Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPro Power Contract POWER CONTRACT PRO I�CA. �a�13 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Wayne Laessig [qadvocate C sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:34 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Alternate and Renewable Power Input Peter, Thank you for the Nov 17, 2006 information letter. You explained the issues, concerns, and options well. We definitely would vote for the Utah option, while expanding the ratio of renewable sources as rapidly as technology and transmission access allow. The shorter term use of coal contracts with transitions to renewable is not an option we prefer. Thank you! Wayne and Lynette Laessig 14054 Glacierview Truckee, CA 96161 707-592-4492 >>11 1)i.nnn� Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Booth [booth@ sutters.reno.nv.us] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 3:15 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Long Term Power Purchases As a property owner in Truckee, we would like to express our preference for TDPUD to seriously entertain the notion of purchasing the cheapest power possible. We do not feel that short-term, more expensive contracts are a viable alternative. Such short-term contracts should not be pursued. Thank you. Joseph and Janet Booth 15591 Conifer Truckee, CA Peter Holzmeister From: Ron Rettig [ronrettig@gmail.coml Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:41 AM To: Peter Holzmeister; Joe Aguera; Ron Hemig Subject: Chronicle Article About P U D TRUCKEE.pdf(107 KB) Be prepared for more flak over the coal contract. See the attached article from the S F Chronicle. As a resident and rate payer I request the P U D accept the coal contract option. I suggest the Fire Marshall monitor the number of people admitted to the board room on December 13th to insure it does not exceed the legal capacity and become a fire safety hazard to the public and District employees. Ron Rettig 11392 Valley Road Truckee 1 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: olive foster[olivefoster@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12: 8 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Energy from Utah. Peter, I think the only logical source of electrical energy should be purchased from the Utah plant under the long term 50 year contract. I appreciate your work on this matter. Patrick Foster 916-580-9906 Peter Holzmeister From: Howard Wright[wright_h@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:19 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: I'm in favor of the coal facility Dear Peter; As a full time resident and rate payer with TDPUD, I'd like to cast my "vote" in favor of your proposal for joining in with the new coal burning generating plant in Utah. Locking in a reasonable electricity price for the future is attractive to me. Without a long term contract who knows where the price can go--your estimates may be low, but who can say for sure. I am currently 100% electric. I'm also retired and on a fixed income. Eight years ago I converted from propane to a ground source heat pump system with encouragement from Scott Terrell in the hopes of keeping my future heating costs under control (they've already gone up 50% since I installed the system in 1998) . If electricity prices continue to increase I probably will not live long enough to recover my capital outlay for the "green" ground source heat pump I installed. Best Regards, Howard Wright 12230 Pine Forest Rd. Truckee 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Tracy Cuneo [tracy@compnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:30 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: In favor of coal contract Peter, A well-educated local just circulated an email about"Truckee idiots" 3-1 in favor of the coal plant. I responded to all on the list with "Those of us driving hybrid vehicles and who have paid the higher price for a car that will never be recouped in fuel savings have the right to be vocal. The rest of us (me)should keep quiet." I understand economics and the 7%availability of"green"fuel. You are making the right decision. I am not willing to pay the exorbitant cost of going "green". I'd imagine that neither are others who are being so "green" vocal. Thank you! Tracy and Brian Cuneo 14030 Swiss Lane Truckee CA 96161 530 582 4266 Page I of t Peter Holzmeister From: Dirk Vickie Hooser[ridetahoe@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:59 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Sign The Agreement fot the Coal Contract Don't listen to the "green machine" and their global whining. Many of the emails your are receiving are not even from Truckee. As a land use advocate I see this all the time. They are masters of deception. Do the right thing and let's keep energy affordable in our town. 12/13/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: william leoppard [k1 bmw @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:51 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: power Subject: power We do not favor great increases in our power bill. We understand that coal power is much cleaner then it used to be and we do favor securing the low cost power from Utah. If the renewable power is so much more expensive we do not favor buying power from them. thank you William Leoppard & Virginia Leoppard 12/13/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: lach/rose[lachrose@peoplepc.com) Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:51 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Long Range Electric Power Source Strategy Dear Peter, I support the Utah power plant strategy --it is both economical and flexible. If new break-throughs in energy occur, the "world will change"--until then , i think your on the right track. Sincerely Robert Lach PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Rick Zirpolo[RickZ@rabbitoa.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:22 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Peter' Sorry for the late expression of my views. First I am a big proponent of a clean environment but not at the cost we would have to spend for Clean power. When the time comes and it becomes more economical than 1 am all for it. In the mean time Coal burning from Utah is my choice. 14219 Hansel Rick Zirpolo President/CEO Rabbit Office Automation 1') 13/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Robe rheath C aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:10 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Yes for Coal Power Peter, The average Truckee resident doesn't seem to understand the problem. They focus on green house issues and it is a concern to me also but what are the alternatives? Right now the power that does not create green house gases are solar, wind, hydro and nuclear. I would bet that the same people that are against coal power would also be up in arms to see our community with wind mill and solar panels cluttering up our landscape. The best Hydro locations are already gone and according to some of the latest news they are going to be a big disaster. That leaves nuclear which I support. This country has more BTU U's in coal that Saudi Arabia has in oil. We should sign the deal and pursue ways to cut down on pollution. Bob Heath 530 582-8821 12/13/2006 ...w Peter Hofzmeister From: Eve Auch [irongate@saber.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:22 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Contract We have been reading both sides of the debate regarding the energy contract that would utilize coal. We'd like to state that we are in full agreement with the signing of this contract. We firmly believe that the TDPUD is capable of having this 50 year contract and use the money saved to pursue other types of energy which are environmentally sensitive with the money saved. Many of us in Truckee are on limited incomes. We are both retired and chose to build our dream home here. We love the area but are slowly going to get pushed out as costs rise and bonds are passed. This contract will hopefully allow energy prices to be kept within reasonable bounds and allow people like us to remain in the area. Thank you for your consideration of our viewpoint. Roger and Eve Auch 11778 Tinkers Landing Truckee CA 96161 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Dave Parsons[da.parsons@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:48 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal power Hello Peter, Thank you for sending the letter regarding the purchase of Utah electric energy. I have been out of town for a while but saw that there is a hearing tomorrow. I am in favor of securing a long term contract with Utah regardless of the method of power production. Alternative sources are nice to imagine but are not cost effective at this time nor in the foreseeable future. I support keeping our electric rates as low as possible. Sorry for the late reply. Good luck in your endeavors. David Parsons 13617 Cristallina Way Truckee, CA 1 Peter Holzmeister From: BARBARA M. SMITH [barbsmith6l_2000@vahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Board meeting tonight, 12/13/06 Mr. Holzmeister I am a resident of Truckee. I understand you are having a meeting on the use of coal vs other means of energy for electricity. I would like the board to know that I completely support Tim Taylor in his comments about energy use with large local commercial users and rate increases with businesses. I vote for the 50 year Coal contract. Barbara Smith 15600 Kent Drive, Truckee Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Carol Hackbarth [fortune4me @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:19 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Energy Please vote yes for the proposed coal contract. I may not live in your area, but I don't want the increase in other fees in the area as a result of increased electric bills. Carol R Hackbarth POWER CONTRACT PRO RECD 12,_ December 2, 2006 General Manager, Peter Holzmeister Board of Directors Truckee Donner PUD P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160 Gentlemen: This in response to Mr. Holzmeister's letter of November 11, 2006 inviting comments about a possible long-term contract with a Utah based coal-generating electricity plant. I recognize that the date of the public hearing regarding this matter is past, but personal circumstances have delayed my response. It is my hope that my comments may still be of some value. We all have a responsibility to be environmentally aware of our decisions. There is a substantial body of evidence that tell us that older coal-burning generating plants are a source of considerable 'pollution. But recent developments clearly indicate that new technology applied to coal-generating plants can eliminate most of the pollution. Enclosed is an article from the December 2006 issue of Discover magazine that describes what can be done, what must be done. Mr. Holzmeister's letter indicates that this new plant will not only utilize the latest technology, but also be able to incorporate emerging technologies. Renewable sources of electrical energy, currently, are very expensive. And to date they have their own environmental shortcomings. Examples are the unsightliness and noise of wind power, and the extensive use of land coverage required for solar power. Coal has its problems, but when compared to other sources of energy it becomes very viable. I support the PUD and its staff in making a long-term contract with the new plant in Utah. Sincerely, George Ticknor 4 s + t 4 I , i Y { On a steamy, torpid summer morning in Florida, He's right.No smoke mars the lazy blue Florida sky. the Polk power plant is performing a small feat of The Polk plant captures all its fly ash, 98 percent of moderq alchemy. Every hour it converts 100,tons of its sulfur-which causes acid rain—and nearly all its the dirtAt fuel on the planet-coal—into 2�O million nitrogi�i oxides, the main component of the brown ` v watts of power for about 56,000 homes and busi- haze th4l7angs oygr many citieg:Built to demonstrate nesses around Tampa. The alchemy p irt? Yerlion' the feasibility of a new way to wring economical power Shorter,a tall,bluff consultant for the Tampa EJecf ric from coal,without belching assorted toxins into the air, r Company (TECO),pgints to a looming smokgstack. the S(!pO millipr)plant has been running steadily since "`Look at the top 9f that stack,"he shouts overthe ca- 1096. 'it m s"tAe lowest-cast electricity on TECO's cophony of generators and coal-grinding machines. ;$r'dri'e Shoher`� y "It als has very, very low em�S- "That is the main emissions source. You can't seei0 .Particu , atter s Irri9sf undetectable." f anything.You don't even see a heat plume." 14hat is both bstressirAj 4 femarkable alabl ` Fa ! d H 0 c c c c � m rn o C:a a° 3 > Y o E WQ E a O N O v CL N N ry N U 3 N N ` c O E E o E a o�.0 g v C c �« Q N� u E a 9 E o c F-tnw N � yC c �i z - �Tf .I • Polk plant is that it could do much more."There's no requirement for ide added to the atmosphere would make it virtually impossible to mercury capture,but 95 percent of it could be captured very easily," stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at a moderate Shorter adds.More important,the plant could also capture nearly all level."Right now the Polk power plant is one of just four of its kind of coal's most elusive and potentially disastrous emissions:carbon in the world.If we are going to survive our coal-fueled future,we will dioxide,the main gas that drives global warming. probably need a whole lot more like it. That capability could prove vital.With oil and natural gas prices rising rapidly and nuclear power stuck in political limbo,the world's The technology behind the Polk plant is called an integrated appetite for coal is soaring.In the United States,the Department of gasification combined cycle—a mouthful usually shortened to Energy estimates that 153 new coal-fired power plants will be built IGCC.Unlike conventional coal-fired generators,IGCC plants don't by 2025.Meanwhile,China and India,the world's second and third actually burn the coal itself; they convert it into gas and bum the largest coal producers,are embarking on a coal power plant build- gas.This highly efficient process makes it possible to selectively pull ing spree.China alone is expected to construct 562 new coal-fired out the resulting emissions,including carbon dioxide,which could plants over the next eight years.Since the life span of a typical coal- then be collected and buried rather than released into the air. fired plant is 50 years,coal's share of the world's energy production Vernon Shorter walks through the maze of pipes and towers that will rival oil's for most of the century. is the Polk power plant, giving me a tour of how IGCC works. He Industry advocates brag that the United States, which has 27 points out a conveyor belt that carries a steady stream of coal from percent of all known coal reserves, is"the Saudi Arabia of coal," a 5,000-ton storage silo to a grinding mill,where the coal is mixed with enough to burn for the next 180 years at the current rate of use. with water.The resulting mudlike slurry is then pumped under 400 Unfortunately, coal is as filthy as it is cheap and abundant. When pounds per square inch of pressure to the plant's most novel fea- burned it releases three pounds of sulfur dioxide and four pounds of ture,the 300-foot-tall gasification tower. nitrogen oxide for every megawatt-hour of operation.The nation's The tower looks like an unfinished skyscraper,a boxy skeleton of plants produce a total of about 48 tons of mercury annually."If all the steel.At its top sits a 30-foot-tall vessel filled with 96 percent pure coal-burning power plants that are scheduled to be built over the oxygen heated to 2500°F.When the slurry is injected into the cham- next 25 years are built,the lifetime ber, it doesn't ignite. Instead, carbon dioxide emissions from :. + - the coal reacts with the oxygen those power plants will equal all and immediately starts to break the emissions from coal burning t G 1 down into its component gases, in all of human history to date," �" . - .M mostly hydrogen and carbon says John Holdren,a professor of s -. �.'�° �, .�-�M' <,c. =.� monoxide. Those gases are cooled and pumped through environmental policy at Harvard P P 9 University's Kennedy School of xw* ,t a2. a series of filters that remove Government. rt sulfur, particulate matter, and Holdren and many others are • • other pollutants; only then is especially concerned about the the remaining synthetic gas,or carbon dioxide, which unlike - syngas,burned for power. Goal's other emissions is corn a M Shorter then points out the pletely unregulated in the United � � progress of the syngas through States. By 2012, the new coal 0"'� t•...; a set of pipes descending from plants in the United States,China, .° the gasifier to a building that houses a combustion turbine— essentially a jet engine mounted on the floor.The syn- gas ignites inside the turbine, spinning the turbine blades that generate about half the plant's electricity. Torrid exhaust gases from the turbine are captured and used to heat water,which is fed to a separate steam turbine to yield another 125 megawatts. This two- turbine scheme makes an IGCC plant about 15 per- and India will send 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the at- cent more energy efficient than a conventional coal plant. mosphere each year.According to leading climate models, all the IGCC technology also gives engineers unprecedented control added COZ could trigger an average global temperature rise of up over what happens to the different components of coal after they go to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.That much warming could raise into the power plant.In normal coal-fired plants,nearly all the pollut- sea levels several feet,flooding the world's coastlines and shifting ants go up the smokestack,where some of them are captured from global weather patterns in ways that could cause massive recurring the exhaust by scrubbers.Here they never even hit the flame.Con- crop failures. ventiond plants burn pulverized coal in the air,which contains about The smoke-free skies above the Polk plant hint at a way out.We 78 percent nitrogen.Since the burning takes place at low pressure, now have the technology to capture and store most of the carbon the carbon dioxide is diffuse; isolating it is difficult and expensive. dioxide generated by burning coal."It's very important what we do Burning gasified coal in pure oxygen at high pressure concentrates with the next 25 years of coal plants,"says Holdren."If all those coal the carbon dioxide,making it far easier to capture. plants are built without carbon control,the amount of carbon diox- Although Polk does not capture carbon dioxide(it still goes up 44 t Ak y r 9 a s 0 Y Z � � 1 T� O FI - An IGCC plant in Sicily(left)shows the environmentally friendly face of coal.Mountaintop removal in Appalachia m (right)tells a darker story.Coal mining has effaced a million acres of forest and polluted avers in the region. 3 LL the exhaust stack at a rate of 5,000 tons a day), it could easily be the IGCC process removes from the coal.The utility sells sulfur cap- retrofitted to do so;new IGCC plants could have the capacity built tured from the syngas to the fertilizer industry.Slag left from the coal in.Shorter reports that TECO is planning to replace this plant with is sold to the cement industry.All the slurry water is recycled to the ° a much larger,600-megawatt IGCC facility. "The rumor I've heard gasifier,there is no waste water and very little solid waste."Almost is that it will be online by 2013.I'm sure the new plant will be CO2- nothing goes to a landfill,"Shorter says. o capture ready.It wouldn't make sense not to.Anyone that's going to That squeaky-clean image starts to fall apart, however, as I'm W build one today has got to be thinking that carbon-emissions per- leaving Polk and encounter a dump truck loaded with 54 tons of that mits are going to be required in the future.What do you do when black rock.Another truck rolls along every 15 minutes or so,24/7, that day comes and you're not ready for d?" feeding the plant's 2,400-tons-per-day habit.Some of that coal,no Unfortunately,Tampa Electric's plans aren't typical of the industry. doubt,once lay beneath a mountain in West Virginia.And that chap- Of 75 coal-fired plants planned for construction over the next de- ter of the coal story is anything but tidy. cads,only 9 are slated to be IGCC, largely because an IGCC plant costs about$1 billion, 15 to 20 percent more than a conventional On a rainy early summer afternoon in the ancient mountains of 0 one. "The biggest obstacle is simple economics," says Holdren. West Virginia, Larry Gibson is showing me the other face of coal. ° "There is no incentive for capturing carbon in the United States,In- We're on top of Kayford Mountain,in the heart of Appalachia,walk- dia,or China.The most important thing that could happen io drive ing through 50 acres of hardwood forest where Gibson's family has IGCC forward would be putting a price on CO2 emissions in the form lived for more than 200 years.Many generations of coal miners are Zof a mandatory economy-wide'cap and trade'approach,which is buried in a family cemetery on this mountain. As we walk, a low U what a Senate resolution passed last summer recommended." steady rumble filters through the dense stands of spruce, maple, Although the Senate resolution went nowhere, David Hawkins, and hemlock. It is the sound of a mountain dying, and it's coming 1-" the director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense from just ahead,where the forest ends in a sheer 500-foot drop. Council in Washington,D.C.,is convinced that the political landscape Below us and extending to the misty horizon lies a desolate pit will change as the effects of global warming become impossible to of gray-black rock and rubble where, 14 months ago,a heavily for- ignore.Signs of that change are already evident in several states— ested mountain once stood.The grating rumble we hear is made w most notably California, where Govemor Arnold Schwarzenegger by the biggest bulldozer I've ever seen.Its blade is 12 feet high and has introduced legislation that will require a 25 percent reduction in 18 feet wide.Several hundred vertical feet of mountain have been greenhouse gases by 2020.When policies shift,the economics will blasted to smithereens to expose a rich vein of coal;the bulldozers follow."We're talking to Wall Street investors and telling them that if are moving in to harvest the bounty.This is mountaintop-removal someone wants to borrow a billion dollars to build a coal plant and mining,where a handful of men working some of the!argest vehicles you don't ask them what their strategy is to control carbon dioxide, ever buik can level an entire mountain in a matter of months. you're making a very bad investment,"Hawkins says. "I can count 9 men on this site now, 15 at most,"says Gibson,a The Polk plant,on the other hand,has been a very good invest- white-haired 60-year-old mountain gnome of a man."They've been ment.Tampa Electric actually makes money from the pollutants that working here for 14 months. Get a lot done in 14 months—took 45 ��Ya3ie,, ..tt,�^.+r r`c.,._ �..�, ,;�•�is:.wie .�i � ,. •a Kw I L fly, i , p gh lit 'w Coal is still king:A tugboat hefts a barge loaded with freshly mined coal along a section of the Ohio River in Louisville,Kentucky(left);coal destined for a power plant is transported in tonnages by freight(right). r L millions of years to form the mountains and a blink of an eye to drop mated storage capacity equals about 80 times the total rate at which them.This is the most insane thing I've ever seen in my life." we make carbon dioxide from everything per year,"says Robert So- y Like thousands of others throughout the region who have colow,a Princeton University physicist who coheads its Carbon Miti- o seen their communities ravaged by the effects of mining, Gibson gation Initiative."Coal-power plants account for about 25 percent of LL laughs at the notion of coal being clean or green. More than 7 per- that carbon dioxide,so it's 320 years of coal-power emissions." cent of Appalachian forest—the most diverse temperate forest in Three large-scale carbon storage,or sequestration, projects are z the world—has been obliterated by mountaintop-removal mining, testing ways to bury carbon dioxide effectively.The wodd's oldest "Some people like to talk about the cheap cost of coal," he says. carbon-sequestration experiment began in the North Sea oil fields in Z "How the hell can you call that cheap?" 1996.Statoil,the Norwegian national oil company,extracts carbon Lax enforcement of environmental regulations has let mining dioxide from natural gas and pumps 2,800 tons of it every day 3,000 companies destroy communities and taint groundwater through- feet below the North Sea floor,trapping it in sandstone.A 250-foot- out Appalachia. I visit one family whose home was filled with sul- thick layer of shale covers the entire sandstone formation, and it fur fumes from their tap water.Arsenic,benzene,and other mining seems to be leakproof.Statoil estimates that all the carbon dioxide w wastes contaminate the drinking water in many areas,which may be emissions from every power plant in Europe for the next 600 years G why Appalachia's cancer rates are abnormally high.And the death could be stored in the formation. rate in coal ruining is 60 percent higher than it is in oil and gas ex- EnCana Petroleum of Calgary,Alberta,is conducting North Amer- traction.When I mention clean-coal technology to Judy Bonds, a ica's first big sequestration project. The company buys carton di- local activist and coal miner's daughter in Whitesville,West Virginia, oxide from an American utility and pumps the gas underground in she scoffs: "Even if you could get marshmallows to come out of a southern Saskatchewan to force out oil that would otherwise be un- f power plant's smokestacks,you can't wash the blood off coal." recoverable.During the six years that the project has been running, there have been no signs that any of the gas is escaping. EnCana Even if IGCC offers no solution to the dangers of pulling coal ultimately expects to store about 20 million tons of carbon dioxide from the earth,it at least provides a way to control some of the most underground.A third project,in Salah,Algeria,expects to store 1.2 i hazardous by-products of burning(or gasifying)the coal.For some million tons of carbon dioxide per year in natural gas wells. of the captured contaminants,like fly ash,this is a straightforward "We're going to get more ideas on where to put this stuff,"says matter of burying the waste in a landfill.Carbon dioxide is a much Socolow."In a few decades,I think we'll have a sense of the forma- 0 trickier proposition.The research on how and where to store it safely tions we can access,and the numbers will go up.Conceivably,we essentially forever is just starting. may find that we were optimistic,and the numbers will go down.But j In September 2005. the Intergovernmental Pane( on Climate we've got to get going and learn the subject. It's like prospecting; Change,a United Nations organization that includes scientists from you'll get some unsuccessful ones and some good ones. It's'learn l nearly every country in the world,released a report estimating that as you go'—but we're ready to start." All the storage capacity in F 2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide could be stored in old coal mines, the world won't matter,however,if we don't have the kind of power abandoned oil and gas fields,and in various other geologic forma- plants that can siphon off the carbon dioxide(and other pollutants) tions around the word.That's a huge reservoir,even compared with so it can be buried.Nine new IGCC plants over the coming decade the rate at which humans are now burning fossil fuels. "The esti- will make only a minuscule dent in the problem. 46 Most in the coal industry argue that market forces will sort out the problem,a dubious view shared by the Bush administration,but j i + a it that seems improbable unless IGCC technology gets + cheaper or the cost of emitting carbon goes up. The Department of Energy is aiming to kick-start the tech- nology with a project called FutureGen,a$1 billion pi- lot IGCC plant that will have integrated carbon-capture and storage technology—a true zero-emissions plant. But the department has not yet even chosen Future Gen's construction site,and the plant will probably not be completed before 2012. s Some companies aren't waiting for FutureGen to get off the ground. Vattenfall, a Swedish firm, is backing a technology called oxyfuel combustion,which burns/ coal in a nitrogen-free atmosphere. By August 2008, _ r the company expects to complete a 30-megawatt plant near Berlin that will capture and store carbon ' 3 dioxide in an aquifer outside Berlin. BP is planning a hydrogen-fueled 500-megawatt plant 20 miles south of Los Angeles.When completed in 2011,the plant will make hydrogen from petroleum coke, an oil-refining i by-product,in the process storing as much as 4 million tons of carbon dioxide a year in California's oil fields. «, ■' t Still,these also amount to just a drop in the bucket of human-generated carbon emissions. So what will it take for emission-free coal technology to go mainstream? Holdren thinks the mounting evidence of climate change will spook the <= § * x world into action."I believe that right across the indus- a trialized nations there will be mandatory economy-wide approaches in place by no later than 2010,and in the major developing countries by 2015,"he says.James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ar- . gues that China and India will make this decision out of pure self-interest,since rising sea levels could place large portions of their coastal populations at risk.China has already committed to a 43 percent increase in in- dustrial energy efficiency by 2020. "Things could change overnight," agrees Daniel Schrag,a Harvard University geochemist who studies both ancient climate and carbon sequestration."Think of being involved in airport security in August of 2001. WA& AMA You couldn't have gotten a meeting with the Under- ` secretary of Transportation.And now it's a month later and you're , � meeting in the Oval Office." _ . Schrag suggests that the costs of cleaning up coal are surpris- " ingly modest. "Right now we put about 2.5 billion tons of carbon ^'V from coal burning into the atmosphere each year.An order-of-mag- nitude estimate for capture and storage is something like $100 a ton. That 2.5 billion tons is only$250 billion dollars a year—about t ' half a percent of global GDP.It's a lot of money—it requires political =o a will—but it's not a ridiculous amount of money." For context,Schrag compares that cost to other ways we willingly pay .forsecurity."Solvingtheclimateproblemaltogether—completely rebuilding our energy infrastructure—is something like a $400-bit- lion-a-year program.The U.S.share is maybe$100 billion.That's not that much compared with defense outlays. It's small compared to Iraq.If we really got scared,we could do a lot in a hung." - 47 Jack& Diane Hogpard / S , l L R, is 1 L L' • N r 4' REC'D NOV 0 2000 d - � y h 1 j f n { V i r _ d f r / REO November 30, 2006 Dear Mr. Holzmeister, As an owner of property in Truckee (12705 Falcon Point Place), I am a recipient of your November 17, 2006 letter outlining the alternatives for long term electricity contracts faced by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. I would like to go on record as supporting what appears to me to be the thoughtful, economic, and long term solution represented by the proposed 50- year, Utah Contract. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in bringing the contract into being. Sincerely, w� Robert B. Thompson or { /Xi f �� . 4 m • / f .......... '�` ' 412 � r M � ety y t • r tin cz-) ew r. a7, a REcn ,�, jl 71 V-111 'i�l F&- OT� Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Richard Leijonflycht[rhleijon@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:58 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power-year 2012 Dear Mr Holzmeister, I am responding to your letter of November 17 regarding future power purchases. First let me apologize for not responding earlier, your target of November 29 slipped by me. I fully support the possible purchase of wholesale power from the new power plant that is expected to be online by 2012. A state of the art coal facility should be reasonably enviornmentally safe. Lower power costs will benefit all customers. Water and sewer plants can keep costs lower, schools will be and other public agencies will benefit and the private sector, especially those with large facilities such as Mountain Hardware, restaurants, grocery stores all will benefit. Their savings will pass on to all residents in the form of lower cost services and goods. A green benefit from less expensive power is a possible increased use of electricity by tdpud customers for heat, and other household appliances rather than propane, wood,or natural gas, all of which pollute the air in an uncontrolled and unregulated manner in small units which for the most part are less efficient and much dirtier than a large, well designed electric generating plant. . Sincerely, Richard Leijonflycht 14645 Devils Peak Road Donner Lake 124 Guaymas Place Davis, Ca 95616 1 n 117/nnn4 Peter Holzmeister From: Joe Sylvia ooebevsylvia@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:58 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Power Contracts Dear Peter, What happens to the Electric Contracts between April 2009 and 2012? As far as the long term contracts after 2012, my opinion is go for the Utah plant contract at approx. $35 per megawatt. Joe Sylvia, partner 13058 Pinnacle Loop Tahoe Donner 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jesse McGraw Oessmac34usamedia.ty] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:14 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Plant Proposal I hope my comments are not too late for your consideration. I applaud your efforts to provide our citizens rate stability in considering a long term purchase agreement with the Utah plant. Rate stability is essential to our economic future. In reviewing your proposal it appears that the needs of both the consumer and the environmetal advocate are being met within those constraints in which we have control. I applaud you again for seeking a balanced solution. My concern is that the coal plant may become obsolete in say 25 years and not be marketable. Have you calculated that risk? In the mean time I as with many citizens would like to think I could retire some day. I moved from Tahoe Vista to Truckee in 1990. 1 just paid my November gas and electric/water bills which nearly exceed my previous mortgage and utility bills combined. I cannot imagine facing the utility rate increases on the table today while trying to make it on a fixed income. I have heard the voice of those in our community who would put global warming as their highest priority. We all need to do our part as stewards of our environment, but we must live within our economic means. I urge the PUD Board to continue seeking a balanced portfolio and provide affordable solutions to all customer classes. In the absense of a better solution I support your efforts to contract with the Utah power plant. Sincerely Jesse McGraw 12/7/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Truckee [Truckee@LTOL.COMj Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:26 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal power Good morning Peter, After listening to Stephen Hollabaugh explain the situation about base electricity I am in favor of signing the power contract. I am saying this as a private citizen. Dr. Mark Brown 13479 Olympic Dr Truckee, CA Truckee Drug and Alcohol Testing 1 Message Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Al Pombo, Inc. [alpombo@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:58 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Plant Peter: I am in support of the District purchasing power from the Utah power plant at $35 per megawatt. The length of the contract is a harder decision to make. If the shorter term contracts start out at the same cost basis as the 50 year contract, it may not make a difference. Technology being what it is today, however, I would support the 50 year contract, betting we will have the ability to burn coal with less emissions in the near future. Very truly yours, Al Pombo Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: Gary Waters[truckeegwwaters@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:01 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Contract Peter; For years the TDPUD has allways put the rate payer first. To not accept this 50 year contract would be an enormous mistake. Just remember two years ago when you had to announce a rate increase the public outcry was ridiclous. Please pass this message on to the ELECTED board of Directors that I am in favor of accepting the Coal Contract. Do not let the silent majority down by listening to a few people who cannot come up with an alternative method of securing power. Respectfully Gary Waters (Rate Payer) advid Voter???? Gary W. Waters Everyone is raving about the_atl-new Yahoo! Mail beta.. Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: JAMES W CRITZER Dimcrit@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:04 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: rate info Peter, while I appreciate the environmental issue to a degree, the first concern of tdpud should be to provide a secure source of electricity at the most competitive pricing available. The proposal for the Utah coal plant sounds like a winner and would meet all reasonable needs in both supply and pricing. Alternate energy will not be cost effective for quite some time and still needs considerable research and development to improve efficiency and reduce costs. While a number of your customers will vocally support the higher cost alternatives, the majority of your customer base are concerned about costs. Many in the area are retired or nearing retirement age and cost is the major issue. To raise rates as proposed in your letter by more than 30% in the near term and more longer term when lower priced options are available is unreasonable. The coal industry and the power generators are constantly reducing emissions and will continue to do so. I vote for the Utah agreement. regards, Jim Critzer 11819 Snowpeak Way Truckee, ca. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: albarth [albarth @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:30 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Rates Hello Mr. Holzmeister, I am responding to your notification concerning the new sources of electrical power for our community. I have a residence at Tahoe Donner and am only a part-time resident, but the costs of all energy is very important to me. I also care about the environment, but this idea of avoiding coal because it will pollute our atmosphere is ludicrous and I certainly don't buy into the flawed logic of these radical environmentalists that would want everyone to pay twice as much for their energy than we have to. I am whole heartedly behind all efforts to obtain the cheapest and most dependable sources of electrical power possible. Some of my"neighbors" at TD are probably rich enough to spend twice as much for gasoline and natural gas, but speaking for the "common man", I don't intend on doing so and can't afford it either. Please continue in your efforts to supply us all with the most economical and dependable power as you have been doing and keep up your good work. Thanks for taking the time to recognize these responses. Sincerely; Al Barth 14925 Davos Dr. Truckee Page 1 of I Peter Holzmeister From: Kirkpatrick,William [wkirkpat@ebmud.