagement.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Bill No. 1078
CHAPTER 516
An act to add Sections 387, 390.1, and 399.25 to, and to add Article
16 (commencing with Section 399.11) to Chapter 2.3 of Part 1 of
Division 1 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to renewable energy.
[Approved by Governor September 12,2002.Filed
with Secretary of State September 12,2002.1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1078,Sher. Renewable energy: California Renewables Portfolio
Standard Program.
(1) Under the Public Utilities Act, the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC)has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical
corporations, and authorizes the commission to establish just and
reasonable rates and charges.The act requires retail suppliers of electric
services to disclose sources of electrical generation and requires that
those retail suppliers report information to the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission).
This bill would establish the California Renewables Portfolio
Standard Program. The program would require that a retail seller of
electricity, including electrical corporations, community choice
aggregators, and electric service providers, purchase a specified
minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable
energy resources,as defined, in any given year as a specified percentage
of total kilowatthours sold to retail end-use customers each calendar year
(renewables portfolio standard).
The bill would require the PUC to implement the renewables portfolio
standard for electrical corporations, if funds are made available as
described. Each electrical corporation would be required to increase its
total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least I%
per year so that 20% of its retail sales are procured from eligible
renewable energy resources. If an electrical corporation fails to procure
sufficient eligible renewable energy resources in a given year to meet an
annual target, the electrical corporation would be required to procure
additional eligible renewable resources in subsequent years to
compensate for the shortfall, if funds are made available as described.
An electrical corporation with at least 20% of retail sales procured from
eligible renewable energy resources in any year would not be required
to increase its procurement in the following year.
92
Ch. 516 —2—
This bill would require the PUC to direct electrical corporations to
prepare within 90 days of being deemed creditworthy,and to review and
update as necessary, renewable energy procurement plans that are
sufficient to satisfy its obligations under the renewables portfolio
standard. The PUC would be required to adopt rules, within 6 months
of the effective date of these provisions, for electrical corporations
establishing a process for determining market prices of electricity from
renewable generators pursuant to specified criteria, a process for rank
ordering and selection of least-cost and best-fit renewable resources to
fulfill program obligations, flexible rules for compliance that permit
electrical corporations to apply excess procurement in one year to
subsequent years, or inadequate procurement in one year to the
following 3 years, and standard terms and conditions to be used by
electrical corporations in contracting with renewable electricity
generators. The PUC would be required to review and accept, modify,
or reject each electrical corporation's renewable procurement plan 90
days prior to the commencement of renewable procurement by the
electrical corporation.The PUC would be required to review and accept,
modify, or reject renewable solicitations by electrical corporations and
proposed contracts by electrical corporations with renewable electricity
generators. The PUC would be required to allow an electrical
corporation to recover, in rates, electricity procurement and
administrative costs associated with long-term contracts reasonably
incurred consistent with a renewable energy procurement plan approved
by the PUC.
Because a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an order of the PUC
is a crime under existing law, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program by creating a new crime.
The bill would require the Energy Commission to certify eligible
renewable energy resources, to design and implement an accounting
system to verify compliance with the renewables portfolio standard by
retail sellers, and to allocate and award supplemental energy payments
to cover above-market costs of renewable energy.
(2) Existing law, the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Act, requires the Energy Commission
to certify sufficient sites and related facilities that are required to provide
a supply of electricity sufficient to accommodate projected demand for
power statewide. Under existing law, the PUC must grant a certificate
of public convenience and necessity,upon application by a public utility,
for the construction of a new transmission facility or electric
transmission line within the state.As a basis for granting a certificate of
public convenience and necessity, the PUC is required to give
consideration to community values, recreational and park areas,
92
-3— Ch. 516
historical and aesthetic values, and influence on the environment. No
certificate of public convenience and necessity may be granted for an
electrical transmission line without certification by the Energy
Commission, and the decision by the Energy Commission is conclusive
as to all matters determined thereby and take the place of consideration
by the PUC.
This bill would provide that an application of an electrical corporation
for a certificate for the construction of new transmission facilities, that
are necessary to facilitate achievement of the renewable power goals,
shall be deemed to be necessary by the PUC in determining to issue a
certificate of public necessity and convenience.The bill would require
the PUC to take all feasible actions to ensure that the transmission rates
established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are fully
reflected in any retail rates established by the commission.
(3) Existing law requires each local publicly owned utility to
establish a nonbypassable usage based charge to fund investments in
specified public purpose programs, including cost-effective
demand-side management services to promote energy efficiency and
energy conservation, investment in renewable energy resources and
technologies, and services for low-income electricity consumers. The
charge is required to be not less than the lowest expenditure of the 3
largest electrical corporations in California based on a percentage of
revenue.
This bill would require the governing board of a local publicly owned
electric utility to be responsible for implementing and enforcing a
renewables portfolio standard,as described,and to annually report to its
customers upon expenditures of public goods funds on public purpose
programs, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. Because a
violation of this provision would be a crime,this bill would also impose
a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.
(4) Existing law provides that subject to applicable contractual terms,
energy prices paid to nonutility power generators by a public utility
electrical corporation based on the commission's "short run avoided
cost energy methodology" are required to be determined by specified
law.
This bill would authorize any nonutility power generator using
renewable fuels that entered into a contract with an electrical corporation
specifying fixed energy prices for output prior to December 31,2001,to
elect an additional 5 years of fixed energy payments at a level to be
determined by the PUC.
(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
92
Ch. 516 —4—
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund
to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed$1,000,000 statewide and
other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed$1,000,000.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates,this bill would provide that, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs
so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 387 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to
read:
387. (a) Each governing body of a local publicly owned electric
utility, as defined in Section 9604,shall be responsible for implementing
and enforcing a renewables portfolio standard that recognizes the intent
of the Legislature to encourage renewable resources, while taking into
consideration the effect of the standard on rates,reliability,and financial
resources and the goal of environmental improvement.
(b) Each local publicly owned electric utility shall report, on an
annual basis, to its customers, the following:
(1) Expenditures of public goods funds collected pursuant to Section
385 for renewable energy resource development. Reports shall contain
a description of programs,expenditures,and expected or actual results.
(2) The resource mix used to serve its customers by fuel type.Reports
shall contain the contribution of each type of renewable energy resource
with separate categories for those fuels considered eligible renewable
energy resources as defined by Section 399.12.
