The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutresolution.council.111-03RESOLUTION # (Series of 2003) A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE LOW INCOME ENEGRy ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND REQUESTING THE COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITIES TO TAKE A SIMILAR POSITION: WHEREAS, the Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities the City Council has requested that the City of Aspen indicate its preference and concerns regarding energy assistance legislation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REsoLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby affirms support and its preference for "Position Two" outlined in the CAMU position paper. Dated: /{(.J~ ~ ~.9~ / [, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the forego)ng is a true and accurate copy of that Csolution a~lgpted by the City Aspen, Colorado, at a trie/~tin~ held *.~JLga~/~ ,~0tYd& Council'of the ~ity of ~ ~. '_ ': K{~flrYn S~. K-~ch, Ciiy"Cl-erk CAMU PositiOn on Proposed Low Income EnergY Assistance Legislation Background For several years, CAMU has worked with Energy Outreach Colorado (formally CEAF) to see if legislation could be crafted that would provide funding for low-income energy assistance while enabling CAMU members to retain local control over the creation and funding of Iow-income programs. Last year, CAMU and Energy Outreach reached a handshake agreement on legislation that would have enabled CAMU members to "self-certify" their existing low-income ass/stance programs and be exempt from having to participate in the statewide program Energy Outreach would have created. With these revisions, CAMU agreed to remain "neutral" on this bill. Utilities without their own programs would have been given about a year to do so and self-certify. The 2003 bill required that municipal utilities without existing programs, or that didn't create one, would have had to participate in Energy Outreach's program. Also, communities could "self-certify" that they had a limited number of people that would have qualified for low-income assistance and they would not have had to participate. The self-certification decision in last year's bill did not incorporate criteria that the local program had to meet to successfully self-certify. On the other hand, the Energy Outreach bill drafts we have seen thus far for possible introduction in 2004 do contain self-certification criteria. While last year's bill didn't pass, Energy Outreach plans to be back in 2004 with a revised bill. The Threshold Question At a recent CAMU Legislative Committee meeting, members decided that CAMU once again should re-visit the threshold question of whether CAMU should continue to negotiate the bill's details, or take an oppose stance on any bill that would impose a statewide mandate on municipal utilities. It was decided that a "ballot" (see next page) should be sent to CAMU members with two basic questions: should CAMU oppose any Energy Outreach bill that would require munis to fund low-income energy assistance programs (whether their own or Energy Outreach's), or; should CAMU continue to negotiate such a bill that genemlly was agreeable to its members? Pros and Cons The third and fourth pages of this document list the pros and cons of taking each position. Seth Voyles, CAMU Legislative Chair; Kelly Dude, CAMU attorney; Bill McEwan, CAMU president; Jerry Braden, CAMU lobbyist; and Dave Loci(, CAMU executive director, have developed these. They are intended to raise arguments that could be considered on all sides of these questions and we recommend the pros and cons be consulted before a position is developed on the '~ballot." Next Steps CAMU members are encouraged to discuss this issue with their policy-malting boards (e.g. city councils, town boards, utility boards) and to mark and forward their "ballots" to Dave Lock bv December 12Ch. This input will give CAMU a sense of what direction we should take as this issue is re:visited in the 2004 legislative session. Responses can be e-mailed back (Iockd~prpa.or~) or faxed to 970-229-5301. Energy Outreach "BallOt" Position One CAMU should not negotiate a bill with Energy Outreach Colorado that imposes any kind of mandate to create a low-income energy ass/stance program and CAMU should oppose such a bill, if one is introduced at the Colorado Legislature in 2004. Comments: Position Two CAMU should try to get the best deal it can for municipal systems by negotiating a bill with Energy Outreach Colorado that creates a statewide low-income energy assistance program so long as key protections are included in the bill. It's understood that such a bill would require all munis to create (or continue) their own programs or to participate in the Energy Outreach program. Protections would include: The ability for munis to "self-certify" existing Iow-income energy assistance programs or to create their own. The ability for munis to create and locally administer Iow-income energy assistance programs that meet local needs The ability for communities with few qualifying customers to "self-certify" that there is not a local need to create or participate in a low-income program. Commants: Position One Pros CAMU long has held fast the principle of local control. This type oflegislation essentially creates a state mandate and potentially opens the door for other legislative attempts to perform "social engineering" at the expense of public utility i'atepayers. If passed, even with protections, the bill would create an administrative burden on utilities, especially smaller Ones that have limited personnel and other resources. If the bill were to pass without adequate protections money would leave municipal service areas and not be returned in a proportionate amount. CAMU may be able to show that these assessments are actually a "tax" and therefore unconstitutional. Position One Cons CAMU has invested three years in trying to craft this bill into a fashion acceptable to Energy Outreach and CAMU members. Taking this position would be a sudden change of course and could affect our credibility. House Speaker Lola Spmdley supports this legislation and was an early sponsor in prev/ous legislative sessions: While the Speaker is term~limited after this year, CAMU would risk angering a key legislative leader who generally has been an ally to Public Power and whom we may need on other issues. Opposing the bill on principle takes away any ability to influence its draiSing. If the bill looks like it will pass after it's introduced, any changes would have to be made through amendments. The amendment process would be difficult if the bill sponsor and its advocate (Energy Outreach) disagree with our proposed changes and are angry with us for opposing the bill. Position Two Pros Energy Outreach has been ~villing to work with CAMU in the past to address our concerns and understands why local control is important to us. Continuing to work with Energy Outreach gives CAMU a much better chance of getting changes made as a bill is drafted, rather than trying to amend the bill after it's introduced. Continuing to work with Energy Outreach positions CAMU as an organization that is concerned about assisting Iow-income customers with bill payment. If we can't negotiate the changes we want and end up opposing the bill, at least we tried reaching a compromise. A Iow-income assistance fund can help reduce otherwise uncollectable accounts. Position Two Cons Even if munis could create their own programs and not participate in the state mandated Energy Outreach program, they face an added responsibility and cost of providing a service they otherwise may not. Some people feel strongly that utilities should not be used as collection agencies for "social engineering." Giving up local control on this issue could set a precedent as other issues emerge (e.g. renewable portfolio standards, energy conservation program mandates, etc.)