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:33 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Your letter of 11/17 on energy and power contract options Good day Peter, you may recall 1 worked with you and Ed on the Donner Lake water situation, I as the water engineer member of the DLPOA Water Committee. Water system seems to be performing very well. Thanks for all your efforts ---we don't mind paying for a quality system. Now, you asked for our opinion on the alternate energy purchase ideas. My opinion is simple, buy low and sell high. I'm sure you are way ahead of me, but if you need customer support for certain ideas, I offer that buying the needed base load from Utah at the lower locked in cost and peaking off other available power supply, optimizing renewable power purchase, is the way to go. I favor renewable supplies that are waste-based power generation (biological wastes from Agriculture for example or waste heat)as they are generally steady and not whimsical like the wind or the sun. Solar is even in question for me, given an option, as it"takes"from the environment resources and energy to make the parts that eventually wear out. It of course has its place. As for the transition to renewable, as and when it becomes available, I would hope you could become the seller as after all TDPUD is the investor in the original power plant. This is the sell high part---- sell off what part of base load you no longer need (presumably owing to increased use of renewable as a matter of environmental policy) on the margin and thus the savings and the "sell high -- but just lower than renewable"will keep our rate increases very low, and we still own the base load and could do it in shorter contracts for flexibility. Utah will build and sell the power as someone will buy. Mayas well be us who can use power efficiently AND keep a strong policy for environmental sustainability such that we, as initial investors, reap the best economic rewards while simultaneously transiting to(and maximizing) renewable supplies at a marginal cost increase to the extent we can --- seems like smart and environmentally balanced business. So, there you have my opinion. The notion of the 20 to 30 percent increase in 2009(and who will guarantee that or less??) given the option is not something that I can support as a TDPUD rate payer. My only query is can Utah build the power plant within budget and hold the low price, or nearly so? I have no knowledge of the tendency(or not)for construction cost over-runs for such plants. Have a great Holiday Season and thanks for giving us the opportunity to opine. Bill Kirkpatrick Cabin at: 15730 Conifer Truckee since 1983. 11/c 11)nn1r_ DAVID C. HOOPES 45 MOTT PLACE OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 946 1 9-3 1 1 4 1-925-376-8822 FAX: 1-925-871-521 1 DAVIDC HOOPE5.NET November 3 0, 2006 Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District Post Office Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160 Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I am a client of Truckee Donner Public Utility District and own property at 10083 Lake Edge Court, Truckee, CA. Thank you for your letter of November 17, 2006, wherein you reported that you were considering the purchase of electricity generated at a new Utah plant. You asked what I thought of this plan, and you also reported that those concerned about the side effects associated with burning coal believed that the Truckee community should make a clear statement that it values a clean and healthy environment by rejecting such a long term contract with a coal burning plant. Those individuals suggest that the District should use short-term contracts with coal plants and take advantage of renewable power plants as soon as possible to eliminate coal. Such a plan would be at a higher cost. The purpose of this letter is to say that I agree with the District and feel you should purchase electricity generated at a new Utah plant at the lower cost. I concur with the District's idea to have a 50-year contract that can be sold to another party if you choose to, and if you have a willing buyer. I disagree with the view that we should have short-term contracts, a series of five year contracts for example, to make it easier to abandon coal contracts, primarily because such short term contracts are more costly. Sincerely, David C. Hoop 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 coming to Truckee has been coal fueled generation. Our proposal to secure energy from the plant in Utah is controversial because the fuel is coal. Coal is a concern because when burned it emits pollutants 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. They have 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 the 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 as part of the Truckee power supply portfolio. Both sides agree, I think, that coal is a necessary fuel for generating electricity until renewable plants are available. We disagree on the appropriate length of the contract. 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. The other view believes that we should have short-term contracts, a series of five year contracts for example, so that it is easier to abandon coal contracts 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 e-mail at peterholzmeistercc@tdpud.org or send me a letter to P.O. Box 309, Truckee, California 96160. Thank you ror your input on this matter. Very truly yours, Peter L. Holzmeister y Ala REC13 ,U November 28, 2006 Peter L. Holzmeister Truckee Dormer Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160 Dear Mr. Holzmeister: Your letter arrived today addressed only to my husband, Lawrence E. Bothen. Since our primary residence is in Pacifica, California, we cannot make it to this public meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow regarding the Truckee power supply. Yet,my letter is not in response to the subject of the meeting. I will comment about that later through your email address. I am writing to you because you totally excluded my name from this important correspondence. For your information, my name is also on this account and the monthly payment comes out of my bank account directly. Not my husband's account. This is not a joint account. This is clearly an act of discrimination and I resent it. This is not the first time this has happened and I'm tired of it. In the future,be sure that all correspondence regarding our property in Tahoe Donner— namely 12635 Northwoods Blvd. #2 in Truckee to both my husband and myself. I would appreciate you advising your staff as well. Thank you, P"cudence Bothen 105 Troglia Terrace Pacifica, CA 94044 (650) 359-1577 Directors Joseph R. Aguera Truckee Donner J. Ron Hemig Patricia S. Sutton Tim F.Taylor Public utility District Bill Thomason General Manager Peter Holzmeister ?-o"L November 17, 2006 P M FRIEDENBACH 81 MELROSE PL 12 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94062 - 1857 Dear Valued Customer: The Board of Directors of Truckee Donner PUD is considering entering into a contract for the purchase of electric energy from a power plant in Utah. This has become a controversial idea. Two points of view have been expressed regarding our plan. One point of view results in a large increase in Truckee's electric rates. We are seeking input from the community. The Truckee Donner PUD does not own or operate any power generation facilities. We buy the power we need to serve our customers. Today, the primary method for generating electricity in the United States is by burning coal. Other sources include nuclear plants, natural gas burning plants, hydro generation plants, wind power and solar plants. Over the years the District has purchased electric power from suppliers using primarily coal and hydro plants. We have entered into many contracts over the years for the purchase of electric power. Our goal has been to secure the most economical power available. Our current contract expires on April 1, 2009. Over the past six years we have been investigating various ways to best secure an economical electric power supply. One of the options we have been considering is entering into a contract to obtain power from a plant in Utah. The plant in question has not yet been built. It is scheduled to be built by 2012. The plant will burn coal to heat water to produce electricity. The contract would last for fifty years, unless we sell our interest in it at an earlier time. The price for this power is approximately one-half the price of our alternative sources of electric power. The cost to generate electricity at the new Utah plant will be approximately $35 per megawatt of demand. The cost to acquire power from other available sources is $74 per megawatt of demand. The amount of power we would purchase would cover the portion of our power needs called base load. Base load is the electricity that the Truckee community uses on a steady continuing basis. The remainder of our power needs, called peaking power needs, would be satisfied by purchasing power from other sources. There is an increasing requirement in the United States to consider environmentally friendly power in a power supply portfolio. Environmentally friendly power using renewable and clean technology is expensive, but we need to support these power generation technologies rather than just seek the lowest cost power. We need to balance economics and environment. So we plan to aggressively seek power from renewable power plants to satisfy the District's peaking energy requirement, as well as growth in our base. However, this may be difficult given that right now only 6% of the power generated in the Unites States is considered renewable power. Also, the location of that generation P.O. Box 309-Truckee, CA 96160-Phone 530-587-3896-www.tdpud.org jovemter 28, 206, 3107 `Aver FWANW)v ME- AuMsKe, OR 97325 P,tsr Hoizrrei3ter-Generall Mainager DonilarPlib:ic Disbrct RCv Box 309 Trudvee, CA Clear Mr. vicumenter Hearing" ro Ice ineld at 7�00, p,no, Ylle ji:si I-scOved your Movemtter 17, s-�agardinq"A Special i?ublic �)n November 29, 20fD6. Obvicusly, :fie not te 3b!e to -,ut for he X-3 gc.31 in d, we Are !C(TMO tehind tree ,.:�strx, -3st PC Ner' M phe U ah Pc,,, P-r P-ant i,-S35 per rregav4att) for iour ioad and use the- .,acuring f, % 'rc' zavings &secure R,,,ate fuel gynef for ,:tijr peaking p(;,,ver ,-ieeds. it ppears tous ',he r-29RY Of ,he ,ituation S 'It Plailts tnat burn ccal art? ra-cornmend 'i,!ering into alc,'1g 'errn, �%Oyear c3ntrat for tte pur.,;1hasing of,�e tric eref,Iy 0-CM a YR',,) be bug power plant in U<ah- Them 's 3 j-,)t-,,j coal in i hah -and sows ard AM last'Neil :r-,to te hAme dwing which hme, Wth 70 iflicic e4elf'Ped- in 'the me3nixne, or 30 year; or Iss, an aRerrMa more ereqjy source ,Al to Ks secure at ieast 3 50 ;ear :7,wld �niep!ant. COY home A 0 Prr,:-sse( EzAalas At 112 1168 Np,;,. �v-h Coc;jrt, Tnc!-�ee, CA. As a -,idfa ;-,cte, ! is'd i,p -,"cr.er an ,iy ,re �h� rrle�inq, ;.iubiic �'h,-WM)3- 0'ff"eiePt,Cre w Cragan 203061 8354 cr coil nu-ti3r is 9-4 1 C8. 41-4:y yciui,s, 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 coming to Truckee has been coal fueled generation. Our proposal to secure energy from the plant in Utah is controversial because the fuel is coal. Coal is a concern because when burned it emits pollutants 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. They have 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 the 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 as part of the Truckee power supply portfolio. Both sides agree, I think, that coal is a necessary fuel for generating electricity until renewable plants are available. We disagree on the appropriate length of the contract. 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. The other view believes that we should have short-term contracts, a series of five year contracts for example, so that it is easier to abandon coal contracts 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 e-mail at peterholzmeister@tdr)ud.orp or send me a letter to P.O. Box 309, Truckee, California 96160. Thank you Tor your input on this matter. Very truly yours, X)�i doe P rt Peter L. Holzmeister Y? ry JJJ,,, I1f e+ v i FF f Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David Dunlap[davedster@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:00 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Supply contract Hi Peter, Thank you for your letter to PUD customers summarizing the supply issue. My point of view would be to lock up the low cost contract to meet basic needs and look for alternative sources to fill peak needs. Perhaps over time the price disparity will not be so great and you can shift to more environmentally friendly sources. Thanks for seeking our input. Dave Dunlap 1'1/A IV VIA Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Georgerbrewer@cs.com Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:25 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Your Itr dtd 11/17/06 Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I am responding to your letter of Nov. 17, 06, outlining the issues facing TDPUD re long range planning for an energy source. It seems,from your letter,that the main controversy is between those favoring environmentalism and those favoring low cost.The issue is how long a time to place contracts for future energy purchases. Certainly one must take into account environmental issues in making such decisions, but one must also use reasonable judgment in balancing those issues with cost. Your Ian.Lof.p_urchasin.g e y from a coal fired Utah plant on a 50 year contract(resalable)for$35/Mwh for enough energy to sati��Lour'base load', then satisfy-your_�eakina requirements by gurchasing_'renewable' ener if available and connectable-even at greater than twice the above cosh sounds eminently sensible!! I urge the Board to adopt that plan. Sincerely yours, George R. Brewer; Carmel, CA. PS: In case it matters, I earned a PhD degree in electrical engineering (years ago-1952) but in electronics/microelectronics- not power generation and distribution. But I remember the power problems in California a few years ago-a properly negotiated long term contract is best! (Incidentally, energy is measured in megawatt hours, not megawatts.) Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Robert Friess[refriess@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:02 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Plant Dear Mr. Holzmeister, Coal fuel technology is rapidly developing into a clean, efficient, and economical power source. To ignore that fact and choose a less economical source of power for perceived, but unlikely to be realized, ecological advantages would be as insane as not drilling in ANWR or refusing to invest in atomic power plants. Sincerely, Robert E. Friess Peter Holzmeister From: Jim &Janice Rhode [falconridgeOl @earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 6:39 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: TDPUD Power Costs TDPUD Power Costs.doc(24 KB) Mr. Holzmeister, Janice and I were not able to make the November 29, 2006 public hearing but would like the attached letter made a part of the record. We support the use of the TDPUD moving forward to secure low cost power from the Utah power plant, at $35 per megawatt, for your base load and use the savings to secure alternate power for your peaking power needs. Jim & Janice Rhode 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Lloyd and KG Phillips [kglp@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, December 02,2006 8:53 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 50 year coal fuel generating plant Hi Peter: I think we should go with the coal generator. After all the EPA has very strict standards that must be met for the generating of electricity nowadays and I think that that as improvements in the next 50 years come along they will hi added Tahoe Donlant to make it clear and more ner(home address n Santa Rosa slcient.Thanks, Lloy POBOX 6782, S Rtl 5 06T. 110782 t area 315 at 11696 Rhineland, 1 n/A IIIA114 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: posehn7@earthlink.net Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:58 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electrical Power Contracts. Dear Mr. Holzmeister; I totally support obtaining electrical power from your proposed source. As a non-resident home owner in the Truckee area paying higher rates than permanent residents (correct me if I'm wrong), I appreciate any policy or effort to reduce or maintain current rates. As a citizen concerned about the long and short term effects of CO2 emissions on the environment, I am also realistic enough to understand that the continued use and development of fossil fuel energy sources is necessary until renewable sources become more available. Hopefully, more environmentally aware administrations will hasten the implementation of clean energy producing technologies, i.e. CO2 recapturing, etc., enabling the use of coal as a viable future energy source. Sincerely, Peter Posehn posehn_7 @_earthlnk,net EarthLink Revolves Around You. 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 coming to Truckee has been coal fueled generation. Our proposal to secure energy from the plant in Utah is controversial because the fuel is coal. Coal is a concern because when burned it emits pollutants 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. They have 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 the 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 as part of the Truckee power supply portfolio. Both sides agree, I think, that coal is a necessary fuel for generating electricity until renewable plants are available. We disagree on the appropriate length of the contract. 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. The other view believes that we should have short-term contracts, a series of five year contracts for example, so that it is easier to abandon coal contracts 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 e-mail at Pete rholzmeisterCcr_tdpud.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, r d ' Peter L. Holzmeister r A 1. ter✓ ti F Page l of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Carole Stahlkopf[carolestahikopfChotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:00 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase of Electric Energy I am writting in response to the letter of Nov. 17, 2006 regarding a future contract with the proposed Utah power plant. I wish to support TDPUD in purcvhasing power from this propsed plant with a 50 year contract because of its greatly lower cost than other alternatives. While I understnd the environmental concerns regarding this new plant, the cost differential between it and the other alternatives is simply too great at this time, and a series of short term contracts would not secure the needed power at the best price. Sincerely yours, Carole and Karl Stahlkopf 13880 Copenhagen Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1_Beta_version. Join now. -1 is 111nnK Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Bob-Work Usafitz@bobfitz.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:06 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Contract I urge the TDPUD to secure the long term contract as suggested. It is my view that, as renewable energy sources become more plentiful and competitive, the power sources that are provided by coal will have to become more competitive to sustain operation. I believe that, even though we are committed to a 50 year contract, the opportunity to renegotiate that contract will arise. Robert Fitzgerald 15681 Northwoods Blvd. Truckee 11 is I MnA Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Singer3045@aol.com Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Re: Your letter dated November 17, 2006 Peter, Recommend the most economical power available. I strongly support a fifty year contract with the Utah power plant($35 per megawatt). Cost should be the primary factor in your decision. Respectfully, Walt Singer 3045 Atwater Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 11 is i)nnc Page l of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Terry Erhardt[tjerhardt @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:30 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contracts Peter, sorry for the late reply to the recent power contract debacle. Sure, it would be nice if we could have power from re-newable resource plants and we could drive cars that get 60 mpg or better or even run on water, but these alternative products, aren't available, YET. Private enterprise must see a profit in these new products and services in order to invest the huge amounts of money need to perfect these products, it just isn't there YET. We are in favor of the LESS expensive power contracts from Utah, the costs of living in this town are already t000000 high. Look around at the shops and business in town, Hell look at Guzman Shell station, we are paying a $1.15 MORE FOR GAS IN Truckee than at our winter vacation home in Tucson. Thanks for asking these question, hope this helps. Terry & Judy Erhardt 11368 Bennett Flat Road, Truckee, Ca. 96160, we have lived in Truckee for more than 35 yrs. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Ron Dornseif [svron@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:14 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Contracting Strategy Dear Mr. Holzmeister: Thank you for your letter and your request for comments. Both goals you stated are important goals to be achieved. However, they often cannot be achieved concurrently, so the issue is more one of balance than and "either/or" proposition. A new plant has the significant opportunity of using new technology to make coal based energy a"cleaner", if not yet a"clean" source. In my opinion, the end game of clean, renewable energy will not be achieve by a single silver bullet technology but by a series of aligned choices that will end up with a long term solution(s)that achieves the goals. In all cases, the choices have to work economically. I would suggest stating the overall goal as follows:The goal is to seek out and deploy energy source contracts that continuously improve the mix of clean, renewable energy and a market rate for the consumer which is no more than "X%"above the competitive rates currently available from other less clean, non-renewable sources. That is, invest in furthering/support developments of clean, renewable energy sources. What should "X" be? I don't know that answer, however, I do know that the $39 difference between the sources discussed ($74 vs$35) is unworkable for the consumer(I am assuming the $74 rate was for clean, renewable sources). My instincts tell me consumers would support a policy goal of clean renewable energy with paying a 10-20%premium. If a clear policy statement of TDPUD similar to my suggestion where presented as the ongoing intention reinforced every time contracts are up for re-evalution,the consumer in Truckee would willingly support the goal. Finally, with such a stated goal, only the management and engineering team at TDPUD can make the necessary evaluations and policy decisions that would meet the goal.We consumers must support that process once we see the strength of the commitment to a well stated policy goal. Good luck and thank you again for asking. Ron Dornseif Tahoe Donner and Scotts Valley CA "ie cnnnc Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Ron Medak[rmedak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:10 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power contract Mr. Holzmeister, While I certainly cannot claim to be an expert on the issue of renewable power, I do consider myself to be better informed than the average citizen and as a resident of Truckee do have a stake in which contracts the TDPUD chooses for its power sources. Although you have already had your meeting I would like to add my voice to the crowd as I did not receive your November 17 letter until this a.m. I would like to make the following points which I'm sure others have already expounded upon: 1. Truckee power is already relatively expensive. 2. For the foreseeable future coal will be an important part of the energy grid. Coal plants coming on line are increasingly environmental friendly and attention is being paid to that technology. For these reasons there will be a market for coal originated electricity for a long time to come. 3. Renewable resources will be expensive for a long time to come until these technologies are are more developed. They come with their own environmental downsides (the Wall Street Journal today highlights the downsides of the use of palm oil in biodiesel) that are not inconsiderable, even if sometimes not so visible to those of us importing them from other regions. 4. Flexibility is important as this arena may likely change considerably over the coming decades. I could make many more points (that I'm sure you are already more than well-aware of. But obviously from the above. My wife and I are in favor the 50 year contract. I'm sure there will be many willing buyers for a very long time to come. Energy prices will not be falling any time soon and there will be security in locking in the longer term contracts. Respectfully, Ron Medak, M.D. Tahoe Donner resident and landowner i"I is 111nnc Peter Holzmeister From: Marc Lamb[marclamb@hotmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:24 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: A voice of reason! Buy the coal fired power! Dear Peter, Thank you for the update letter describing the district' s current dilemma in contracting future power contracts. In short, I am voting for the long term contract of purchasing affordable base load power from the still to be built coal fired power plant in Utah. I'm assuming that the long term length of the contract is required to lock in the lowest megawatt rates. I'm sure I speak for the majority of working class Truckee residents, that want the most affordable power possible from their utility district. The high cost of living in our area is already crushing for many. An assumed basic necessity like electricity shouldn' t be a contributing factor in driving families from our area. Let the customers that reject this plan put their money were their mouth is and specifically sign up to be charged solely for "green technology power" at double the megawatt price. I know we would all love to leave a smaller carbon footprint, BUT lets face the facts, the current state of technology tells us that 93% of North American power generation comes from burning fossil fuels. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal with the largest known coal reserves in the world. Hydroelectric power is available only in small areas of the country. Nuclear power has potential lethal effects and solar and wind generated power are not yet technologically cost effective. To help customers see reason, I think it' s very important for the district to get information out showing that a new coal burning plant will ideally be equipped with state of the art technology. That it will meet current E.P.A. clean air regulations by burning low sulphur coal fuel, have the lastest in exhaust scrubbers, along with high efficiency turbines and power transmission lines for the lowest possible emissions. Thank you for your continued efforts in fiscal responsibility. Sincerely, Marc Lamb 11510 Highland Ave. Truckee, CA Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/? href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk 2 Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: Suzanne Service [sue@ serviceconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:46 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electricity purchase strategies Dear Peter, Thank you for the opportunity to give input to the district's policy. I am committed to doing the right thing with recycling, not buying gas guzzling cars etc. While it would be admirable to buy the expensive more environmentally friendly power, I think that the price makes it impossible. There are many low income families living in the district, and our winters mean that power bills are already high in the cold season. It does not seem right to add to the burden of consumers simply to be 'environmentally correct'. You might interpret your mission to supply energy to your consumers at the lowest price. Also, if the energy is being produced, someone is going to buy it. Perhaps the government is the action agent here, not the PUD. Suzanne Service Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jeff and Cindy Haigh Ochaigh@cwia.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:56 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Truckee Power Dear Peter, Missed the meeting and want to respond. Please enter long term contract. New power plan will meet current standards and secure our future with economical power. Also, no more two tier pricing for full time vs part time residents. Charge everyone the same higher rate. Thanks Cindy and Jeff Haigh 13497 Heidi Way Truckee act#6392100024 1 1,«r')nnk Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Kevin Dielissen [kevindi@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:18 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Truckee power I rec'd your letter dated 11/17/06 It's my opinion that your strategy is the best one. Secure the long term saleable contract that gives us the cheapest power for the base load and meanwhile pursue other sources for the rest. Kevin Dielissen Falcon Point Place, Tahoe Donner. 12/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: John & Bobbie Zaucha [zaucha@garlic.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:03 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Fw: Power contracts Got your letter and I'm impressed with the detail provided in the short space. The'Greens"will always go for the renewable option whether or not the power is available. Clean coal burning plants are about as good as were going to see for the forseeable future. These plants will only get better as new technology emerges. Go for the 50 year option. 12/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Paul Thomas [paul.thomas@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, December 01,2006 11:47 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 50 year contract Peter, I am in favor of the "50 year contract'. Paul Thomas 14750 Tyrol Rd Truckee, CA 12/1/2006 Nov 29 06 11 : 28a Henderson Ventures 650 961 3090 p• 1 TO: Peter Holzmeister 530.587.5056 November 29,2006 1 attempted to email you the message shown below, but your email server rejected me as a sender. You may want to reset your rules to let in more comments. Also, there doesn't seem to be an alternate way of sending email to TD PUD via your"Contact us" venue on TDPUD.ORG Hi Peter, Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Subject to a more through cost- benefit analysis, it would seem that clean-energy sources will be in limited supply and, therefore, sold out for the next 30 years. Consequently, coal will be burned whether purchased by TD PUD or some other utility. Therefore, a potential "statement" by Truckee residents would be very expensive, while having an insignificant (by increasing overall US clean-energy demand minutely) impact on the environment . Effective US environmental policies have to come at the state and national levels. I also have some suggestions for your public hearings. I would guess that your November 29th meeting may attract a disproportionate number of anti-coal people (Who wants to speak out against a clean environment?) Therefore, I suggest you set up a web site for anonymous inputs. Further, TD PUD could summarize the pro/con positions and put the matter to a vote, perhaps via the internet, to get a representative opinion from the community. One possible outcome could be a position "statement" by TD PUD customers supporting more aggressive state and national energy policies. The policy statement could be sent to the appropriate government offices. Edward Henderson hen.ven@Comcast.net November 28, 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160 I think the contract with the Utah power plant is the wisest,best benefit-cost solution. By paying more for other sources that are further away the transportation waste, etc. would also in a sense contribute to global warming. Buying the latest electronic game, automobile, or mere cell phone and computer all significantly contribute to global warming by allocating scarce resources and using more power(to make those resources). Environmental decisions should always be done in the context of benefit-cost and exogenous costs as well. Sincerely, f � t y i f f Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Mark Crutcher[m.crutcher@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:53 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: Margrit Gipner(E-mail); Willene Dias(E-mail) Subject: Your letter of November 17, 2006 bear Mr. Holzmeister. I have read your letter of November 17th and am in agreement with the plan to contract for a 50 year term. As a rate payer I am concerned with costs. It seems to me that you have done the necessary research to represent your customers in a totally appropriate way. When "renewable" power sources are available at competitive rates then that would be the time to consider adding them to your portfolio. Thank you for asking for my input, Mark Crutcher Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jesse Richardson Desse@sbctruckee.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:08 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: all for the coal contract Mr. Holzmeister, I just wanted to take some time to let you know that I am all for the coal contract. As you know, many of these new coal plants are designed to have very efficient emissions with very little impact on the environment. My hope in this, as a born and raised Truckee man, is that the real local voice is heard in this debate and not that of the part time home owners. Sometimes the minority is louder in its opinion than the majority. Thank you for your time and consideration in this issue, Jesse Richardson FamilyNouth Pastor Sierra Bible Church Truckee, Ca (530) 587-6025 Peter Holzmeister From: Duncan Hay[DHay@cichomeoffice.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:17 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Energy Contract Dear Mr. Holzmeister, We are responding to your letter regarding the contract options which you and the Board of Directors for Truckee Donner PUD are considering. We are homeowners, in Tahoe Donner and have been for over twelve years. We realize that the hearing took place last night, but want to share our comments and endorsement. We are certainly supportive of finding cleaner/environmental ways to deliver power, but we are realistic that until the technology and delivery of such power is at a reasonable price, that Truckee Donner PUD should take steps to secure power through the new plant in Utah. We endorse your the suggestion to enter into the long term contract (fifty year) with the proposed new coal fueled plant in Utah. We further assume that at such time that you are able to acquire power from cleaner sources at competitive rates, that the proposed contract would be modified (sale of interest) and the PUD would move to the new cleaner sources of power generation. We are not in favor of the dramatic rate action called for in moving to alternative fueled plants at this time. We thank you for your communication and do appreciate the concerns for the balance between the environment and the cost to the consumer. We are confident that you have presented the best options to the community with the long term contract, and the ability to adjust in the future. Regards, Duncan R. Hay Nancy C. Hay Home: 530-758-4858 Email: hayski@gmail.com The above email was sent from my business address. 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Andrew Wolfe [apwolfe24@yahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:38 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: purchase of electric power In response to your letter of 11-17-06 please be advised that I am in accord with your goal to secure the most economical power available. Whether this can be accomplished by short term contracts or long term contracts is within your purview. Andrew Wolfe 14480 Southshore Drive Donner Lake 1 Page 1 of I Peter Holzmelster From: sniewendorp@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contract for Power with Uath Power Plant My name is Mr. Scott Niewendorp, 10951 Jeffrey Pine Rd. I have been residence of Truckee since 2003. 1 agree that its a good idea to obtain power from a (clean)coal burning power plant (Utah Power) and to supplement alternative energy from varys sources after base load requirements have been met. I believe your agreement against playing the market and securing a long term, low cost energy contract is valid one. I support the district's goal in securing low power from Utah Power for an estimated$35 dollar per megwat. I would also like to see TDPUD step up with alternate energy programs (Solar, Wind, Hydro) for residence of Truckee and the surrounding areas. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Colin Taylor[colintaylor_usa@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:36 PM To: editor@sierrasun.com Subject: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Special Meeting Letters to the Editor: November 30th. 2006 Dear Editor Last night, (November 29th), along with over 100 other people, I attended a special meeting of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, to discuss a power purchase agreement for long term power from a coal fired plant in Utah. This would have the effect of minimising rate increases in the foreseable future. Emotions ran high and the meeting was effectively hi-jacked by the Green/Sierra Club fraternity, - some of whom were most likely not rate paying customers of the Utility. By the time I got to speak, (at 1 1pm), in favor of the power purchase, most of the more reasonable customers had already left - however in response to my question, apparently the Utility had received 250 letters in support of the power purchase, and only 75 against. Lat time I checked, this nation is run on a democratic basis, - the PUD needs to take note of that! Without doubt, the majority in Truckee vote for reasonable rates and are happy to pay a little extra to encourage Green Power. - We should not be hi-jacked into paying exorbitant rates to please the "All Or Nothing" Green Crowd. The facts show that there is not enough Green Power to fulfill our needs in Truckee at anything like the price we are prepared to pay. Colin Taylor 587-7343 Everyone is raving about the all-new_Yaboui Mail,beta, Peter Holzmeister From: RICHARD HOFFMAN [dickalma48@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchasing Power Peter L. Holzmeister: We just returned home and your letter was here, but it was too late last night to respond in time. If it will still matter -- we definitely feel that the power should be purchased from the Utah plant at less cost, and go for the long contract. Using alternative power supply for the overload would probably be OK. It would be ridiculous to pay twice as much for power, when it isn' t readily available anyway. Just wanted to give you our take on this, even if it is late. Sincerely, Richard and Alma Hoffman 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Karen & Dave Hayllar[dkhayllar@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:54 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Energy Supply Acquisition Dear Peter Holzmeister, In reference to your November 17th, 2006 letter, we recommend entering into a contract for the purchase of electric energy from a power plant in Utah. We support the TDPUD's goal to continue to "secure the most economical power available" and continue to "investigate various ways to best secure an economical power supply". There are no economical reasons to incur twice the price! Furthermore, what scientific organization has confirmed that coal burning plants producing electric energy contribute to global warming? How do we know that global warming is not a natural transition as climate changes have occurred historically? We support the District's idea to have a fifty year contract that can be sold to another party if it chooses to. Regards, Dave Hayllar Karen Hayllar 14325 Skislope Way Tnickee, CA 96161 Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo'. Small Business.. Page 1 of 2 Peter Holzmeister From: Tim Hilborn [nyointl @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30,2006 6:53 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Energy Contract Hello Peter, Sorry I missed the meeting but I live in the Bay area full time. I received your letter regarding the contract renewal for electrical power. Thanks! I've recently purchased a Townhome in Tahoe Donner and have been coming up since the late '70's. I learned to ski at Donner ski resort. Although no one wants to see their bills increase 20-30% and I agree that we must start looking for alternative sources to supply the Tahoe Donner community, I don't feel it is realistic to subject all residents in the community to these increases because some people want to make a statement about global warming. I wonder if these same people are driving their kids to school and the store, alone in mid to large size suv's getting 8-10 mpg.....vehicle emissions (2nd behind coal power plants) are a very realistic global warming problem that can easily be alleviated by all of us driving smaller vehicles; or better yet taking public transpo occasionally! It would be interesting to see the demographics of the types of vehicles and public traspo use these people have. Is that available? Secondly, Truckee and or the state should be giving residents who are using natural gas, solar power and energy saving appliances and bulbs some kind of discount/rebate/subsidy or combination there of for reducing energy use. That would make a "clear statement". Lastly, in your letter you mention two very important points. First you have had many different contracts over the years and, the technology being used and updated for coal plant emissions is continually improving. That being said I feel it would be prudent, as a consumer to explore several different suppliers with varying lengths of contracts. Having only short or long term contracts with the coal plants and eventually leading into more contracts with expensive suppliers, because people want to make a statement about the environment, seems unrealistic and economically dangerous at this time. Paying for alternative sources of power for a few mid to large district grids at this point does not make economic sense and will not have much of an effect on global warming until the price drops. Until then, junk the large suv's, try to take public traspo, even twice a month! get the state and local districts to highly subsidize solar energy for residential and business buildings and give consumers a good reason to cut their energy consumption through rebates and discounts. If all this happened I don't think people would need to be as "genuinely concerned" with global warming. Thanks for your time. Page 2 of 2 Tim Hilborn PS: I drive a Subaru Forester, ride my bike to work and take the train at least twice a month! Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Tim Hammill (thammill) [thammill@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:44 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Letter Peter, Thank you for the correspondence; the arguments were laid out in a thoughtful manor. I am strongly in favor of securing low cost power from the Utah power plant for the base load. Are there meeting minutes from last night's meeting? Thank you, Tim Hammill Peter Holzmeister From: Bob Range [badbob@so-unique.net] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:49 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: rate increase letter dated 11/17/2006 Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I have a vacation home in Tahoe Donner subdivision. I read the letter with interest because I try to keep up on current events as much as possible. Also it is very possible we may retire up there so a long term contract is something I think is a better way to go. One thing is for sure, prices will not come down. If the P.U.D. can lock in rates, I think they should. I recently signed a contract to install solar power and be connected to the P.G.E. grid on my home in Livermore. We will be having everything installed in a couple of months. I like the idea of Solar Energy, however Truckee and Livermore don't quite have the same climate. Until the state figures out a way to transfer energy from the Solar Plants in southern CA to more towns, I believe the long term contract with reasonable costs, should be entered into. One in the Hand is better than Two in the Bush. 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Dave[davegoodman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:51 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Your Letter dated November 17, 2006 Thank you for the invitation to provide comments regarding the Truckee Donner PUD plans for securing electric power. I, for one, have no concerns whatsovever over any real or imagined side affects of burning coal, and would strongly encourage the TDPUD to obtain its power needs by the lowest cost method. If this means entering into a long term contract with a coal burning supplier, I am all for it. I am opposed to higher cost options. I believe coal-fired plants have made tremendous improvements in their ability to be more efficient and meet envirommnental standards, and also believe that in time these plants will be phased out if and when the government will give the green light to applications to develop LNG facilities. Using natural gas for power generation is one answer, and perhaps the best. Nuclear power plants also will be in the picture over the next fifty years. I would support your goal of securing power using the most economical options. I do not support the option of increasing costs by supporting power generation technologies that are unable to be competitive with other sources. Thanks again, David Goodman 11464 Chamonix Tahoe Donner 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: gjm2004 [gjm2004 @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:05 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: letter re: power availability Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I feel per your letter that you should encourage using the cheaper of the fuels since you can not build power plants in a few short years. Increasing our rates so the environmentalists are happy make us home owners very un happy having to pay 25% more. My PUD bill is already outrageous for a small cabin which is used only on the weekends... Pat Thomas Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: carolyn [carolynpratt@ltol.coml Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:11 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electric rates KEEP THE ELECTRIC POWER RATES AS CHEAP AS POSSIBLE. COAL PLANT EMISSIONS I AM SURE ARE EXTREMELY UPDATED SO WE DO NOT NEED TO CONCERN OURSELVES WITH THE EMISSION PROBLEMS....AND THERE IS ENOUGH COAL IN THIS COUNTRY TO LAST 100'S OF YEARS. BY THE WAY....THE LETTER DID NOT MENTION "WHY" OUR OLD PROVIDER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR POWER...POSSIBLY THEY ARE TOO PRICEY???? IS SIERRA PACIFIC WHO WE GET OUR POWER FROM CURRENTLY GIVING UP THE CONTRACT??? CAROLYN AND CHUCK PRATT Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Mark Thomas Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:11 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: power Contract Dear Peter, I live in Glenshire and in no way agree with the e-mail you received for the Glenshire Residents Assn. (Geoff Stephens) I was never contacted by GRA to see what my opinion is on this subject so I don't know how they(He) can speak for me or anyone else in Glenshire. I would like to see the power contract be approved and keep the water and electric rates low. Mark Thomas Glenshire Resident Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: SongstressOne@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:50 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal vs. Renewable power Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I am an owner of the Barewald cabin at 14096 Donner Pass Road and received your letter regarding the power contracts. As politically incorrect as it sounds, I am in favor of going with the cheapest form of power available(coal in this case). I do not have the money to make a statement - I believe renewable sources will gradually be used by everyone, and that's good. But those who have money laying around in great piles can use it at this beginning stage while the rest of us can get on board when the prices come down -as they always(eventually)do with new technology. I appreciate you asking for input. Sincerely, Leslie Luciani (for James R. Barewald) 5918 Carell Ave. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: nancy amundsen [oompanancy @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:53 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Response to letter Hi Peter, We met in the Emergency Room the other night (I am the nurse who knows Cory). I hope your test results were not suggestive of anything serious and that you are feeling much better. We chatted a bit about the letter you sent out regarding the choices for purchases of electric energy for the Town of Truckee. After reading your letter I have to say I agree with your leanings from our conversation to go with the less expensive purchase of coal. It would be wonderful to have a "Green Truckee" but that comes at a very high price until more plants are developed and made more available to our location. I would like to see Truckee eventually be able to reach a goal of being completely environmentally friendly. I am unable to attend the meeting this eve but I wish to thank you and the board for working hard to find the best possible solution for us all. Sincerely, Nancy Amundsen Nancy Amundsen Boulders Vacation Properties 11579 Baden Rd. Truckee, CA. 96161 Ph: 530-550-7202 Cell: 530-412-1181 Fax: 530-587-2621 wWw.hyptrgckeeWom Page 1 of 2 Peter Holzmeister From: Elisabeth Grossman [lis@truckee.net] - Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:17 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: Stephen Hollabaugh; Sara Owens Subject: Board meeting Board of Directors Care of Mr. Peter Holzmeister General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, California Dear TDPUD Board of Directors: Please accept this letter as input on the decision about the long term contract for electrical power to be purchased from a new Utah based power plant. It is my understanding that this power plant will be built by 2012 and will be generated by coal fossil fuels. I am a long time resident of Truckee and a large user of power. Besides my home I own several commercial buildings that are supplied electricity by the TDPUD. I also am a partner in GLA Morris Construction. In my business I am in constant contact with employees of the TDPUD. I would like to start out with a compliment. I have worked closely with Joe Horvath, Peter Holzmeister and Steve Hollabaugh. I have always found the TDPUD staff to be will informed and completely professional. They have always had the Districts best interest in mind and all decisions have benefited the end customer. I have always found this to be true even though on many occasion it has cost me financially in my developments. am very concerned that when the existing contracts for power end in 2009 that the potential substantial increase in power cost will negatively affect my business, the second home market and long term economy of Truckee and the Tahoe basin. Raising rates twenty-five to thirty percent will have a deep and long lasting consequence on the lives of lower social economic families in this area. Increasing power rates will increase the cost of housing both in rent and initial first time home buyer housing cost. Increasing energy cost will also cause the already high cost of living in this area to go up further driving out young families and workers. The negative consequences will reach to our local school district and to our business community. I recognize the need for clean burning fuels and green energy sources. These new energy sources should be explored and purchased if possible. But I also understand the reality of the times in which we live. I understand that the Truckee transmission lines come from the east and we must find energy that is affordable. Page 2 of 2 1 would suggest that the Board of Directors allows the staff to research alternative sources and if it is true that the cost of these alternatives will raise the customer rates by the predicted twenty-five to thirty percent then to allow the long term contract to purchase from the Utah Plant. I would also like to see a comparison of rates if the contract the TDPUD signs with this new plant be lowered to 15 years, 20 years or 30 years, possibly with options to extend if need be. These are still long term contracts, but less than the proposed 50 years. Again, like everyone, I would like clean energy, I am very worried about the economic impact on low and moderate income families and of the overall economy of Truckee if the TDPUD were to impose large rate hikes. Thank you for your kind consideration. Cordially, Thomas Grossman GLA Real Estate Development Inc. 530 587-2711 Page 1 of 2 Peter Holzmeister From: Jon Stow Qstow@shimmick.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:47 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: FW: Power Peter, I read the article about the hearing In the paper. Be strong and do the right thing. Don't let the vocal minority intimidate you. As you say its crazy not to enter the agreement since you will buy power from coal plants anyway. When you are a leader you have to do the right thing and not bow to negative intimidation. You may not be popular with the green group but you must be strong and do the right thing. You cant make everyone happy all the time. When green power is available we can buy it then. Enter the agreement before its too late. You will be vindicated later. Sincerely, Jon Stow .... .... ....... . From: Jon Stow Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:23 PM To: 'peterholzmeister@tdpud.org' Subject: Power Dear Peter, I am completely in favor of taking care of our God given environment. I believe we should do all we can. When environmentally friendly power sources are available I believe the whole earth should jump to implement it. I don't feel we should make any kind of statement as a community. It would be totally irresponsible to pass up the great opportunity and program you and your staff has so diligently worked to obtain. Im sure the people that are in favor of making a statement have great intentions and can do so by selling their cars and walk to work, burn firewood for heat from the dead and downed wood in the forest with their own smoke scrubbers, dig a water well so we don't have to take water from the lake and deplete the water in the river, and milk their own cows for milk so big stores don't have to sell it to them. .....................and on and on........... Please don't let this small group sway you from doing the right thing! Thank you for you attempts to be fair and responsible by soliciting input from all the rate payers and our neighbors. You and your staff have done an excellent job doing the right thing for all. I am totally in favor of the power plant in Utah, and when technology warrants we all can clean it up more. Remember the silent majority that may not respond to your request for input. I'm sure we are the majority just not as vocal. Sincerely, Jon Stow 15375 Cedar Point Dr. Truckee, Ca. 96161 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Bill and Jan Back [bback@usamedia.ty] Sent: Wednesday,-November 29, 2006 6:25 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Purchase You should meet all base line demands with the most inexpensive power possible and try to achieve peaks with alternate purchases. EPA should do their job in dealing with pollution compliance issues related to coal burning power generators. If citizens are concerned with pollution, as I feel all of us should be, start with the County Air Resources Board and work their way to the top. Keep up the good work and keep us informed. Thanks, Bill Back......a customer of the TDPUD for over 30 years Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Hal Schedler [halsched@surewest.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:24 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electricity Dear Mr. Holzmeister, Ref. your letter dtd. November 17, 2006: Vonnie and I are in favor of the long term contract @ $35.00 from Utah. We own 14469 Swiss Ln. in Tahoe Donner. Fifty years from now I'll be 134 years old, and my oldest Grandchild will be 58. Cheers, Hal and Vonnie Schedler (Harold Schedler) 3712 Haven Glen PI. Sacramento, Ca. 95821-3316 916-359 5032 Peter Holzmeister From: Andrew Morse[aalaff@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:49 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contract Peter: I sympathize with your predicament. nve all would like non-polluting, cheap energy available when we want it. As I see it, increasing the cost of energy in Truckee would place a heavy burden on the full time residents, not the 2nd home owners (such as our family) . Seeing and reading what has happened to South Lake Tahoe, where families are driven away due to spiraling costs, I do not want that to happen to the Truckee area. I believe it is prudent for TDPUD to enter into the 50 year contract securing a fixed cost per megawatt. At the same time, the District should continue to investigate other "greener" sources. At such time that these sources are available at a reasonable cost, then the District should offer the existing contract for purchase. Obviously, at the cost/megawatt you have quoted, there will be a willing buyer. In addition, there are other alternatives they may become available such as trading "greenhouse" credits and future technological improvements that may offset the effects of this contract. As we have seen with the Enron debacle, short term contracts may only lead to inflated costs to those without long term commitments. I urge the District to enter into this contract as long as it actively pursues alternative means of energy supply and promotes energy conservation. Andrew Morse 957 Stow Lane Lafayette, CA 94549 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jodi Uotkay@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:32 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 50 year power Dear Peter, 1 am a 23+ year resident of Truckee and a home owner in Sierra Meadows. Though I've disagreed with certain issues that involved T.D P.U.D. over the years, you have my complete agreement on this matter. The proposal to enter into a 50 year agreement with the yet to be built coal-fired plant vs. re-negotiating for power every 5 years is a no-brainer in my opinion. We need a reliable, proven source for our electrical needs and the financial benefits are a plus!!! I am under the impression that some of our newer, wealthier residents don't even flinch at the idea of a significant rate increase, especially if it means "cleaner air". And don't get me wrong, I came here with a Bachelor's Degree in Parks and Recreation with the idea of being a very enviromentally sensitive, long-term resident because of the incredible natural beauty that is inherent to this area. But the reactions that I have read that are in opposition to the proposed 50 year agreement have one common thread....emotional outbursts that ignore the facts. As was clearly stated in the mailer we received,the power we get now, and that would be available in the forseeable future, is primarily from older, coal generated plants. To support the development of a potentially cleaner coal plant is definantly a step in the right direction. Please put me down as a supporter of the proposed 50 year agreement. Thank you, Andrew Kuhnmuench <andy@docgelso.com> Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: MARK AGOST[markagost@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:02 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contract for energy. I support "state of the art" cleaner burning coal facilities and feel as we continue to support them, the energy efficiency will increase and polutant aspects will decrease to a more than tolerable level for this abundant resource of our nation. Of course, I would also support a savings in the energy costs for our home here. Thank you for your letter and request for input. Mark Agost 12864 Zurich Place #3 PO Box 9240 Truckee, CA. Peter Hoj rneister From: Donald House [dhouse2@gulfpackaging.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:42 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power rates I depend on you as my representative to do everything in your power maintain my electricity rates at the minimum. A small <3% premium to make a marginal but symbolic contribution to move toward renewal energy might be acceptable but there is no way a doubling of my rates is going to do anything but cost me a lot of money. I am sure if I wanted to "contribute" $2000 to a cause, I would pick a different one that would go toward the good of society, like the American Cancer Society. 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Mike Holland Sr. [donnerduck @ netzero.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:03 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: ELECTRIC POWER SOURCE INPUT Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:55:35 AM DEAR MR. HOLZMEISTER: PURSUANT TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2006, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT MY INPUT REGARDING THE TWO OPTIONS SET FORTH IN YOUR LETTER. I AM RETIRED AND ON A FIXED INCOME. I JUST COULD NOT AFFORD AN ELECTRIC CHARGE INCREASE OF UP TO POTENTIALLY 30%. THEREFORE, I WOULD APPRECIATE TDPUD SECURING POWER FROM THE PLANT IN UTAH AT A POTENTIAL COST OF$35.00 PER MEGAWATT. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT MY INPUT IN THIS MATTER. SINCERELY, MICHAEL J. HOLLAND SR. MIKE HOLLAND, SR. donnerduck@netzero.com 1 1/ten/�nnc Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Skip Walden [s-walden@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:54 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Proposed long term power contract First of all let me say I am sorry this is a day late.....I hope the meeting went well for you last evening.... I fully support your proposal for long term power contracts, whether from a coal plant of other type of powere plant...While it would be nice to have more environmentally friendly power, it isn't always possible!....Long term contracts are also the way to go as California found out n the not too distant past with its failed deregulation ttempt...( I worked for PG&E until I retired on 8/1 of this year)... This country needs to continue burning more coal and continue to make coal plants burn more 'cleanly' as it will help reduce reliance on foreign oil....if those protesting want to help, they should put their efforts into getting folks to conserve power(the demand side of the equation!!) which in turn will result in less coal (and oil) burned!....making 'statements' are fine, but they can't get in the way of making good business decisions!...Further, environmentally friendly power is neither abundant nor cheap! Thank you for doing a great job securing a long term power contract at reaonable price!! Ernest (Skip) Walden Blank Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Rick Baeseman [rickbaeseman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:45 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal contract Peter, I am a homeowner at 15124 Wolfgang. I commend you and your staff on your efforts to secure power in the future. If we don't burn coal someone else will. It would be to our best interest to secure a long 50 year plus options contract with Utah. We should continue to look for alternative eco friendly sources. In the mean time we are saving money and building equity in our Utah position which we COULD sell if we choose at a great profit. Do not let this opportunity pass by. Rick Baeseman Infinity Properties PO Box 1828 Byron, CA 94514 ric.k,baes,eman@sbcglobal.net Ph: (925)550-0830 Fax: (925)634-1118 http//www.,infinityproperties.net Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: chiarenza@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:22 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: low cost power utahpowre plant my input is to pursue the purchase of power from the Utah power plant . Cheek out the new X0L. 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. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmelster From: Jim Zeitlin Dim@zeitlin.org] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:27 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: New power plant Dear Mr. Holzmeister, As a home owner and property investor in the area served by the TDPUD I would like to urge you to go ahead with contracting to buy base load power from the new power plant under construction in Utah. It is important to the future success of our area as a vibrant, affordable and successful community that we obtain our basic utilities at reasonable rates. Any rate increases, especially those beyond what are absolutely necessary, will severely impact homeowners and renters, especially those with low and moderate incomes who otherwise may be priced out of our community. Truckee is a beautiful area, but one whose severe weather makes great demands on its' residents. It is the responsibility of our public servants to take these realities into account and exercise their fiduciary responsibility to provide services at the lowest possible cost. I would be happy to see additional peak power purchased from more innovative and less carbon-intensive sources, but we must be realistic about choosing must economical option for the essential service of base line power provisioning. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to participate in this discussion. Sincerely, Jim Zeitlin 14773 Alder Creek Rd. Truckee, CA Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Joe Parks Uoepmailbox-miscellany@yahoo.comj Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:21 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal vs. Renewable Energy Dear Peter, Thank your for your letter of November 17. I vote for inexpensive power. If environmentalists wish to spend themselves into poverty or if they prefer to live in the cold and dark, please let them. I'm sure all rational people would prefer by far to live in warmth and light for as little monetary cost as possible. I know I would. BTW if so many Californians continue down the irrational environmentalist-collectivist road on which they are currently, I'll have to sell my palatial Truckee cabin soon to receive a decent price before people figure out that California is becoming a third-world country because of the environmentalists and other collectivists. Respectfully yours, Joe Parks 3165 Sierra Dust Court Sparks, NV 89436 775-626-1735 Peter Holzmeister From: Dick Murphy[dickmurphyfbw48@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:23 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power contracts 'fie are unable to attend the meeting tonight but want you to know that, for reasons tco numerous to elaborate in this message,we are strongly opposed to short term contracts for our future power needs. We too would prefer clean energy sources, but to pay the premium short term contracts would entail,based on the gamble that renewable power sources will be feasible in the shorter term, is not fiscally responsible. Lock in the lower rates with the coal fired power plant in Utah as soon as possible, then we can see how technology develops on down the road. Thanks, Richard and Mary Lou Murphy 10377 Washoe Rd. 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Dan Chekene [DChekene@RAvelar.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:12 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: ochekene@paragon-re.com Subject: Electrical Costs Mr. Holzmeister, We are homeowners in Tahoe Donner, on Telemark. We have read your analysis of the future electrical costs in our public utility district. As an architect and someone that is very familiar with future costs projections that are based solely on what might be expected to happen rather then on a factual evaluation of what is available; ie. environmentally friendly power vs. coal. I believe that if you are projecting a 25-30% increase now, you will be dramatically low. There is no reliable, environmentally friendly, fuel that comes to mind that may be substituted for coal. Wind power is unreliable and Hydroelectric has fallen on disfavor. The environmentalists are so unsure of a source of power, the nation is once again considering Nuclear power, the most hated alternative of the 60's. We are not considering one environmentally friendly house, but rather and entire town that has many and varied electrical demands. I would definetly vote for a 50 year fixed contract. Dan and Olga Chekene Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: Jodi Hubbell Olhubbell@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:16 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: tonight's public hearing Hzllo Mr. Holz-re,slzr, L J, nt rzai'y = `«: re po ,>f bi.:r•rsrq cscl F,)r cw�:r, *arc} especially nct bu ';;';rg a new plant. SO, Z did u"st >ee a bit on Surdcy *.-irrir, t. is past wreekend bout a coal Plant thet e braczd t haii.9ir g to rew clearer tret'"ods, instead ' fijhtis q the i.rnlprovernents and they <ave not had ''o raise ra ez in years. I ,-!so t:rd: -r'lucid your poinTs abtc jt providing base load reels with less 4 xxpersive raver t,-ere_by �rovAirq :rnr;r i mcrey 'o put -t!,:,wardra )aIternatives ''bast are Still in research atMges and probably a ;gays a€3t bed-re lrsr a scale energy 2rrducticn is truly possible. t:o I avor of the coal contract. 1` .odd also zrca+.rage "you to read this crtirle: htt ://www.odemagazine..com/article.D-hF? 410=4385 . While it is pr,:*Oabiy rot fzc,sib=z for _-c neThirg 'local, .i'm ;ire it ciould be dare cl;;se zr:ou jh -to purchase it. 3est of `'.rck tnarix3'ht, Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David Ewald [ewald@usamedia.ty] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:20 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electrical Power purchase would consider the purchase of a long term contract in order to lower the cost of electricity used at this time. With the understanding that when a economical renewable power source is available and tested we could sell the long term contract and switch. After a renewable source is tested and proven reliable and more economical. David Ewald Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Patty Marquez[pmarquez@maydwellhartzell.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:24 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power from Utah (Letter of 11/17) Dear Mr. Holzmeister, We all agree in the development of alternate energy sources. The real question is, when can we afford them fully? Great strides are being made in the development underway in energy production by solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, trash gasification, wave action and more efficient hydro plants. Some coal fired plants are burning low sulfur coal with the ongoing improvement of scrubbers in an effort to decrease harmful emissions. Unfortunately, we are not ready to commit 100% of our power needs to these alternate sources of energy. My suggestion is to sign up for our required power needs from the Utah plant with the understanding we will be able to sell our interest as we determine necessary, and alternate sources become more available & economical. Sincerely George Gammell 1084 Gardenia Ter. Alameda, CA 94502 Patty Marquez (for George Gammell) Maydwell & Hartzell 2236 Davis ct. Hayward, CA 94545 Tel: 510-780-1701 Fax: 510-780-1706 email: pmarquez@maydwe)Ihartzel)_.com MaydNiell & Hartzell Contract for Electric Energy Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Doug Arnold [dgarnold@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:27 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contract for Electric Energy To me, this is a no brainer—contract with the new Utah power plant. Your current goal of securing the most economical power available is just fine with me. We can certainly keep working to have cleaner energy, but to ignore the cost differential in this case, when the new plant is to be built using the latest clean coal technology would be absurd. Doug Arnold Unit#22 Donner Pines West Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: William Schultz[weschultz @ pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:32 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Hearing on long term supply contract Dear Mr. Holzmeister, Thank you for your informative letter regarding the upcoming decision on the base load supply contract. I will be unable to attend the hearing this evening, but would like to give my opinion on this matter. I would support the idea of a long term agreement with the coal-fired plant in UT. While I am in favor of moving to renewable (and specifically low CO2 emitting) energy sources as a long term goal, I do not think the economic impact of quickly moving Truckee's base load to still-evolving renewable technologies is a burden Truckee residents should be asked to take on at this time. There are many pros and cons to each source of energy, but at this point I think it is premature to write coal out of the US energy picture. As opposed to oil where it is unlikely the US will ever regain independence,the US has some of the largest coal resources in the world. You have assured in your letter that the new coal fired plant would be state of the art and would be capable of technology upgrades in the future. To this end I would be in favor of including economic incentives in the contract to encourage the operator to improve the CO2 emission efficiency as new technology becomes available. There are many new processes being considered to capture and sequester CO2 from stationary sources including power plants. In fact large utility plants may turn out to be one of the most effective places to capture CO2 and other pollutants. Simply put, I do not think it would be wise to pay twice the price for short term contracts on the bet that renewable sources will provide base load capability in the reasonably near future. In my view it would be better to lock in the low price on coal generation, and use incentives to encourage the supplier to make coal a green source as soon as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Very truly yours, William E Schultz 15224 So. Shore Drive Truckee, CA Residence: 224 Montura Way Novato, CA 94949 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Judy Barna babarna@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:38 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Rate increase Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I just had a chance to read your letter regarding the purchase of electricity in the Truckee area. I believe that we should sign a long term contract with the Utah power plant that will come online in 2012. Coal is economical and new plants are required to meet more environmental controls than in the past. This should be for base load electricity. Since there are very few, if any, alternate sources that are able to supply electricity at a reasonable amount it would not be in our best interest to sign with them for our main supply. As alternate sources come online we can perhaps use those for our peaking power needs. The natural gas heating cost is very high in Truckee and to add 20 to 30% to the cost of electricity would be very hard for many people in the area to pay. I hope you consider a new 50 year contract at the more economical rate. Judy & Frank Barna 10474 Stonepine Truckee Jack W. Stage, M.D. 100 Mt. Lyell Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Truckee address: 11161 Zermatt Truckee Donner PUD P.O. Box 309 Truckee CA 96160 Attn: Peter L Holzmeister Dear Mr Holzmeister: I am in receipt of your letter concerning purchase of electric power for the years to come and would like to offer a few comments. First, as you stated, coal still accounts for most power production. Second, the burning process has been cleaned up considerably. Third is that the wind blows from the west to the east, so no pollution from Utah is going to affect any breathable air in Truckee. Fourth is that the building of new transmission lines may be as disruptive to nature or more so than the coal burning. And lastly, fifth, some scientists suggest that if the particulate matter in the atmosphere were increased, ie burn.ing coal without getting rid of the smoke, it may reduce the available sunlight reaching the ground and thereby reduce global warming ( something most people have not heard of yet). Pm sure that the complainers would scream even louder if there were plans for a nuclear generator, you know it might blow up like a nuclear bomb. Your truly ' N � r" G•�`f P �r� cock `Y�r. Stage, D. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Red Wymond [rednjoyce@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:19 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Energy Contract Peter Holzmeister, I agree with TDPUD's idea of a 50 year contract. Yours Truly, W.H. Wymond Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Kevin [kevin@tanameraresort.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:24 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Truckee Power Peter: As a homeowner and paying customer o the TDPUD 1 support your position that a long term contract for cheap power should be our primary source of power. Power is likely to be a major inflationary influence. In a market like Truckee where affordability is such an issue it is in our best interest to keep costs low. I appreciate your letter on this issue and support you in your endeavor. KEVIN W. KEARNEY The Resort at Tanamera Sales Manager www,tanamera resort.com Office: 775-852-0808 Mobile: 775-232-6664 Fax: 775-852-0433 Page 1 of i Peter Holzmeister From: Shaun Mitchell [shaun @tdrpd.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:55 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electrical Generation Hi Peter, I think you guys are doing a good job of keeping our rates down, keep up the good work. I think that purchasing coal generated energy is a viable option until something else that is price comparative comes along. I know that Scott Terrell is working on green energy and when it becomes more economical I would like to go in that direction. For now do what is best to keep our electricity affordable with an eye on cleaner energy when it becomes economical. Thanks, Shaun Mitchell, MCSE Network Administrator shaun tdrpd_com Truckee Donner Rec & Park District. (530) 582-7720 (530)582-7724 Fax Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Carolyn Clough [rograv@sbcglobal.net) Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Proposed contract to obtain power from plant in Utah Mr. Holzmeister, Thank you for your letter of Nov. 17, 2006. You asked for customer input about the proposed contract with a power plant in Utah so here it is. We agree with you that purchasing power for your base load from the proposed power plant in Utah is appropriate (the fifty year contract), and that peak power needs should be satisfied by purchasing power from other sources, hopefully some of those sources would be environmentally sensitive. My husband and I agree that we would like environmentally friendly power supplies and hope that new plants will be built with an attempt to limit pollution. Is it reasonable to hope that the new power plant in Utah would control its emissions? Thanks to you for planning to "aggressively seek power from renewable power plants" to satisfy your peaking energy requirements. Thank you for asking for our opinion. Carolyn and Robert Clough Page 1 of 1 Peter Hoizmeister From: Bob Nordan fbnordan@norcomconsulting.com) Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:18 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: New Power Contract Dear Peter: Thank you for making me aware of the public hearing regarding the new contract for Truckee Donner PUD power. In your letter you laid out a very thoughtful evaluation of the power contract alternatives. We fully support entering into a 50-year contract with the Utah power plant. State-of-the-art coal burning plants serve two purposes: (1) using domestic resources that allow economical production of power, and (2) reduction of environmental pollutants over older, antiquated coal-burningose Power use of coal for power production under any circumstances will never be satisfied pwt h any solution hatdoesn'te adhere to their own narrow views of what is best for the community. We believe you have offered a balanced option and I support your solution. We do have one area of concern. You indicated that our current contract expires April 1, 2009 and the new plant will be completed in 2012. What is the plan to bridge that gap? Although we will not be able to attend the hearing, please make our opinion known to all of the Board of Directors. Sincerely, John R. and Jeannine K. Nordan 11512 Rhineland Truckee, CA 96161 530-582-8866 t t�'l o i►r�n. November 28, 2006 Phone Call from Steven Larmore, Tahoe Donner. Favors economical power. Not convinced that global warming can be tied to coal plants. Page 1 of i Peter Holzmeister From: Walter E. Allen [walter@acumen-abe.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:14 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 50 year contracts have good options 1. cost stability 2. lower costs 3. can sell in 5, 10....... or 45 years I can't believe the majority of rate payers want to double rates for the next 50 years. What is the annual h costs in Truckee? $2,000? A few people want to take this to t g additional costs per/household and how rate man $4,000/year. So over 50 years that is$100,000 of y payers are there in Truckee? Let's spend these resources on engery independence, reduction or the political will in Sacramento and Washington to provide better options. Walter E. Allen President&CEO Acumen Building Enterprise, Inc. 1853 MacArthur Blvd Oakland, CA 94602-1715 Office 510-530-3029 Fax 510-530-3125 Toll 888-530-3894 Mobil 510-541-7430 Or 2047 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94114 Office 415-255-4919 Fax 415-255-6729 Walter"a-acumen-abe.com �+w_w.actamen-abe.com i 1/2Ri?nn� Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: EDS5152@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:56 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electrical Energy Purchase Mr. Peter Holzmeister: Dear Sir: I can understand the need for a clean environment. I also believe in economy. It would seem that a new plant will be much advanced in the production of energy than the older plants. The idea of even considering paying double for a new energy source is not even debatable. I am sure that only a small minority will back the higher source, that being the "environmentalist," In my thinking the majority will be happy with the lessor cost of the new energy source. My Property is at 13614 Moraine Rd. (Since 1953) Built as a Summer Residence. Never Rented. Thank You: Ed Silva 11/28/06 Professional Engineer Jack&Deane f'og&ard IIt f t t I �yR Peter Holzmelster From: Frances A. Foy[foyl @llnl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:16 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electrical Energy Meeting Dear Peter, Thank you for the heads up on the meeting tomorrow night. I would like to attend but won't be in town. Our Truckee home is our second home, but will be our primary home in another year. My husband and I are very interested in taking care of our earth in regards to global warming issues and want to help prevent it as much as we can. We don' t like the idea of supporting a new plant for coal burning. However, I understand there is a transition period to get the clean processes for electric power. We would be more interested in the alternative methods you talked about in your letter. Have there been any studies in the Truckee / Tahoe area as to where most of the CO2 gases are coming from? Down here in the Bay Area there was just an articel the paper today that says 50% of the CO2 is from transportation and the rest from other sources like industry. I think we should focus more on getting our cars clean, or providing more public transportation in the area to help out that way. Keep us abreast of the outcome. Thank you Frances and John Foy Frances Foy Supervisor, Sr. Engineering Associate NIF Design Integration Lead LLNL 925 422-8484 1 Peter Holzmeister From: mikee5@mac.