SEC. 2. Section 390.1 is added to the Public Utilities Code,to read:
390.1. Any nonutility power generator using renewable fuels that
has entered into a contract with an electrical corporation prior to
December 31, 2001, specifying fixed energy prices for five years of
output may negotiate a contract for an additional five years of fixed
energy payments upon expiration of the initial five-year term,at a price
to be determined by the commission.
SEC. 3. Article 16 (commencing with Section 399.11) is added to
Chapter 2.3 of Part l of Division 1 of the Public Utilities Code, to read:
Article 16. California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
399.11. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
92
-5— Ch. 516
(a) In order to attain a target of 20 percent renewable energy for the
State of California and for the purposes of increasing the diversity,
reliability, public health and environmental benefits of the energy mix,
it is the intent of the Legislature that the California Public Utilities
Commission and the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission implement the California Renewables
Portfolio Standard Program described in this article.
(b) Increasing California's reliance on renewable energy resources
may promote stable electricity prices, protect public health, improve
environmental quality, stimulate sustainable economic development,
create new employment opportunities, and reduce reliance on imported
fuels.
(c) The development of renewable energy resources may ameliorate
air quality problems throughout the state and improve public health by
reducing the burning of fossil fuels and the associated environmental
impacts.
(d) The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program is
intended to complement the Renewable Energy Program administered
by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission and established pursuant to Sections 383.5 and 445.
399.12. For purposes of this article, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(a) (1) "Eligible renewable energy resource" means an electric
generating facility that is one of the following:
(1) The facility meets the definition of"in-state renewable electricity
generation technology" in Section 383.5.
(2) A geothermal generation facility originally commencing
operation prior to September 26, 1996, shall be eligible for purposes of
adjusting a retail seller's baseline quantity of eligible renewable energy
resources except for output certified as incremental geothermal
production by the Energy Commission, provided that the incremental
output was not sold to an electrical corporation under contract entered
into prior to September 26, 1996.For each facility seeking certification,
the Energy Commission shall determine historical production trends and
establish criteria for measuring incremental geothermal production that
recognizes the declining output of existing steamfields and the
contribution of capital investments in the facility or wellfield.
(3) The output of a small hydroelectric generation facility of 30
megawatts or less procured or owned by an electrical corporation as of
the date of enactment of this article shall be eligible only for purposes
of establishing the baseline of an electrical corporation pursuant to
paragraph(3)of subdivision(a)of Section 399.15.A new hydroelectric
facility is not an eligible renewable energy resource if it will require a
92
Ch. 516 —6—
new or increased appropriation or diversion of water under Part 2
(commencing with Section 1200)of Division 2 of the Water Code.
(4) A facility engaged in the combustion of municipal solid waste
shall not be considered an eligible renewable resource unless it is located
in Stanislaus County and was operational prior to September 26, 1996.
Output from such facilities shall be eligible only for the purpose of
adjusting a retail seller's baseline quantity of eligible renewable energy
resources.
(b) "Retail seller" means an entity engaged in the retail sale of
electricity to end-use customers, including any of the following:
(1) An electrical corporation,as defined in Section 218.
(2) A community choice aggregator.The commission shall institute
a rulemaking to determine the manner in which a community choice
aggregator will participate in the renewables portfolio standard subject
to the same terms and conditions applicable to an electrical corporation.
(3) An electric service provider, as defined in Section 218.3 subject
to the following conditions:
(A) An electric service provider shall be considered a retail seller
under this article for sales to any customer acquiring service after
January 1, 2003.
(B) An electric service provider shall be considered a retail seller
under this article for sales to all its customers beginning on the earlier
of January 1, 2006, or the date on which a contract between an electric
service provider and a retail customer expires. Nothing on this
subdivision may require an electric service provider to disclose the terms
of the contract to the commission.
(C) The commission shall institute a rulemaking to determine the
manner in which electric service providers will participate in the
renewables portfolio standard. The electric service provider shall be
subject to the same terms and conditions applicable to an electrical
corporation pursuant to this article. Nothing in this paragraph shall
impair a contract entered into between an electric service provider and
a retail customer prior to the suspension of direct access by the
commission pursuant to Section 80110 of the Water Code.
(4) "Retail seller" does not include any of the following:
(A) A corporation or person employing cogeneration technology or
producing power consistent with subdivision(b)of Section 218.
(B) The Department of Water Resources acting in its capacity
pursuant to Division 27(commencing with Section 80000)of the Water
Code.
(C) A local publicly owned electrical utility as defined in subdivision
(d)of Section 9604.
92
_7— Ch. 516
(c) "Renewables portfolio standard" means the specified percentage
of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources that a
retail seller is required to procure pursuant to Sections 399.13 and
399.15.
399.13. The Energy Commission shall do all of the following:
(a) Certify eligible renewable energy resources that it determines
meet the criteria described in subdivision(a)of Section 399.12.
(b) Design and implement an accounting system to verify compliance
with the renewables portfolio standard by retail sellers, to ensure that
renewable energy output is counted only once for the purpose of meeting
the renewables portfolio standard of this state or any other state,and for
verifying retail product claims in this state or any other state. In
establishing the guidelines governing this system, the Energy
Commission shall collect data from electricity market participants that
it deems necessary to verify compliance of retail sellers, in accordance
with the requirements of this article and the California Public Records
Act(Chapter 3.5(commencing with Section 6250)of Division 7 of Title
of the Government Code). In seeking data from electrical corporations,
the Energy Commission shall request data from the commission. The
commission shall collect data from electrical corporations and remit the
data to the Energy Commission within 90 days of the request.
(c) Allocate and award supplemental energy payments pursuant to
Section 383.5 to eligible renewable energy resources to cover
above-market costs of renewable energy.
399.t4. (a) The commission shall direct each electrical corporation
to prepare renewable energy procurement plans as described in
paragraph(3) to satisfy its obligations under the renewables portfolio
standard.To the extent feasible,this procurement plan shall be proposed,
reviewed,and adopted by the commission as part of,and pursuant to, a
general procurement plan process. The commission shall require each
electrical corporation to review and update its renewable energy
procurement plan as it determines to be necessary.
(1) The commission shall not require an electrical corporation to
conduct procurement to fulfill the renewables portfolio standard until it
is deemed creditworthy by the commission upon it having attained an
investment grade rating as determined by at least two major rating
agencies. Within 90 days of being deemed creditworthy, an electrical
corporation shall conduct solicitations to implement a renewable energy
procurement plan.The creditworthiness determination required by this
paragraph shall apply only to the requirements established pursuant to
this article. The requirements established for an electrical corporation
pursuant to Section 454.5 shall be governed by that section.
