MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF THE
POWER AUTHORITY
OF THE STATE OF
June 27, 2006
Subject
1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on May 23, 2006
2.
Financial
Reports for the Five Months Ending May 31, 2006 ,
Exhibit ‘2-A’
3.
Report
from the President and Chief Executive Officer
4.
Allocation
of 1,500 kW of Hydro Power Resolution, Exhibits ‘4-A;’
‘4-A1;’ ‘4-B;’ ‘4B-1’ – ‘4-B2’
5. Power for Jobs Program – Extended Benefits Resolution ‘5-A;’ ‘5-B1’ – ‘5-B2’
6.
Transfers
of Industrial Power Resolution
7.
8. Resolution – Charles Lipsky
9. Informational Item: Disposal of B-G Step-Up Transformer Resolution
10.
Funding for Energy Efficiency Measures and Fuel Cells at the Port Authority of
11.
Motion to Conduct an Executive Session
12. Motion to Resume Meeting in Open Session
Resolution
15.
Procurement
(Services) Contracts – Business Units and
Facilities – Awards
16.
Procurement
(Services) Contracts – Business Units and
Facilities – Extensions and Approval of
17. Next Meeting
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Power Authority of the State of
Present: Frank S. McCullough, Jr., Chairman
Michael J. Townsend, Vice Chairman
Elise M. Cusack, Trustee
Robert E. Moses, Trustee
Thomas W. Scozzafava, Trustee
Leonard N. Spano, Trustee
Joseph J. Seymour, Trustee – Excused
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy S. Carey President and Chief Executive Officer
Joseph Del Sindaco Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Thomas J. Kelly Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Angelo S. Esposito Senior Vice President – Energy Services and Technology
Louise M. Morman Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and Supply Planning
Brian Vattimo Senior Vice President – Public and Governmental Affairs
Edward A. Welz Senior Vice President and Chief Engineer – Power Generation
Anne B. Cahill Corporate Secretary
Joseph J. Carline Assistant General Counsel – Transmission
Thomas P. Antenucci Vice President – Project Management
Richard J. Ardolino Vice President – Engineering
Robert J. Deasy Vice President – Energy Resource Management
John M. Hoff Vice President – Procurement and Real Estate
Donald A. Russak Vice President – Finance
William V. Slade Vice President – Environmental Management
Tom H. Warmath Vice President and Chief Risk Officer
James H. Yates Vice President – Major Account – Marketing and Economic Development
Michael E. Brady Treasurer
Dennis T. Eccleston Chief Information Officer
William Helmer Special Licensing Counsel
Angela D. Graves Deputy Corporate Secretary
Frederick
Chase Executive
Director – Hydro Relicensing
James
F. Pasquale Director
– Business Power Allocation and Regulation
Keith
Silliman Director
–
Daniel
Wiese Inspector
General and Director – Corporate Security
Richard Hackman Program Manager – Energy Services and Technology
William Helmer Special Licensing Counsel
Denise D’Ambrosio Principal Attorney I
Jacqueline Carmody Attorney I
Michael
A. Saltzman Senior
Information Specialist
Mary Jean Frank Associate Corporate Secretary
Lorna M. Johnson Assistant Corporate Secretary
John Murphy Special Advisor to President and Chief Executive Officer
Jeffrey Carey Special Assistant to President and Chief Executive Officer
Charles I. Lipsky Former Vice President and Chief Engineer
![]()
Chairman McCullough presided over the meeting. Secretary Cahill kept the Minutes.
Chairman McCullough welcomed
Honorable Leonard Spano as a newly confirmed member of the Board of Trustees
and said that he looks forward to working with him.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 23, 2006 were unanimously adopted.
2. Financial Reports for the Five
Months Ended May 31, 2006
Mr.
Bellis presented an overview of the reports to the Trustees.
3. Report from the President and
Chief Executive Officer
President
Carey said that the Power for Jobs bill passed by the State Legislature at the
end of the legislative session was very similar to the one that the Governor
had previously vetoed. He said that the
Legislature had also passed legislation authorizing an early retirement incentive
for State workers and that Authority staff would be analyzing the incentive’s
potential impact on the Authority if it were to be approved by the
Trustees. According to President Carey,
an updated energy efficiency bill was not enacted by the Legislature before the
close of the session, but that it was possible that such a bill would be taken
up in a special session at the end of the year.
Mr. Vattimo said that staff would be preparing a report on the results
of the 2006 legislative session and Chairman McCullough requested that the
report be shared with the Trustees.
President Carey said that the Senate had confirmed Chairman McCullough’s
reappointment through May 6, 2010, Trustee Townsend’s reappointment through May
6, 2011 and, of course, the appointment of Trustee Spano through May 6,
2007.
4. Allocation of 1,500 kW
of Hydro Power
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
SUMMARY
“The Trustees are requested to approve three allocations of available Replacement Power (‘RP’) or Expansion Power (‘EP’), totaling 1,500 kW to three industrial companies.
BACKGROUND
“Under the RP
Settlement Agreement, National Grid (‘Grid’) (formerly Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation), with the approval of the Authority, identifies and selects
certain qualified industrial companies to receive delivery of RP. Qualified companies are current or future
industrial customers of Grid that have or propose to have manufacturing
facilities for the receipt of RP within 30 miles of the Authority’s Niagara
Switchyard. RP is up to 445,000 kW of
firm hydro power generated by the Authority at its Niagara Power Project that
has been made available to Grid, pursuant to the Niagara Redevelopment Act
(through December 2005) and Chapter 313 of the 2005 Laws of the State of
“Under Section 1005 (13) of the Power Authority Act, as amended by Chapter 313, the Authority may contract to allocate or reallocate directly, or by sale for resale, 250 MW of firm hydroelectric power as EP and up to 445 MW of RP to businesses in the State located within 30 miles of the Niagara Power Project, provided that the amount of power allocated to businesses in Chautauqua County on January 1, 1987 shall continue to be allocated in such county.
DISCUSSION
“On October 22, 2003, the
Authority, Grid, Empire State Development Corporation and the Buffalo Niagara
Enterprise signed a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) that outlines the
process to coordinate marketing and allocating Authority hydro power. The entities noted above have formed the
Western New York Advisory Group (‘Advisory Group’) with the intent of better
using the value of this resource to improve the economy of Western New York and
the State of
“Based on the Advisory Group’s
discussions, staff recommends that the available power be allocated among three
companies as set forth in Exhibits ‘4-A’ and ‘4-B.’ The Exhibits show, among other things, the amount
of power requested by each company, the recommended allocation and additional
employment and capital investment information.
These projects will help maintain and diversify the industrial base of
RECOMMENDATION
“The Director – Business Power Allocations and Regulation recommends that the Trustees approve the allocation of 1,500 kW of hydro power to the companies listed in Exhibits ‘4-A’ and ‘4-B.’
“The Executive Vice President and General Counsel, the Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and Supply Planning, the Vice President – Major Accounts Marketing and Economic Development and I concur in the recommendation.”
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED, That the allocation of 250 kW of Replacement Power and 1,250
kW of Expansion Power, as detailed in Exhibits “4-A” and “4-B,” be, and hereby
is, approved on the terms set forth in the foregoing report of the President
and Chief Executive Officer; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Chairman, the
President and Chief Executive Officer and all other officers of the Authority
are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf of the Authority to do
any and all things and take any and all actions and execute and deliver any and
all agreements, certificates and other documents to effectuate the foregoing
resolution, subject to the approval of the form thereof by the Executive Vice
President and General Counsel.
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Replacement Power
Company: Hydro-Air Components, Inc.
Location:
County:
IOU: National Grid
Business Activity: Manufacturer of heating and cooling products
Project
Description: Hydro-Air
will construct a new 152,700-sq.-ft. facility on a 31-acre parcel in
Prior Application: Yes
Existing Allocation: 250 KW of Replacement Power
Power Request: 250 kW
Power Recommended: 250 kW
Job
Commitment:
Existing: 114 jobs
New 150 jobs
New Jobs/Power Ratio: 600 jobs/MW
New
Jobs -
Avg.