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:37 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: your letter re: electric energy alternatives Hi Peter, I received and read your letter. I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow night but wanted to offer my thoughts on the matter. I am a supporter of the lowest cost option. Given that renewable energy is currently a small percentage of all power generated in the US, more expensive, and not even close to Truckee's transmission lines, it doesn' t seem very feasible to pursue making that a major source of energy for the next few years. I'm all for environmentally friendly practices, but it doesn't seem very realistic for the immediate future, and even if we could make it happen, would cost a lot more. It seems reasonable to assume that coal will be a less expensive solution that renewable for some time, certainly longer that 5 years. I don't know much about energy markets, but it seems to me that should Truckee want to sell its contract at some point in the future, as long as the contract price is lower than renewable, we shouldn' t have too much of a problem finding a buyer. The prudent path to me seems to be to secure energy in whatever form at a reasonable cost, watch as the renewable markets develop, and take appropriate actions from there. Thanks. Mike Eisenstat 15708 Spruce St. Truckee 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Steve Cuff [SCUFF@Calex.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:51 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Re: Power Purchase Thank you for your informative letter of the 17th regarding the power needs of the Truckee Donner PUD. With the latest technology installed and technical upgrading possible in the future coal still makes sense. The pollution by coal is low compared to what it was years ago and coal remains the best interim answer on a cost and availability basis. While I could afford the luxury of being "green", unless you are using solar, hydro or wind (none of them cheap) there is no such thing as "clean" power and even these have some down side. More importantly there are many in the Truckee community for whom the higher prices for "clean" power would be a hardship. This is a long term decision, as it should be, and we don't want a repeat of the California power debacle of a few years ago and buying power short term is how that happened. I strongly support your plan to sign up for the coal option for 50 years for your base load needs. It is the "right" decision. Perhaps at the end of that term Nuclear power would again be available or some other clean and cost effective technology will have been developed that would be better but, for now, coal gets my support. Thanks for asking. Stephen P. Cuff 14075 Swiss Lane Truckee, CA 96161 Peter Holzmeister From: garygrider@bellsouth.net Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:23 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase of Electrical Energy for the City of Truckee Mr. Peter Holzmeister, General Manager of Truckee Donner Public Utility District Mr. Holzmeister, First let me indicate that I am a property owner at Tahoe Donner (15230 Northwoods Blvd) but currently live in Georgia and plan to move to Truckee and make it my primary residence in June of 2007. Consequently, I will not be able to attend your November 29 meeting. Second, I concur with The District's plan to purchase power at the most reasonable price until environmentally friendly power is more readily available. As it would be impossible to determine or even estimate with any accuracy, the availability of these alternate power sources I would again concur with The District and opt for a 50 year contract. In the event that renewable resources are available somewhere along that time line, then sell the balance of the contract or simply let it run out. Not a very 'Green' approach I suppose, but a utility need not take chances with the delivery of its product at the most reasonable cost. Gary L. Grider 15230 Northwoods Blvd. Truckee, CA 96161 770.883 .4413 1 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Chip Lambert [clambert@RAvelar.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:47 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Public forum regarding future power purchase Dear Mr. Holzmeister, As a stanch environmentalist, I would like to offer the following opinion regarding the TDPUD proposal to purchase power from Utah. Coal is the most abundant of the world's consumable energy resources. In the past, its utilization has been associated with belching smokestacks and strip mining. Fortunately, rational and necessary changes in both procurement and utilization have made coal a desirable energy source. A well- designed power plant with scrubbers, CO2 converters and 2012 technology is most likely ecologically comparable to what is available from renewable energy resources. I often question the"greening" of energy as the Altamont windmills decimate the Bay Area's raptor population. My wife and I advocate the Utah plant power purchase. This will provide adequate power at a reasonable cost with minimal environment impact until the technology matures to provide solar and/or H2-generated power efficiently, cheaply and without having to cut swaths through the landscape for new transmission lines. Sincerely, Chip and Pam Lambert 11101 Bishop Pine Truckee, CA i 1 /�o 111nn4 Page 1 of Peter Holzmeister From: D Sallan [dsallan@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 28,2006 12:29 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Purchase In response to your letter of Nov17th. I have no objections to purchasing power from sources that are supplied by coal driven energy plants. Until alternative sources become cost effective I do not see much of a choice. Don Sallan Peter Holzmelster From: kevin@genevagrowers.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:26 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contract fo the purchase of electric energy Thank you for attempting to include some of your customers in your long range plans. My feeling is that coal has come a long way and does not have the bad connotations that it used to. With the new technologies that are now available, and the future technologies that are coming, it is my feeling we would be missing out on a less expensive source of energy for now and for the long term. Please keep coal in your decision. Sincerely, Rich Baumsteiger 14440 Donner Pass Road 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Roger Fisher[roger@bigvalley.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:01 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Contract Hi, i am sending this e-mail in response to yo,; letter about Truckee Donner PI'D entering into a power contract for Truckee. I have spent almost thirty years in the nuclear )ower ind..istry and -inderstand the situation you are facing. I agree with tl_e importance .)f developing renewable power as part of the Truckee power portfolio. However, coal and/or natural gas are the only viable fuels for Truckee in t-.e foreseeable future. Renewable power is not viable until it can closely ccmper_e in the open market place. To have kcal districts support/subsidize renewable power alone is riot economic reality. The nation and/or states must get involved to allow renewable power to become competitive and therefore a viable alternative. When that happens we should support and switch to renewable power. To switch now is short sighted and not economically viable. sighted. Thanks, Roger L. Fisher 1 Paize I of I Peter Holzmeister From: William Schooler[ruthbill@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:56 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Contract Dear Mr. llolzmeister: You asked for comments concerning a proposed 50 year contract with a new, state-of-the-art coal-fired power plant in Utah. Stick to your guns. New coal plants are eons ahead of the old sulfurous ones. I also believe that you are honorably trying to do your best to ameliorate the potential damage by aggressively searching out environmentally friendly sources of energy in the meantime. You are balancing cost versus enviro-friendly to gain time in finding sources for "green" energy. Thank you for asking our opinion. William & Ruth Schooler Pa,e I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: .Jm Dem psey @ flowserve.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:03 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Truckee homeowner supports coal as fuel source Peter, As a 21 year Truckee homeowner I want to voice my support for the proposed contract with the new coal fired power plant. In a perfect world I would prefer a"clean fuel" source of power but at this time I support the proposed contract with the power plant in Utah for the following reasons: 1. Alternative fuel power plants with sufficient capacity to supply the needs of California do not exist today. 2. "Political Correctness"will incline many cities and utility districts to opt for clean fuel sources which will drive up the demand for scarce resources and increase prices. This is already happening as Southern California cities opt for clean sources. 3. Some "renewable energy" sources have their own problems: a. Wind Mill Farms are unsightly, noisy, tend to give off sparks which start fires, and are a hazard to certain types of birds including hawks and eagles. Anyone familiar with the "Wind Farms" around the Aitamont and Tehachapi passes in California know of these problems. b. Solar power is still in it's infancy and is very expensive today. c. Geothermal Power provides a very small portion of the states needs. The geothermal fields east of Healdsburg in Northern California are in a state of decline as steam pressures have fallen. PG&E shut down several plants in the past few years. These plants are now owned by Calpine but there is no more steam for additional plants. d. Hydro Power is a good source but almost all available sites in the West have already been taken. e. Nuclear Power is clean but politically unacceptable. 4. Modern coal fired plants with the latest technology operate with relatively few emissions and are much cleaner that those of the past. 5. Most power in California is now generated using natural gas as the fuel. However, a natural gas fired power plant produces almost the same amount of exhaust gases, particularly CO2, as a modern coal plant with the latest technology employed to clean the stack gases. We don't have much choice today. James M. Dempsey Sr. Sales Engineer Flowserve Corporation 925-934-4905 NOTICE: The information contained in this E-mail and attachments thereto, is confidential and may contain attorney - client privileged communications. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender Immediately and delete the E-mail from your computer system without retaining any copies. Thank you. Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: NYUDDS86@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:06 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 11/29/06 public hearing Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I will be unable to attend the public hearing on November 29. 1 am in favor of the fifty year contract. There are ways to reduce the effects of coal burning. Citizens need to conserve energy use as a way to reduce coal burning. Too many citizens take electricity for granted, as an endless source. It needs to be used conservatively. I also wonder how many of these so called environmentalist still drive automobiles and still burn wood in their fireplaces. Robert Lew Truckee property owner Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: RungisAustris@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 200611:27 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: rrungis@ci.santa-clara.ca.us; RungisAustris@aol.com Subject: Your letter on rates Dear Peter, First, I would like to express my appreciation for your letter of November 17, 2068. It is one of the finest compositions that 1 have ever read on a public policy. Clear, concise and in layman's terms it explains a very challenging set of issues. You and the Board of Directors are to be commended for this outline. While not a full time resident of Truckee, we have owned property at Northstar for 30 years and a home in Truckee for 23. With that background we feel that we are an intrinsic part of the community. The dilemma that is outlined in the letter is real. The solutions that are offered are also business like and meaningful. For our District to have this debate/discussion is vital. Yet we need to be cognizant of the market and our District's modest position in it. Therefore, we would encourage the Board to give serious consideration to entering into the 50 year agreement, especially since it does not preclude us from selling that arrangement once more renewable power production facilities come on line. The point on development of renewable power needs to be assumed by organizations that are more in a position to afford those economic challenges. Knowing a bit about resort communities, we do not believe that the everyday citizen in the community should be taxed an additional 30%. Their personal income will not receive that same type of adjustment to compensate for the worthy goal being pursued. Renewable power, as is universal health care, is a national policy issue and should be addressed at that level. Now that the nation has made its views known as to the composition of the Congress for the next two years (with a lot of meaningful committee assignments going to the California delegation), we would encourage the Board to consider sending those elected representatives a sense of the community resolution in which we encourage the National legislature to make this one of the priority issues. Such a resolution is able to embody the significant debate that has occurred in our community on this issue of renewable power at affordable prices. Thank you for allowing our family to express their views. Renee and Austris Rungis 11311 Valley Road Truckee, CA 510-541-9794 Page 1 of i Peter Holzmeister From: Joseph Hovell Uoehovell4hotmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:41 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase of Electrical Energy Dear Mr. Holtzmeister, Thank you for your letter of November 17. 2006 encouraging me to express my opi nion regarding electrical supplies for the Tahoe Donner Public Utility District. g future I've ow.led my property at Tahoe Donner for over 10 years and have found the TDPUD he totally unresponsive to the needs of their non-resident customers with a discriminatory fee structure which has us pay substantially more per unit for both electrical power(metered at a higher rate) and water metered since the residents use much more than the non residents,) (not Given the past actions of and conservations with yourself and the TDPUD I seriously doubt that you are interested in a discussion, have already made up you mind an-.1 are looking for support for your position. My position: 1. The TDPUD should provide reliable services at fair prices to ALL customers, not who can vote for the directors. just the residents 2. Your proposal to negotiate a low rate for the base load with peaking power bought at higher rates indicates that you are continuing to negotiate favorable rates for the resident customers while re arin to continue to discriminate against the non-resident customers with higher rates for us. p p g 3. Your proposal to increase rate now in anticipation of future rate increases is unfair to those of us to tr to conserve power now. Your rates to the resident customers should be based on the current cost of y power. I already subsidize their trash pick rip, sewer, water etc. Why do I need to subsidize their future electrical rates by paying more now? 4. As for the source of the power I favor a reliable source at a reasonable rate. Now to the only thin you care about: I think the proposed coal powered plant would meet those needs. If there was a tong term reliable Supply of non coal produced power then we could discus; the relative costs and benefits of the various options, but as things stand today I do not see that option, o 5. Having said that (and I know you really do not care about this) my big concern is that you will negotiate contracts disadvantages to non resident customers such as myself. When you are quoting rates are these rates going to be available to ALL customers or just those that can vote for directors! Are ou planning to have us non resident customers pay for the "green"energy for peakingyou y offer your resident customers both l rdents. ow rates and "green"power.' This Would be unfair to us no can "dents. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss my frustrations with you and your organization. Jo-seph Ilove ll 11059 Zermatt Drive Truckee. CA 96161 1 i.r n� tip the itc�rt:..I Li�,2 Search_k:A11 he!p 1 1/2 8/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Sheila[sheilagraumer.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:43 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: 'Ron Raumer' Subject: Electric plant in Utah We are residents of Tahoe Donner having owned a house there for 24 years. We are in favor of entering into a long term contract for electricity as proposed in your letter of November 17. While we fully support the concept of generating more electricity from renewable sources it is not yet a realistic prospect. Your proposal to seek these sources for peak use seems a reasonable compromise. Higher prices disproportionably affect the poor and elderly. They may have completely the opposite effect on Pollution by encouraging wood burning. In addition it will discourage small business from locating to the Truckee area. Truckee risks losing its diversity and becoming just a haven for the rich telecommuter. Thank you for giving us a chance to have input into this important issue. Sincerely Sheila Raumer 11/?8/'_"0O6 Peter Holzmeister From: Randy Hood[rhood331 @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:40 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy purchase Mr. Hoizr.eister, I recently received lcur letter concerning the securing of power for t'ie town of Truckee. I appreciate that you y are concerned with the balance of economics and r'-a environment. Having said that: I don"- feel that the majority of the Truckee resi should have to absorb the cost_ for w at a miaori y would like to do to o,7er em dents phasize a Point, especially when these prover sources are present time. It seems to me it not realistically a=.ra.ilabie -o 'is at the makes the most fseal and common_ sense -o secure our power now at in affordable rate, t::en in the future if there are mo options available to is we sell off the remainder of the contre environmentally friendly rt todon' t feel you shcu'd be forced into a hunt and peck situation0.of shortother term contracts I allowing the opport�!nity to be .Laid over a barrel by whatever the scenario happens to be at that time. In having the security of a long term contract of affordable rates it will give you power (no pun intended) and confidence in the future in acTuiring both ecologically and economically friendly contracts for -he Truckee co:rmllnity.Thank you for your time. David Hood Get tree, personalized commercial-free online radio-wit'! MS:d Radio hctp://r.adio.msn.coin/?iC;-d=T002MSI,,03A07001 powered by Pandora 1 Nlessage Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmelster From: Jon Lapachet olapachet@lodiusd.kl2.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:33 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electrical prices Peter We have had a family cabin at Donner Lake for over 20 years and remember the days we were encouraged to reduce our fireplace smoke output- we did by using more cabin heaters and buying floor heaters. Now we are being asked to use a more expensive form of energy? No... I'm tired of the global warming appeasers dictating our life style; its only a theory!! Go—with the 1 ss ex ensive coal producing elecrcyIf another _vableuneorce comos es alonseli Thank you Jon and Mary Lapachet, Eric and Susie Lapachet, Tom and Renne Kwoka plus children 11/28/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Fastdoced@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:12 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: New Plant Peter, Thanks for your letter. It was very enlightening. I too am in favor of renewable power, and am willing to pay SOME for it. At this time i firmly agree to enter into the new contract to lock in affordable power for the near future, with the idea to gradually transition to renewable power as it becomes available. We are not going to stop global warming ourselves. I would favor five-year contracts so we can move to renewable power. We should gradually transition to renewable power with GRADUAL inevitable rate increases, not a shocking 20-30%all at once. Thank you, Ed Littlejohn Homeowner Tahoe Donner 11/2 8/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Lynette& Geoffrey Collins [geoffcollinsgyahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:41 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric power. Peter I will be unable to attend the public hearing but would like to contribute the following thought. I don't think that a small community like Truckee can influence the very important national debate on renewable energy policy. This is best done by individuals through their national representatives. I think we .should purchase the bulk of our power at the cheapest market rates, but add some peak power from renewable resources to make our proportional contribution to renewable energy. Geoff Collins 13057 Pinnacle Loop Peter Holzmeister From: Curt Peterson [curt_peterson740-hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:52 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: susan.d.domingo@lmco.com Subject: TDPUD power generation contract controversy P-2t.�,r, I'm strong'-y leaning toward ti.e 50 year contract with the F1rah co.^.•.pany. i= sounds ilke an excellent choice since it will be stare of t n he art, and easl'.y (i:Jgr.a-ded for hew cleaner burning solutions, end of course, far cheaper (less than .1, 2 t?ie ;uric the alternatives) , e of Besides trying to provide pressure for renewable sources we should also Pa e a way *o pressure to get clearer burning coal plants. I don't have any suggestion for that (purchasing the long term contract does pressure them, unl-ss we can wri`e in .;ur concracc that they have to reduce there emissions by a certain percentage each year, or cney have to pay us some amount) . Maybe government regulations will be doing this. We also need numbers. T'm sure the dirty coal burring idea and how it con~ributes to global warming is blown way out of proportion to reality. Can you get some, so we can make a more informed decision? T will not make it to the meeting on 11/29. Thanks, -Curt Get FREE company branded e-:nail accounts and b!isiness Web si a from Microsoft Office Live htco://clk.atdmt.com/%IRT/go/-,ccrssaub0050001411mrt;"direct/ol/ 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jo Peterman Uopeterman@att.netj Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:12 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: New Contract for Electric Energy Purchase Importance: High Dear Mr. Holzmeister: This letter provides you input regarding Truckee Donner Public Utility District(TDPUD) entering into a new contract for electric energy purchase when its existing contract expires in 2009.My family has owned our house at 14455 Wolfgang Rd. in Tahoe Donner since 1990, and we plan to pass our property on to our children. So we are solidly invested in the health/well-being of the community. We can't be at the public hearing on November 29, so please accept our comments as rate payers. In our 16 years at Tahoe Donner, this has been/is one of the most difficult issues we've had to take a stand on (another was the undergrounding of utilities—we badly wanted them undergrounded, when it would have been economically do-able, when the gas company put in its lines). Although I consider myself a staunch environmentalist, we must come down on the side of buying TDPUD's base load electricity from the Utah coal- fired plant-to-be-built, PROVIDED THAT TDPUD continues to search for a more environmentally friendly source between now and when the existing contract expires, and PROVIDED FURTHER THAT TDPUD follows the action I suggest in (1) below. For example, could you purchase from SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District)which does own and operate its own power generation facilities, is a not-for-profit and has plants in the Truckee environs? I do realize you and your consultants have been assiduously reviewing likely sources, but it pays to keep trying! Our reasons for this choice have to do with risk and cost: Should we go with the non-coal fired "alternate"energy source, the cost will actually be much higher than you note in your letter, because those who fall below a certain economic level will not be able to afford the higher cost and shall need to be subsidized by the rest of us rate payers (just as the phone company and for-profit and other utility companies currently subsidize a "baseline" amount of energy/telecomm resources for those who cannot afford anything higher). As well, while the higher cost of alternative energy sources constitute greater risk, to the extent existing "alternative"energy sources constitute newish technologies, to that extent they also constitute greater risk. Some comments: (1)with the difference in cost saved by going coal-fired vs. alternative for 50 years, please come up with a workable plan for TDPUD to own/operate "alternative'energy sources and invest that difference in cost in those alternative plants. (2) Entering into a series of 5-year contracts will cost nearly as much as buying from alternative energy sources: no business man/woman will give you much of a price break on a 5-year contract versus a 50- or 25-year contract. (3) Where will TDPUD buy energy between contract expiration in 2009 and the Utah plant startup in 2012? (4) IF there's sufficient price break on a 25-year contract I assume you'll go for that, since alternative energy plants may be on line much sooner than 50 years which may mean there won't be buyers for the remainder of our 50 year contract. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to have our comments heard on this important issue. Thank you very much indeed! Cordially, Jo Clare and Larry Peterman 655 Portsmouth Ave. Davis, CA 95616 Phone (530) 756-6269 11/2 8/2'006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Gary Borrelli [garyborreIli@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:11 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Contract. Mr. Holzmeister, I think the district should take the long term coal contract option. First, this country has a wealth of coal and we should take advantage of that resource(I do not have any financial connection with the coal industry). I personally feel that new technologies are in the works that will make coal much cleaner to use and that coal is one of our best alternatives to the use of foreign oil. I'm also supportive of alternative energy sources. Who isn't. I'm also a realist and have seen more resistance than progress in the development of alternatives. Look at nuclear power. Our technology is used around the world, yet the environmentalists who "promote" alternatives sources have closed our nuclear program down. Take wind power. Someone is always fighting the Altamont wind power development. It's either killing too many birds, too noisy or something else. And we know of the resistance to wind power on the East Coast. Hydro-electric power is great, but just try building a new dam. Again. I'm for alternative sources of energy, but I guess I just would not plan counting on it until something more concert was on the horizon. Lastly, I would think that the Truckee Donner PUD Board of Director first priority is to serving its customers, including keeping costs to a reasonable minimum. Promoting renewable power and fighting global warming should be lower priorities for now. Gary Borrelli Tahoe Donner. 1 1/2 S/2006 Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: J PINNELL Opinnell@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:17 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Future Sources of TDPUD Power Dear Mr. Holzmeister: Thank you for soliciting community input by way of your !November 17, 2006 letter concerning the above. We have reviewed the contents of your letter. The two (2) of us believe the TDPUD Board of Directors ("Board") should seek and enter into the longest contract possible for the supply of fossil fuel produced power for the District's base load and use the savings, as you indicate, to secure alternate fuel power for the District's peak power needs. The above will allow for 1) the orderly process of Iongterm district budgeting, 2) a "reasonable" degree of rate payer contentment and 3) acknowledging to all that global warming is truly taking place and will be a burden to our children and grandchildren which they should not have to bear alone. Regardless of the direction the Board ultimately decides to go, the two (2) of us again thank you and the Board for seeking our comments on the above. Jim and Janet Pinnell 13033 Skiview Loop Truckee, CA 96161 11/2S/2006 Page I of ( Peter Holzmeister From: Ron Coleman [roncoleman@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:40 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Contract Peter, Thank you for letting me know of the meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend but want to give you my input. While I support the concept of clean power, we CANNOT afford to double the cost of power to achieve it. Please enter into the 50 year contract. I'm sure we will be able to sell it in the future if we need to. Renewable power is like fuel cell cars, not ready for prime time. Best regards, Ron Coleman 15016 South Shore Drive ......... ....... ....... . .. ....................... .. ... ... . . . ....... .. ..... .... .. .. . ... . ... Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail i,cta. 11/28/2006 Utah Coal-fired Power Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Davis, Warren [davisw @ bv.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:47 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Coal-fired Power T l^af*s for yt^u .,,ter 1-J gard;lrg i 'otalfy of r.Jorse %;"2 :,se ;Jf stat=?-c F :; e-,tr` coal seer Eraic n F,-,r -E!p ,1 I O'N r. you -ot°id Sre ;S 3",Dt 'nou jh ncn-fossil generation 'o �'/en � : r�`J.n In- sk-ji';e, Oasa lcad or peaking �-p - eV?r imind -,vhf=th�r ''�rs�t n�:,� can a>fc,.d ,1 i - if TDPI;g waned `o Jo sor-,ething in resource mar.agemeint, you shculd start rne'tering water, It 's H-,credib!a to rr.a That in the 21st cent n a very ray wry, + ., r'eg;1n, ,va have unr etered water service. This is jai c nsc`onabia and irr?:S'1(1131Ole! ,a,,d ore o f er footnote._ErerNy is purchased in �� rtt-i�c';r' �otrrer 1�:2m ii's ? in 3 r ga-o att. ;"hey 3r= rot _h�a satr2 ing. Y,,ur ''�35-fn�;, ;°.vaft of dernand" is undcIa:;:.edly cf :r.' rrn �: qI. ;3 +ty,pIc iy a _�r��ard art e in S;'rn,_z `a`�/att 'per fT cia ' �r par ` ear r-_a 3�GO V,V-ve- A e � J d r`f -,� r l` � f � ter) ✓�iitl'i n .�r Cc�y Ct�af�2 3Q 'ed per /h or mV,1h based on actual peak,,n g use. i pcirt th e out because it does not instill t cnfiden e 'to have tre general Manager or t-e !ocaf utility appear not to ce conversant with the basic ar:xrneters in the electric ov.er ndu ,try. cy t!-e :vay, I think it ;'s extr-m-�,ly k,3'i 'hat air r. .;call tir: r i� --,, �.n + �fy y ,v �. . a� . ed face t�. ���+,i,c ccrr:e in mu�h J V i rder 350,`m, yavjatt-hour ail in....even min; mcuth. :335 ;s a r,,ir,age. _iwst the capital cots r f-,ne will be ']25:001-lirJat, ay, 315.r0i�AW cao;tal cost, 15?, fixed charge rate. 3,i>00 hrsiyear (--°�z,aCeload). {0 �a�ay }s r�. �./1 {(.eali'. trar�tir�^ S:.i..:n -1 i` �` �.f/(1 - i.i. .1 1 ,y f1� ;m Happy to talk furtt-ar any ` ,re. I am in Truckee treii;,_rt y. �Egards Marren Davis {�H 310 653-r�335 Ar � 11/28/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Edward A. Melia, C.P.A./Attorney[ed@edmelia.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:33 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Future Power Supply In today's Mail I received your 11/17/06 letter regarding the proposed 50 power contract. It appears that you are in a no-win situation. Thinking back to the tax shelter limited partnerships I have seen for wind power, it appears that wind power has been around since about the late 1970s without r,,uch progress being made. The industry has had some consolidation and the wind machines have become more efficient - they still kill injure a lot of birds (according the newspaper articles I 've read) - but they have not been the solution to our power reeds. As I drive over the hills at highway 205 on windy days I see many wind machines that are not generating power - probably broken. I had a couple of clients who owned wind machines and they lost money - the machines never paid for their operating costs. How long will we have to wait to wind power to be cost efficient (25, 30 or more years) ? Solar seems to have had the same problem. I've used solar heat for swimming pools but without tax credits it is not a source of low cost, reliable power. Maybe _he newer solar cells may be the break through. Hydro has been a great and cheap source of power for many years. But, with today's push to remove dams and turn the streams/rivers back to their natural flow for the benefit of the fish, we may have to reduce hydro power in the near future. There has been talk about the new hydro - the ocean waves can generate power without the issues associated with dams. Yet, it appears that the technology has not been developed for large scale power plants - at least, I have not seen anything along those lines. When I was a child (many years ago) , nuclear plants were being sold as our future for having an unlimited power source that was almost free. Then, I watched the melt down with SMUC and its nuclear plant - it's spending millions (or is it in the billions) shutting down a plant that was suppose to give us power for the next 100+ years. I believe that the type voters who told SMUD to shut its nuclear plant also live in your community. Yes, coals is dirty and I'm certain that Congress and the states will force coal plants to clean up their impart on the environment. I don't see a good al -e .o coal >�- his p i n t t-:,,e. _} Whether the contract should be 50 years or shorter terms is interesting. To me, several/many five year, renewal contacts do not make economic sense. The initial term probably has to be 25-30 years in order to obtain a reasonable megawatt rate. I don't see renewable power being available (for a reasonable cost) for at least 25 years. If I'm correct, then the coal contract should have a mir_iziun length of 25 years (probably 30) The above are my comments without really knowing anything about the industry and the impact that a term of 25/30/50 will have on the cost of power. My best, wild guess, is to go with a 50 year contract. Ed '.re1 is �acramento/Truckee 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Bill Davidson [wdavidson @ thegrid.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 7:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: buying electric power Peter, I read your letter. It seems silly to me to purchase shorter term contracts at near double the price when the longer term contract can be sold at any time. While the long term contract may need to be discounted to seil it (depending on the market at the time) , it's important to remember: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush! Saving the money now is a sure thing. . . let's be happy with that bird, eh? Perhaps part of the decision can be to do a periodic (annual?) analysis of the market value of the long term contract vs. the availability of clean, renewable energy and its price. my 2 cents, Bill Davidson 10577 Codogan St. Truckee, CA 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Beverly Maupin [auntiebee530@Jmsn.comj Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 7:51 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electricity rates I am very pleased to be informed on this matter. . . . .please continue to look for the most low cost power that we can get. . . . .yes we do need to get renewable energy but until the cost is lotivered for the Town of Truckee and the customers who have to pay for it continue your efforts for low cost. . . . .this town has gotten too expensive for the local people to live here as it is. . . .thank you for considering my opinion. . . . . .most of us who have been here more than 10 years are feeling that wages have not kept up with the costs. . . . . .thank you Beverly Maupin All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSNigo/msnnkwlo0050000002,nsn%direct/01/? href=http:;/clk.atdmt.com/'4SN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/? href=http: //,aww.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Marshall Anderson [marshall-anderson @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:31 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: opinion of power purchase To GM, In regards to districts proposed stake in the Utah coal-fired plant. As an ardent investor in utility companies for many years, I have seen the growing trend toward socalled Green power sources. While these sources may be capable of producing renewable power they are not widespread nor of such quanities to be used for a regional basis. Remember that this town won't run on frenchfry Greese or Love and Peace. It takes real power the kinds that are availble from Coal Plants or Nuclear power and dependable hydro generation. I see that the rate of production may be lower than our current contracted rates will this mean we can think of some rate cuts possibly in the future? Also, would it be cheaper to buy from our neighbor Sierra Pacific Power instead of dealing with other sources of transmission delivery. They are currently planning new coal-generation plant in the Ely, Nv. close to their coal source in So. Utah and wyo. This country is rich in coal reserves and I feel our future lies in using "Clean burning" coal power production. sincerely, Marshall Anderson Page 1 of l Peter Holzmeister From: Robert Spelman [rjspelman@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:15 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: rjspelman@yahoo.com Subject: Electric Energy Contract My wife and I are all for preserving the environment and would like to pursue the cleanest avenue offered. But we are also very concerned in the way Truckee service providers differentiate between the local residents and the other property owners regarding billing rates. We built a beautiful vacation home in TD 7 years ago not realizing that we would be charged higher rates for gas, water and electricity than the locals because this is a second home. We are not rewarded for using less of these services and feel that all customers should be billed based their usage. After all, we do not pay lower real estate taxes even though we use the city facilities far less than the locals. Because of this we vote for the least expensive (in money) program in other words the 50 year contract. We own two lots in Tahoe Donner and one in Lahontan. Bob & Justine Spelman Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo.'. Nfusic Unlimited. 1 1/1RO nI� Peter Holzmeister From: Macphail, Carol [SR] [cmacphail@srvhs.