92
Ch. 516 —8—
(2) Not later than six months after the effective date of this section,
the commission shall adopt,by rule,for all electrical corporations,all of
the following:
(A) A process for determining market prices pursuant to subdivision
(c) of Section 399.15. The commission shall make specific
determinations of market prices after the closing date of a competitive
solicitation conducted by an electrical corporation for eligible renewable
energy resources. In order to ensure that the market price established by
the commission pursuant to subdivision(c)of Section 399.15 does not
influence the amount of a bid submitted through the competitive
solicitation in a manner that would increase the amount ratepayers are
obligated to pay for renewable energy,and in order to ensure that the bid
price does not influence the establishment of the market price, the
electrical corporation shall not transmit or share the results of any
competitive solicitation for eligible renewable energy resources until the
commission has established market prices pursuant to subdivision(c)of
Section 399.15.
(B) A process that provides criteria for the rank ordering and selection
of least-cost and best-fit renewable resources to comply with the annual
California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program obligations on a
total cost basis. This process shall consider estimates of indirect costs
associated with needed transmission investments and ongoing utility
expenses resulting from integrating and operating eligible renewable
energy resources.
(C) Flexible rules for compliance including, but not limited to,
permitting electrical corporations to apply excess procurement in one
year to subsequent years or inadequate procurement in one year to no
more than the following three years.
(D) Standard terms and conditions to be used by all electrical
corporations in contracting for eligible renewable energy resources,
including performance requirements for renewable generators.
(3) Consistent with the goal of procuring the least-cost and best-fit
eligible renewable energy resources,the renewable energy procurement
plan submitted by an electrical corporation shall include, but is not
limited to, all of the following:
(A) An assessment of annual or multiyear portfolio supplies and
demand to determine the optimal mix of renewable generation resources
with deliverability characteristics that may include peaking,
dispatchable,baseload, firm, and as-available capacity.
(B) Provisions for employing available compliance flexibility
mechanisms established by the commission.
92
-9— Ch. 516
(C) A bid solicitation setting forth the need for renewable generation
of each deliverability characteristic,required online dates,and locational
preferences, if any.
(4) In soliciting and procuring eligible renewable energy resources,
each electrical corporation shall offer contracts of no less than 10 years
in duration, unless the commission approves of a contract of shorter
duration.
(5) In soliciting and procuring eligible renewable energy resources,
each electrical corporation may give preference to projects that provide
tangible demonstrable benefits to communities with a plurality of
minority or low-income populations.
(b) The commission shall review and accept, modify, or reject each
electrical corporation's renewable procurement plan 90 days prior to the
commencement of renewable procurement pursuant to this article by the
electrical corporation.
(c) The commission shall review the results of a renewable energy
resources solicitation submitted for approval by an electrical corporation
and accept or reject proposed contracts with eligible renewable energy
resources based on consistency with the approved renewable
procurement plan.If the commission determines that the bid prices are
elevated due to a lack of effective competition amongst the bidders, the
commission shall direct the electrical corporation to renegotiate such
contracts or conduct a new solicitation.
(d) If an electrical corporation fails to comply with a commission
order adopting a renewable procurement plan, the commission shall
exercise its authority pursuant to Section 2113 to require compliance.
(e) Upon application by an electrical corporation, the commission
may authorize another entity to enter into contracts on behalf of
customers of the electrical corporation for deliveries of eligible
renewable energy resources to satisfy the annual portfolio standard
obligations, subject to similar terms and conditions applicable to an
electrical corporation. The commission shall allow the procurement
entity to recover reasonable costs through retail rates subject to review
and approval.
(f) Procurement and administrative costs associated with long-term
contracts entered into by an electrical corporation for eligible renewable
resources, at or below the market price determined by the commission
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 399.15, shall be deemed
reasonable per se, and shall be recoverable in rates.
(g) For purposes of this article, "procure" means that a utility may
acquire the renewable output of electric generation facilities that it owns
or for which it has contracted.Nothing in this article is intended to imply
that the purchase of electricity from third parties in a wholesale
92
Ch. 516 - to-
transaction is the preferred method of fulfilling a retail seller's obligation
to comply with this article.
(h) Construction, alteration,demolition, installation,and repair work
on an eligible renewable energy resource that receives production
incentives or supplemental energy payments pursuant to Section 383.5,
including, but not limited to, work performed to qualify, receive, or
maintain production incentives or supplemental energy payments is
"public works" for the purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 1720)of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
399.15. (a) In order to fulfill unmet long-term resource needs, the
commission shall establish a renewables portfolio standard requiring all
electrical corporations to procure a minimum quantity of output from
eligible renewable energy resources as a specified percentage of total
kilowatthours sold to their retail end-use customers each calendar year,
if sufficient funds are made available pursuant to paragraph (2), and
Sections 399.6 and 383.5 to cover the above-market costs of eligible
renewables,and subject to all of the following:
(1) An electric corporation shall not be required to enter into
long-term contracts with eligible renewable energy resources that
exceed the market prices established pursuant to subdivision(c)of this
section.
(2) The Energy Commission shall provide supplemental energy
payments from funds in the New Renewable Resources Account in the
Renewable Resource Trust Fund to eligible renewable energy resources
pursuant to Section 383.5„consistent with this article,for above-market
costs. Indirect costs associated with the purchase of eligible renewable
energy resources, such as imbalance energy charges, sale of excess
energy, decreased generation from existing resources, or transmission
upgrades shall not be eligible for supplemental energy payments, but
shall be recoverable by an electrical corporation in rates, as authorized
by the commission.
(3) For purposes of setting annual procurement targets, the
commission shall establish an initial baseline for each electrical
corporation based on the actual percentage of retail sales procured from
eligible renewable energy resources in 2001, and, to the extent
applicable, adjusted going forward pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 399.12.
(b) The commission shall implement annual procurement targets for
each electrical corporation as follows:
(1) Beginning on January 1, 2003,each electrical corporation shall,
pursuant to subdivision (a), increase its total procurement of eligible
renewable energy resources by at least an additional 1 percent of retail
sales per year so that 20 percent of its retail sales are procured from
92
- 11— Ch. 516
eligible renewable energy resources no later than December 31, 2017.
An electrical corporation with 20 percent of retail sales procured from
eligible renewable energy resources in any year shall not be required to
increase its procurement of such resources in the following year.