Wage and Benefits: $35,000
Capital Investment: $13,550,000
Capital
Investment $54,200,000/MW
Per MW
Summary: Hydro-Air manufactures hydronic heating/cooling products for commercial and industrial markets. Hydro-Air is experiencing tremendous growth in the domestic HVAC market. Additional manufacturing, warehousing and office space is critical to the company’s continued growth and prosperity. A low-cost hydro allocation will help the company make this project cost-effective and help keep it competitive. Hydro-Air received a capital grant from Empire State Development Corporation.
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Expansion Power
Company: Airgas Carbonic, Inc.
Location:
County:
IOU: National Grid
Business Activity: Manufacturer of packed industrial gases
Project Description: Airgas Carbonic will construct a new 12,000-sq.-ft. liquid CO2 process building and a dry ice manufacturing building of 15,000 sq ft. on a four-acre parcel to be leased from Western NY Energy. The project will capture the CO2 gas vented from Western NY Energy’s new ethanol plant. The company will also install compressors, driers, a carbon vessel, storage tanks, dry ice presses and other machinery and equipment.
Prior Application: No
Existing Allocation: None
Power Request: 4,000 kW
Power Recommended: 1,000 kW
Job
Commitment:
Existing: 0 jobs
New 35 jobs
New Jobs/Power Ratio: 35 jobs/MW
New
Jobs -
Avg.
Wage and Benefits: $58,000
Capital Investment: $11,150,000
Capital
Investment $11,150,000/MW
Per MW
Summary: Airgas is a leading
distributor of packed industrial gases.
The company will produce beverage-grade liquid carbon dioxide and dry
ice. A low-cost hydro allocation will
help the company make this project cost-effective and be competitive.
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Expansion Power
Company: P & G Steel Products Co.
Location:
County:
IOU:
Business Activity: Manufactures specialty metal products mainly for the automotive and heavy truck, HVAC and oil/gas industries.
Project Description: The company will install two robotic welding cells, three manual welding cells, metal stamping presses, new lighting and ancillary equipment (coil feeders, unloaders, part washers and logistics equipment).
Prior Application: No
Existing Allocations: None
Power Request: 250 kW
Power Recommended: 250 kW
Job
Commitment:
Existing 60 jobs
New 28 jobs
New Jobs/Power Ratio: 112 jobs/MW
New Jobs
-
Avg.
Wage and Benefits $43,000
Capital Investment: $1,050,000
Capital
Investment $4,200,000/MW
Per MW
Summary: P & G Steel, in business since 1948, manufactures specialty metal products mainly for the automotive, heavy truck, HVAC and oil/gas industries. The project will increase capacity, enabling the company to capture larger opportunities with existing customers, as well as grow its customer base. A low-cost hydropower allocation is essential for keeping costs down in this highly competitive manufacturing industry. The company will also receive a capital grant from Empire State Development Corporation.
5. Power for Jobs Program –
Extended Benefits
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
SUMMARY
“The Trustees are requested to approve extended benefits for 51 Power for Jobs (‘PFJ’) customers as listed in Exhibit ‘5-A.’ In addition, the Trustees are requested to approve modifications to the benefits for three customers that have applied to have their PFJ benefits reinstated after having been reduced by the Economic Development Power Allocation Board (‘EDPAB’) for non-compliance with their job commitments as detailed in Exhibit ‘5-B.’ EDPAB has recommended that these customers receive such extended benefits and modifications.
BACKGROUND
“In
July 1997, the New York State Legislature and Governor George E. Pataki
approved a program to provide low-cost power to businesses and not-for-profit
corporations that agree to retain or create jobs in
“The PFJ program originally made 400 megawatts (‘MW’) of power available. The program was to be phased in over three years, with approximately 133 MW made available each year. In July 1998, as a result of the initial success of the program, the Legislature and Governor Pataki amended the PFJ statute to accelerate the distribution of the power, making a total of 267 MW available in Year One. The 1998 amendments also increased the size of the program to 450 MW, with 50 MW to become available in Year Three.
“In May 2000, legislation was enacted that authorized another 300 MW of power to be allocated under the PFJ program. The additional MW were described in the statute as ‘phase four’ of the program. Customers that received allocations in Year One were authorized to apply for reallocations; more than 95% reapplied. The balance of the power was awarded to new applicants.
“In July 2002, legislation was signed into law by Governor Pataki that authorized another 183 MW of power to be allocated under the program. The additional MW were described in the statute as ‘phase five’ of the program. Customers that received allocations in Year Two or Year Three were given priority to reapply for the program. Any remaining power was made available to new applicants.
“Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2004 extended the benefits for PFJ customers whose contracts expired before the end of the program in 2005. Such customers had to choose to receive an ‘electricity savings reimbursement’ rebate and/or a power contract extension. The Authority was also authorized to voluntarily fund the rebates, if deemed feasible and advisable by the Trustees.
“PFJ customers whose contracts expired on or prior to November 30, 2004 were eligible for a rebate to the extent funded by the Authority from the date their contract expired through December 31, 2005. As an alternative, such customers could choose to receive a rebate to the extent funded by the Authority from the date their contract expired as a bridge to a new contract extension, with the contract extension commencing December 1, 2004. The new contract would be in effect from a period no earlier than December 1, 2004 through the end of the PFJ program on December 31, 2005.
“PFJ customers whose contracts expired after November 30, 2004 were eligible for rebate or contract extension, assuming funding by the Authority, from the date their contracts expired through December 31, 2005.
“Approved contract extensions entitled customers to receive the power from the Authority pursuant to a sale-for-resale agreement with the customer’s local utility. Separate allocation contracts between customers and the Authority contained job commitments enforceable by the Authority.
“In 2005, provisions of the approved State budget extended the period PFJ customers could receive benefits until December 31, 2006, the program’s new sunset date.
“Section 189 of the New York State Economic
Development Law, which was also amended by Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2004,
provided the statutory authorization for the extended benefits that could be
provided to PFJ customers with contracts that expired before December 31, 2005. The statute stated that an applicant could
receive extended benefits ‘only if it is
in compliance with and agrees to continue to meet the job retention and
creation commitments set forth in its prior power for jobs contract.’
“Chapter 313 of the Laws of 2005 amended the above language to allow EDPAB to consider continuation of benefits on such terms as it deems reasonable. The statutory language now reads as follows:
An applicant shall be eligible for such reimbursements and/or extensions only if it is in compliance with and agrees to continue to meet the job retention and creation commitments set forth in its prior power for jobs contract, or such other commitments as the board deems reasonable. (emphasis supplied)
“At its meeting of October 18, 2005, EDPAB approved criteria under which applicants whose extended benefits EDPAB had reduced for non-compliance with their job commitments could apply to have their PFJ benefits reinstated in whole or in part. EDPAB authorized staff to create a short-form application, notify customers of the process, send customers the application and evaluate reconsideration requests based on the approved criteria. To date, staff has mailed 200 applications, received 108 and reviewed 107.
DISCUSSION
“At its meeting on June 27, 2006, EDPAB recommended that the Authority’s Trustees approve the electricity savings reimbursement rebates to the 51 businesses listed in Exhibit ‘5-A.’ Collectively, these organizations have agreed to retain more than 60,000 jobs in New York State in exchange for rebates. The rebate program will be in effect until December 31, 2006, the program’s sunset. The power will be wheeled by the investor-owned utilities as indicated in the Exhibits.
“Also, at its meeting on June 27, 2006, based on the reconsideration criteria, EDPAB recommended that the Authority’s Trustees approve modifications to the benefits for three customers that have applied to have their PFJ benefits reinstated after they were reduced by EDPAB for non-compliance with their job commitments.