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:18 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: optional power Mr. Holzmeister, We think you should shop for the cheapest power. Until the nation decides to use alternative power sources other than coal, our little "protest" will not change the nations use. No rate increases. . .find cheaper sources for Truckee. Carol and Alec MacPhail Tahoe Donner resident: 12719 Hidden Circle #3 Truckee, CA i Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: EJandAJ@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:32 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy contract Your letter spelled out the situation very clearly. Thanks for explaining clearly and fairly. My husband and I vote for the long-term contract with the cheapest power. The "greenies" have good intentions, but let's get real. Whatever works: that's where the decision should be. In good time the renewable energy will happen but not in my lifetime, I fear. Mr. and Mrs. Allan Johnson TD address: 11977 Oslo Truckee 11/28/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: stresserbc[stresserbc@clearconnects.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:45 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Plant Mr. Holtzmeister, As a long term customer (1973) we encourage the district to enter into a long term contract with the Utah Power Plant. Modern coal planc_s are efficient and clean. No source, including renewables, comes without problems. For the longer term future, the district should consider nuclear a safe and reliable source, as the U. S. Navy has proven. Sincerely, Gil and Barbara Stresser 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Arnold and Arlene Lyon [thelyonsdtheshell.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:08 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal fired plants We have a home @ 11489 Bennett Flat and we would love to see more coal fired power plants put into service. We have traveled by many of the existing plants and have failed to see any emission of any kind to come from them. Arnold & Arlene Lyon 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Bruce Norton [nailsparker@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:01 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: rate increases Mr. Holzmeister: As a quasi government organization you owe it the the people you serve to give them the most reasonable service at the cheapest rate possible. To pursue cleaner burning energy sources at increased costs is noble but foolish. It's foolish to believe that man, who occupies less then 1% of the surface of the earth, is contributing anything to the naturally occurring warming and cooling of the earth. For us to pay 25 to 30% more in energy costs for a politically charged and agenda driven theory of man-caused global warming is outrageously unjust. I hate politics and hope pure science, clear thinking and sound economic reality will guide you in your decision. Thank you, Bruce Norton 1 1/27/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Mark Holmstrom [mark@epicsport.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:05 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah energy plant Peter- My wife and I live in Tahoe Donner and support purchasing energy from the coal plant in Utah. We are very sensitive to the environment but feel that this issue should be handled at the federal level,not at the local level. I hope you had a nice thanksgiving. Cheers, Mark Holmstrom 14365 Wolfgang Road Truckee,CA 96161 mark(tTepicsport.com 1 1/17/1)MA, Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Celia De Benedetti [celdebenedetti @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: rwarmke@rambus.com Subject: Utah Power Issues regarding letter of Nov 17th. Hi, Peter, I received your Truckee PUD letter regarding the "power struggle", and your request to hear from members of the community. Here's my two cents: As much as I love the idea of clean, renewable energy options, the thought of a 30% increase in our electric bill is daunting. Our propane bill is already sky high, and this could potentially add insult to injury for many in the community. Is it possible to provide a secondary option (first option being the Utah Plant that burns coal) of clean renewable energy to those who are so concerned to opt into? The costs could be distributed by-use to the PUD customers who opt in to the clean energy option with open eyes that they are paying for it. Yes, I assume it will be even more expensive that way because you won't be purchasing in bulk or long term, but it will be a way to satisfy the populace who feels strongly about this. It might be a good way to field test the reliablity of the renewable sources as well - and possibly provide a success story and a way to sell it to the rest of the community sooner rather than later. I also assume you are approaching Truckee businesses regarding this situation as well. Are there any companies who are willing to take on an extra expense for the sake of the environement? That said, if the reality truly is that we can't cover 100% or even 50% of Truckee power needs on renewable energy today, why not enter into a 50 year contract with the Utah coal plant as the District plans, keep costs down, and sell it off to a bidder when the renewable options allow a decrease in cost and a real solution to 100% of our energy needs. I agree that a good solution to supporting renewable energy options can be the peak-use electricity is provided by those renewable sources, as long as they are completely reliable. I have copied my husband Rich Warmke on this e-mail, as he is out of the country on business and unable to read the letter sent to us. Thanks for your time, Celia De Benedetti Homeowner, Truckee Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Patrick Waite [pat 9 waite.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:39 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Contracts This email is in response to your request for input on whether TDPUD should enter into a long term power contract with a to be constructed, coal-fired power plant in Utah versus relying on a combination of short term thermal generated contracts and contracts for environmentally friendly power. You indicated that following the second alternative would result in power rate increases of in excess of 25%to 30%beginning in 2009. 1 believe that TDPUD should pursue a long term contract that will keep rates low and provide adequate guaranteed base load coverage well into the future. My opinion is especially swayed by the fact that the contract will be placed with a newly built coal-fired plant. New plants are not the belching behemoths of yesterday. They are clean, quiet and economical. Also, coal is a very viable alternative to oil and gas fired plants, an important consideration given today's energy market turmoil. My primary residence in San Jose has a roof full of photovoltaic collectors which provide a good portion of my electric power requirements. Was it a decision based on economics? No, I had them installed several years ago when the very real threat of rolling blackouts existed in California. Do I want my utilities to artificially inflate the demand for alternative sources? No, that is a decision for individuals consumers to make. Those to whom alternative energy is important should be allowed to install their own systems, and, indeed, government policy provides incentives for them to do so. But they should not be able to foist the extra cost of alternative sources onto other consumers. Supporting alternative energy sources is important, but providing the most competitive rates possible is even more so. That's what TDPUD should focus on. Patrick Waite San Jose, CA Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jim oleonard@jps.netj Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:10 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: tdpud, Utah pwr Peter L. Holzmeister TDPUD 11-27-06 This message is in response to your letter concerning the purchase of power from the new Utah plant. I am absolutely in favor of using the coal burning plant in Utah and making every effort to minimize the cost of our energy. I have a family property at Donner Lake which we have owned since 1961 and have recently been hit with the increased water assessments as well as other taxes. Over the years, environmental standards have continually gotten tougher and emission technology improved, I have no problems with the coal plant and am very hopeful that you can minimize our utility rates. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Jim Leonard 5817 Gibson Pl. Granite Bay CA 95746 10152 Tamarack Truckee (Donner Lake) APN 17-100-19-000 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: JAMES BRADFORD onsbradford@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:12 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Long Term Electrical Power Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I am a homeowner in Tahoe Donner and have been for over 20 years. I am conscious about preserving the environment, but I believe that we need to be realistic too. Currently there are no major cost efficient ways to generate large amounts of electrical power that are both clean and cost efficient. Coal fired electric plants are poor when it comes to CO2, but are very efficient.[ believe that the conservationists have it wrong. While I agree that we need to have clean sources of electrical power, they are overlooking the fact that the Automobile/Diesel Trucks are the major polluters by a wide margin. So, as you might expect, I vote to enter into a long term agreement with the Utah power generation company with a contract that can be sold. This should cover the anticipated standard usage and buy Clean energy on the spot market to cover increased short term demands. As soon as cost effective clean power becomes available, we can always change. Energy, either for home, business or transportation, the the major cost for Americans. We need to do whatever we can to reduce these costs while being reasonably environmentally friendly. If the people of Truckee really want to be environmentally conscious, then I suggest they also stop burning wood to heat their houses. Wood burning is far more polluting that commercial coal burning power generation. so, my vote goes to support the districts plan for a sale able 50 year contract with coal burning power plant. Regards, James Bradford 12265 Bennett Flat Truckee, CA 96161 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jack McMurry [peepawjack@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:17 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: lee; Jack McMurry Subject: Future power cost I received your letter explaining the details and concerns regarding power that is created by burning coal. I see no reason we should double the cost for the short term and hope technology bails us out later on down the road. I am in favor of entering into the long contract and if cheap clean clean power becomes available then we could revisit the decision at that time. As I understand the explanation we will have coal fueled power for the next several years, it is only a matter of cost and making a statement. I would like to be realistic and keep the cheaper cost and make a statement when it might have a real meaning. Respectfully, Jack D McMurry Jr 1 1/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Hshand@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:00 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric energy purchase - Utah Dear TDPUD, As a homeowner in Tahoe Donner, I wish to state my preference regarding the subject energy purchase. I much prefer to hold rates down and proceed with the 50 year coal fired energy contract. I do understand the desire for clean energy, and hope the coal fired plant would use all available technology to produce the cleanest coal fired plant as possible, over the life of the contract, making clean air technology upgrades to the plant as they become available. ( As a potential compromise...perhaps TDPUD could look into a middle ground arrangement, such as two 25 year contracts, back to back, with option to not sign the second after 25 years, with a rate somewhere in the middle??) Harvey Shand Tahoe Donner home owner Hshand @ aol.com 1 1/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Dawson [dsdawson @ starstream.net] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:27 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal power Cheap, long-term contract please. Energy costs can only increase from here and we need to lock in rates now! I believe technology has found ways to burn coal safely and efficiently over time and will continue to do so. 11/25/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: mtnrex@webtv.net Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:47 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: energy Please go for the 50 year contract in Utah better technologies for clean coal plants will be the solution in the future for our energy needs considering the abundance of coal in the U.S. and the advances in clean coal technologies 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: timwaters@sbcglobal.net Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:55 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah plant contract Peter, My two cents. Go for the 1/2 price power with the Utah plant contract. Money talks. Tim Waters I hope Jim Wilson is doing ok. 11/25/2006 Purchase of Electric Power from a coal plant expansion in Utah-support for this--my opin... Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Ciardella, Wayne (WJC5 @ pge.comj Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:24 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase of Electric Power from a coal plant expansion in Utah-support for this--my opinion Importance: High Peter Holzmeister Re: Your November 17, 2006 letter to Customers of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District Thank you for letting your customers express our opinion. I believe you have properly analyzed the energy supply situation for Truckee Donner Public Utility District and have arrived at absolutelYthe correct recommendation. Now and going forward,the United States needs a full balance of both energy conservatLbn efforts and domestic ener sources, certainly renewables such as hydro, solar,wind, geothermal, biomass, etc., but also including nuclear, domestic oil, natural gas, coal, shale,tar sands, etc. Fortunately, our country is blessed with vast resources of coal, and technology available now and in the future can make use of that resource in an environmentally friendly manner. Looking at the problems in the Middle East, I believe we have another responsibility; and that is to do all we can to become energy independent as quickly as possible. We have to use all means available, and we can do so while being sensitive to our environment. Thank you for your timel Wayne Ciardella Mechanical Engineer 32 years in the Utility Industry 4816 Rocklin Drive Union City, CA 94587 1 1!77/')0(16 November 27, 2006 Perry Norman, Lincoln, Grew up in Price Utah and favors and UAMPS contract (916) 408-3889—Telephone call Peter Holzmeister From: RNCOTTON@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:09 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 50-year power contract To: Peter Holzmeister From: Fred R. Cotton 12941 Palisade St. , Truckee 96161 4933 Forest Hill Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 Re: 50-year Power Contract We continue to rely on your judgment and would like to express our opinion since we can't be at the public meeting on November 29, 2006. We endorse entering the Utah coal power plant contract as the prudent decision at this time. Coal is our one inexhaustible energy source at the present time and with hopefully improved pollution controls, is the logical solution for the near future. As significant energy from "environmentally friendly" sources in sufficient economical amounts is "pie in the sky" theory, we must rely on presently available sources for the immediate future. As long as there is a contract exit strategy should conditions change, this appears to be the logical decision at this time. Best regards and keep up the good work! Fred R. Cotton 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: DrponaldG@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:05 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electrical Energy Contract Peter, Thank for your informative letter regarding up coming electrical contracts for Truckee. I'm in favor of a practical approach guaranteeing long term low cost power for at least the base load. I agree with a long term contract from the new Utah power plant. Sincerely, Donald Guttman 1 1/27/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Colin Taylor[CTaylorCd smud.org] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:01 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: Kathy Taylor(E-mail) Subject: Coal vs'wind Mr. Holzmeister Thanks for your great letter! As a Tahoe Donner property owner and Utility employee, I fully understand the dilema you are in. I believe you should endeavor to encourage those that want to be "Totally Green" to put their money where their mouths are, and not, as I believe they are, try and get others to pay for their quest. It goes without saying, that this world has to be more mindful of the environment, however, I believe the "Big Picture" approach is the way to go. The fact is that there is insufficient "Green Energy" available and the prices are now being chased ever upwards by some of our Green Friends. The Big Picture is that we cannot afford to pay 25cents/Kwhr for Solar, or have too much Windpower that is not a full time energy generator. If there is a way of selling "Totally Green Energy" to those I mentioned earlier and have them pay for it, - and put up with the fact that THEIR electricity bill will at least double, and at times THEY will have NO power (ie dispatch them off line when there is no wind or solar energy available) - I am all for it. In other words, I am not in favor of subsizing those of your customers that don't fully understand this issue. Colin Taylor 1 FROM 1 FAX NO. 6509641575 Nov. 27 2006 03:06PM P1 _ Fax Cover Sheet Date Number of pages I (including cover page) To: From: Name Roy. �?- r0%t-z—S4I Name 206 ex *kc am, Company I r,"C uac 'o UrAA&n.. P U b Company Telephone S3 J 5'8 7 .3 8S4 Telephone (o V Qb4-- t S 7C� Fax �530 . S$1 S'eS) Comments RLPn.L-ce y,J.ati �I�l1--o b �wMuL� s use +1`¢ce4aa$. uj ► A cry 2UM" - �t�v�e�r� • ' ..�' 'AA��k ,�- �� `(AA C S A�Air) (��r+t c�, u.�k � �o►�� P 4r�� 1y u.t` 4� o S u ia►+S +WL W*j -4--' `T° . sT 11 . cti 5� l.c� 1z,c v LDA .Q n1 V tr 4A Mr. Robert McConnell 1330 Concord Ave. Los Altos.CA 94024 Marvin Wampler 508 W. Vartikian Fresno, California 93 704--1 443 Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.D. Box 309 Truckee, California 96160 Dear Mr. Holzmeister: We, Marvin and Helen Wampler, are strongly in favor of the PUD to secure low cost Power from the Utah Power Plant. Sincere, Marvin B. & Helen M. Wampler Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: john and denise defazio Dohndefazio@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:14 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase Of Electric Energy Since we cannot attend the public hearing, we have chosen to send an email. We understand the desire to purchase environmentally friendly power using renewable and clean technology, but the cost and availability(6%)seems to make it infeasible. We agree with the District's idea—have a fifty year contract that can be sold to another party. Secure low cost power from the Utah power plant. Pursue alternative options at a later date as renewable plants become available at a reasonable cost. Truckee has many low to middle income families that may be hit extremely hard with a 25 to 30% rate increase on January 1, 2009. Thank you. 1 1/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Janet Brock Olbrockl @ usamedia.ty] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:53 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal power I'm on board for coal power in Utah with the contract that can be renegotiated later. I'm not behind the"eco- zealots" at any cost people. I agree to go with coal and at a later date as prices maybe come down...go with other alternatives. Let's be sensible and cost effective. Not all of us are second home owners with a 200,000 to 300,000 thousand a year job. Thank you Janet Brock 11/27/2006 Long term Coal purchase/Letter to Truckee residents Page 1 of 2 Peter Holzmeister From: Thomas.Carlson@aps.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:35 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Long term Coal purchase/Letter to Truckee residents Mr. Holzmeister: We recently received your letter regarding a potential long term contract for coal generated baseload energy that TDPUD is considering executing. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this. My wife and I bought a second home in Tahoe Donner in September 2003. We live and work in Phoenix, Arizona and having a summer retreat in Truckee has been a real joy, despite the distance. As a long term employee within the electric utility industry, I understand the issues at hand and my email is intended to provide support and suggestions on your plan to secure the long term coal contract in Utah. First, I believe entering into a long term coal based energy contract is generally a good decision. You probably will have issues related to credit and guarantees, as a 50 year contract is a very long contract. From TPDUD's perspective, the key issue has to be performance and ownership credit/credibility. Plus, since the unit is being planned in Utah, you'll need to wheel the energy probably over Sierra's system, and there's risk associated with that. Nonetheless, given the volatility of power prices today, and in the likely future, I wholly support any fixed priced energy product that minimizes customers exposure to the market. I would suspect your coal contract may have some escalators tied to it(that's normal) and that's fine. The$35 demand cost you quote—does that include the cost of the energy as well (not just the capacity cost for the unit?). My assumption is that it is. Regarding the issue of renewable. APS (the Company I work for) is also facing mounting regulatory, and to a lesser extent,consumer pressure to include renewable energy in its generator or purchased power portfolio. We're under a mandate to have 15%of our generated energy be from renewables by 2025. A daunting task to say the least, but the Company supports the mandate because of the need to expand into renewables. One renewable option we have, but is hard to utilize in Arizona, is hydro. Given the abundance of hydro in Northern California, is it possible to increase peaking or baseload supplies from that market and "count"that as renewable? If so, that's the obvious way to go. I'm not sure what transmission rights you have on the Cal ISO(if any) or inbound rights from SMUD or others that have hydro, but I'd certainly support any increase in access to those markets under the premise of adding renewable energy to your portfolio. Best of luck at the Open Meeting on the 29th. I can only imagine some of the comments you might get on this issue. However, anytime a utility can secure(with little risk)long term price stability tied to a coal generating unit with ample supply, that's a sound business decision in my book. Thanks for your time. Tom Carlson Portfolio Manager/Head of Trading Arizona Public Service 602-250-2799 Our Truckee address is: 13330 Skislope Way Truckee, CA 96161 11/27/2006 Long term Coal purchase/Letter to Truckee residents Page 2 of 2 Email Firewall made the following annotations --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NOTICE --- This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister ....... . . . ... . . ......... . . . . From: Mark Stebbins[marks@wlrinc.com) Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:15 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: Ron Hemig Subject: Purchase of electric energy Peter, I'm responding to your letter of November 17 regarding input for the purchase of power from plants in Utah. I'm certainly for protecting the environment as much as practical, but as both a personal and business user of electric power and I know we can't function without it, it has always been my belief one should try to tie up the cheapest cost for the longest term possible provided the exit cost and strategy makes it too prohibitive to consider. Go for the longest contract possible at the lowest cost available. Thanks, Mark Stebbins 11/27/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: sid460@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:10 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electric energy purchase Dear Sir: I have read with interest your letter concerning the purchase of electric energy. My opinion on the subject would be to enter into the long term, less costly, agreement with the plant in Utah while pursuing the more costly and renewable energy for the peak periods of energy usage. This is a compromise answer to a difficult question. We all of course would choose renewable energy over coal generated energy if the costs were equal. I don't think the increase in cost justifies the usage of renewable energy at this time. Our energy rates are high enough. Please pursue the lower cost energy contract. Sincerely, John Donatoni Check-out the new_NOL. 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. 11/27/2006 November 27, 2006 Voice mail from Blanch Cohen 16135 Old Highway Drive saying she favors buying power from Utah plant. Page l of l Peter Holzmelster From: Lise Knox[Iiseknox@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:45 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Plant Contract Dear Peter Thank you for the opportunity for input on this very important issue. We have been homeowners in Truckee for 15 years now. We encourage TDPUD to pursue the most economical power available by entering into the contract to obtain power from the coal plant in Utah. Alternative energy has long been known to be available but not in sufficient quantities. This has begun to change and will continue to change with time. But for now, the PUD board should pursue the most economical long term source of energy possible. Five or ten years from now the possibility of technological innovations make it entirely likely that a coal plant can be retrofitted with improved scrubbers for cleaner air. Do the right thing. We vote for the contract with the coal plant. Sincerely, Lise and Thomas Knox Joan and Phil Knox 11672 Chamonix Rd Truckee, CA 916=482-6647 or 530-587-7402 11/27/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Bruce Green [bgreen 0 interorealestate.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:45 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: egreen @ interorealestate.com Subject: power In reference to your letter of November 17, 2006. We ardently disagree with those who say coal is not environmentally friendly. Feel free to purchase all of the power you want from Utah. More power to you...........................no pun intended!! Bruce and Ethel Green 11500 Sun Valley Rd. Truckee, Cal. J Right-clic here to downloac pictures. To help protect Bruce Green Direct: 650-947-4758 F-�x: 650-651-1538 Email: BGreenlr,?er:�ReIE�'a e.com 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jim Ruane Dim@pjruane.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:51 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal burning Power plants Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I am in receipt of your letter of November 17th regarding coal burning power plants. I own two residences in the Truckee area. While I am as concerned as others about the side effects of coal burning I have also read about some of the new technology that greatly reduces these effects. What is the difference, and I believe cost is probably a factor, between one fifty year contract that can be sold and shorter term contracts... Jim Ruane 11/27/2006 Utah power Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Rubin, Enid J [EJR1 @pge.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:29 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah power Dear Peter As a Tahoe Donner resident I would like to lend my support for your plan to buy coal-powered energy from a plant under construction. I believe that you are doing the right thing by first of all providing affordable power to Truckee residents and second by looking to diversify the mix. It is essential to make sure that all residents have affordable energy for their homes. If we cannot afford electricity--and that might be possible if we just use renewables--then our existing home values will plummet. You are continuing to carry out the plan for how Truckee obtains power today--coal and hydro. You have a responsibility to make sure there is power for all of us that is affordable. Renewable is nice--but may not be viable as 100 percent of the mix. Not everything you as a board member does will necessarily be popular-- but your job is to make sure we have sufficient electric energy at a price that most of us can afford. I appreciate your asking for opinions--but opinions are a dime a dozen and will not help keep the lights on. It is your job to keep the lights on--and using coal that is scrubbed seems like a most reasonable option to me. Your job is to serve your customers. If we can't afford power, we won't be able to be your customers. Please keep us as your customers and buy the power from a coal powered plant. It sounds like you will be able to get a really good long term deal. You cannot listen to every one--and there will be much more controversy if people cannot afford to power their homes. Leading does not always mean you will be loved and popular. Enid Rubin 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Robert Lambertson [r.lambertson C att.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:17 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Contract Dear Mr. Holzmeister Thank you for your Nov 17th letter. I am a second home owner in Truckee for over 30 years and am glad you ask for input from us too! I just saw a special on CBS Sunday Morning re coal as a resource. The Dominion Coal Company in Virginia has already put in emission controls and there has been a 90% reduction in emissions with no extra charge to customers. Pretty good huh? I think that the 50 year contract, which could be sold, is the way to go and I was glad to see you address the advances that the Utah plant will be making. I will watch and see what happens. Again thank you for the letter. Valerie Lambertson 30 Arlington Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 11/1-7/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: gillian4@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:50 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah power plant As homeowners in Truckee, we appreciate your efforts to find affordable and progressive power. I support the long term contract with the new Utah power plant, I believe emissions technologies are improving substantially and to be able to secure long term power is essential. While I support green alternatives I do not believe they are economical yet, and to purchase the extra power needed and to support such companies is a good compromise. I do not want to see our 5-8% . power rates increase more than Gillian Pendleton-Fernandez 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Robert B Roche frochesr@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:47 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Contract letter of 11/17/06 Mr. Holtzmeister, I believe the plan to enter a long term contract is in the best interest of the rate payers in the near term. If other sources become at a cost saving later, I agree with the concept of selling the contract. I also believe the Utility District should be pursuing nuclear energy sources as the new technology is safe, non-polluting and will save our gas, oil and coal resources for other uses. Robert Roche Donner address: 16055 Eder Ct. Billing address: 3162 Condit Rd., Lafayette, CA 94549 11/27/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David Domeier[ddomeierl4@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:26 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contract for coal powered electricity Peter, Thank you for your timely and well written letter regarding the controversy on the TDPUD's efforts to contract for future electricity. While I am concerned about the issues of pollution and global warming, and feel that each of us should show concern about these issues, it also strikes me that I personally cannot do much about generating alternative fuel sources of electricity - except maybe to contribute to firms and schools working on this area. The market for alternative fuel sources of electricity will push that area of research as rapidly as they can become economic. We should not be buying electricity from these sources until they can become economically viable and competitive in the market. TDPUD's job is to provide electricity to its users at the most economical rate possible. I support your efforts to do so with the 50 year contract (and hope I can live long enough to see that contract out). Thanks again for your letter. David J. Domeier 11/27/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Brian Rickauer[brian@rickauer.us] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:20 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Contract-Customer Opinion 11/27/2006 Hi Peter and thank you for you letter to the TDPUD customers. I think you and the Board are on the right course, ensuring long-term sustainable power and a minimal price, all the while trying to support renewable energy suppliers as they develop. As far as the question posed in the letter is concerned, I am of the strong opinion that the Board should secure a 50-yr agreement for power. Though this term is long, it's the only way to lock the lowest rate. Once the lowest rate is locked, there will always be a secondary market willing to purchase the power from TDPUD (since it will be amongst the least expensive options due to low cost basis). Lock long-term now, and when the renewable options become more readily available and cost effective, then make the move in that direction, absolutely, and sell off portions of the 50-yr. contract. I believe this is currently the Districts view, and as a customer, I am in full support of this direction. Thank you for your consideration, Doi+ Brian Rickauer 11851 Highland Ave Truckee, CA 96161 (mobile)530.448.9059 (home) 530.550,1143 11/27/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: jason@schmidtexhibit.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:17 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: TDPUD Power Contract Thank you for your letter informing us of the upcoming meeting to discuss the long term power needs of the district. Unfortunately neither my wife nor I can attend the meeting. We would however like our views to be recorded. First and formost our family lives very "green" . We don' t drive a hybrid auto but do actively recycle and encourage all of our friends to do the same. We have viewed the film "An Inconnvienant Truth" and are alarmed by the changes that are evident all around us. Further, we've read about this brewing controversy in the Sierra Sun and believe that the proposed 50 year contract with the yet to be built Utah coal burning plant would be in the best interest of TDPUD residents. However, we also strongly believe in tiered rates to encourage conservation. Recycing after all begins by reducing your consumption. Sometimes people only begin to see the light when their bills reflect thier (bad) habits. I don't know if this is the right time/place to suggest the same for water users but the same rule applies. While it's convienant that flat_ rates are paid by all residential property owners it's unfair that we maintain a natural forest on our property while our neighbors maintain a golf green during the Summer months for the same amount of money. Water is a natural resource that we should also conserve (or pay for if you don't subscribe to that view) . Thanks for the opportunity to be heard, Sincerely, Jason & Kristina Schmidt 11211 Alder Dr. Truckee, CA 96161 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Charlene and Gary Bunas[cngbunas@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:15 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electricity Sources and Contract Regarding the issues presented in your November 27 letter, I strongly encourage you to proceed with locking in rates with a 50 year contract for the Utah Coal Generated power (with option to sell interest earlier) . while I also believe we must adopt alternate energy sources, they will not be available in high amounts in the near future. I support the idea of bringing them on-line as soon as feasible. But with less than 10% of US power now coming from such sources, it would be very foolish (and not fiscally prudent) to commit to using them for our basic use now. I can't make the public meeting but I do hope cool heads prevail and not give in to the very vocal "activists" . Sincerely, Gary Bunas Truckee address: 11913 Pine Forest Rd. 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Mike and Esther Porter[mneporter@usamedia.ty] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:57 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Contract with coal plant in Utah Mr. Holzmeister, While I am as concerned about the environment as the next person, I feel that the TDPUD owes it to the ratepayers to procure the least expensive electricity available. Coal burning power plants are burning coal cleaner than they ever have, and the technology continues to improve.There is no known way to produce electricity without some sort of"exhaust'or pollution. Even the batteries that store solar generated electricity and the batteries in electric cars are going to become an environmental hardship at some point. Other than hydro-electric dams, coal is really the most environmentally friendly way to produce the great amounts of electricity we as a society need to run our daily lives. I am for entering into the long term contracts with the new facility in Utah because the electricity will be cheap, and since the facility will be state of the art, the environmental impact will be lessened. Conservation education is also a way to lessen our impact on the environment. I am sure we all could cut our bills by 5-10%just by shutting off all unnecessary lights in our own homes. I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion. Best Regards, Mike Porter, Ratepayer 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: bred @ mwci-ynp7.com [bred @ sierra.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:56 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Peter: I have 8 properties served by TDPUD. All 8 vote for a coal contract, the longer the better, particularly if it can be cancelled or sold in the future. Peter Bosco 11/27/?006 November 27, 2006 Robert Mohr, 12278 Sierra Drive stopped by the front office to tell us that he does not want a big rate increase. He favors using the Utah plant. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Delfino,Anthony[ADelfino@frk.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:03 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utility Contracts Peter, I believe a 25—30% increase in utility bills can be devastating to some people's budget. As much as we want to be environmentally conscious, I don't think a small town such as Truckee should bear such a burden. I think moving forward with a long term contract with a buyout is the best option. It leaves the door open if the more eco-centric energy becomes cheaper to opt out and move towards that option at a time when the impact to the pocketbook is more reasonable. I can see increasing around 5— 10%as a reasonable number for the town of Truckee to take this torch as an environmentally conscious group. Thanks for offering this forum to voice my opinion. Tony Delfino Notice: All email and instant messages (including attaclunents) sent to or from Franklin Templeton Investments (FTI) personnel may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed by FTI and its agents, or authorized law enforcement personnel, without further notice or consent. 