(2) Only for purposes of establishing these targets, the commission
shall include all power sold to retail customers by the Department of
Water Resources pursuant to Section 80100 of the Water Code in the
calculation of retail sales by an electrical corporation.
(3) In the event that an electrical corporation fails to procure sufficient
eligible renewable energy resources in a given year to meet any annual
target established pursuant to this subdivision,the electrical corporation
shall procure additional eligible renewable energy resources in
subsequent years to compensate for the shortfall if sufficient funds are
made available pursuant to paragraph(2), and Sections 399.6 and 383.5
to cover the above-market costs of eligible renewables.
(4) If supplemental energy payments from the Energy Commission,
in combination with the market prices approved by the commission,are
insufficient to cover the above-market costs of eligible renewable energy
resources, the commission shall allow an electrical corporation to limit
its annual procurement obligation to the quantity of eligible renewable
energy resources that can be procured with available supplemental
energy payments.
(c) The commission shall establish a methodology to determine the
market price of electricity for terms corresponding to the length of
contracts with renewable generators, in consideration of the following:
(1) The long-term market price of electricity for fixed price contracts,
determined pursuant to the electrical corporation's general procurement
activities as authorized by the commission.
(2) The long-term ownership, operating, and fixed-price fuel costs
associated with fixed-price electricity from new generating facilities.
(3) The value of different products including baseload,peaking,and
as-available output.
(d) The establishment of a renewables portfolio standard shall not
constitute implementation by the commission of the federal Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978(Public Law 95-617).
(e) The commission shall consult with the Energy Commission in
calculating market prices under subdivision (c) and establishing other
renewables portfolio standard policies.
SEC. 4. Section 399.25 is added to the Public Utilities Code,
immediately following Section 399.2, to read:
399.25. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision in Sections 1001
to 1013, inclusive, an application of an electrical corporation for a
certificate authorizing the construction of new transmission facilities
92
Ch. 516 — 12—
shall be deemed to be necessary to the provision of electric service for
purposes of any determination made under Section 1003 if the
commission finds that the new facility is necessary to facilitate
achievement of the renewable power goals established in Article 16
(commencing with Section 399.11).
(b) With respect to a transmission facility described in subdivision
(a), the commission shall take all feasible actions to ensure that the
transmission rates established by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission are fully reflected in any retail rates established by the
commission. These actions shall include, but are not limited to:
(1) Making findings, where supported by an evidentiary record,that
those transmission facilities provide benefit to the transmission network
and are necessary to facilitate the achievement of the renewables
portfolio standard established in Article 16(commencing with Section
399.11).
(2) Directing the utility to which the generator will be interconnected,
where the direction is not preempted by federal law,to seek the recovery
through general transmission rates of the costs associated with the
transmission facilities.
(3) Asserting the positions described in paragraphs(1)and(2)to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in appropriate proceedings.
(4) Allowing recovery in retail rates of any increase in transmission
costs incurred by an electrical corporation resulting from the
construction of the transmission facilities that are not approved for
recovery in transmission rates by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission after the commission determines that the costs were
prudently incurred in accordance with subdivision(a)of Section 454.
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain
costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because
in that regard this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a
crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or
changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of
Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
However, notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains
other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and
school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement
92
— 13— Ch. 516
does not exceed one million dollars($1,000,000), reimbursement shall
be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
O
92
Peter Holzmeister
From: Bevan Manson [bevanmanson@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:05 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: contract/sports tourism
Dear Mr. Holzmeister-
As an outdoorsman who loves many places in the Sierras I am very concerned regarding the
upcoming possible contract with a coal-fueled energy plant in Utah.
Truckee is one beautiful place but eventually pollution is going to reach it and change it
unless we find other more sensible energy sources.
Sportsmen and outdoors people in general are going to think twice about Truckee if this
happens.
I hope you will find another solution.
Yours truly,
Bevan Manson
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: mcelheney@hotmaii.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:44 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Nevada wind farm
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
Board members,
Thanks for serving on the board and making tough decisions for ratepayers!
We can't just vote price on this issue. We can't just get in under the deadline for
permitting a buy like this because it violates the spirit of the law.
Please do the right thing and make the cleaner energy deal.
All the best, Tom McElheney
Sincerely,
Tom McElheney
3725 E Pacific Ave
Sacramento, CA 95820-1010
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: the FONGster[vertfong@hotmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:17 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal Power
Mr. Holzmeister,
I am NOT in favor of the 50 year contract.
Leigh Fong, rate payer
530.587.8011
Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces friends module.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?
href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
1
Peter Holzmelster
From: DANAE ANDERSON [danaeanderson@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:04 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter and Board Members,
I am writing with great concern about the potential for approval of a 50 year contract for
power generated from coal.
I am shocked that our community would consider such a possibility knowing the addition of
coal to greenhouse gas emissions.
Our community should be an example in using new, clean technologies.
Sincerely,
Danae Anderson
1
Peter Holzmeister
From: timulman@earthlink.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:31 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal-powered plant
Peter Holzmeister
Dear Peter Holzmeister,
I am writing to ask you to vote NO on the proposal to approve a 50-year contract to supply
Truckee with energy from a coal-fired power plant in Utah.
Global warming is threatening the future of our way of life and the beauty and utility of
the most beautiful places on the planet--like the Sierras, which my family visits and
enjoys often. We must find other, cleaner sources of energy.
Please reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Timothy Ulman
2040 Habero Drive
Escondido, CA 92029
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Alan Eagle [aeagle@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:46 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: NO on the coal power plant
Mr. Holzmeister,
I am a property owner in Tahoe Donner and urge the Truckee Donner PUD to NOT enter into a long-
term contract with the coal plant in Utah. Rather, I ask you to procure our energy from either renewable
sources or coal or other fossil fuel sources that have been engineered to not contribute any further to
global warming.
I realize this will raise our prices, and that "green" energy is a luxury that some of your customers may
not be able to pay for. Have you considered a tiered, progressive pricing structure, so that people who
use more energy (i.e. large vacation homes) would pay more? This could both discourage excessive
usage and subsidize the bills for lower income customers.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide my input.
Alan Eagle
..................................................
Alan Eagle
+1-650-799-7748 (mobile)
+1-650-857-9526 (home)
alan.eagle.83 @alum.dartmouth.org
"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching."
- Satchel Paige
12/13/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Jacqui Zink Dazdogs@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:30 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Decision on coal power
Mr Holzmeister:
I am unable to attend tonite and want to express my opinion that this is a contract that should NEVER be
entered into.