“The Trustees are requested to approve the payment and funding of rebates for the companies listed in Exhibit ‘5-A’ in a total amount currently not expected to exceed $3,600,000. Staff recommends that the Trustees authorize a withdrawal of monies from the Operating Fund for the payment of such amount, provided that such amount is not needed at the time of withdrawal for any of the purposes specified in Section 503(1)(a)-(c) of the General Resolution Authorizing Revenue Obligations, as amended and supplemented. Staff expects to present the Trustees with requests for additional funding for rebates to the companies listed in the Exhibits in the future.
FISCAL INFORMATION
“Funding of rebates for the companies listed on Exhibit ‘5-A’ is not expected to exceed $3,600,000. Payments will be made from the Operating Fund. To date, the Trustees have approved $40.8 million in rebates.
RECOMMENDATION
“The Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and the Director – Business Power Allocations and Regulation recommend that the Trustees approve the payment of electricity savings reimbursements to the Power for Jobs customers listed in Exhibit ‘5-A.’ It is also recommended that the Trustees approve modifications to the benefits for three customers that have applied to have their Power for Jobs benefits reinstated after they were reduced by EDPAB for non-compliance with their job commitments as detailed in Exhibit ‘5-B.’
“The Executive Vice President and General Counsel, the Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and Supply Planning, the Senior Vice President – Public and Governmental Affairs, the Vice President – Major Account Marketing and Economic Development and I concur in the recommendation.”
Mr. Pasquale presented the highlights
of staff’s recommendations to the Trustees.
Chairman McCullough noted that halfway through the year the Trustees had
already approved the payment of $40.8 million in electricity reimbursement
rebates. He noted that these rebates
would continue to be paid only through the Power for Jobs’ programs’ current
sunset date of December 31, 2006.
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Power Allocation Board has recommended that
the Authority approve electricity savings reimbursements to the Power for Jobs
customers listed in Exhibit “5-A”; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Power Allocation Board has recommended that
the Authority approve modifications to three allocations for customers that
have applied to have their Power for Jobs benefits reinstated after they were
reduced by the Board for non-compliance with their job commitments as detailed
in Exhibit “5-B”;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That to implement such Economic
Development Power Allocation Board recommendations, the Authority hereby
approves the payment of electricity
savings reimbursements to the companies listed in Exhibit “5‑A,” as
submitted to this meeting, and that the Authority finds that such extensions
and payments for electricity savings
reimbursements are in all respects reasonable, consistent with the requirements
of the Power for Jobs program and in the public interest; and be it further
RESOLVED, That to implement such Economic Development Power Allocation Board
recommendations, the Authority hereby approves modifications to the benefits
for three customers that have applied to have their Power for Jobs benefits
reinstated after they were reduced by the Board for non-compliance with their
job commitments as detailed in Exhibit “5-B”; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That based on staff’s recommendation, it is hereby authorized that payments be
made for electricity savings reimbursements as described in the foregoing report
of the President and Chief Executive Officer in the aggregate amount of up to
$3.6 million, and it is hereby found that amounts may properly be withdrawn
from the Operating Fund to fund such payments; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That such monies may be withdrawn pursuant to the foregoing resolution upon the
certification on the date of such withdrawal by the Vice President – Finance or
the Treasurer that the amount to be withdrawn is not then needed for any of the
purposes specified in Section 503 (1)(a)-(c) of the General Resolution
Authorizing Revenue Obligations, as amended and supplemented; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That this approval shall expire on December 31, 2006; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and
Supply Planning or her designee be, and hereby is, authorized to negotiate and
execute any and all documents necessary or desirable to effectuate the
foregoing subject to the approval of the form thereof by the Executive Vice President
and General Counsel; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That the Chairman, the President and Chief Executive Officer and all other
officers of the Authority are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf
of the Authority to do any and all things and take any and all actions and
execute and deliver any and all certificates, agreements and other documents to
effectuate the foregoing resolution, subject to the approval of the form
thereof by the Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
6. Transfers of Industrial Power
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
“The Trustees are requested to approve the transfer of power allocations for six existing customers that have either changed their names for various business reasons and/or moved the location of their business.
BACKGROUND
“Five companies have requested that the Authority grant approval of their requests for the continued delivery of Authority power allocations to facilities that have all gained prior approval for an allocation with pre-existing company names and/or ownership. The present owners of these same facilities are now requesting that the Authority authorize the continuation of the power allocations granted to the previous company names and ownerships associated with these facilities.
“In addition, one company has requested that the Authority grant approval of their request to transfer a portion of their allocation to other facilities for reasons indicated below.
“The Trustees have approved transfers of
this nature at past meetings.
“The proposed transferees are as follows:
“Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc. (‘
“
“Harding Manufacturing Corporation (‘Harding’) is a custom plastic
injection molding company in
“Seybert Nicholas Printing Group, LP (‘Seybert’) of
“SCA Tissue, N.A, (‘SCA’) in
“Spancrete Northeast, Inc., (‘Spancrete’) in
“The Director – Business Power Allocations and Regulation recommends that the Trustees approve the transfer of power allocations for five existing customers that have changed their names for various business reasons and approve the transfer of a portion of one customer’s existing allocation to two of its other facilities.
“The Executive Vice President and General Counsel, the Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and Supply Planning, the Vice President – Major Account Marketing and Economic Development and I concur in the recommendation.”
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED, That the Authority hereby
authorizes the transfers of industrial power allocations in accordance with the
terms described in the foregoing report of the President and Chief Executive
Officer; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That the Chairman, the President and Chief Executive Officer and all other
officers of the Authority are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf
of the Authority to do any and all things and take any and all actions and
execute and deliver any and all agreements, certificates and other documents to
effectuate the foregoing resolution, subject to the approval of the form
thereof by the Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
7.
The President and Chief
Executive Officer presented the following report:
SUMMARY
“The Board of the Delaware
County Electric Cooperative (‘Cooperative Board’) has requested the Trustees to
approve revisions in the Delaware County Electric Cooperative’s (‘Cooperative’)
retail rates for each customer service classification. These revisions will result in additional
total annual revenues of about $447,000, or 8.1%.
BACKGROUND
“The Cooperative Board has
requested the proposed rate increase primarily to provide revenues to allow for
sufficient working funds, meet forecasted increases in operation and
maintenance expenses and meet federal regulatory financial ratio level
requirements. Current rates have been in
effect since December 2000.
“The management of the
Cooperative has planned additions to plant-in-service amounting to $1.5
million. The capital program consists of
a major upgrade of the Cooperative’s extensive distribution lines and
conductors and an increase to its substation capacity.
“Under the new rates, an average
residential customer who currently pays about 9.6 cents per kWh will pay about
10.4 cents and seasonal customers who currently pay 14.1 cents will pay about
15.2 cents. A small commercial customer
that currently pays 9.5 cents per kWh will pay 10.3 cents after the
increase. Large commercial customers
that presently pay 12.3 cents will pay 13.2 cents after the increase. Large commercial customers that currently pay
7.3 cents will pay 7.9 cents after the rate increase. Public building rates will increase from 10.8
cents to 11.7 cents per kWh.
DISCUSSION
“The proposed rate revisions are based on a cost-of-service study prepared by the Cooperative and reviewed by Authority staff. A public hearing was held by the Cooperative on April 14, 2006. No rate payer comments were received at the public hearing. The Cooperative Board has requested that the proposed rates be approved. No comments concerning the proposed action have been received by the Authority’s Corporate Secretary.
“Pursuant to the approved procedures, the Senior
Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and Supply Planning requested
the Corporate Secretary to file a notice for publication in the New York State
Register of the Cooperative’s proposed revision in retail rates. Such notice
was published on May 3, 2006.
“An expense and revenue summary, comparisons of present and proposed total annual revenues and their corresponding rates by service classification are attached as Exhibits ‘7-A,’ ‘7-B’ and ‘7-C,’ respectively.
RECOMMENDATION
“The Director – Business Power
Allocations and Regulation recommends that the attached schedule of rates for
the Delaware County Electric Cooperative be approved as requested by the Board
of the Delaware County Electric Cooperative to take effect beginning with the
first full billing period following the date this resolution is adopted.