11/27/2006 November 27, 2006 Peter Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner PUD PO Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160 Dear Peter, I received your letter regarding the long-term purchase of electrical energy for TDPUD. I am in concurrence with the staff recommendation to purchase the base load from coal generation. Our country has an excess of coal in the Wyoming-Utah area and I believe this is a good use for it as the United States strives to be more energy independent. In addition, most homes here in the Western United States use natural gas for heating and cooking. We live in a very cold climate in the mountains in Truckee. It is very expensive to heat our homes. If more power plants that currently use natural gas were converted to coal, the demand for natural gas would decrease and accordingly supply would increase and price for natural gas to the consumers would drop. I think that PUD is looking after the interests of the community by proposing we obtain a long-term contract for energy. Regarding the fifty-year contract, it locks low-cost energy in for us over the long-term and the contract can always be sold at a later time should the need arise. The Board needs to go ahead with the proposal. Sincerely, Patrick B. McDonough 11707 Northwoods Blvd. Truckee, CA 96161 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Anthony Desler[tdesler@hotmail.coml Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:43 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal vs. renewables letter Dear Peter, After reading your recent letter regarding our future electricity generation options, I feel that we should go forward with the 50 year coal based contract for our base needs and continue to look for renewable energy for our peak needs and for the future. I also think that we should incentivize individual solar energy if we are not already doing so. Thank you for looking for public feedback. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the public meeting. Sincerely, Tony Desler Truckee resident . ... . ....... . .. Share,your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live_Spaces friends module. 1 l/27/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Philip J. Mikal [philip_mikal@yahoo.comJ Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:54 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah power plant letter- feedback Hi Peter, I am a customer of TDPUD and received your recent letter on the purchase of power from the new Utah power plant. Thank you for informing and including your customers on this decision. I agree that this is a difficult decision. I'd like to suggest some alternatives: * Buy renewable energy credits (RECs) and/or carbon offsets for each Megawatt hour along with the long-term Utah contract. I believe a modern coal plant produces an average of 0.37 metric tons of carbon per Megawatt-hour of electricity. With a market cost of Us $5.00/Metric ton CO2 from Carbonfund.org, each Megawatt could be offset at a cost of $1.85/Megawatt. This would enable Truckee to make a better transition to renewable power. * Let customers choose. Take the long term contract, but offer customers the opportunity to pay more for renewable energy and/or carbon offsets on their bill. * Instead of a 50 year contract or renewable 5 year contracts, perhaps attempt to negotiate something in the middle, say 25 years. * Pick the long term contract, but also create a small-scale renewable energy market by giving customers an opportunity to purchase alternative energy from local producers of solar and wind power. PUD customers would have the ability to pay extra on their utility bills. All funds earmarked for this would go directly to the local producers who supply power into the PUD's electrical grid for use by local customers. I am willing to pay the $30/Megawatt for renewable energy, but believe it will be a hard sell. Given that, I would love to see, at minimum, carbon offset purchases with the long- term Utah contract. Regards, Philip Mikal 10466 Lenelle LN Truckee, CA 96161 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: William Vance[bvance@bigvailey.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:23 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Securing Low Cost Power Peter L. Holzmeister General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District Dear Mr. Holzmeister: Thank you for your letter of November 17, 2006 asking for input on the acquisition of energy from coal-fired power plants. This is a difficult decision in light of relaxation of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) under the present Administration. One cannot be sure if power plants are meeting the spirit and intent of the CAA. I suspect this will change in two years. I would hope that the Truckee Donner PUD can contract for power that meets CAA and U.S. EPA laws and regulations. If the proposed power plant is on an Indian Reservation, it may not meet all federal requirements. In most cases, the emissions from these do meet requirements, but there are facilities in Arizona that contribute to Regional Haze that affects the quality of air in our national parks, especially the Grand Canyon. I would suggest that you ask your staff to find out if the proposed power plant will be required to meet all federal and state emissions requirements. It would be reassuring to know that it will. The opponents of coal as a source of green house gases overlook the fact that natural gas-fired power plants also contribute green house gases. Gas-fired power plants are considered "clean" sources of electricity if they meet NOx and SOx standards. This says nothing about green house gases. Perhaps a stronger case for obtaining energy from coal-fired power plants could be made if we knew that they would use low sulfur coal and the facility would meet or exceed federal and state emissions standards. If this is the case, then I would support TDPUD's efforts to obtain a long-term contract for low cost electricity. Reliable environmentally friendly energy sources are difficult to find and are expensive, as you noted in your letter. I think that as long as TDPUD meets the goals of the California Energy Commission for alternative sources of energy(the model Renewables Portfolio),then it should be allowed to procure low-cost energy wherever it can be found. We should do our part and contribute our fair share to meeting the renewables goal, but we should not have to subsidize inefficient sources of power generation. Reducing green house gases begins in the home. Every homeowner can do more to reduce the consumption of energy and thereby reduce green house gas emissions wherever they are generated. Thank you for allowing us to have input on this important decision. Bill & Jeanette Vance 14060 Davos Drive Truckee, CA Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at www.BigValley.net 1 1 /1'711nn< Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: longcarol@att.net Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:59 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Energy Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I agree with the District's goal to secure low cost power from the Utah power plant and use the savings to secure alternate fuel power for peaking power needs. I believe that the Truckee community does value a clean and healthy environment and that accepting the long term contract with a coal burning plant is not inconsistent with that value. Thank you. Very truly yours, Paul Long 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: PARVALGOLF@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:57 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: (no subject) 11/27/06 Mr. Holzmeister, In response to your letter of Nov. 17; 1 find it hard to believe that there is much support for the purchase of power at twice the cost of available power. Although my property in Truckee is a second residence, I am still in favor of a long term saleable contract for power produced in Utah. I also support the purchase of peak power from any available renewable source that is available. In view of the fact that the current contract expires in 2009, what do you plan do for a power source until the Utah plant is online in 2012? Sincerely, Jerry W. Ray 12419 Muhlebach Way Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Carmel["crhs @ frontiernet.net"@ f rontiernet.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:47 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric power I am in favor of getting the lowest cost for our electrical needs. That means I am in favor of the$35 long term contract. I want to save the environment but the plant is going to be built and will be operating with or without are contract. Carmel Horigan Silva A voice mail from Bill Welker favoring the Utah contract (listened to on November 27, 2006) Page 1 of l Peter Holzmeister From: Dwight Odom jddodom@psyber.comj Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:40 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 50 year coontract Your letter was excellent and I support the Board 100% in the plan for a 50 year contract for the new power plant in Utah. My house is 15150 Point Drive,Donner Lake.Thank you and the Board for their hard work. Dwight Odom Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Robert Zollars [bob.zollars@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:32 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electric purchase Peter, Thanks for the excellent communication regarding the electricity purchase options for TDPUD. I think you're right on track prioritizing the lowest cost possible on base load, and focusing on alternate fuel power for peaking power needs. Stay the course! Best regards, Bob Zollars please note my new office contact information: Bob Zollars President and CEO Wound Care Solutions, LLC 74 W. Neal St. Suite 200 Pleasanton, CA 94566 direct: 925-249-0808 fax: 925-249-0813 email: bob.zollars(0)gmail.com Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Roger Lessman [rlessman @ ewptahoe.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:32 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: energy contract Peter, I received your letter concerning the energy contract issue. To make it simple I am in favor of the long term contract to lock in energy prices. The volatility of the energy market dictates the need to lock in the price. Who knows what will happen the future with the instability in the middle east. In addition, one of the major issues for our area is the cost of housing. Anything that can be done to mitigate then cost of living in the area should be a primary concern. Yes, I am in favor of reducing our emissions, but I believe there will be other options in the future to consider. Thanks. Roger Lessman East West Partners Truckee, CA t i If^�nnnc Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Rich Sherratt [rsherratt@ballenatech.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:17 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: power plant How much is the district's and consumers out of pocket cost for the Utah project ? Subject to it not being greater than the anticipated savings, I am in favor of the long-term Utah deal. Rich Sherratt CEO Ballena Technologies, Inc. (510) 521-0720 Peter HoUrneister From: tasutak@ix.netcom.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:12 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Long Term Coal Contract I have been a part time resident of Truckee and a customer of the TDPUD for 30 years. I support signing a LONG Term contract for coal generaed power. You need look no further than California's De-regulation (or more properly "Re- regulation") of eletricity services to see the unfortunate consequences of confusing emotion with public policy. Long term contracts were made illegal and California residents have paid billions of dollars as a result. California opened the door to being scammed by anyone and everyone. Or, you need look no further than the SMUD disaster. It made economic sense to some to shutter Rancho Seco, which provided Sacramento with low cost power for years, for Political purposes. But within just a few years, SMUD's cost of power skyrocketed, and their customers have paid the price ever since. Coal produced power has come a long way. Plants have become far more effecient an emissions have been greatly reduced in recent years. Even if we did not sign a long term contract, the chances are very great that we would be buying the same power at a far greater cost at some time in the fut-ire. It makes a lot of sense to sign a long term contract and when, or if, renewable generation becomes available, then sell the contract. There will always be a market since the Great Basin is expanding rapidly and will be able to consume the power. And, whether TDPUD signs a long term contract or not, the coal plant will be built. Why would we want to pay substantially higher costs for no productive reason. Finally, current costs of electricity are way too high. My home is heated by electricity and I have no desire to fund someone else's political agenda through my electric bills. I say sign the long term contract, and if anyone wants to make a personal statement to the contrary, let 'em freeze to death in the dark, but don't force others (like the poor or us retired folks on fixed incomes) to have to do the same. Tom 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: SSueOstrom@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:10 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Future Electric Purchase I am the owner of a second home in Truckee. After reading your notice concerning the future purchase of electricity, I am in favor of your purchase of this utility from the facility in Utah. New federal EPA guidelines cover such plants and are built to standards that minimize any pollution. I cannot agree with the purchase of power from another company that would increase the cost of electricity at least double. This would absolutely make no sense. I hope you are successful in reaching agreement with the coal burning plant. Susan Ostrom t i c�^r i�nni Peter Holzmeister From: Rebecca Regan [reb_regan@msn.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:04 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Rate Increase Input Importance: High Dear Mr. Holzmeister, My husband Randy & I own a home and a lot in Tahoe Donner, and live in the Sacramento area. We have read your letter dated 11/17/06 and ,Rant to let you know that we strongly support the PUD's purchase of the low cost power from the Utah power plant. it doesn' t make sense to pay twice the rate for power from other sources. It would only make the Truckee area more expensive to live in than it already is, especially for lower and middle class workers who are getting squeezed out by the cost of housing in the region. we think that a prudent, common sense approach is necessary to take with this issue. The new coal power plant will be built within existing strict requirements for power plants minimizing any negative impact to the environment. That fact also supports the District' s goal to support power in the most cost effective yet practical manner. Don' t let the far-out environmentalists sway your decision in this matter. If the District doesn' t buy the less expensive power from the coal plant, it will only compound existing financial constraints for people to be able to live and work in Truckee. Sincerely, Randy & Rebecca Regan 10688 Mougle Lane Tahoe Donner Becky Regan, M.A. , CCP Rebecca Regan & Associates (916) 660-0146 Fax: (916) 660-1583 www.reganhr.com i Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Betty and Gene Oemaile@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:16 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Truckee Power Dear Mr. Holzmeister: As a Tahoe Donner property owner at 14036 Skiview Loop (Lot 25), 1 prefer the low cost plan from the coal burning plants, 50 year contract. Elizabeth Joslyn Jemail 27/11/06 Message Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Picht, William [william.picht@thermofisher.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:58 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Plant Mr. Holzmeister, I read with great interest your recent letter regarding the purchase of power from the yet to be built power plant in Utah. While I understand the concern about producing power using coal as a resource, I agree that we must move forward with securing power for our future needs. If I understand correctly, by signing a long term contract, the costs for future power will be less expensive than a series of short term contracts. I believe that those reduced costs will benefit all users much more than paying higher rates now and betting on the come that viable renewable power plants will be developed and built anytime soon. Bottom line: I am in favor of signing the long term contract and securing affordable rates for our power usage. Thanks, Bill Picht 10977 Lausanne Way Truckee 396 Greenbrier Rd. Half Moon Bay, Ca 94019 510-979-5131 1 /1 71'1/VllC Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmelster From: Bill Gage [bgage @ savitar.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:23 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electricity I believe that the PUD should enter into the 50 year contract that can be sold if deemed appropriate in the future. Our purchase of electricity from Utah will not determine if that plant is built- so the net effect of your not doing that will approach zero. Just maintain a continuing focus on renewable sources that are viable for Truckee and take advantage of them when and where feasible. Bill Gage 13495 Davos Tahoe Donner 510-965-0095 1 1/7-7/7(Vlr, Page 1 of I Peter Holzmeister From: Walter H. Vennemeyer[procap@jps.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:50 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electricity Purchase Contract Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I am responding to your letter of November 17 regarding the proposed alternative choices available to purchase electric energy for the customers of the TDPUD. Since I will not be able to make the drive to attend the public hearing on November 29 this email will serve to express my opinion on the issue. It is my strong opinion that the role of a public agency such as the TDPUD is to represent the best interests of its customer base. It is not the role of a public agency to take an activist interest in emerging environmental technology. As customers (and rate payers) we expect to be provided with reliable and secure electric power at affordable prices. When technology for renewable power becomes viable we would support using that technology. I know that you are aware that we, as second home owners in Truckee, are already charged a premium under the presumed doctrine that we are "peak"energy users. This is especially grating when the converse is not true. We pay the same rate for water and use taxes as permanent residents and thus subsidize those residents. In your letter you state that you will "aggressively"seek power from renewable sources for peaking energy requirements. Does that mean that the added costs of such a policy would be borne only by the non-permanent residents? The TDPUD owes it to all of its customers to provide service at the most economical cost. Thank you. Sincerely, Walter H. Vennemeyer 1 / VI-7 1'%not FW: Renewable Energy Sources Page 1 of Peter Holzmeister From: Catton, Steve (SAN RAMON, CA) [steve_catton,,§ml.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:38 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: FW: Renewable Energy Sources -----Original Message----- From: Catton,Steve(SAN RAMON,CA) Sent: Saturday,November 25,2006 3:29 PM To: 'peterhoizmeister0stdpud.org' Subject: Renewable Energy Sources Peter, Thank you for soliciting input on this issue. While I applaud the good intentions of those people that would like to ban coal burning sources of energy, I think their time would be better spent trying to pass legislation that would require progress in this area. In this way, we would all share in the costs and benefits of increasing renewable energy sources. I do not think that it is fair for a small minority of People to suffer the higher cost of renewable energy in order to make a statement. As you said in your letter, only about 6% of the energy produced in the U.S. comes from renewable sources, so it is not even practical for a large % of the population to "vote with their pocketbook" by buying only renewable energy. So my vote is to be cost-efficient and use other avenues to encourage improved and expanded sources of renewable energy. Sincerely, Steve Catton, CFP® Financial Advisor Merrill Lynch 3130 Crow Canyon Place, Ste. 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 (925) 866-2430 (925) 866-2469(fax) Disclaimer: CAUTION: electronic mail sent through the internet is not secure and could be intercepted by a third party. For your protection, avoid sending identifying information. such as account, Social Security, or card numbers to us or others. Further, do not send time-sensitive, action-oriented messages, such as transaction orders, fund transfer instructions, or check stop payments, as it is our policy not to accept such items electronically. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act t 1 11t'7 I'll nn! FW: Renewable Energy Sources Page 2 of 2 upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it. Click_liert for important additional terms relating to this e-mail. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Andrew Jones [AndrewJones@Bigfoot.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:09 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Contract Peter, It is amazing to me that people with environmental concerns would object to this contract when "Environmentally friendly"options do not even exist to the extent that we need them. Electricity is a very fungible commodity and should we need to sell the contract at some point in the future I am sure it would not be a problem. (Although selling it as more expensive "friendly"options become available makes no sense to me) I have a good friend who works for SMUD and he told me all about the battle they just fought(and lost) with PGE. They produce electricity much more efficiently and in a much cleaner fashion, but PGE had better lawyers and PR people so the citizens of Sacramento suffer. Perhaps you could steer some of the activists up here down that way. Good luck. I really hope you get this contract. All the Best, Andrew Andrew L. Jones 15011 Northwoods Blvd. Truckee, CA 96161 AndrewJones fiq Bigfoot.com O - (530) 587 7731 C - (530) 414 1097 1 111-711f1l1,r, Paue l of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: howard goldman [howard @ massociate.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:46 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: energy rates Peter, Thank you for soliciting my opinion regarding the pending energy contract. My strong view is that the PUD should secure the most economical sources of electricity that is legally available. If their are members of the community that choose to pay twice that rate, please accept their payment at the higher rate and donate the amount above market rates to alternative energy research and development. Please make our voice known at the hearing. Howard and Lisa Goldman 14890 Wolfgang Truckee, CA. 96161 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Gandlir@aol.com Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:53 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: (no subject) I should like to make the following points: 1. Inflation should be considered. At a rate of 3% per annum (optimistic in my opinion), the increase in price solely due to this will be a factor of about 4.6. 1 suspect that other increases will occur due to increasing energy use worldwide. Locking in $35 for 50 years looks mighty good. 2. 1 am also concerned about global warming. However, this will, by economic necessity, be a long slow process.and our paying more now for"green power" will simply free up the cheaper power for others to buy. I do not believe that there will be a significant drop in fossil fuel use as long as the world population is increasing. In fact, I would say that only when the world fossil fuel deposits begin to run out, will consumption diminish and you won't want to be around when that happens. 3. The same arguments apply to buying power for peak need. Buy the cheapest available. In fact, perhaps you should buy in excess of your base need at$35 and sell the excess at a profit. John Darlington Page 1 of I Peter Holzmeister From: Julie Templeton Ouliesiler@yahoo.comj Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:03 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Plant in Utah Peter, I just finished reading your letter regarding purchasing power from a plant in Utah. First and foremost, I feel it is the PUD's job to secure the lowest price contract for the people in its district. Doing anything otherwise would be making a political statement and PUD's don't exist and should not exist for that reason. Even if the PUD were to purchase all of it base and peak power needs from alternative sources, somebody else somewhere will purchase the power from the new Utah plant and thus contribute to "global warming." As a result, the world as a whole is no better off if our very own PUD purchases alternative energy. When we do this we are making a political statement. The PUD's job is to make an economic decision NOT to make a political statement. If the PUD were to choose a more expensive alternative energy option. the community is now being coerced into paying for something they didn't choose and additionally has no net benefit for society as a whole. As a community member I would be more inclined to sign up for the lower cost, coal burning fuel and give the excess rate increase I would have to pay under alternative fuel to R & D for alternative fuels. At least this way, we are calling what it is - A DONATION. The time for alternative fuels is just not here yet. The free market economy has a very simple way of letting buyers and sellers know when a product's time has come; it will be when alternative fuels are cheaper than coal. Julie Templeton Tahoe Donner Part-Time Resident Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Nelson2 [nelson2 @ Itol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:11 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Plant Dear Mr. Holzmeister: As twenty-three year costumers of Truckee Donner P.U.D. we are in favor of the proposed contract with the Utah power provider based mainly upon economy& reliability. The length of the commitment is a bit of a concern and we would like to be sure that a good exit strategy is in place prior to the signing of the contract. Please feel free to share our opinions with all interested parties. Yours, David & Lynda Nelson 10160 Thomas Dr. Truckee, CA I i VI-711111nc Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Chip Comeaux [com eauxri des@ yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:37 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: fifty year contract My name is James Comeaux ; a Truckee resident since 1991. 1 am in favor of a fifty year coal energy contract that could be sold later should a renewable energy cnotract become available at comperable rates. Peter Holzmeister From: brute robinson [bwrclr@yahoo.coml Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:15 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: purchase of electric energy Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Frankly, I don' t understand why the PUD is debating the issue. Your job is to provide the most economical power possible, period. . . ended. Since when were you given the authority to decide that we as customers need to make a significant contribution to satisfy the environmentalist crowd? If you grant to invite a class action suit, then go ahead and purchase power that could cost $35 for $74. ",le are keeping two houses going and utilities are a very big deal in our lives. If you double our electric cost, that is very serious stuff. Do you Yahoo! ? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Karen McGeer[karen @ mcgeer.com] Sent: Saturday, (November 25, 2006 8:12 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: new energy contract I will not be able to attend the public hearing on Wednesday. However, I would like you to know that I support the District' s efforts to keep our e_ectric rates as low as possible. If that means buying electricity produced with coal rather than as-yet unavailable greener technologies, so be it. Sincerely, Karen McGeer 12523 Stockholm clay Truckee, CA 96161 1 Virginia— It was very nice meeting you and talking with you about Emily Page 1 of 2 Peter Holzmeister From: Tony Oliveira[tonyo@usamedia.ty) Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:22 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power needs November 25, 2006 To: Peter Holzmeister, General Manager We own a property at 13703 Heidi Way, served by the Truckee Donner PUD. In response to your letter of November 17`h we respond with the following: 1, PUD should contract for the long term (50 yr) from the coal plant in Utah. Hopefully they can be in operation in 5 years. This would cover our base load. The PUD contract should require the adoption of technological improvements to reduce environmental pollution as they are developed. Unless included into the contract there is no assurance that they will be installed. We should not encourage a mess like 4 Corners. 2. The PUD power demand will increase over the next 56 years. We should purchase power to cover peak loads and additional power required by population growth from alternative sources ie: wind, hydro, solar, biomass, nuclear, and whatever is to come over the next 56yrs. 3. The contract with the Utah supplier should have protection for the PUD if not on line by 2012. Such as: furnishing power at the contracted price. 4. Your letter did not state what you will do for power from April 1, 2009 until 2012.or whenever the plant is on line. 5. Energy conservation and use of solar power must be part of the PUD plan. The goal for PUD should be in 56 year the power provided by coal fired steam plants will be a minor part of the electrical supply. Yours Truly, Mary Ellen Oliveira Louis A. Oliveira Virginia— It was very nice meeting you and talking with you about Emily Page 2 of 2 Peter Holzmeister From: m niehaus[mniehaus@starstream.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:14 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Source Thank you for your letter explaining the different ideas for cbtaining long-term energy sources for TDPUD. I am a resident of Tahoe Donner, and I favor going with the approach that yields the lowest cost. Many of us are stretched by the recent climb in energy costs. If some want to pay more for alternative scurces, they could take the additional amount over and above the cost of ccal and donate it to an environmental group of their choice. Thanks for the chance to give input. Mark and Jennifer Niehaus Sent via the WebMail system at maii.starstrea-m.net 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Pretzeldadi @aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:39 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electricity Contract-Letter Dated 11-17-2006 Dear Peter, In a few words "we strongly favor the decwh n th_a�wo_uld_take advantage of a longterm contract minimizing_the cost_of electricity". We are concerned about the environment and the use of "reasonable and practical" alternatives to produce energy, but they not available now. We don't believe this is the time to gamble with known sources and associated costs! Let's not forget about the energy fiasco we had when Governor Davis had a "knee jerk' a few years ago and what a great job TDPUD did to minimize the impact on us, your customers. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Deane and Pat Dvoracek 14660 Red Mountain Road Peter Holzmeister From: buckeye 0wbhsi.net Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 9:17 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Re: Letter Dated 11/17/06 .My opinion - go for the long term 50 year contract. Jim Pfeifer 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Robertjwilliams@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:40 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: trailsend@pyramid.net; rsquared@dcn.davis.ca.us; sjcp@worldnet.att.net Subject: Your Letter of November 17, 2006 Dear Mr. Holzmeister, Your letter sought a response, so here is one. My wife and I are rate-payers. As I read it: 1. The District's present contract for base load power expires April 1, 2009, and the District is evaluating available means to replace it. 2.One option being considered is a fifty year contract to purchase base load power at$35 per megawatt of demand from a coal-fired plant to be completed in Utah by 2012. 3. The cost of power from known alternative sources is $74 per megawatt of demand. 4. Presently 6%of power generated in the US is considered "renewable", and none of it is in proximity to the transmission lines that serve Truckee. 5. As a result, the only realistic option open to the District for serving its base load is from coal-fired sources. 6. Some in the community(rate-payers, I would assume)advocate that the Truckee community make a political statement that it values a clean and healthy environment by rejecting any long-term contract for power from a coal-fired plant. 7. This segment of the community proposes a series of short-term contracts for power from coal-fired sources, at $74 per megawatt of demand, in order to preserve the flexibility of moving to renewable sources "as soon as possible". To one who has become accustomed by experience to volatility and the management of the risk involved in uncertainty, this sounds like madness. The directors and management of the District have a fiduciary duty of prudence, at the very least. They cannot bet the public's money on the come in order to accomplish narrow political objectives, particularly those of a part of the community who would be happy to see all the other rate-payers be compelled to financially support views with which they may disagree. I submit that prudent judgment requires that the directors and management evaluate the known facts and historical trends, and reach the decisions that will accomplish for the District the most reliable and cost-effective power supply for whatever future the available information dictates. By all means they should be wary of politicizing the District. Robert J. Williams Peter Holzmeister From: Priscilla Peters [lellie@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:42 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Letter of Nov. 17, 2006 'fter reading your letter of ^1ov. 17, 2006, my question is, where will you purchase power from April 1, 2009 until the availability of the Utah plant power in 2012, and AT WHAT COST? Aside from that question my preference would be that you enter into the long term contract with the Utah plant over the 50 year period. James A. Peters 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David Rowe [d8rowe@usamedia.ty] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 11:00 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric energy contract I vote for the 50 year contract with the new Utah power plant with the option to sell using renewable energy for peak loads when practical. David Rowe 1 1 i)Ti')nnA Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Raymond S. Plock[rplock@plock-associates.com] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:01 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Contract Mr. Holzmeister: [ vote in favor of the Utah 50-year contract. Ray Plock Acct. #7200280024 1/)7/-VOOA. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David Klinger[dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:05 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah contract letter response Peter, In response to your letter, I definitely want TDPUD to seek the lowest cost contract, even if it is from a coal-burning plant. I do not want TDPUD to feebly attempt to influence national energy policy by voluntarily paying more for "green" energy. It would be okay with me if those that want to pay more for green energy be allowed to do so as long as it did not affect the ability to secure the lowest cost energy for the long term for the rest of us. TDPUD could purchase annually an amount of energy from green sources that would service those customers who opt-in for higher prices for green energy. There would have to be two rates established: one for those of us who want lowest cost, and a higher one for those who don't want energy from coal plants. Rate levels would have to be established so that one group would not subsidize the other. Dave Klinger 11710 Schussing Way Truckee, CA 96161 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Ray Huntley[ray.huntley@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:50 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase of Electrial Power We agree that the purchase of the $35 per megawatt power makes more economical sense over the long run. Coal burning power is becoming cleaner every year and the technology is improving each year. We support the 50 year contract with the Utah power plant. AR Huntley, PE Diana Huntley Peter Holzmeister From: MARILYN MODAFFERI [tahoemod @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:52 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electric energy power plant Hi: We would like to express our support for the Truckee PUD entering into the contract to obtain power from the yet to be built coal/water/electric plant is Utah. I we can go to the moon; we can produce clean power from coal sources. Let' s give industry the opportunity to prove they can provide clean power from coal. At the same time this may encourage the US government to provide additional investment funding and incentives for the development of more economical sources of environmentally friendly power. Sincerely, Rcn and Marilyn Modafferi 14891 Wolfgang Rd Truckee, Ca 96161 Marilyn and Ron Modafferi 12651 Skiview Loop Truckee, CA 96161 530-550-1493 i Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Dan Evans[evanscons@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:55 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: power Peter-- thank you for your letter about the options for our electric power. We are year-round residents and strongly believe the cheaper power is our best option for 2 reasons: First. the cost of living in are area is already higher than in 90% of the country. You also say a possible short term contract with coal power would give alternative power a chance to let technology catch up-- won't the technology also improve the clean burning of coal. Secondly, let us not forget that a sizeable fraction of the local homeowners are in fact second or third homeowners who can financially afford the elevated cost of power and do not mind spending the extra-money in the name of environment, in order to feel like they are doing their part...We both believe the long term contract with the Utah plant is our best option. Thank you, Dan & Francoise Evans Dan Evans Evans Construction, Inc. Office: (530) 582-8854 Mobile: (775) 843-0629 Fax: (530) 582-8855 Peter Holzmelster From: Robert Hinsch [t_2hinsch@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:40 PM To: Peter Ho►zmeister Subject: electric power 10 Hillcrest Court Oakland, CA 94619 November 25, 2006 Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister TDPUD Email to: peterholzmeister+3tdpud.org Thank you for your informative letter outlining the future sources of energy for the Truckee area and the economic impact on us, the users. Please, let us not politicize our energy needs in Truckee. We do rot need to become another Berkeley, CA. The people of California spoke rather strongly at the last election by defeating proposition 87, the "let's tax the oil industry proposition' . Most rational people will supply their fuel needs at the most reasonable rate. Doubling the rate will only increase the use of wood for fuel in the Truckee area, thereby further contaminating our local air, at least in the short run. For those who think it *Vise to "save our planet" by paying more at the hump, let them double their individual bills and have that excess put into a special fund to research alternative fuels. I doubt that many of the talkers will walk the walk. Coal and its use as a fuel are now cleaner than it was 10 years ago. It will be even more environmentally friendly in the future. Lets support that effort. Lastly, you note that Truckee may be able to sell the Utah contract at some future date. Lets be rational and use our economical sense. Robert T. Hinsch (10869 Skislope, Truckee) 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Robert Gurman [north bleach@ yahoo.com I Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:52 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: New energy source November 26th, 2006 Robert Gurman 4867 Slalom Way Truckee, CA 415 515 2281 Dear Peter, I have read your letter dated November 17t_h regarding the purchase of electricity from Utah. I am a strong proponent for alternative energy sources and environmentally friendly power, however, I agree with you that we must consider what power source is currently available, the i mediate costs and the future costs, and what options we have for future electrical power sources. It seems to me that obtaining power from Utah is a sound plan. As you suggested, we can change to whatever new technology sources are available to us in the future, or if all else fails, we can sell our contract rights. Shorter contracts with power companies only open the window to higher rates when the contracts expire. I consider myself an idealist, but also a realist. If there is no present technology to choose from, the best route to take is stay on an economically reasonable path until someone comes up with an alternative energy source and a better plan. Renewing shorter contracts is like jumping from an old boat into the ocean, because it may not be environmentally correct, hoping a cheap life jacket will keep us afloat before the seas become too turbulent, then changing to a more expensive and proper jacket when we realize we're over our heads in water. I think it makes most sense to just stay on the boat and work toward getting a better and improved one when available. Thanks, Robert Gurman Cheap talk? Check out 'i'Ahco! Messenger' s low PC-to-Phone Cali rates. '::t p: c,icJe.y-ahco.cCm 1 Pape 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Bob and or Donna S [donrpty@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:00 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: new electrical contract I say buy the cheap power from Utah. I wonder if you should explore creating some renewable power locally to use during peak time. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: BARBARA TUCKER [barbtuckerca@prodigy.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:03 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Renewal After reading your lengthy letter, I agree that a 50 year contract "lock-in" is necessary to keep costs down. With all of the requests for new energy plants is a dream & the costs have to be enormous, passed on to your customers like myself! Have you seen anything "perfect" in this world, let alone the years & monies that it takes to complete this type of dream. Haven't you all viewed how our government officials run a perfect mess & cannot come together to get anything completed, yet alone, finished. Putting important issues on the back burner, or simply put it all in a folder& discretely put it on the bottom of the pile, or deep six it; never to be heard of again! Well, global warming should have been looked in& taken care of years ago, now you are saying "some-people" are concerned about global warming? Why, are you all making it an issue when you all know what to do with out having to send out such a letter? There are also folks that make a living harvesting coal & many workers dieing from that hard work, to support their families & keep us warm! It seems foolish to take jobs away from these hard working folks, as you know your employees get paid very well without our deciding if they should get another raise!!!! Therefore, you all know that doing the right thing for all your customers is the thing to do. Sign the 50 years contract, without a buy-back clause & get with the program! Keep with the coal burning contracts! Oh, by the way, you can imagine how many people read only a few lines of this letter& discarding it, not reading the back page to understand what you folks are trying to do, thinking they knew by reading the first page! GOD BLESS YOU ALL, AND, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING. Thank you for this opportunity. i i/117/1nn4 Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: averywise@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:09 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: FUTURE ELECTRIC POWER PURCHASES DEAR SIR, RE: YOUR NOV 17,2006 LTR . 1 VOTE FOR CHEAP POWER PURCHASES IN FUTURE CONTRACTS. PLEASE UPHOLD YOUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO TD PUD CUSTOMERS AND DO THE SAME THING. WE CAN DISCUSS PSEUDO-PROBLEMS IN A POLITICAL FORUM AT A LATER DATE. THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MYSELF. ACCT #7080965024. RANDY WISEMAN Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Aaron Yuen [aaronkyuen�§comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:19 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Dear Mr. Holzmeister, Trying to Strike a balance between environmentally responsible and financially responsible is no easy task. I don't envy your position and thank you for taking on the challenge. First and foremost, there is no right or wrong answer. There is a choice. I tnist that your statistics is accurate that only 6% of the power generated national wide is considered renewable. Given such dismal figure, Truckee being a small commuity, is not in a position to be an effective advocate of renewable sources of energy. My vote: Take the least expensive alternative to satisfy the base load, splurge on renewable energy to meet peaking power needs if feasible. 'Wien renewable sources of energy become plentyful, we can than revisit this issue. As long as the contract with this Utah company is reasonably transferable, we are covered. How committed is the completion date of 2012 for this Utah company? Why don't we negotiate for a shorter contract such as a 25 year contract with an option to renew for another 25 years. 50 years seem too long. Let's don't take care of everything for our next generation, leave them something to do. This sounds like a very interesting project. If you can use an experienced business person to help out on a part time basis, I would be a great candidate. Respectfully, Aaron Yuen 7 1 /1^7/1/1!lc Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Sidner Scott [sandjscott@telis.org] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:35 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase of electric energy Thank you for letting us know about the issues in your letter of November 17, 2006 . We are permanent/full time residents of Truckee. we believe, as rate payers in a public utility district, that it is the responsibility of the district to provide the most reliable, low cost energy possible. Raising our rates to pay for environmentally friendly power would be like spitting in the ocean in terms of its impact on saving the environment . However, such a raise would significantly impact our lifestyle in a negative fashion. Thanks for the opportunity to express our opinion on this issue. Sidner and Joanne Scott 14773 Hansel Ave. Truckee 1 1 11117/11/V14 Power Sources Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: Tracey Pomeroy[tapomeroy @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:44 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Sources Peter, Thank you for the 11/27 informational letter. I support your plan to purchase power from Utah on a 50 year contract. The fact that the contract can be sold to another party prior to expiration should economical renewable power become available, sold me on your plan. Regards, Tracey Pomeroy Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Verne Walton [vewalton@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:51 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Term of power contract We (my wife & 1)support the 50 year term for the proposed power contract. We own a 2nd home in Tahoe- Donner at 12035 Bernice. Thank you for the opportunity for input on this issue. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: buickguy2-tahoe@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:13 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power generation considerations Peter: Thank you for your balanced letter of November 17. I am not able to attend the November 1.9 meeting in person, so I am writing to you now with my view on the issues that should be considered. My family and I own a second home at Tahoe Donner. We do not use it much, so the cost of electricity per kWh is even less of a consideration than it is for most users. On the surface, it would seem we should back environmentally sound power generation. So what if it costs more. That would be a short-sighted view, in my opinion. A small power user like our family should not be able to make this call on behalf of the many full-time residents, especially those not so well off. Please ensure that you get input from the community's poorer members. I suspect they will think the decision must be made to control power generation costs. I would be surprised if there are not many users who cannot afford the rate increases you speak of. Thank you for asking for input. John D. Love 13910 Pathway Tahoe Donner Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Mary Anderson [mandermv@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:19 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electricity Purchase Options Thank you for your letter of November 17, 2006 explaining options for the purchase of power by Truckee Donner. I think the 50 year contract with the coal plant is our best alternative. Newer technologies have made these plants environmentally acceptable until other options become more economical. Power(and heat) are essential in Truckee. While some residents can afford to pay twice the price there are other ways to reduce emissions such as reducing fuel consumption. I would not want us to commit our poorer residents to paying a premium to make a what is essentially a political statement. Mary V. Anderson Mill Valley & Truckee, CA -- Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David DeMello[thedemellos@gmaii.com] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:32 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Plant Energy Purchase Hello Peter, Thank you for your update on the future on Truckee power sources. My family and I are in favor of the contract with the Utah power plant. It is our opinion that the lower cost power in light of no sufficient (and current) alternative makes sense. I am not convinced that it would be notably easier to cut "shorter term" contracts with coal burning energy power providers than it would be to sell out contract with the Utah power plant, assuming a more environmentally freindly alternative surfaces. Thank you! David & Bethany DeMello PS. I am currently scheduled to appraise your truckee property. You have been working with my assistant, Julie Vietor, to set the inspection. Look forward to meeting you soon! Page 1 of I Peter Holzmeister From: Anthony Papadakis [anthonypapadakis@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:52 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Power I am all for renewable energy but in this case the price is way too high. I urge you to enter into the 50 year contract now. If and when there is a viable alternative make the switch at that time. 1 1*117 Plnn4 Your recent letter regarding potential Utah contract Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: Rajeev Goel[rgoel@rgoel.com] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:02 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Your recent letter regarding potential Utah contract Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I recently received your letter regarding the controversial 50 year power contract being considered using a coal- burning, Utah power generator. I am writing you to provide you with my input. I believe that the TDPUD's current position of signing a 50 year agreement to cover base load is absolutely the correct position. While everyone would like to shift to renewable energy resources, given the very limited amount of renewable resources available in the US it makes no sense to shift a large portion of our power supply to renewable sources. The sensible approach is to use economic power sources for base load and renewable sources, where possible, for peaking load. Thanks for your letter on this matter. Rajeev Goel rgoel@rgoel.com 408-480-0998 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David Thompson [Thompson270@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:37 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Energy Source Mr. Holzmeister; In response to your recent letter to customers, be advised that we support your recommendations to purchase electric energy from a power plant in Utah. We also support the PUD's efforts to provide electric energy at the most cost effective means possible. Regards, David Thompson 10560 Dogwood Street Truckee, CA Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Cortland Lanning [lanno@accessbee.com] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:52 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electric Power contracts In my opinion economics should be considered first. Unfortunately to many decisions are being made today based on an incomplete analysis of the pros and cons of the problems. Global Warming is a horrible thought. Most of the information available on it's past reoccurrences is not available to most people-Very little study has been made yet of the heat and gases that pour into the oceans that cover most of the earth. Don't let me get started on my favorite topics or I'll bore you to death. You have a very tough decision to make, I don't envy your job.Sincerely Cortland Lanning I 1 V)-7 PI nnc Page I of I. Peter Holzmeister From: Rick Ludlow [ludlowr@frontiernet.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:45 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: New Electrical Energy Purchase Contract Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I am writing in response to your letter of November 17, 2006 concerning the potential purchase of electrical energy from a yet to be built coal fired power plant in Utah. My wife and I have owned our vacation home in Tahoe Donner since 1994. We support the proposal to purchase base load electrical energy from this new state of the art plant while seeking green fuel power for the districts peeking needs. We are fortunate that our fulltime residence is located in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's service area which provides its customers with reliable low cost electricity including power generated from renewable sources. SMUD's customers and other Municipal Utility District customers have been insulated to a great degree from the supply interruptions and high electricity costs that have plagued California in recent years. Part of the reason for this is that Municipal Utility Districts have been able to take advantage of lower cost long term supply contracts, such as the proposed Utah contract, that the PUC denied to the utilities that it regulated. A long term supply contract at a reasonable price that can be sold at an appropriate time is a blessing and should not be discarded. Sincerely, Rick Ludlow 1 1 0-7/`1 nn,< Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Rick Parkinson [rparkinson @ comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:46 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Regarding your letter on electric power Peter, I have a second home in Tahoe Donner(14774 Alder Creek Drive). I support the plan to buy lower-cost power in a long-term contract from the plant in Utah. Rick Parkinson t 1 n17 ilnnc Peter Holzmeister From: Dennis Austin [dennis@austin.namej Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 9:02 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power contract opinion Dr. Mr. Holzmeister, Thanks for contacting me and other subscribers to solicit our opinions on future power contracts. My opinion is that you should complete the proposed contract for the coal-fired plant in Utah. I have two reasons: 1. Tr,,.�ckee is becoming a wealthier community at an almost alarming rate. As the wealthy become more and more dominant, they vote for expensive measures that will help assure Truckee's future elite stature. although I'm happy to let people who can afford it spend their own money as they see fit, I'm opposed to their forcing others to spend money on their projects. 2. Coal-fired generation has a rather poor reputation on the environmental front, but current technology is making coal more and more competitive as a source of clean energy. Writing off a technology because of inapplicable past reputation is very bad science. Dennis Austin 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Russell Mitchell [ritchell@rmairrigation.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:16 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: electric Energy- Utah Dear Peter, My wife and I have had a cabin at Donner Lake since 1973. I am very much in favor of environmentally friendly power but I would not and I would hope TDPUD will not put its customers in a position to pay the extra for the yet to be developed reliable source of renewable power. I encourage you to negotiate the long term (50 year) contract for our entire needs. You can always sell some of these contracts and purchase power from a renewable power source down the line. Why knowingly shoot ourselves in the foot? Respectfully, tJ5-3,ELL D. -4111 ICHZI-l-, FASIC .it 17 2760 CAMINO DIABLO WALNUT CREEK. CA 94597 TEL: (925) 939-3985 FAX: (925) 932-5671 RMITCHELL9RMAIRRIGATION.COM t t i1'r i^tnn� Peter Holzmeister From: Norm Madge [normmadge@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:31 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Your letter of Nov 17 Peter. . . .thank you for your letter of November 17. I have a home in Tahoe Donner and I am a customer of TDPUD. I will not be able to attendthe November 29 meeting, but I wish to indicate my strong support for the district 's goal of securing low cost power from the Utah power plant. Please let me know how I might further support this position. Thanks! Norm Madge Cell 408.398.5737 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: John Scott ascott@wherenet.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:05 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: b kcbeme @yahoo.com; Steven Poncelet; btresan@truckeesan.org; Lauren Poncelet; Sidney Scott Subject: Coal Plant Peter, You likely saw the Business Week article "Coal Producer Goes Green"— I've attached a PDF of the article. Do you know the type of Coal plant which is planned for the Utah power plant Truckee PUD plans to contract with? Does it employ a"clean"technology as described below? AEP Chairman and Chief Executive Michael G. Morris wants to construct at least two more coal-hungry plants along the Ohio River-- but this time environmentalists are wishing him Godspeed. Morris is breaking with other utilities, and with AEP's past, to embrace an eco-friendly way of producing electricity from coal. These facilities would be as clean as gas-fired generators from the get-go, no matter how impure or sulfurous the coal is. And they could be retrofitted easily to eliminate emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. "Let's take this to the next level --that's what we're doing here,"says Morris rT41r John Scott Sales Manager Marine Terminal Group hereNet voice 530-582-6711 mobile 530-848-6027 eFax 530-579-3270 email jscoft@wherenet.com website http;//www.wherenet.com/ Locate. Communicate, Accelerate! 1 1 VI-71Innc Pace 1 of 1 Peter Hoizmeister From: Arlon Waterson [arlon@hilmarlumber.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:09 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: elecrtic Peter, You have to buy into the Utah plant and watch for other opportunities that are more envrio-friendly in the future. Sounds like you have a good plan. Thanks for the info, Arlon Waterson 1 1 /'1T/inner Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jeff Perko Deffperko@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:18 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal and Alternative Power Sources Peter, Thanks for sending out the letter and keeping us all informed. We have a second home in Truckee and use it fairly extensively throughout the year. I have a few thoughts regarding the cost of power. 1. A long term coal contract, while relatively inexpensive is probably fine and makes power much more affordable for the majority of us. 2. If a long term contract is entered in to I would like to see TDPUD use some of the savings gained from the long term contract to help develop alternative energy sources. I am an engineer and contractor and I firmly believe alternative energy sources will be in wide spread use in less than 50 years from now and I would like to see some of our savings help contribute to the acceleration of those sources. Maybe we can take 25%of the savings and find a way to fund or purchase alternative energy. This is both somewhat environmentally responsible and yet is not too large a burden on the rate payers. 3. If alternative energy is truly the future, it may be difficult to sell the long term contract at an acceptable price in the future. However, by taking some "ownership" in the alternative energy funding program mentioned above maybe we can lessen the effect of this some day. 4. 1 do not support only going with short term 5 year contracts. That will not be acceptable or fair for the long term Truckee full and/or part time residents. Thanks for reading my comments. Jeff Perko Manito Construction, Inc. 925-600-0220 Mobile: 925-260-7117 t t n�i�nn� November 27, 2006 Dear Mr. Holzmeister, Thank you for your invitation (November 17 letter) to express an opinion on your growing debate over electric supply contracts...and welcome to the social-political hell of the utility business. As a staff member and consultant to California energy and water utilities for over thirty years I can speak with some experience with respect to conventional thermal, hydro, nuclear, wind, small hydro, solar, geothermal, co- generation, and landfill gases as sources of commercial electrical power. Many years ago in preparation for a presentation on social rate making for public utilities, the case histories quickly supported the failures of attempts to direct consumer behavior through electric rates. Threats of increased rates have routinely failed to improve conservation efforts or stimulate development of renewable technology. Department of Energy studies over the past ten years have shown that only about 10 percent of the citizens are willing to pay up to 10 percent more for the benefits of alternate sources. Incentives have only served to line the pockets of promoters and vendors while fleecing investors and leaving the landscape littered with wind farm junkyards and decaving solar panels. This leads to caution when attempting to scare your customers with cost per megawatt numbers. We learned a long time ago that customers only understand numbers in terms of the monthly bill, most have no idea what a megawatt is or even care. The impractical and naive vocal minority of Truckee scare me when they launch another campaign, especially on a subject they really don't understand. Most citizens are happy the lights go on when they flip the switch and have no clue as to how the energy was generated. I always chuckle when I recall one audience member's comment after a presentation, "I thought they just stuck some wires at the bottom of a waterfall". If anything your organization, like most utilities, has failed to educate the consumer on the real life facts of electric power generation and the uncertain commercial feasibility of alternate technologies. It was always too easy; you just bought the power from someone who absorbed all the generation headaches. Take for example the recent media hype over one of our nation's utilities using 28,000 square feet of land to generate a measly 250 KW of energy with a photovoltaic system. Why not put that in perspective for you customers and let them know how much they really get for such an effort, and I don't mean the great public relations value. Your challenge is to communicate to majority of your customers the simple fact that if the district were to build their own base-load generating facility they would have to commit now for a future start up and that signing on as partner in the Utah plat is nothing more than the same thing. The consumer must also be made to understand that if you built your own plant, it would be a fifty year commitment to maintain and operate same. Of course you would have the option to sell it at some future date. Most consumers do not understand base load plants and have been mislead by California's hype of its recent overnight wonders in natural gas-fired peaking plants. I support your efforts to obtain low cost future sources of electrical power and hope at the same time you will put the same effort into controlling your capital, maintenance and operating expenditures. I also encourage you to stick with what you know best, electric and water service, and stay out of telecommunications and broadband. Over the past five years I see no attempts to control the growth issue that impacts your system. Adding thousands of residential units to your load only spells disaster, yet the general public has no idea of this impact. You also have failed to address the future costs of this growth and have made no attempt to place this future economic burden (aside from making the developers pay for the initial capital improvements) on present day developers or new home owners...just spread these future costs over existing rate payers. Your challenge is to place less emphasis on trying to beat the 2007 California prohibition on purchases from conventional coal-fired plants and explain the need for today's commitment to the only feasible alternate, the advances to be made in clean-coal technology, and the real word economics of renewable technology. Besides, the south state utilities have called the bluff and I think out-of-state suppliers will be a little less likely to try blackmail over this prohibition. We all want to curb greenhouse gas emissions; you just have to convince your customers that they will have to maximumize their elasticity in terms of sources, demand and price for electric energy. Please don't let a vocal minority dictate how you run your business; do more to bring out the voice of the practical majority. Truckee does not need to be another Berkeley or Davis...it will not run on flower power. Sincerely, Dan Cockrum Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Dan Masterson [damaster@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:09 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah electric purchase Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I received your 11/17/06 letter regarding the purchase of electricity from Utah at$35 per megawatt. Please accept this email as support for this purchase contract for 50 years. Dan Masterson 12471 Hillside Drive truckee 415-752-4714 415-221-4602 Fax t 1 n7/7nn6 Page 1 of t Peter Holzmeister From: Ward Sproat [efs3@prodigy.net] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:42 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Comments on Long Term Contract Dear Peter: Thank you for requesting comments from your customers regarding the decision to implement a long term contract with the Utah power plant. Your openness to influence is refreshing and appreciated. As background, I am a part-time resident of Tahoe Donner and have been a customer for about 18 months. I live most of the time outside Philadelphia and work for the Department of Energy and am a retired Vice President of Exelon Generation, the largest nuclear generator in the country. I am an engineer and have spent all of my career in the power generation business. I have a number of contacts in the Exelon wholesale power business (I don't think they do any business in California)that would be willing to advise you, probably without cost, on these long term transactions if you feel the need for outside expertise. Regarding the dilemma you stated in your letter of November 17, we faced similar pressure here in Philadelphia in our PECO Energy service territory. The approach we took to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction, including our public utilities commission, may be of help and guidance. Our first priority was to execute our mission which is to provide reliable electric service at the lowest possible cost. I expect the TD PUD mission is similar. We did that by establishing long term contracts with our lowest cost suppliers, which in our case was nuclear generation. But we also recognized a social responsibility to provide incentives for the growth of renewables that SOME of our customers wanted and were willing to pay a premium for. For that reason, we established contracts with wind energy developers and offered our customers a range of options allowing them to pay for the more expensive wind power if they wanted it. This approach allowed us to meet our mission and the needs of the vast majority of our customers who are primarily interested in low power costs. It also allowed us to facilitate the growth of wind energy in Pennsylvania by offering it to customers who are willing to pay more to help increase renewable development. I suggest that a similar approach for TD PUD could be a workable solution that would be satisfactory to all customers, i.e., execute the low cost long range power contract but make the higher cost power option available and let those who are willing to pay that price differential to help stimulate renewable development pay for it. I would be happy to discuss this in more detail with you if you find this suggestion helpful. I can be reached at this email address or on my cell at 610-476-2066. Sincerely, Ward Sproat 12666 Stockholm Way Truckee 11/24/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: mlebe@cebridge.net Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:33 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Response to letter Dear Peter, I would like to believe that there will be a huge movement in this country to switch to renewable energy sources. Until that happens we seem to have no alternative to using coal generated power. If you have truly investigated all alternatives and believe this contract will be in our best interest then I give you my support. I watched the last PUD meeting on television. Not liking something is easy,coming up with a solution is not always so easy. You seem to have done your job. Let the people who oppose this contract propose a workable solution. Let's see the numbers. Who do we call? Where do we sign? I would love to live in a town that was powered by renewable energy sources! Coming in at the eleventh hour doesn't cut it. Michael Lebedeff( 17 year resident of Truckee ) 11/24/2006 Page t of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Ken Morris [Ken @ MorrisKL.comj Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:59 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Plant Issue Mr. Holzmeister: Thank you for your recent letter dated 11/17/06 re: the contract under consideration by the Board of Directors of Truckee Donner PUD. I fully support the proposal to enter into the long term contract so as to better control our costs of electricity until new "environmentally friendly"power sources come on line. Good luck in securing this great source of good value electricity! --Ken Morris 1 1/2-1•/1006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: duane h. [duane_512@yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:25 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Truckee Power Purchase I could never understand why Truckee PUD wasn't part of PG&E. That being said - - - - Coal is abundant in the US but the environmentalists are trying to block its usage. One town, the size of Truckee would make NO IMPACT on global warming or other environmental issues. The issue for me is COST. The mess that CA went through a couple years ago was ridiculous. If long term contracts had been locked in, that wouldn't have happened. However, the attempt to lock them in after the fiasco caused another problem, gouging. In today's world, I feel that a long term contract at a reasonable price would be preferred. That would definitely give Truckee time to consider alternatives. It is too bad that most towns are burying their garbage rather than using it to generate power. Duane Howell POB 4096 Sparks, NV 89432 Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo!_MUSic_Unlimited_ t 1/24/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Chris Ohman [chrisohman@ yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:24 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: your letter Peter, I just received your letter about the power contract choices you are considering for the Tahoe Donner Public Utilities District. We are a residential customer in Tahoe Donner. I strongly favor the course recommended by the Tahoe Donner Public Utility District management to enter into a 50 year contract for base line power. Your letter was thoughtful and laid out well the choices before you in securing base load power. I am sympathetic to the environmental benefits of buying "green" power, and not buying power that comes from burning coal. However, I am troubled by two issues. First, the rate increases are very high and I'm not sure that the amount of electricity you purchase will make any real difference in accelerating the development of new "green" electricity. If you were PG&E, or Southern California Edison, that would be another matter entirely. Second, I'm surprised that anyone in California could seriously consider five year contracts as a good idea compared to a 50 year contract. It was just a few years ago, that we experienced rolling brown-outs because we were vulnerable to short term supply issues, and I'm surprised we would even consider putting our base line power at risk in this way. Chris Ohman 11338 Mougle Lane "This message (including any attachments) contains business proprietary/confidential information intended for a specific individual 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, without the express permission of the originator, is strictly prohibited." Want to start your own business? Learn how on YahoWsmall BLIStness, 11/24/2006 Page 1 of l Peter Holzmeister From: geomoore(geomoore@infostations.com) Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:21 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: My opinion November 24, 2004 Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I will not be attending the November 29th meeting because all that I read in the Sierra Sun and hear in the community, the meeting will be contentious. I do not deal well with that situation. I do wish to express my support for the District's forward thinking. The 50 year contract will benefit future generations by keeping our energy costs reasonable. With the concerns about providing affordable housing in our community for our workers, it is the responsible thing to also keep our energy costs affordable. I approve of the plan "to secure low cost power from the Utah power plant for the base load and use the savings to secure alternate fuel power for our peaking power needs". I believe it is the responsibility of this generation to look ahead as best we can for future generations in terms of municipal services. At this time. renewable power plants are in their infancy and can not be relied upon to supply our needs. The fact that the Utah plant is scheduled to be built in 2012 will allow the company to consider the most environmentally friendly ways to burn the coal. Thank you for your letter dated November 17, 2006 seeking my opinion. Sincerely, Lorraine (Lorrie) Moore Retired Public Health Nurse 11/24/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: David Downs[76533.1032@compuserve.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:08 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power from Utah Dear Mr. Holzmeister: My wife and I are home owners in Truckee and strongly support the long term contract proposal to obtain affordable power from the Utah plant. we all agree cleaner alternative power is important; however buying expensive power for the Truckee area "to make a statement" is foolish. The Utah plant will be built and the power sold irregardless of the actions of the Town of Truckee. Therefore, any environmental effects as a result of this plant's operation will in no way be mitigated by our actions. The only real effect will be a substantial increase in our electric rates with absolutely no environmental impact. Thank-you for the opportunity to offer our opinion, David L Downs, M.D. Kimberly Downs 12616 St. Moritz Truckee, CA. 96161 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jon Putnam oeput@sbcglobal.netj Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:49 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy purchase Peter, This note is in response to the letter we received concerning the purchase of electric energy by TDPUD from a new coal fired plant in Utah and possibly from alternative sources at double the price of the Utah facility. It appears that the consternation your BOD is facing comes from input by a small group of citizens. Let me be straight forward. The theory that says global warming is a man made phenomenon is strictly that, a theory. The temperature of the earth has been cyclical since the beginning of time. Studies of ice cores have revealed undulations in the earth's temperature that occurred well before vehicles, aerosol cans and the myriad other theoretical culprits advanced by the global warming theorists. That being said, we should do everything reasonably possible to develop alternative energy sources and supplies. However, that investigation and development of alternative energy should not be tied to contracts that TDPUD signs to supply electric energy to its customers. A decision to do so would be reactionary and unwise at best and incompetent and possibly actionable at worst. Sincerely, Jon Putnam (530)587-8918 jeput@sbeglobal.net 11/24/2006 Peter HoUrneister From: Ron Rettig [ronrettig@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:54 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Cc: Joe Aguera Subject: Coal Contract I ask that you members of the P.U.D. management and board of directors do everything in your power to keep our electricity rates as stable and as low as possible. It would appear the proposed long term coal contract is the best option for all Truckee residents. I am a 29 year Truckee resident and homeowner. I am also retired and thus, as many in our full-time resident community, on a fixed and somewhat limited income. I ask that you think of the real residents of Truckee, and not all of these nouveau riche vacation home and shared ownership home owners who would force their values on us, and keep our rate as low as feasible. Voting for the coal contract will also help the "working poor" of our town who can barely afford to live here now. Substantially higher electricity rates will have an adverse effect on the very people the affordable housing initiatives are designed to aid. Please vote for the long term coal contract. Respectfully, Ron Rettig 11392 Valley Road Truckee 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Fred V[sierrabs@hotmail.coml Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:35 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Contract Mr. Holzmeister: I think the contract for coal power is the way to go since there will be improvements in clean air operations and the contract can also be sold if needed. Thank You, Fred Vizgaudis Fixing up the home? Live Search can help htcp://imagine- windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en- US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jon Stow Ustow@shimmick.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23,2006 1:23 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Dear Peter, I am completely in favor of taking care of our God given environment. I believe we should do all we can. When environmentally friendly power sources are available I believe the whole earth should jump to implement it. I don't feel we should make any kind of statement as a community. It would be totally irresponsible to pass up the great opportunity and program you and your staff has so diligently worked to obtain. Im sure the people that are in favor of making a statement have great intentions and can do so by selling their cars and walk to work , burn firewood for heat from the dead and downed wood in the forest with their own smoke scrubbers, dig a water well so we don't have to take water from the lake and deplete the water in the river, and milk their own cows for milk so big stores don't have to sell it to them. .....................and on and on........... Please don't let this small group sway you from doing the right thing! Thank you for you attempts to be fair and responsible by soliciting input from all the rate payers and our neighbors. You and your staff have done an excellent job doing the right thing for all. I am totally in favor of the power plant in Utah, and when technology warrants we all can clean it up more. Remember the silent majority that may not respond to your request for input. I'm sure we are the majority just not as vocal. Sincerely, Jon Stow 15375 Cedar Point Dr. Truckee, Ca. 96161 11/24/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Keith Nikkel [truckeesourdough@yahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:27 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchase of Electricity from Coal Fired Plant in Utah 11-23-06 Dear Peter, My wife and I own the Truckee Sourdough Company and bury our electricity from TDPUD. Electric power cost is a significant part of the cost of producing bread and its price can easily influence the price we have to charge our customers. Keeping power costs low is is a high priority for our business. While we support the use of renewable energy sources, at this point in time they are not cost competative nor are they readily and abundantly available in all areas. We are strongly in favor of the PUD entering into a long term contract with the Utah Power Plant to provide baseline power at an affordable rate.The PUD's idea to pursue alternative sources to help fill peak loads is commendable in that it recognizes the need to consider renewable and less polluting sources. However, the Utility District's first priority should be to provide reliable power at an affordable rate. The long term contract as proposed does just that. While it may make those who are opposing the proposed agreement feel good to make a statement about renewable and less polluting energy, it is impractical to consider swicthing the Town of Truckee over to these sources in the foreseeable future. Don't be swayed form your appropriate course of action by a few naysayeers! We need and demand affordable, abundant power! Sincerely, Keith & Dianne Nikkel Owners,Truckee Sourdough Company Check out the all.