Coal will never be clean enough to justify us adding even more of it to our coal heavy portfolio. Even if
the $35 price was guaranteed, which it is CLEARLY NOT, the term of the contract in this fast moving
technological era is absurd.
In addition, I was extremely unimpressed by the IPP3 representative stating that there are safeguards in
place to reduce CO2 emmissions, if and when they are required by the government! This company is
not even trying to do the very most they can to reduce green house gases or these safeguards would be in
place whether required or not. And the PUD didn't bat an eye or ask, "why can't this be in place
regardless?"
This contract has too many hidden agendas that can and probably will end up costing the ratepayers far
more that the initially presented$35.
VOTE NO ON 50 YEARS OF COAL.
Jacqui Zink
Steve Kirby
Truckee
12/13/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: The Ferrera's [vlocity@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:33 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister;Tim Taylor;Joe Aguera; resutton@sbcglobal.net; William Thomason; Ron
Hemig
Subject: Coal
Please don't take Truckee back into the Dark Ages with this coal contract.
Instead, dare to be pioneers, brave forward-thinkers, and innovators.
You have a chance to be true leaders, for this community and the nation.
We are all in this together, and the world is watching the choice you make.
If you have even a shadow of a doubt about this coal contract, and you seriously should,
you must vote no! First, Do No Harm! Alternatives are out there if you only look.
Sincerely, Lori Ferrera, TDPUD ratepayer and Truckee resident
P.S. You may seriously want to consider a bigger venue for tonight's board meeting.
12/13/2006
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Carol Meagher[carol@spinit.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Coal
I sure hope PUD did not sign the contract for coal. Sure could like to keep our trees here in the future and actually
have a place to ski- and keep it beautiful for our children. I actually and sad to see that PUD even is considering
such a thing...
Please inform me of what is happening.
Carol Meagher
12/13/2006
Peter Holzmeister
From: Carol Judd [clj@infostations.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: Good decisions
Peter,
This is to you and your co-workers. . .I am hoping all of you will make good decisions that
consider and minimize global warming--for the future--for our children, and our children's
children.
Sincerely,
Carol Judd
i
Peter Holzmeister
From: ALEX HEYMAN [heymana@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:32 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: a vital decision for the future
Dear Peter,
First I want to express my appreciation for the board's willingness to hear the
perspectives of members of the community on this extremely important subject. As a
resident of Truckee, and someone who cares a great deal about the environmental footprint
that I am leaving, I am deeply concerned about the possible decision to sign on to a 50-
year contract to build a coal plant and purchase energy from it. I think it would be a
huge mistake to lock in to 50 years of consuming such an incredibly dirty and
environmentally distructive source of energy.
First, I don't buy the notion that there will be such a limited supply of renewable energy
in the next couple of decades. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to predict
what will happen in the coming years. Predictions such as this are routinely wrong due to
failures to take into account factors such as the speed and degree of the impact of public
pressure and new technologies that come on line, often as a result of public support,
financially and otherwise.
Second, I think the quoted price for the 50-year coal contract does not cover the whole
story. It is very likely that new government regulations will make the actual price quite
a bit higher than the one we are looking at currently, causing the deal we would be
getting to appear much less appealling.
Third, with residents who care as much as people in our community do about the impact we
have on the world around us, we have an opportunity to be a leader in adopting a greener
way of living. If there is only a limited supply of green energy sources available
currently, we can enter into contracts that create additional renewable sources. we can
build partnerships with other utility disctricts to blaze a trail in this direction. I can
assure you we are not the only community that feels strongly about this issue.
Even if the prediction turns out to be true that only about 25% of energy will be
renewable in coming years — a prediction about which I am quite sceptical — Truckee
Donner PUD doesn't have to limit its consumption to 25%. Instead it can make up for those
comunities that use much less than 25% green energy by consuming more than 25%.
Finally, I truly believe that we as a nation are on the verge of a green explosion. As the
momentum continues to build, the green revolution will continue to get larger, developing
a snowball effect.
Although some try, I believe it is impossible to accurately predict just how much
generation of green energy sources will grow in the coming years. As a result of an
increasing focus on green alternatives, coupled with both incentives for green use and
deterants for fossil fuel consumption, I really think the price of renewable energy will
become much more attractive in the future than it is now. If we are locked in a 50-year
contract to purchase coal energy, even if just for our baseline use, we will be in a much
worse position to be able to take advantage of the opportunity.
In summary I think it would be a huge mistake to enter into this contract, and I cannot
overemphasize how much I urge you to follow a more responsible, less short-sighted path.
Again, thank you for your openness to hearing community viewpoints. I truly hope you will
make the right decision.
Sincerely,
Alex Heyman
Chatham Reach, Truckee
1
Page 1 of 1
Peter Holzmeister
From: Mike Trombetta[michael@moodysbistro.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:42 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: no coal
Please don't sign the coal contract.! Think Snow!
Mike Trombetta
Moody's Bistro& Lounge
530.587.8688
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409/Virus Database: 268.15.18/585-Release Date: 12/13/2006
i?/1 innn6
Peter Holzmeister
From: Catherine Howard [ysh000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:49 AM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject: do not sign in favor of coal!
Please do not sign the 50 year contract for the coal plant. we need to be making
decisions to stop global warming not increase it.
Cathy Howard
Truckee local
1
Page I of I
Barbara Cahill
From: Richard Chamberlain [rh_chamberlain@hotmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:17 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Opposed to contract with coal-burning plant in Utah
To the Truckee Donner Public Utility District:
I am opposed to the signing of the 50-year contract with a coal-burning plant in Utah. There are cleaner
alternatives for power. I sincerely hope that all the board members have seen Al Gore's film, An
Inconvenient Truth. There is absolutely no question that global warming is increasing as a result of
increased carbon dioxide immissions. The warming trend will probably have a very big impact on the
winter sports industry for the Truckee-Tahoe area(i.e. no snow!). The TDPUD should not help increase
global warming by using coal-burning power plants. I am a Sierra Pacific power customer who is a part
owner of a cabin built by my Great Grandfather in 1911 on the Truckee River. We didn't get electric
power installed until 1949 and we try to use it sparingly. I have recently replaced many of our lights
with flourescent fixtures and some light emmitting diode fixtures to save energy. Please don't sign this
contract.