“It is also recommended that the
Trustees authorize the Corporate Secretary to file a Notice of Adoption with
the Secretary of State for publication in the New York State Register and to
file such other notice as may be required by statute or regulation.
“The Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, the Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic
Development and Supply Planning and I concur in the recommendation.”
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED, That the proposed rates for electric service for the Delaware
County Electric Cooperative, Inc., as requested by such Cooperative Board, be
approved, to take effect with the first full billing period following this
date, as recommended in the foregoing report of the President and Chief
Executive Officer; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Corporate
Secretary of the Authority be, and hereby is, authorized to file a notice of
adoption with the Secretary of State for publication in the New York State
Register and to file any other notice required by statute or regulation; and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the Chairman, the
President and Chief Executive Officer and all other officers of the Authority
are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf of the Authority to do
any and all things and take any and all actions and execute and deliver any and
all agreements, certificates and other documents to effectuate the foregoing
resolution, subject to the approval of the form thereof by the Executive Vice
President and General Counsel.
June 27, 2006
Expense and Revenue
Summary
Five-Year
Average Proposed ¹
Purchase Power Expense
(NYPA hydro, incremental & ISO charges) $1,069,206 $1,438,149
Distribution Expense (Coop-owned facilities) 1,424,563
1,750,000
Depreciation Expense
(on all capital facilities and equipment) 583,611
660,000
General & Administrative Expenses
(salaries, insurance, mgmt services & adm.
expenses) 824,291
1,135,000
Rate of Return – (Average 4.7%, Proposed 6.4%)
(includes debt service on current & planned debt,
federal regulatory financial ratio level
requirement, Coop members’ patronage capital
distribution and cash reserves for contingencies) 691,313 1,070,984
Miscellaneous Revenue Credit
(e.g., sale of used equipment, etc.) (110,826) (104,692)
Total Cost of Service $4,482,158 $5,949,441
Revenue at Present Rates $5,502,800
Deficiency at Current Rates
$ 446,641
Revenue at Proposed Rates
$5,949,441
Increase % at Proposed Rates 8.1%
¹ Based on five years of historical and projected
data.
June 27, 2006
Comparison of Present and Proposed Annual
Total Revenues
SERVICE PRESENT PROPOSED % CLASSIFICATION REVENUE
REVENUE INCREASE
Residential SC1 $3,447,329
$3,726,779 8.1%
Seasonal SC2
1,065,541 1,152,537 8.2%
Small Commercial-Single Phase SC3 24,254 26,254 8.3%
Large Commercial-Multi Phase SC4-A 869,298
943,093 8.5%
Large Commercial-Single Phase SC4-B 29,564 31,564 6.8%
Security Lighting SC6 61,971
63,971 3.2%
Total $5,502,800 $5,949,441 8.1%
June 27, 2006
Comparison of Present and Proposed Net Monthly Rates
Present ¹ Proposed ¹
Rates
Rates
$ 10.00 Customer Charge $
12.50
$ .0858 Energy
Charge, per kWh $
.0909
Seasonal SC2
$ 14.58 Customer
Charge $
17.50
$ .0970 Energy
Charge, per kWh $
.0998
$ 10.00 Demand
Charge
$ 12.50
$ .0856 Energy
Charge, per kWh
$ .0910
$ 6.00 Demand
Charge $ 7.00
$ .0594 Energy
Charge, per kWh $
.0633
-------------------------
¹ Average annual purchase power adjustment (PPA)
reflected in present and proposed rates.
Page 1 of 2
Comparison of Present and Proposed Net Monthly Rates
Present ¹ Proposed ¹
Rates Rates
$ 1.75 Demand
Charge $
2.00
$ .0836 Energy
Charge, per kWh $
.0863
$ 10.00 Demand
Charge $
12.50
$ .0866 Energy
Charge, per kWh $
.0902
(Charge
per lamp, per month)
$ 9.63 100
Mercury, not metered
$ 13.39
$ 6.83 175
Mercury, metered
$ 9.50
$ 9.63 175
Mercury, not metered
$ 13.39
$ 11.67 175
Mercury, not metered, pole & transformer
$ 16.23
$ 10.53 250
Mercury, not metered
$ 14.64
$ 13.75 400
Mercury, not metered
$ 19.12
-------------------------
¹ Average annual purchase power adjustment (PPA)
reflected in present and proposed rates.
Page 2 of 2
8. Resolution
– Charles Lipsky
Vice
Chairman Townsend read a resolution thanking Mr. Lipsky for his nearly four
decades of service to the Authority.
Chairman McCullough presented Mr. Lipsky with a framed copy of the
resolution, adding that all of the Trustees wished Mr. Lipsky and his wife the
very best. He also said that he expected
to see Mr. Lipsky around the Authority’s offices on a frequent basis. President Carey said that Mr. Lipsky would be
staying on at the Authority as a consultant.
Mr. Lipsky said that he was absolutely honored and elated by the
resolution, since he’d seen in the past that such resolutions are given only to
special people. He thanked everyone for
their good wishes.
WHEREAS, Charles I. Lipsky left a lasting
legacy of service and accomplishment during an extraordinary career of nearly
37 years at the New York Power Authority, a period of significant growth for
the Authority and profound change in the electric utility industry; and
WHEREAS, Mr.
Lipsky’s tenure of more than 18 years as Chief Engineer of the Power Authority
stands as the record for longevity among the select group of engineers who have
held that critical post; and
WHEREAS, Mr.
Lipsky brought to this assignment an unparalleled ability to respond quickly
and insightfully to the most complex of engineering challenges; to master both
the theoretical and the practical; and to absorb and integrate the principles
and concepts of diverse engineering disciplines, thereby earning the
professional and personal respect of colleagues at the Authority and beyond;
and
WHEREAS, after beginning his career at
Niagara Mohawk, Mr. Lipsky joined the Power Authority staff as an assistant
electrical engineer at the Niagara Project and went on to become Superintendent
of Power at Blenheim-Gilboa and at Niagara, acquiring an intimate knowledge of
the power system that was to prove invaluable in his role as Vice President and
Chief Engineer; and
WHEREAS, by setting design standards and
criteria and overseeing other crucial engineering functions, he put his
personal stamp on a succession of vital Power Authority initiatives, ranging
from the Sound Cable Project and the Flynn Plant to the small, clean power
plants, the 500-megawatt combined-cycle plant, and improvements at the
hydroelectric projects that will ensure their efficient operation for years to
come; and
WHEREAS, through his key part in
implementation of a Maintenance Management System and similar efforts, he
helped to prepare the Authority for the coming of competition to the power
industry; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lipsky’s technical prowess was
matched only by his abiding commitment to teaching and learning—and to his
trademark office blackboard; by his calm and confident response to all problems
large and small; and by his manifest
concern for the wellbeing and professional growth of the members of his staff;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lipsky contributed
significantly to the Power Authority’s standing in the industry, both through
his prominent positions in such organizations as the Electric Power Research
Institute and Hydro Review magazine and through the high national rankings
attained by the Authority’s engineering functions under his leadership; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lipsky has retired from the
Power Authority after nearly four decades in which his singular talents and
expertise have brought immense benefit to the Authority and the people of New
York State;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the
Trustees of the Power Authority of the State of
June 27, 2006
9. Informational
Item: Disposal of B-G Step-Up
Transformer
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
SUMMARY
“The four Brown Boveri Corp. step-up transformers at the Blenheim-Gilboa pumped storage power plant (‘B-G’) will be replaced, starting in 2006, with new transformers from Hyundai pursuant to a contract awarded as a result of competitive bidding. The replaced transformers, which may contain small amounts of PCBs, must be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Authority’s Environmental Department. Such disposal must also be in accordance with the Authority’s ‘Guidelines and Procedures for Disposal of Personal Property,’ (‘Guidelines’), which were approved by the Trustees at their meeting of March 28, 2006, and comply with the Public Authorities Accountability Act.