-new Yahoo!_ ,Mail beta- Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 11/24/2006 Page 1 of I Peter Holzmeister From: Steven Disbrow [sjdisbrow @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:55 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Contract Peter: Thank you for your thoughtful letter. My wife and I did not attend the meeting last week but did watch it on TV. At that meeting it was stated that we could only opt out of the contract after 30 years while your letter gave the impression that we could sell our interest (given a willing buyer) at any time. Which is correct? if it is 30 years I feel your letter should have stated so. Even 30 years is a hell of a commitment! Think of the progress made in every facet of our lives over the past 30 years, are we signing on to a solution that will be the buggy whip of energy production in 10/15/20 years'? My feelings on this issue are convoluted. I too hate coal as an energy source but understand it is our only viable option until we, as a society, recognize that nuclear energy is our best compromise. I would be much happier if this new pant used gasification technology but recognize that Truckee's small voice is not going to change that decision. Have we tried to band with other potential customers of this new plant to encourage them to rethink the technology? It is a tough issue and I do not envy you or the board. I understand that: a) Our energy needs are going to continue to grow b) Renewable energy solutions are not going to be a significant factor in our life time, if ever c) Coal is a mess both from the rape of the land to get it and the rape of the air when it is burned d) there are environmentally less destructive ways to both mine and burn coal and I believe we should do all we can to insure growth in the use of coal uses the most environmentally effective means to extract and burn it available; for that I would be willing to pay more but not for some meaningless idealistic position that will change nothing! I apologize for the rambling nature of this note but wanted to get something to you while I had the chance. Good luck. Steve Disbrow . . . ...... ........ . Check out the all-.new Yahoo! Nfail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 11/24/2006 Page 1 of l Peter Holzmeister From: Gary Thomas [gltahoe@usamedia.ty] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 8:47 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: power contract Peter, Both my wife and I support a long term contract with an out if desired, for power generated by coal. Shifting to renewable energy only makes sense when it is readily available and of reasonable cost. Gary and Loreen Thomas 10442 Lenelle Ln Truckee 11/24/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: tahoesalmons @ sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:39 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal 50yr deal Peter, 1st glad to see the letter, clarifying matters. The local rag 95% mislead, on par. I support the 50yr contract in concept, plants are infrequently built and I doubt any regional new nuclear plants are on the horizon. However, I doubt residential rates will not go up 5%+each year, even with the 50yr deal. Some historical background on 'all-in' per KWH rates (past 5-10yrs)and projected next 5-10...with 50yr vs with 5yr deal, would be helpful. Again,thanks for sending the letter to your customers...better late than not. Michael Salmon 11/24/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: John Booth [castle@thegrid.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:07 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Contracts Please go with the most economical contracts that you can get. It is not the PUD's mission to make statements, in my humble opinion. The PUD should provide the most economical services that it can find. If individuals want to make "statements" , there are many ways they can do that without wasting my money. Thanks for listening, John Booth 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Don Berryman [donberryman@ceoexpress.comj Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:15 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: power contracts Re: your letter asking for input Coal fired power plants are better and cleaner than ever and will no doubt continue to improve even more as public demand and government regulation increases. The same public awareness and outcry about pollution caused by coal should also be directed to the recognition of the viability of nuclear power plants and getting more built. Unless and until we get more reasonably priced and better located alternatives, I think we pursue the contract with Utah. I do, however, think we should negotiate a shorter duration contract. An awful lot can happen in 50 years. Don Berryman Tahoe Donner 11/1-4/2006 Paae I of I Peter Holzmeister From: lBerney@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 23,2006 9:14 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Peter, I agree with contracting for environmentally friendly produced energy when possibly and practical. Energy however is now and will continue to be an economically volatile commodity. I strongly support a long term contract for low cost energy at this time. Short term energy contracts are going to cost much more over the long term as energy prices will continue to climb. Coal fired technology is constantly improving and eventually the cost of eco friendly produced energy will match other sources. When these costs approach an equilibrium is when we should be considering other sources of reliable energy. Regards, Ian Berney 16520 Wolfe Drive Truckee, CA 96161 11/1-4/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Nancy Winters-Bonnel [njwintersbonnel@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:04 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: cost of power Get the cheapest. . . .we don' t need to be making a "statement" . 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: THOMAS NICHOLS JR [nichols8223@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power Purchase I can not see why the purchase of cheaper power would be offensive to anyone! I work for a living. Why have a low cost housing and sky high power bills'? Tom Nichols 11/22/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Gary Highland [garyhigh @ pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:59 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utility Cost Mr. Holzmeister, I am not prepared to pay one cent more for power to satisfy "some people's" concern about burning coal. A change in power source should be made with "reasonable" consideration to conservation. I would not consider a possible increase of 30% reasonable. Respectfully, Gary Highland 10309 Reynold clay. 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: pnjmcg@earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 2:53 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: purchase of electricity Nov.22nd, 2006 Peter, T.D. Pud is a very small utility district compared to the global picture. A state of the art coal fired electricity plant is a good solution to keep cost down and make our country free of the need to burn oil to produce electricity. The electric rates have gone up here 100% since I moved here full time in 1994. They are much more than what is being charged in the Bay Area and Sacramento and Reno. We need to keep our rates affordable for our community. Nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind power and solar plants are being developed by large electric districts that can afford too and also deliver this power efficiently to their huge customer base. We need to proceed with your plan and deliver at least our base power needs at a affordable price. This is a fiduciary responsibility of the management and Board of Directors. Finally, our town has been a leader of a clean environment with energy compliant stoves and state of the art building insulation codes. The town worked with Southwest gas to give help our community another source to heat their homes efficiently and promote gas stoves T.D. Pud promotes energy efficiency and should continue to where it is financially possible. In closing, go forward with your plan it is a good one. You will always have people that will be unhappy. The project is a good, sound business decision. Paul McGoldrick Jeanne McGoldrick 12341 Hillside and 14478 Matterhorn Truckee Calif. 96161 530-587-5290 11/22/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Charles White, Broker[Charlie@DonnerLakeRealty.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:36 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal Power Generation Dear Peter and Board Members, Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend your meeting on the 29th; please accept this correspondence as a SUPPORT for the TDPUD to "contract with the Utah Associate Municipal Power Systems for the purchase of electric power from the IPP-3 power plant. " --Charles C. White Donner Lake 587-4811 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: David Cork [sbd@davidcork.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:11 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Power contract I would like to let you know we support you in you goal to get a fifty year contract with the Utah power company Thanks David & Kathy Cork Streetfighters By Design David Cork P. O. Box 1027 Truckee CA, 96160 Phone 530-587-8521 Fax 530-587-8521 Email sbd@davidcork.com Web www.streetfightersbydesign.com I t/22/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Jim Grossen Ogrossen@onemain.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:35 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 50 Year Contract for Electric Energy Peter, I know that you and the TDPUD Board of Directors are grappling with a highly emotional and controversial issue in terms of securing future electric energy at a reasonable price and since you have requested it I would like to provide some input from my perspective. First, I am in agreement with your efforts to secure this long term cost effective contract for Truckee. Your efforts show real initiative towards ensuring the continuing growth and lifestyle for the residents and town of Truckee. It seems that the Lake Tahoe area has its fair share of environmental extremists that let their idealistic emotions shade reality. Expensive utilities and fuel costs are more and more eating into everyone's budget. Any effort to minimize that should be pursued for the masses and not cater to the whims of those few who obviously can afford expensive utilities and do not care about the effect on the less fortunate. I suspect that the reality of the situation is that renewable energy is not so plentiful that Truckee can even hope for total dependency for many years to come. I doubt that those that advocate this dependency would not be nearly as vocal about renewable energy if they suddenly found themselves having to do without due to shortages. The other reality is that many of the dissenters would be quite happy to pay more and limit the future growth of Truckee. I do agree that electricity generated from coal as we know it is definitely not the most desirable solution. But, the US has huge coal reserves that we should be taping. The key is that technology needs to be employed to minimize the negatives, much like the auto industry has done to reduce the emissions from automobiles. I do not think it would be smart to let this opportunity pass. However, I do think that to make it more palatable to the dissenters, there must be a balance of proposed future sources of energy to meet our needs. Unlike the controversial broadband proposal that we can do without, we cannot do without a secure and cheap source of energy. Jim Grossen A realistic Truckee resident i Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister .. .. ........ ..... .. ... . .... . From: Gordon A Bonnel[gab146@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:41 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Elect$ ALWAYS BUY CHEAPEST AVAILABLE!! You need to send a ballot out to all....something a little easier and faster to read LCdr Gordon A Bonnel USN(ret) gab1464 sbcglobal.net 11/22/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Roger Summit[rsummit@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:40 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Supply of Electric Power Dear Mr. Holtzmeister and tdpud members, I'm writing in response to your communication of November 17, 2006 to provide input to Your meeting scheduled for tonight. Both my wife Virginia and I have carefully read and considered the alternatives you describe in the letter. It is our strong feeling that the alternative you propose - entering into a 50 year contract with the yet-to-be-built Utah power generation facility for the base load while at the same time aggressively seeking environmentally friendly sources for the district's peaking energy requirement - is a most sensible and sensitive course of action. Not only is coal abundant thus reducing our dependence on foreign and domestic petroleum sources, but I understand that modern coal plants approach petroleum in terms of environmental friendliness. You have our complete and unqualified support for the plan you propose. Roger and Ginger Summit 1 Page 1 of l Peter Holzmeister From: Richard Chapman Doan n205chapman @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:18 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: opinion re power supply ideas November 25, 2006 I agree with the pud concept of a long term contract (50 years). I"m sure you have investigated all sources available and have found Utah to be the best provider, even though they have to use coal. I think that if there is a better source than coal that becomes available within these 50 years, that Utah would most likely convert to the better source. It makes sense to have a long term contract that can give the lower cost of energy to Truckee pud. With 5 year contracts idea, I would think that the price of energy would rise unpredictably with each renewal I do not think that the amount of energy that Truckee uses will influence energy producers to imediately change their current methods of providing energy. It is a gigantic problem that needs to be addressed by federal or state legislation to force all energy producers to follow a universal method of operation procedures aimed at reduction of environmental contaminations Thank you for the opportunity to consider my opinion. Jo Ann Chapman 11224 Purple Sage in Truckee 205 Gold Mine Drive in San Francisco, CA 94132 . 1 l/25/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: John & Gunilla fgvjgc@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:43 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Global Warming Dear Sir: Global warming can only be addressed (solved?)at the governmental level. I anticipate it will be. In the meantime we should lock in a low rate for electricity, while we still can. John Christol 13115 Hansel Avenue Truckee, CA 96161 11/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jerome Young Berryyoung69@msn.comj Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:50 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Options for Purchase of Electric Energy I favor the purchase of electric energy from the power plant in Utah. The economics overwhelmingly dictate that decision From the environmental perspective, coal fired power plants in this country continue to come under increasingly more stringent environmental controls, and that will apply to the coal fired power plant to be constructed in Utah. This decision should be a no-brainer. Jerome A. Young, TDPUD customer l 1/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Fritz Walgenbach [fritz@winfirst.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:50 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 2009 energy contract Sir: I support your plans to contract with the Utah firm to buy electricity for Tahoe Donner. Cost should be the driving force. A new plant will be required to use the best technology for production. Coal will be our best answer to the dwindling oil reserves. Frederick Walgenbach Tahoe-Donner property Owner 11/25/?006 Peter Holzmeister From: Chet Sandberg [chetsandberg@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25,2006 11:23 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electrical Contract Peter, Thanks for the opportunity to comment. ode should clearly contract for the 50 years at $35/megawatt hour. The facility will probably be a "clean coal" facility and we reed a hedge against future energy price increases. This is a no brainer in my miind. More important to me, and it should be to the environmentalists, is the method for charging for water usage. I have a home in Tahoe Donner and now I see people putting in laAms and constantly watering them. If I remember correctyly, electrricity for pumping is one of the major costs of water. I would definitely support installing meters and charging on a usage basis. It is not fair for conservers to be charged for "lawns" in a mountain environment. Thanks, Chet Sandberg P.E. 1 Page I of I Peter Holzmeister From: Cary Stevens [hearths ide@usamedia.ty) Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:08 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal fired electricity As the owner of two homes and one business in Truckee, I'd like to express my support for the proposed 50 year contract with the Utah power plant. I think it's a great opportunity to keep costs as low as possible for the people in Truckee. We seem to be making progress on low cost housing. Let's not burden budgets with high cost energy. This country has been forced to burn coal and natural gas to produce energy because of significant roadblocks imposed on building new nuclear power plants. While renewable energy sources are laudable, they're just not practical yet. TDPUD is a business and as such, must make decisions based on sound economics. I hope the board will agree. Cary Stevens Hearthside Home Care 1 I/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: John Crary [John C craryenterprises.comj Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:32 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Your letter of November 17th Dear Mr. Holzmeister I am a homeowner in Truckee (10721 E. River St.) and I am writing to respond to your letter of November 17th. Everyone would prefer to have clean power at low cost. I think the approach you have outlined of obtaining a reliable source of power for the base load and to secure alternative power for peaking needs is logical, responsible and balanced. The reality we all face in the world is that totally clean renewable sources of energy are simply not available to handle the continually rising demand for power. This situation is not changing anytime soon, though strides are being made. Meanwhile, the price of energy from all sources has been increasing with higher demand. Purchasing a series of short term contracts at a higher cost will most likely result in a higher price to rate payers with no appreciable impact on development of renewable sources of energy. In effect we will most likely be shouldering a higher cost for our base requirements, and the majority of that power will most likely still be coming from coal fired plants. Having a 50-year contract that is transferable locks in a price at what will likely prove to be a bargain, and will allow flexibility to move to other sources as they become available. Very truly yours, John Crary John Crary Crary Enterprises LLC 181 Second Ave., Suite 565 San Mateo, Ca. 94401 Phone 650-344-4348 11/25/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: johnny ashcraft[papajohn105@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:21 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: ELECTRICITY CONTRACT We will be unable to be at the meeting on Nov 29, 2006 as we will be out of the country, but we would like to express our support for a long term contract. We believe that a long term electrical energy contract with a state-of-the-art producer is a step in the right direction. It is in the best interest's of the users to have a secure provider and one that will also monitor air emissions and continue to improve the equipment to meet ongoing restrictive standards. A 50 year resalable contract appears the best way to achieve secure and cost-effective management of our resources. Johnny & Lou Ashcraft 11734 Nordic Lane Truckee, CA 96161 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Juller@astound.net Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 9:22 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal contract I feel you should do the 50 year coal contract source to secure a low cost base load. As technology changes and alternative sources become more affordable, use more of that by selling the coal source energy. Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Julie Lydick[lydick3@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 9:20 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Public hearing 11/29/2006 Dear Mr. Holzmeister: Thank you for keeping us informed about plans for acquiring electricity for Truckee customers and soliciting our input. We won't be able to attend the hearing on 11/29. We think the plan you described in your 11/17/06 letter to purchase power under a long-term contract seems reasonable. We support the PUD in pursuing this course of action. Julie & Dave Lydick Homeowners - Truckee, CA 11/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: peter poulsen [peter.pouIsen@wecare.net] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:33 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal burning plant Hi Peter My opinion is that we should buy the electricity from the Utah plant. I am assuming that the state-of-the art plant means that the plant uses the integrated gasification combined cycle, gasifying the coal before it is burned and creating a cleaner burn. Odds are that there will be legislation introduced very soon that penalizes emission producing plants, those where powderized coal is burned directly. Thanks for asking Peter Poulsen 11/25/2006 Page I of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: jeff and dyane Uedy@inreach.comj Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:53 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: 11-17-06, Letter Peter: I received your letter of 1 1-17. If the issue is the length of the contract,I agree with a long term commitment with costs that are fixed. I also agree that coal is not the long term solution. Good Luck. Jeff Albrecht 11/25/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Joyce Penner[penner@mail.umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:07 AM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: coal fired power plant Dear Mr. Holzmeister, I very much appreciate the concerns of your customers who express the desire to not burn ccal and thereby avoid adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is a problem that I have studied for over 15 years. However, I don't think that Truckee residents s :ould unilaterally decide to forego the use of cheaper efficient power. My reasoning is this: Buying expensive power will hardly make a dent in the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.Tre world is absolutely going to have to solve this problem by working together to reduce emissions, but Truckee's determination to be :clean" won't help. Also, there are many options for reducing emissions -- one of these is capturing the carbon dioxide emitted at coal-fired power plants and sequestering it below ground -- something that the plant in Utah may undertake, if supported by the nation. There are also other longer term options that can provide a stop-gap to the heating caused by increases in CO2, should the world be heating up in an extremely dangerous manner. In fact, recently, a the Nobel prize winner in atmospheric chemistry, Dr. Paul Crutzen, wrote a paper in which he claimed that the political realities against stopping emissions of CO2 were so great, that he considered a "geo-engineering^ solution to be one of the options that the world should adopt. People are now starting to look seriously at such solutions to the problem and there is at least one such idea that seems rather benign and inexpensive. I believe we should seek to gain global acceptance of the reed to reduce carbon dioxide, while pursuing the geo-engineering solutions that may allow us to put in place such a political solution to the problem. Sincerely, Joyce Penner Joyce Penner, Aksel Winn-Nielson Collegiate Professor Office: 1538 Space Research Building Dept. of Atmospheric, Oceanic, Phone: 734-936-0519 and Space Sciences Fax: 734-936-0503 University of Michigan E-mail: Penner@umich.edu 2455 Hayward i nn Arbor, :;I 48109-2143 httP: //acss.engin.umich.edu/Penner,,' 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Jon Fritzinger[fritzingerjon®hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:14 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: tahoe donner/in favor of long term coal energy contract I am in favor of a long term (50 yr) contract to retain low cost_ electrical power. First, t'.anks for the letter and requesting input, it is a worthy issue. Second, this is not an emotional issue, one inwhich people need to lose their rational thoughts in favor of seeking alternative energy sources. Sure, we all want alternatives, but right now they are nearly impossible to identify. And when they become readily available, the whole landscape will change and the nation will adopt those alternatives. Also, coal has a bad reputation. The technology available today is much improved. The United States has 2-3 times the energy resource in coal than all or Saudi Arabia's oil. So to think we're going to leave this resource in the ground is not realistic. "The U.S. is the world's second largest coal producer, responsible for nearly 209� of global production (over 1 billion short tons annually) equivalent to roughly 35 short tons a second, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Coal supplies 23% of the nation's energy demand and over half of U.S. electricity production. Total U.S. recoverable coal reserves (274 billion tons) comprise 25% of the world's recoverable base, equivalent to 2-3 times as much energy as all of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves or enough to last for over two centuries ac current production rates. " source: http: //xdesign.ucsd.edu/wiki/index.php/Coal Please let me know if you think pursuing the long-term contract is in jeopardy, I likey can' t make the meeting but would like to know what the opposing views are. jon fritzinger, glacier view 510 420 8757 Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. .loin now. h`_tp://Ideas.1ive.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Tim and Judy Tweedie[tweedietj@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:03 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: The Nov. 29th Meeting and Power Contract Dear Peter, Thanks for giving those of us who can't attend the Nov. 29th meeting a chance to respond to the "power controversy". I have had a cabin at Donner Lake for the past 19 years so am concerned about the outcome of the meeting. I have also read the information regarding the power situation and am aware of our nations desire to work towards more renewable power. I strongly support the TDPUD'S position of purchasing all our base load power in the future from the Utah plant at the $35 per megawatt level. I also support the fifty year contract. To do so would be in the best interest of your customers which should be your primary consideration. Besides, with the current technology used in coal burning power plants pollution is keep at a minimum. Pollution from a coal burning power plant should be even less in a plant that's yet to be build using even more efficient technology. We are fortunate as a nation to have vast supplies of coal for such power. In reality,even our peaking power purchases should be (especially in our growing community) contracted with the Utah plant. Perhaps with the saving we receive by not purchasing the much higher "renewable power" we could support "renewable power" by investing some of these savings in such as partners in the most effective method being developed. By doing so we could be part owners in a renewable power plant and possibly keep the power we receive in the future from that plant at a reasonable megawatt cost level and still support "renewable power". Those who desire to pay each month at the much higher level for their power should be allowed to do so with the knowledge that TDPUD would put their "extra" money into renewable power investments (I'm assuming that these people have a much larger bank account than the rest of us and would not mind doing such so they can feel politically and socially correct). As for me, let's get the best deal to meet the needs of all your customers. Thanks for continuing to do a great job. Tim Tweedie I 1/25/2006 Page 1 of l Peter Holzmeister From: fcanova@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:35 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Purchasing Electricity for our community Dear Mr. Holzmeister: I believe the course of action you are planning to follow is one that controls cost and gives you an opportunity to reduce emmisions as well. We are not interested in pursuing a course of action that will lead to electrical rates 20 to 30% higher. Please be prudent in negotiating with the power plant in utah but we believe that this is the best approach. Sincerely, Frank & Libby Canova 11148 Lausanne Truckee, California 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. 11/25/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Chris & Lisa Burton [c_lburton@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:27 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: RE: Public hearing November 29, 2006 We concur with and support the District s position on the aquisition of coal-fired electric power from the Utah power plant. The likelihood of a 25 to 30% increase in electric rates will make this area even more unaffordable for the average family much less one that is struggling financially. Renewable power also must be affordable. It only makes sense to secure a long-term contract_ that provides power at a reasonable cost to current and future customers of the TDPUD. As other sources of affordable renewable power become available to replace the coal generated power, the coal contract can be sold. Yours truly, Lisa & Chris Burton 11214 Tahoe Drive Truckee, CA 96161 530-587-4521 530-913-4576 cell Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http:/;imagine- windowslive.com/search;kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en- US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG 1 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Bob&Jeanne Gunter[rjgunter@yahoo.comj Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:21 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: contracts I'm tired of a growing element in this town espousing their politically correct views. I see no reason not to enter into a contract that will provide affordable power to this town for the foreseeable future. I don't care that others are wilting to pay higher rates for power. The rest of us are struggling just to continue to live here and we sure as hell can't afford to have our electric rates continuing to increase as they have for the past 6 years. Reneweable power didn"t happen after the 1973 oil embargo when tax credits were made available by the Carter administration and it won't happen in any affordable manner anytime in the near future. As you say, only 6% is from renewable power at present and I don't see that number increasing substantially in the next 50 or 100 years. Get the best deal we can get now and let these fat cats go find another "cause" to promote so they can feel like they're making a difference. 11/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Peter[eurodesign3@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:15 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: future electricity Hi Peter, Just got the letter in mail today -about Utah plant etc. Here is my view - if PUD won't buy from Utah plant - is it, that plant won't be built? If it still will be build- why don't we take an advantage of it, instead of someone else? SO, yes, I like an idea of the renewable power plants, BUT if the plant in Utah will be built, let's go for it. Pls. let me know of the outcome. Peter Hancik owner of the 14095 Tyrol Rd. property 11/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Paul (pfarley@farleytech.comj Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:48 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Coal vs. Myth Peter: Thanks for profiling the current debate over securing future energy for Truckee Donner PUD. I know of no one who wants dirty air, polluted water, and global warming. However, I am a business man and I also have to run my business in the most profitable manner possible. I'm not saying that being profitable means not being environmentally sensitive. I often spend more money to purchase green services and products, but I do so not because they are green, but because they are also economically sound purchasing decisions. For example, I've converted my office to electronic publishing and in so doing have reduced my paper consumption by 90%. However, I have no interest in purchasing a hybrid automobile because the increased cost will never be offset by the savings in reduced petroleum-based fuel consumption. On the contrary, I suspect that many who purchase these vehicles are deluded into thinking that by reducing gasoline dependence they are automatically greening up the environment. When you point out the increased demand for electricity and that purchasers of these cars are going to be getting much of that electricity from coal-burning plants, the response can be illuminating. In fact, most of my discussions about the gas vs. electricity argument cross the line that separates logical, informed, rational decision making from that of illogical, misinformed, stupidity. Which brings me to my point—I expect TDPUD to act in a business-like manner and make informed, rational decisions. Right now that would mean signing the best contract possible to ensure the best possible price on dependable energy. That also means coal. True burning coal has deleterious side effects, but equally true is the very real research and development that is ongoing to improve coal burning efficiency while eliminating these side effects. Certainly in the course of fifty years, it is unthinkable that we will have made no progress in cleaning up coal. Perhaps during this time, we will also have developed cheaper, more efficient and green energy sources. As a publicly regulated utility, I have every confidence that long term contracts with harmful technologies will be able to be terminated without penalty simply because doing so is in the public interest. So please be polite to those who argue that we must be green at all costs and so sign a series of ruinously costly, short term contracts in order to minimize the negative environmental consequences of burning coal. If I were you, I •Mould seriously consider burning these idiots instead of coal, but I'm sure that given the composition of hot gases that constitute these wind bags, we'd be better off continuing with coal even without the benefit of scrubbers and emission traps. But of course, as an official of TDPUD, you can't think that. Good luck, Paul Farley P.O. Box 1207 Truckee, CA 96160 925 735 8771 1 1/'_5/2006 Peter Holzmeister From: Joe Michalcewicz Umichaels@hargray.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:23 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Utah Power Plant Dear Peter, I read with interest your letter regarding the choices facing the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. I am a homeowner in Tahoe-Donner but I will be unable to attend the meeting on the 2 progress real 9th. I do, however, have strong feelings about the issue. To me it makes better sense r_o choose among the best alternatives available now. As described in your letter that would to move ahead with the Utah project. Alternative power forms will make the best progress when they compete fairly in the market place. Incurring a 15-20 rate increase and floating in an open market while waiting for reasonable renewable power alternatives to make themselves available to this market when there is, in fact, no guarantee that such alternatives would even present within the life time of the proposed agreement with Utah doesn' t make economic sense. I fail to see now paying the higher price and waiting for years for these alternatives to reach us helps the environment. In fact we will be forced to utilize power from other sources that may well not even be cleaning their emissions to the level that the new Utah operation will. It seems to me that the economic and environmental concerns are actually parallel. I strongly encourage you to move forward with the Utah agreement. I hope that at the meeting and while making this decision, the Board considers my point of view and others like me who are home owners, concerned citizens and customers who are not necessarily vocal and noisy. The likelihood of the power alternatives finding their way to this market in the relevant time frame seems small. Thanks for considering my point of view. Joe Michalcewicz 1 Page l of l Peter Holzmeister From: Barbara Lewis[riggsgib@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:22 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Energy Purchases I am unable to attend the meeting but do appreciate the information you sent and the opportunity to express my thoughts. I believe the TDPUD proposal to purchase from the Utah plant is a realistic one that addresses the needs of many in the Truckee community who cannot afford the high costs of alternative and more environmentally friendly power sources. Someday that may be possible but your plan is realistic given the actual lack of available sources of renewable power. Barbara Lewis Homeowner at Donner Lake 11/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Peter Holzmeister From: Ed Hilbert [edt@resis.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:18 PM To: Peter Holzmeister Subject: Electrical energy contract Hi, I am in receipt of your letter of November 17, 2006 regarding impending electric contracts. As a second home owner in Truckee, I have the means and ability to pay higher electric rates and to do the noble thing of supporting clean technology. However, Truckee has a major issue that higher electric rates will only make worse. It is difficult if not impossible for workers and laborers to afford to live in Truckee. Housing cost are sky high and very little affordable housing exists on today's market.A significant increase in electric rates would be a regressive "tax"on the low income residents of Truckee who are already having a challenge to live and work in Truckee. Our nation has used coal as an energy source for well over a 150 years, and a coal burning plant in Utah utilizing the latest technology in improving coal burning emissions is significantly different than a 70 year old coal burning facility in the Northeast. The reality is that the emissions of a new plant are going to be far cleaner and way less detrimental to the environment. I believe that emotional and altruistic arguments need to secondary to the needs of the working population of Truckee. Truckee itself suffers more from wood fireplace emissions that anything else. Lets do away with all firewood burning to help stop Global warming! Finally, anytime you can secure a long range contract at reasonable rates for a commodity that is certainly going to cost more in the years ahead is a good business deal. The PUD needs to exercise good business judgment. Sincerely, Edward T. Hilbert 15696 Pine St Truckee, Ca 96161 11/25/2006