Richard Chamberlain
6025 River Road
Truckee Ca
rh chamberlain@hotmail.com
Page 1 of 2
Barbara Cahill
From: Beth Christman [bj_christman@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:51 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister
Cc: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Power Contract
Dear TDPUD Board and General Manager,
I am writing in response to the letter sent to ratepayers dated Nov. 17, 2006 regarding the proposed
signing of a contract for purchase of electricity from a coal plant in Utah. There are several reasons why
I think that the Board should vote no on this contract:
1. A fifty-year contract for coal power does not seem to be prudent. Carbon regulations are changing
almost daily, and it is reasonable to assume that significant legal challenges to both the construction and
operation of a coal fired plant will be faced in the near future. In fact, California has passed regulation
that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2007 (AB 32) that would make this proposed PUD contract illegal.
Also, there is currently a legal challenge before the Supreme Court that has huge potential to increase
the costs of energy from coal (Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
California is one of the plaintiffs). This case calls for the regulation of carbon emissions by the EPA
under the Clean Air Act and would significantly affect the construction and operation of new coal fired
plants if the Court rules for the plaintiffs.
Because the TDPUD would be responsible for a portion of the legal costs of operating the yet-to-be built
proposed power plant, the costs are extremely likely to go up as the legal environment surrounding coal
power changes.
2. "Getting out" of the contract will not be easy. Statements made at TDPUD Board meetings indicate
that at least some Board members think that exiting the contract will be easy. This is not the case and
will likely only become more difficult.
3. The price is not fixed. The letter sent to rate payers on Nov. 17th strongly suggested that electricity
rates would be fixed at$35 per megawatt, there was no mention that costs are not fixed. The PUD keeps
stating that the written responses to the letter were in support of the proposed contract. I believe this is
because misleading information was contained in the letter. The rates are NOT fixed, and there is no
reason to believe that they would stay at $35 per megawatt given that the plant isn't even built, there is a
question of where the coal is actually coming from, and the uncertain legal environment we are entering
into. (The letter also implies that exiting the contract is a simple process, also a misleading statement).
4. Climate change directly affects our economy. Truckee depends on snow to support our winter
recreation industry. We should be at the forefront of efforts to curb carbon emissions, not bringing up
the rear. We are starting to look foolish in the regional press (see recent editorial in the Sacramento
Bee). The future of our ski industry depends upon reductions in carbon emissions (see Sierra Climate
Change report at: www.s errai evadaalliatice._org). Once our economy collapses because all our ski areas
close, who will foot the bill for this power contract?
I am frustrated by the shortsightedness of the Staff and Board of the PUD. I am really disappointed in
11/13/10()6
Page 2 of 2
the misleading letter that was sent to rate payers in the district and I am disappointed in the apparent lack
of consideration by the Board of the extensive effort that members of the community have put into
explaining why this contract is bad for Truckee. I hope that you will reconsider signing this contract.
Sincerely,
Beth Christman
Resident and rate payer
Barbara Cahill
From: Mike Connell
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:34 AM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: FW: Good decisions
This is probably for you guys
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Judd [mailto:clj @ infostations.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Mike Connell
Subject: Good decisions
Mike,
This is to you and your co-workers...I am hoping all of you will make good decisions that consider and
minimize global warming--for the future--for our children, and our children's children.
Sincerely,
Carol Judd
i
Comments on the Proposed $500 Million Coal Power Purchase
Bob Johnston
Ratepayer and Truckee resident since 1993
530 582-0700 rajohnston@ucdavis.edu
Summary:
I am a retired professor from UC Davis. I taught Energy Policy courses in the 1980s and
have published papers on clean vehicle technology and on energy conservation. I have
read several feet of documents about energy generation, energy conservation, and energy
policy, over the last 30 years. I can do basic financial analysis and economic analysis. I
have many friends who work in State energy agencies or are energy consultants whom I
have contacted to verify all of my ideas below.
I ask you to not sign this contract, for several reasons:
1. The State has determined that the costs of coal burning are unacceptable, based on
years of studies.
California has long been a world leader in environmental regulation. For example, we
adopted stricter air quality standards in the mid-70s and have subsequently tightened
them several times. Now all vehicles sold in the U.S. meet these standards that are
tougher than the Federal ones. Our vehicle and fuel standards are now copied in the EU
nations and in others.
We have one of the most successful Coastal Commissions in the nation. There are 27 of
them (one in every coastal state) and so this is an honor, to be protecting our coast so
well. We have one of the best sets of controls on private logging. California has had tax
reduction programs for the protection of farmlands and timberlands for decades. Our
environmental impact assessment law (CEQA) is stronger than the Federal law (NEPA)
and our law has been copied in many nations, around the world.
For many years, the State regulation of power plants has increased. California eliminated
new nuclear power plants in the early 80s, due to the lack of a"demonstated long-term"
waste disposal capacity. Climate change is now the leading problem facing the world.
After years of evidentiary hearings in the Energy Commission, the PUC, and the
Legislature, the Legislature recently adopted SB 1368, which prohibits the building of, or
contracting for, conventional coal power for more than five years, starting Jan. 1, 2007.
The People of California have spoken, through their Legislature. Also, the Governor has
clearly supported this bill and related ones, in order to again lead the nation in reducing
health costs to people and the environment. I emphasize that this bill is based on many
1
years of evidence being assessed as to the costs of coal pollution and the financial costs
of coal versus the alternatives, mainly clean NG plants, but also wind and conservation.
The evidence of the harms caused by coal burning are manifold. I sent you earlier one
report that summarizes these findings (the California Coal Shadow rept.). Mercury and
other heavy metals pollute soils and groundwater, nearly permanently. Dioxin is now
found in the breast milk of U.S. mothers at levels where doctors now recommend nursing
for only the first year of like. Coal is a chief source of airborne dioxin. Is this not an
immoral assault on the essence of life?!! I remember discussing this with my wife, years
ago, when our child was an infant, and how sad we felt about poisoning our planet. My
teenage daughter now asks me why my generation is leaving the world in worse shape
than we received it. What shall all of us tell our children? We knew about all of this
many years ago and did not do enough. This is what the younger people were telling you
last week. I suggest you take their moral claims seriously.
The effects of CO2 emissions and the resultant climate effects worldwide are already
alarming. Polar bears will be eliminated in a few decades. The global ocean circulation
system(thermohaline conveyor belts) will certainly be disrupted, resulting in various and
mainly harmful climate changes in many nations. Plankton counts are also falling, due to
ocean warming. This will deplete fish stocks rapidly. Summer is longer and winter
shorter in the Western U.S. already. Projections of climate change show major wipeouts
of plant and animal species all over the U.S. and world. You are in charge, not someone
else, of your part of this problem.