BACKGROUND
“The original Brown Boveri step-up transformers were fabricated in 1972 and were installed when the B-G plant was constructed. A new transformer will be installed in each of the next four years, beginning in 2006, as part of the Life Extension and Modernization Program at B-G. The first transformer is currently scheduled to be replaced in August 2006.
DISCUSSION
“The Authority had two options for
disposing of this transformer: (1)
selling it to a utility or qualified power organization or (2) having an
Authority-qualified firm dispose of it in accordance with the Environmental
Department’s disposal requirements. In
accordance with the Authority’s Guidelines, both of these options were pursued
on a parallel path. The potential sale
of the transformer was advertised in a major trade publication, The Engineering News Record, on the New
York State Office of General Services’ eBay website and through an industry
inventory-sharing consortium called ‘RAPIDS.’
Proposals were also requested from the two firms currently qualified by
the Authority to dispose of the transformer:
Clean Harbors of Twinsburg,
“The result of these efforts was a high bid from TCI for a payment to the Authority of $165,000, taking into account both the costs of disposal and the salvage value of metals, particularly copper, which have peaked. TCI will also meet all of the environmental requirements for disposal of both the transformer materials and oil. This is an outstanding result considering that the cost to the Authority to dispose of the existing transformer, quoted by Hyundai as the supplier of the new transformers, was $60,000.
“This positive result came about because of the collaborative efforts of staff from Project Management, the Environmental Department and Procurement.”
President Carey said that he
requested that this be put on the agenda as an informational item because he
wanted to show the Trustees how Authority staff is doing creative things to
achieve the Trustees’ program goals. Mr.
Hoff said that this had truly been a team effort involving Mr. Antenucci and
the Project Management staff; Mr. Slade and the Environmental staff, as well as
Procurement staff. He then presented the
highlights of staff’s report to the Trustees.
Chairman McCullough said that taking a potential expense of $60,000 and
turning it into a gain of $165,000 represented a turnaround of $225,000. He commended all of the staff involved.
10.
Funding for
Energy Efficiency Measures and Fuel Cells at the Port Authority of
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
SUMMARY
“The Trustees are requested to authorize up to $30 million to finance the installation of state-of-the-art energy efficiency measures and natural gas-powered fuel cells at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s (‘Port Authority’s’) to-be-constructed Freedom Tower building in lower Manhattan. All costs of financing these measures will be recovered from the Port Authority, a New York City Governmental Customer of the Power Authority.
BACKGROUND
“The
Port Authority, which has facilities in
“The Port Authority has asked the
Power Authority to provide financing to cover the incremental cost of various
energy efficiency and clean energy measures.
These incremental costs would be the difference in costs necessary to
bring the
DISCUSSION
“While
there is existing program authority to proceed with this work, both the size
and scope of the proposed conservation and clean energy measures, as well as
the fact that this is an endeavor of national significance, make it appropriate
for the Trustees to provide their specific approval. By financing the incremental cost of
high-efficiency options to be installed at the Freedom Tower site, including
the cost of fuel cells to be installed as part of this project, the Power
Authority would provide a value-added service to the Port Authority that would
assist the Port Authority in achieving an overall building energy performance
that is at least 20% more efficient than that required by the New York State
Energy Conservation Construction Code.
In addition, inclusion of the energy-efficient measures, including the
on-site generation options (fuel cells), will allow the
“The
Power Authority will provide funding to finance the incremental cost of
state-of-the-art energy efficiency measures to be installed at the
FISCAL INFORMATION
“Funding for these energy options will be provided from commercial paper debt financing. The total cost of these options is not expected to exceed $30 million. All Power Authority costs, including the cost of advancing funds and Power Authority overheads, will be recovered consistent with other Energy Services and Technology programs and according to the terms contained in the Long Term Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
“The
Senior Vice President – Energy Services and Technology recommends that the
Trustees authorize up to $30 million to finance energy efficiency and clean
energy measures, including fuel cells, to be installed at the Port Authority of
New York and
“The Executive Vice President and General Counsel, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, the Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and Supply Planning, the Senior Vice President – Public and Governmental Affairs, the Senior Vice President – Power Generation and I concur in the recommendation.”
Mr.
Hackman presented the highlights of staff’s recommendations to the
Trustees. In response to a question from
Chairman McCullough, President Carey said that, while the Authority’s exposure
for this project is $30 million, the Authority is expected to recoup its
investment, interest and administrative costs.
Responding to a question from Trustee Cusack, Mr. Esposito said it would
take 20 years for the Authority to recover its costs for the project. President Carey added that this project is
very important to the Governor, everyone at the Authority and the people of
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED, That the Trustees hereby authorize the expenditure of up to $30 million to finance the incremental cost of energy efficiency and clean energy measures and procurement of natural gas- powered fuel cells for installation at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s Freedom Tower building currently under construction in lower Manhattan; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That the expenditures are hereby approved to be committed in accordance with
the
Expenditure
Authorization
Commercial Paper Proceeds (not
to exceed)
Incremental costs of energy-efficiency $30 million
measures and fuel cell purchases for the
Port Authority of
Total $30 million
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That
the New York Power Authority’s Commercial Paper Notes, Series 1, Series 2 and
Series 3, may be issued and used to finance these costs; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That the Senior Vice President – Energy Services and Technology is hereby
authorized to enter into agreements with the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey providing for the financing of these costs and fuel cell procurement and
the recovery by the Authority of funds expended for this purpose, with such
agreement(s) having such terms and conditions as the Senior Vice President –
Energy Services and Technology deems necessary or advisable, subject to the
approval of the form thereof by the Executive Vice President and General
Counsel or his designee; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Chairman, the President
and Chief Executive Officer and all other officers of the Authority are, and
each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf of the Authority to do any and all
things and take any and all actions and execute and deliver any and all
certificates, agreements and other documents to effectuate the foregoing
resolution, subject to the approval of the form thereof by the Executive Vice
President and General Counsel.
11. Motion
to Conduct an Executive Session
“Mr. Chairman, I move that the
Authority conduct an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing matters
related to threatened, proposed, and pending litigation, as well as matters
related to the proposed acquisition and sale of security instruments.” Upon motion moved and seconded, an
executive session was held.
12. Motion to Resume Meeting in Open Session
“Mr.
Chairman, I move to resume the meeting in Open Session.” Upon motion
moved and seconded, the meeting resumed in open session.
13.
Supplement
to Offer of Settlement
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
SUMMARY
“The Trustees are requested to authorize the President and Chief Executive Officer (and his designees) to enter into an Erie County/City of Buffalo Relicensing Settlement Agreement (‘ECCBRSA’) with Erie County, the City of Buffalo, the Buffalo Olmstead Parks Conservancy, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (‘ECHDC’) and the New York State Urban Development Corporation doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation (‘ESDC’), to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (‘FERC’) a supplement to the Offer of Settlement filed in connection with the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project (‘Project’) on August 19, 2005, and to execute such other documents and take such other action or actions as may be necessary or convenient in connection with the foregoing.
BACKGROUND
“The existing 50-year license issued to the Authority under the Federal Power Act authorizing construction and operation of the Project expires on August 31, 2007. At their meeting of June 28, 2005, the Trustees authorized the President and Chief Executive Officer (and his designees) to file an Application for a New License (‘Application’) with FERC for the Project; to file related applications with the New York State Department of State and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and an Offer of Settlement with FERC (‘Offer of Settlement’); to enter into and execute settlement agreements and to execute such other documents and take such other actions as may be necessary or convenient in connection with such actions. The Application was filed with FERC on August 18, 2005, and the Offer of Settlement was filed with FERC the following day.
“The Offer of Settlement included four separate settlement agreements reached by the Authority with parties participating in the Alternative Licensing Process (‘ALP’) commenced by the Authority in 2002 in accordance with FERC regulations. The Relicensing Settlement Agreement Addressing New License Terms and Conditions was executed by the State and federal agencies involved in the relicensing process and by certain public and private entities concerned with ecological issues; the Host Community Relicensing Settlement Agreement Addressing Non-License Terms and Conditions was executed by the Project ‘Host Communities;’[1] the Relicensing Settlement Agreement between the Power Authority of the State of New York and the Tuscarora Nation was executed by the Tuscarora Nation of Indians and the Relicensing Settlement Agreement Addressing Allocation of Niagara Project Power and Energy to Neighboring States was executed by the Authority’s out-of-state hydropower customers.
“At their meeting of May 23, 2006, the Trustees authorized the President and Chief Executive Officer and his designees to enter into a Niagara University Settlement Agreement (‘NURSA’) and to file the same with FERC as a supplement to the Offer of Settlement filed on August 19, 2005. The fully executed NURSA was submitted to FERC on May 26, 2006.
“Further, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, FERC’s action on the Application will be preceded by, and based on, a review of the environmental impacts of the relicensing of the Project, which review will involve preparing both draft and final environmental impact statements.
DISCUSSION
“The Authority
owns a parcel of land along the shoreline of the City of
“During the
course of the ALP,
“Erie County, the City of Buffalo, ESDC, ECHDC and the Conservancy have agreed to settle the outstanding issues through the ECCBRSA, which will include the following terms and conditions:
· The parties entering into the ECCBRSA with the Authority will support the Application and the Offer of Settlement as supplemented by the NURSA and the ECCBRSA;
· The Authority will establish an Erie County Greenway Fund to be funded through annual payments of $2 million throughout the term of the new license (representing an estimated net present value in 2007 dollars of $32,359,289);
· The Authority will establish a Buffalo Waterfront Development Fund to be funded in the minimum amount of $2.5 million annually, at least 60% of which ($1.5 million in the first year) will represent the monetized ‘net value’ of five megawatts of firm hydropower (i.e., the difference between the Authority’s cost-based rate for Project power and energy and the prevailing wholesale market price established by the New York Independent System Operator – representing an estimated net present value in 2007 dollars of $40,449,113);
· The Authority will make annual payments of $1,000,000 to ESDC for certain future economic development programs (representing an estimated net present value in 2007 dollars of $16,179,645);
· The Authority agrees to pay two $2 million payments, one in 2006 and one in 2007, to support waterfront revitalization and development activities;
· The Authority will undertake a feasibility study regarding replacement of the Ice Boom Parcel with a suitable replacement parcel and, assuming such parcel is identified and the ice boom is in fact relocated, will make the Ice Boom Parcel available for development; and
· As is the case with all of the Authority’s relicensing settlement agreements, the obligations of the Authority pursuant to the ECCBRSA, with the exception of the $4 million to support waterfront revitalization and development activities, are contingent upon the issuance by FERC of a license fully consistent with the application and Offer of Settlement, both of which call for, among other things, issuance of a new license for a term of 50 years.
The ECCBRSA has been executed by
“Section 1005(3) of the Power Authority Act authorizes and directs the Authority to seek and receive licenses for its hydroelectric projects and affords to it the discretion to agree to appropriate terms and conditions with FERC (successor to the Federal Power Commission) and other agencies, officials and utility companies relating to the construction or operation of such projects. In addition, Section 1005(9) of the Act authorizes and directs the Authority to ‘cooperate with’ and ‘enter into contractual arrangements’ with municipal corporations with respect to the ‘operation of hydroelectric generating facilities.’ Furthermore, Section 1005(11) of the Act authorizes and directs the Authority to ‘. . . exercise all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this title . . . and generally to do any and everything necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this title. . .’
“Entering into
the ECCBRSA is a reasonable, appropriate and ‘necessary or convenient’ action
in the context of the Authority’s pursuit of a new 50-year license for the
Project, and it will provide a mutually acceptable and final resolution of
issues of concern to the Authority and to federal, State and local
officials. Entering into the ECCBRSA
also will promote the realization of the Authority’s ultimate goal in the
relicensing, which is to obtain a new license carrying a 50-year term and
imposing no changes with respect to Project operations. If and when FERC grants a new license under
these terms, the Project will be able to continue to provide low-cost power to
the citizens of
FISCAL INFORMATION
“The cost in 2007 dollars associated with the ECCBRSA is estimated to be approximately $68,718,579, exclusive of the value of the power that will be sold in connection with the Buffalo Waterfront Development Fund, which represents no cost to the Authority. Financing of the costs will be accomplished through the issuance of commercial paper along with the use of capital fund and operating fund monies, and such costs will be included in rates charged to Project customers.
RECOMMENDATION
“The Executive Director – Hydropower Relicensing recommends that the Trustees authorize the President and Chief Executive Officer, and his designees, to enter into the Erie County/City of Buffalo Relicensing Settlement Agreement with Erie County, the City of Buffalo, the Buffalo Olmstead Parks Conservancy, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation and the New York State Urban Development Corporation doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation; to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a supplement to the Offer of Settlement filed in connection with the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project on August 19, 2005; and to execute such other documents and take such other actions as may be necessary or convenient in connection with the foregoing.
“The Executive Vice President and General Counsel, the Executive Vice President – Corporate Services and Administration, the Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer, the Senior Vice President – Power Generation, the Senior Vice President – Public and Governmental Affairs and I concur in the recommendation.”
Mr.
Chase presented the highlights of staff’s recommendations to the Trustees. Chairman McCullough said that all of the
Trustees understand how much work has been involved in getting to this point in
the relicensing process. He commended
Mr. Chase and everyone who worked with him on the success of their efforts,
saying that the lessons learned in the St. Lawrence relicensing process had
served them well. Chairman McCullough
said that this was a job well done and that Mr. Chase and all of the other
staff involved were to be complimented on it.
Trustee Cusack added that she appreciated all of the hard work that had
gone into these settlement agreements and agreed that staff had done a great
job. Mr. Chase said that it had truly
been a team effort involving staff from all different levels and departments
throughout the Authority. President
Carey said that this particular settlement agreement represented the last piece
as the Authority goes forward with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(“FERC”) process. In response to a
question from President Carey, Mr. Chase indicated that FERC has published a
notice indicating that it is expected to issue the new license in or about
February 2007. Mr. Chase said that the
next step in the process is for FERC to issue the draft Environmental Impact
Statement (“EIS”), after which there would be a public comment period and
possibly a public hearing. In response
to a question from Chairman McCullough, Mr. Chase said that Authority staff had
prepared the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) at the level of an EIS so that
FERC staff would be able to use the EA to develop the draft EIS. Responding to a question from President
Carey, Mr. Chase said that the cost to customers for all of the
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED, That the President and Chief
Executive Officer and his designees be, and hereby are, authorized to enter
into the Erie County/City of Buffalo Relicensing Settlement Agreement with Erie
County, the City of Buffalo, the Buffalo Olmstead Parks Conservancy, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation and
the New York State Urban Development Corporation doing business as the Empire
State Development Corporation; to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission a supplement to the Offer of Settlement filed in connection with the
relicensing of the Niagara Power Project on August 19, 2005; and to execute
such other documents and take such other actions as may be necessary or
convenient in connection with the foregoing; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That the Authority’s Series 1, Series 2 and Series 3 Commercial Paper Notes and
its Extendable Municipal Commercial Paper Notes may be issued and the proceeds
of such issuance may be used, along with capital fund and operating fund
monies, to fund payments called for or contemplated by the Erie County/City of
Buffalo Relicensing Settlement Agreement; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That the Chairman, the President and Chief Executive Officer and all other
officers of the Authority are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf
of the Authority to do any and all things and take any and all actions and execute
and deliver any and all agreements, certificates and other documents to
effectuate the foregoing resolution, subject to the approval of the form
thereof by the Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
SUMMARY
“The Trustees are requested to authorize the Vice President
– Energy Resource Management, with the concurrence of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, the Senior Vice
President – Power Generation and the Vice President – Chief Risk Officer, to
execute fuel- and energy-related hedging transactions (‘Hedge Transactions’) for
the 2007 energy cost-recovery option selected by the New York City governmental
customers (‘Governmental Customers’) under the long-term energy supply
agreements with the Authority (‘Agreements’), specifically Energy Charge
Adjustment (‘ECA’) with Hedging Options
(‘ECA Option 3’), provided that the aggregate nominal value of all Hedge
Transactions does not exceed the monetary cap for ECA Option 3.