2. The T-D PUD must not make such a immoral and expensive decision, based on the
flimsy evidence that has been provided by the staff.
The staff has not done even a summary report on all available conservation, load
management, renewables, and clean NG options available to it over the next decade and
longer, with cost estimates. The Integrated Energy Plan sent to me yesterday by the PUD
staff is the same power point presentation made by Steve Hollabaugh a week ago. This
report lacks any consideration of specific conservation policies and costs. It also has no
data on the renewables available and on peak-load managment. In short, it does not
provide evidence for its recommendations. At last week's workshop, Steve admitted that
his report should have included conservation. The report is invalid.
I sent to you earlier a report that summarizes the costs of many of these alternatives (the
Balanced Energy Plan rept.), based on dozens of referenced documents. In Appendix A.,
this report shows that clean NG (combined cycle, a widely proven technology) has costs
about one cent per Kw-hr above those for conventional coal (or, $1.00 per Mw-hr more).
After transmission,distribution, and management, this raises retail rates here from 12 to
13 cents per Kw-hr, an 8% increase. A strong energy conservation program would
decrease most ratepayer's consumption much more than 8%, in a few years. Savings of
50% are easy in older buildings and savings of 25% attainable in most newer ones. Load
2
management can lower peak power consumption 20-30%, producing great savings for the
utility.
When I first asked Steve Hollabaugh for the PUD's Intergrated Resource Plan, two weeks
ago, he told me is was in a large spreadsheet. That is when I began to worry that he had
never done a report with comprehesive data on all available alternatives. His resultant
slide show also does not consititute a reasonable basis for a$500 million decision
(including interest payments).
In addition, the UAMPS contract has no cost caps in it and doesn't even specify the cost,
at all!! This huge contract is being proposed, based on a"Trust me" attitude from the
PUD staff and the UAMPS manager. That the Board is even contemplating such an
irresponsible action, in such a short time period, indicates a history of letting the staff run
the show. This is hardly what the public expects from our PUD Board members. Public
utilities have been regulated more lightly than investor-owned ones, because the public
boards are elected. So we expect scrutiny of all major proposals not rubber stamUing.
3. This contract will surely be rescinded by a future PUD board.
There will be two or three more elections before the contract payments start in 2012. It is
most certain that a slate of energy conservation candidates will become a majority of the
Board in one or both of these elections. This is the political shift going on in the world,
nation, State, and in Truckee. The newer in-migrants to our Town are younger,better
educated, and believe the scientists' findings about climate change. They also, as was
clearly stated in last week's workshop, worry about what happens 40 and 60 years from
now. Two Board members minimizing their relevance last week was shocking to me.
Tim telling us how important the large customers are made me sick. Energy costs are
generally a small fraction of all production costs for large commercial enterprises and
they, of course, have the most resources to allow them to adapt to higher costs through
conservation.
I have written earlier about how Peter Holzmeister and Steve Hollabaugh have
misrepresented the cost of the coal contract power as being "$35," or"approximately
$35." The cost is "$35 or more," and so they have misrepresented a critical aspect of the
deal Also as I have written to you earlier, they both misrepsented the votes by email
received by the PUD. According to an analysis of them, "most" of the pro-contract
emails assumed that the $35 price was firm and also "most" of them assumed that we
could get out of the contract easily. As we found out the hard way with the IdaCorp
contract, this is not a reasonable assumption.
4. The PUD does not have a strong conservation program in place.
The Renewable Portfolio Standard document on the PUD web site is pathetic. It treats
conservation and renewables as actions the PUD is being made to undertake and it limits
the funding of both of them to "primarily public benefit funds," which are limited (3%). I
understand the PUD has not even spent these funds, in the past few years. How ill-
3
equipped does a person have to be, mentally, to not get it about conservation??!! It
comes in at less than three cents per Kw-hr, at the consumer's building, and so
outcompetes 12-cent generated power by a mile. Progressive utilities fund all cost-
effective conservation in customer buildings and subsidize it, or pay for it entirely, as it
displaces much-more-expensive power. This is what Scott Terrell has been talking about
for years, on your very staff.
In his Letter of Response to the CEC Integrated Energy Reports of 2003 and 2004, the
Governor said that all utilities "should" reduce their peak loads by 5% by the year 2007
(dated Aug. 23, 2005). 1 do not see a policy in place on your PUD web site to reach this
load management goal that is being urged on us. I would also say that this goal will
become mandatory in the next Legislative session and we will not be ready for this
mandate.
5. The costs of the conventional IPP3 coal plant will rise a lot.
As I have stated in several previous emails, new air quality regulations on NOx, SOx, and
particulates, as well as mercury and dioxin, will raise the costs 20-40%. Requiring CO2
sequestration will be much more expensive. My engineer friends say that this type of
plant(pulverized coal) cannot easily be retrofitted for CO2 capture. Steve Hollabaugh
sent some slides to me yesterday about one method, but they did not include the cost of
sequestration,just the cost of isolating CO2 within the plant. The total power costs with
CO2 isolation,but without sequestration were $60-80/Mw-hr!!
I have just read several reports from the Energy Commission and talked with people their
in top management and I now believe that the PUC, CEC, or Legislature will impose an
energy carbon tax within a few years. This tax will be intended to make coal power cost
as much, or more, that NG combined-cycle power. Later, in the early 2010's, I think they
will increase the tax to make all fossil power cost more than renewables. They won't do
that until renewables have come on line in major amounts. You have to realize that,
within a few years, as the impacts of climate change become more and more evident and
costly, that large policy changes will occur at all levels of government. All of these
conventional coal plants will become obsolete.
Also, I note that the recent CEC report on implementing SB 1368 (CEC-700-2006-011)
says that this law (no contracts longer than 5 years for conventional coal) will likely
apply to any power plant previously owned("committed to"), if the plant is upgraded for
air quality purposes and the upgrade reduces plant efficiency at all (increases greenhouse
gases per Mw-hr). I believe almost all air quality upgrades reduce plant efficiency, as
they add processes inside the plant that take energy to nin and the CEC intends to look at
net energy output from plants (net of operations energy used). So, costs are certain to
rise.