BACKGROUND
“On February 9, 2005, the
Trustees approved Agreements between the Authority and the Governmental
Customers, effective 2005 for annual rate years commencing 2006 through
December 31, 2017, unless terminated earlier.
By executing the Agreements, each of the Governmental Customers agreed
to be a full-requirements electricity customer of the Authority and to support
and pay for its share of the Authority’s supply portfolio dedicated to the
Governmental Customers. The Agreements
require that the Authority and the Governmental Customers engage in an ‘Annual
Process’ each year prior to the next calendar year (‘Rate Year’) to determine
the fixed and variable costs of service, future energy and fuel market risks,
hedging strategies, submission of load forecasts and supply resource
planning. During this process, the
Governmental Customers are obligated to propose three cost-recovery options for
analysis by the Authority. The Authority
must develop estimated costs for the cost-recovery options in accord with the
specified criteria and offer them to the Governmental Customers for
selection. The Governmental Customers
are required by the Agreements to select one of the energy cost-recovery
options by June 15th of the year preceding the applicable Rate
Year. In the event the Governmental
Customers are not able to agree on and/or do not select an option by June 15th,
the Authority implements the Default Option.
“Once the option is determined,
the Authority is obligated to obtain market prices for the Hedge Transactions
components of the selected option. If
the option is an ECA with Hedging Option and the prices of the option are
within a 5% tolerance of the prices contemplated by the option, the Authority
is authorized to proceed with the execution of the Hedge Transactions. Should the actual cost exceed 5%, the Authority
cannot proceed without the consent of the Governmental Customers, and in the
event there is no consent within 10 days, the Authority will implement the
Default Option. An ECA option is a full
variable-cost pass-through option using an energy charge adjustment, and once
selected, is the only type of option permitted by the Agreements for at least
two consecutive Rate Years.
“Generally, Hedge Transactions serve to fix the price
paid for actual purchases of energy or fuel in the future. For example, if the Authority entered into an
energy swap where it paid $40 per MWH and the counterparty paid the market
price, and the price fell to $30 per MWH, the Authority would have to pay $10
per MWH to the counterparty. However, at
the same time, the Authority would be buying energy in the market at the price
of $30 per MWH. If one adds the $10 per
MWH payment made to the counterparty to the $30 per MWH price paid by the
Authority for the physical purchase of energy, the effective price paid for the
energy is $40 per MWH, thereby fixing the Authority’s price. A similar result would result if market
prices went above the Authority’s fixed price and the Authority would then be
paid the difference between the fixed price and the market sale amount by the
counterparty. That payment would then be
used by the Authority to offset physical purchases in the market at the higher
price.
“Last year, the first year the
Agreements were in effect, the Governmental Customers did not select one of the
cost-recovery options defined by them, so the Default Option designed and
developed by the Authority was implemented for the 2006 Rate Year. On May 24, 2005, the Trustees approved a
request for increased Hedge Transaction authority necessary to implement the
2006 Default Option. A dramatic increase
in fuel and energy prices, attributable in large part to hurricanes in the
southeastern
DISCUSSION
“For the 2007 Rate Year, the
Governmental Customers submitted three ECA with Hedging Options for
analysis. In accordance with the
Agreements, the Authority developed a ‘Default Option’ for 2007 that was a
‘Sharing Plan.’ By letter dated and
received on June 15, 2006, the Governmental Customers selected one of their
proposed ECA Options (‘ECA Option 3’) as the hedging strategy option for the
2007 rate year. Although not obligated
by the Agreements, the Authority has agreed to collaborate with the
Governmental Customers during the implementation of the hedging strategy to
achieve the best outcome. Because the
Hedge Transactions are market based and could influence the market, a summary
analysis of the Hedge Transactions associated with, and presently contemplated
by, ECA Option 3 will be presented to the Trustees for discussion in executive
session. The monetary cap that needs to
be authorized to implement ECA Option 3 is included in the summary analysis. In the event the cost of ECA Option 3 exceeds
anticipated cost by 5% and the Governmental Customers do not give the Authority
the requisite consent to proceed with execution of the Option, the monetary cap
authorized by the Trustees for ECA Option 3 will not be sufficient to implement
the Default Option and Trustee authorization for an increase in the monetary
cap will be required.
“As with the 2006 rate year, multiple and varied hedges
will be necessary to implement the hedging strategy option selected by
the Governmental Customers. The need for timely
implementation of the hedging strategy and the dollar value of the individual
Hedge Transactions will likely exceed the maximum individual transactional
authority granted to Authority officers by the Trustees on January 31, 2006. Since delay in executing the Hedge
Transactions could be very costly, it is critical for the Authority to have the
flexibility to immediately proceed in executing fiscally advantageous Hedge
Transactions.
“The expanded authority would essentially permit the Vice President – Energy Resource Management to approve Hedge Transactions that exceed both (i) the fuel and electric per- transaction limits for financial hedge transactions and (ii) the spot trade limits for physical transactions established by the Trustees at their January 31, 2006 meeting. The aggregate nominal value of the Hedge Transactions will be limited to the monetary cap for Hedge Transactions set forth to meet ECA Option 3, the selected hedging strategy option for the Governmental Customers’ 2007 rate year. The Hedge Transactions will include both purchases and sales and involve significantly lower net outlays for the cost-recovery options than the monetary cap for the authorized Hedge Transactions.
“While the
cumulative authority sought represents a significant commitment, the value of
the commitment does not give rise to a dollar-for-dollar financial exposure for
the Authority. As explained earlier, the
Authority’s financial exposure created by the proposed authorization for Hedge
Transactions (most typically swaps and NYMEX contracts) would be measured by
the difference between the fixed price the Authority would pay and the floating
price to be paid by the counterparty. If
the market price rises above the fixed price, payments would be made to the
Authority based on the difference. If
the market price falls below the fixed price, the Authority would make payments
based on the difference. It is these
differences that will determine the Authority’s (and counterparties’) financial
obligations. The costs associated with the
Governmental Customers’ selected hedging strategy will be recovered in their
2007 rates.
“The Vice President – Energy Resource Management will
report to the Trustees on the implementation of ECA Option 3 upon final
execution of all transactions comprising the elements of ECA Option 3, or as
may otherwise be requested by the Trustees.
FISCAL
IMPLICATIONS
“Since the costs associated with the Authority’s implementation of hedging strategy ECA Option 3 will be fully recovered in the Governmental Customers’ 2007 rates, there will be no costs to the Authority for implementation of ECA Option 3. If, however, circumstances warranted implementation of the Default Option, costs in excess of anticipated prices for the Default Option would have to be shared as provided for in the Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION
“The Vice President – Chief Risk Officer recommends that
the Trustees grant authority to the Vice President – Energy Resource
Management, with the concurrence of the Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, the Senior Vice President – Power Generation and the Vice
President – Chief Risk Officer, to execute Hedging Transactions consistent with
ECA Option 3 selected by the Governmental Customers and integral to the Authority’s
hedging strategy obligations under the Agreements with the Governmental
Customers.
“The Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
and I concur in the recommendation.”
Mr.
Warmath presented the highlights of staff’s recommendations to the
Trustees. Chairman McCullough said that
staff has spent a lot of time on this issue, including reaching out to
individual Trustees to address their questions and concerns. He said that both the information staff
provided and the time devoted to this effort had been very helpful and said
that he and the other Trustees appreciated it.
President Carey said that he wanted to personally thank Ms. Morman, Mr.
Del Sindaco, Mr. Bellis, Mr. Kelly and all of their staff for their
efforts. He said that this is the first
year the Authority has taken this kind of action, which will be repeated
annually for the next 12 years.