4
6. The staff has misrepresented how conservation can be funded.
Steve Hollabaugh has said in workshops and to the press that we need the cheap coal
power, so that the PUD has "funds left over"to pay for conservation programs. This is
not how utility finance works. The PUD can pay as much as it wants for conservation,
whether or not we sign the coal contract. Conservation will be cheaper than any
generation alternative. This is well-known, outside of the PUD building.
This misrepresentaion, along with those about the cost of the IPP3 power and the nature
of the email votes, leads me to believe that the staff is not only incompetent, but is also
biased and unethical. So, not only should the Board not vote for this contract, it should
carefully examine the staff for their qualifications for their jobs. They appear to be
inadequate by education and by temperament for what they are supposed to do, which is
to give forward-looking, comprehensive, and unbiased data to their Board.
5
Peter Holzmeister
From: Kathy Van Dame[dvd.kvd@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:49 PM
To: Peter Holzmeister; Ron Hemig; resutton@sbcglobal.net;Tim Taylor;Joe Aguera;William
Thomason
Subject: Contract for Utah electricity
Dear People,
As a person who breathes in Utah, and citizen of the world. I ask that the City of Truckee
choose against the contract with IPP.
Not only will persons in Utah be breathing the pollution resulting from that contract, but
also we will be living with impaired visibility in our mountains. This contract will
encourage the construction of a new old-technology power plant, and citizens of Truckee
will be at risk of carbon taxes when some type of carbon penalty is enacted.
Please do not burden your citizens with a large carbon footprint, nor Utah with pollution.
Thank you for your attention.
Peace,
Kathy Van Dame
1148 East 6600 South #7
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
(801) 261-5989 dvd.kvd@juno.com
1
Page 1 of 1
Barbara Cahill
From: AIGlynn@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:12 PM
To: Barbara Cahill
Subject: Coal Contract
Barbara,
We live in Truckee part time at 10587 Jeffery Way. We appreciate all the information
the district has sent us on the new energy contract.
We are not in favor of the proposed length of the new contract. 50 years is a long
time to continue to pollute the environment with more greenhouse gases.
We are in favor of shorter contracts so that the district can switch to renewable
power sources as they become available.
We know that the district is trying to get the best buy for our dollar, but we would be
willing to pay more if it means less global warming and a better environment for our
future.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your decision and our future.
Marilyn &Albert Glynn
DEC. 12. 2006 9: 31AM DORSEY & WHITNEY NO. 908 P. 2
C HORSEY
:;O;�;i�.Y d bJHJ%--Y LLP
CRAIG S.RUCHEY
Partner in Charge,Palo Alto and San +Fmncisw
(650)843-2705
` ritchey.eraig@dorsry.com
December 11,2006
VIA U.S. POSTAL SERVICE &
FACSIMILE (530)587-5056
Peter Holzmeister
General Manager
Truckee Donner PUD
P. O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160
Re: Proposed Contract/Investment in Coal-Fired Power Plant in Utah
Dear Mr. Holzrneister:
I am writing to voice my strong objection to the Truckee Donner Public Utility District's
participation in the Utah Coal-Fired Power Plant Project. I understand the concerns about rising
electrical rates and the need to be as economical as possible,but I believe we need to set an
example of good stewardship by taking the most prudent approach to the total quality of life_
This to me tips the scale very strongly in favor of NOT investing in a Coal.-Fired Power Plant in
Utah.
As a homeowner, I would urge you to vote no.
S' ely yours,
Craig S. Ri
CSR_jp
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP • WWW.DORSEY.COM • T 650.857,1717 • F 550.857.1288
1717 EMSARCADERO ROAD • P.O. SOX 51050 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94308
USA CANADA EUROoe ASl^
I"\
l/,1J i (�:_. C/�-�.L,K'��- (..i ���`�t6Yl 4•tl i/' l (^ t fJ �v''l ���.. C�G��
ecs
tt
r
�; ✓� 1 1 >r. t✓ cam. `�. ci
Ll
.SC r✓ i(-
�,t
LL(( t
Ct
n �
to
�16 a` le
G � l
REC'D 13 E i:, 1 # 2006
Truckee Do rnner P. U.D.
Box 3a9
Trucker, CA 96160
5►rs:
.a2 aim. �enticrtncd aZau.f f�fa �50 �a�. ca-nt��.cct
V-f4.X col fi¢ oG aa.4-�d, ,
W� ate aztteto-ey
�a-e [01-��r�r�•-►t 4 Ica ct M AJ o je .co•wK-c. . dA..,
..r.�uX•� bc.<�. -+.if .e�c1CyssLCJ FRS .tsor�. .Q 2rtd
Cos .
eQ.s1. 6-7 -�-eain,a., �.Ce�b�,�.e. �,7eirm.►,s� ..�.cr�.CL2 �
.�tut:�d, �.eox`-�Lv�,rrtaQ� ctiwcC $rv»-ta.a.a oetL � c1�C.•e-.c�o..�t.,
R.s .� day .
�O
C&O 392 -240/
s61<o eAl er @ w wt co r rt rc �o n1
11/30/06
Dear Mr Holzmeister, and PUD board
Locking into 50 yrs of coal energy is an emotional issue for us all. And, there's
nothing shameful about that. How, would one enter into this type of agreement, or
not, without feeling how one's decision effects us all, on every level.
However, I don't hear you listening to what we, the owners, and residents of
Truckee, need. It appears that the majority is choosing to pursue clean, renewable
energy. There are renewable energy experts available and willing to work with you.
They're willing to enlighten and advise you to obtain a viable, successful goal of
sustainability.
At the 11/15/06 meeting, I was astounded and disappointed how uninformed the board
was, around renewable energy. I need to be proud of my board, to see intelligent,
wise people making sound, practical, and healthy choices. But right now, I'm sorry to
say, you are like the Emperor who had no clothes on.
Only one shot at this. If you choose a 50 yr coal contract, you're putting us in
serious jeopardy. We'll all pay dearly. And, is it possible you may be setting
yourselves up to be sued for negligence?
You've received tons of practical facts, as to the danger of buying into 50 yrs of
coal energy, tons of solutions and offers of assistance, to implement clean energy.
I urge you to be very sober and wise with your intention and choice. It's strategic
to stretch yourselves, look at the larger perspective. It's critical that you to
listen to the people, who have practical experience and knowledge, and who wish for
their majority choice to be honored.
Thank you istening, and I deeply hope, you will take this to Heart.
��(f�or
Barbara Marsted
PS To raise your grade, and see the projected future of coal- see the documentary,
An Inconvenient Truth , conveniently now showing at your local video store.