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED, That
the Vice President – Energy Resource Management, with the concurrence of the
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, the Senior Vice President
– Power Generation and the Vice President – Chief Risk Officer, is hereby
authorized to approve and enter into, on behalf of the Authority, in connection
with ECA Option 3, the Governmental Customers’ selected cost-recovery hedging
strategy option under the New York City Governmental Customers’ Long Term
Agreements for 2007:
(1) hedging transactions relating to energy and fuel,
including, but not limited to, swaps, including contracts for differences,
calls, puts, covered calls, covered puts, swap options, covered call options,
transmission congestion contracts, NYMEX contracts , other Over the Counter
(‘OTC’) hedging instruments and options on NYMEX or OTC contracts; and
(2) fuel-related transactions, including, but not limited to
the physical purchase of natural gas and oil;
that
may (i) exceed the fuel and electric per-transaction limits for financial hedge
transactions and (ii) the spot-trade limits for physical transactions
established by the Trustees at their meeting of January 31, 2006, provided,
however, that, in addition to any other cumulative or per-day limits, the
aggregate nominal value of all such transactions outstanding at any one time
shall not exceed the monetary cap for ECA Option 3, the selected hedging
strategy option, with the term ‘nominal value’ meaning, for the purposes of
this limitation, as applied to a particular transaction, (1) the aggregate
amount of the hedging transactions executed by the Authority determined as of
the date of entry into the transaction by the Vice President – Energy Resource Management, (2) in the case of a NYMEX contract, the value of the contract based on
the price per dekatherm of the contract on the date of execution of the
contract and (3) in the case of option contracts (e.g., puts or calls), the
cost of the premium associated with the transaction; and be it further
RESOLVED, That
the Vice President – Energy Resource Management is hereby authorized to execute
agreements and to authorize his designees to execute agreements to effectuate
transactions approved by the Vice President – Energy Resource Management
pursuant to the foregoing resolution, including ISDA Master Agreements and
schedules and confirmations relating to such new or existing Master Agreements,
having such terms and conditions as the Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, Vice President – Energy Resource Management and Vice
President – Chief Risk Officer deem necessary or advisable, subject to the
approval of the form of such agreements by the Executive Vice President and
General Counsel; and be it further
RESOLVED, That
the Chairman, the President and Chief Executive Officer and all other officers
of the Authority are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf of the
Authority to do any and all things and take any and all actions and execute and
deliver any and all certificates, documents and agreements to effectuate the
foregoing resolutions, subject to the approval of the form thereof by the
Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
15. Procurement
(Services) Contracts – Business Units and Facilities – Awards
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
SUMMARY
“The Trustees are requested to approve the award and funding of the multiyear procurement contracts listed in Exhibit ‘15-A’ for the Authority’s Business Units/Departments and Facilities. Detailed explanations of the nature of such services, the bases for the new awards if other than to the lowest-priced bidders and the intended duration of such contracts are set forth in the discussion below.
BACKGROUND
“Section 2879 of the Public Authorities Law and the Authority’s Guidelines for Procurement Contracts require the Trustees’ approval for procurement contracts involving services to be rendered for a period in excess of one year.
“The Authority’s Expenditure Authorization Procedures (‘EAPs’) require the Trustees’ approval for the award of non-personal services, construction or equipment purchase contracts in excess of $3,000,000, as well as personal services contracts in excess of $1,000,000 if low bidder, or $500,000 if sole source or non-low bidder.
DISCUSSION
“The terms of these contracts will be more than one year; therefore, the Trustees’ approval is required. Except as noted, all of these contracts contain provisions allowing the Authority to terminate the services for the Authority’s convenience, without liability other than paying for acceptable services rendered to the effective date of termination. Approval is also requested for funding all contracts, which range in estimated value from $24,260 to $20,000,000. Except as noted, these contract awards do not obligate the Authority to a specific level of personnel resources or expenditures.
“The issuance of multiyear contracts is
recommended from both cost and efficiency standpoints. In many cases, reduced prices can be
negotiated for these long-term contracts.
Since these services are typically required on a continuous basis, it is
more efficient to award long-term contracts than to rebid these services
annually.
Contracts in Support of Business
Units/Departments and Facilities:
Corporate Services and
Administration
“Earlier this year, the Authority’s
Employee Benefits Unit, assisted by its benefits consultant, Buck Consultants,
sought proposals (Q-02-3760) from providers
of Third Party Administrative (‘TPA’)
services for its self-insured major medical (including Participating Provider
Organizations, ‘PPOs’), prescription drug, dental, vision care, flexible
spending accounts and short-term disability claims programs. Prospective bidders were invited to submit
proposals for one or more categories of the aforementioned services for the
Authority’s various employee groups and retirees, with eligible participants
including active and retired salaried employees, members of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (‘IBEW’) and the Utility Workers’ Union of
America (‘UWUA’), as well as retired members of Teamsters’ Local 887. The potential number of enrollees offered
such coverage is approximately 2,571, of which approximately 1,787 are
currently enrolled.
“Bid documents were downloaded
electronically from the Authority’s Procurement website by 23 firms, including
those that may have responded to a notice in the New York State Contract
Reporter. Proposals were received from 11
firms for one or more service categories in the Authority’s Request for
Proposals (‘RFP’). Buck Consultants
assisted Authority staff in collecting and sorting the data submitted in the
proposals through the use of an automated template that recorded the vendors’
responses to questions. After an initial
review of all bids, five firms were selected to attend finalists’
meetings. Bidders were invited to
present their proposals in detail and to provide any additional data that were
requested during the meetings. Such
meetings also afforded Authority staff the opportunity to meet the respective
account representatives and to clarify any outstanding questions or
issues. In addition, staff conducted a
site visit to the claims facility of one new bidder to inspect its respective
operations, review its processes for claim payment, customer service, program
technology and implementation and clarify any outstanding issues prior to final
recommendations. A more detailed
evaluation and analysis of the proposals and clarifications provided during the
finalists’ meetings was subsequently performed based on the following
evaluation criteria: network
availability of participating provider organizations, disruption analysis of
current vs. proposed networks, rate comparisons and cost savings, company size
and staffing levels, administrative and technical capabilities, past vendor
performance and financial stability of the bidders.
“Based on the aforementioned detailed
evaluation and analysis of all the proposals, clarifications and evaluation
criteria, staff recommends the award of four contracts to the following firms:
UnitedHealthcare (‘UHC’), Delta Dental, Maurice W. Pomfrey & Associates,
Ltd. (‘POMCO’) and EyeMed Vision Care (PO#s TBA) to provide TPA services for
the Authority’s health and benefits programs, on a self-insured basis. Services would be provided as follows: (1) UHC would continue to provide TPA
services for the major medical program for the Authority’s active and retired
salaried and UWUA employees, the flexible spending account program for active
salaried and UWUA employees, the prescription drug program for all non-HMO
active employees and retirees and hospitalization for the UHC ‘NYPA Choice’
Plan only; (2) Delta Dental would provide TPA services for the dental program
for all active employees; (3) POMCO would continue to provide TPA services for
both major medical and hospitalization for IBEW active employees and retirees
and for retired members of Teamsters’ Local 887, as well as short-term
disability for active IBEW and UWUA employees only and (4) EyeMed would
continue to provide TPA services for the vision care program for active
salaried employees only. In addition, it was decided that the current
arrangement for the hospitalization program with EmpireHealth (Blue Cross/Blue
Shield) would be continued on a fully-insured basis and that the HMO and POS
programs would also continue to be offered.
The intended term of these contracts is five years (comprising an
initial award for three years, with an option to extend for two additional years),
subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Approval is also requested for the total
amount expected to be expended for the five-year term of the contracts:
$3,183,000 for UHC, $336,000 for Delta Dental, $1,318,600 for POMCO and $28,700
for EyeMed, as further delineated on the attached Exhibit ‘15-A.’
“In recent years, it has become
increasingly difficult to identify and attract qualified personnel for certain
engineering, analytical and technical positions at the Authority, due to increased
competition for and the decreased number of capable, experienced potential
candidates. In order to remain competitive, Authority staff recommended
augmenting the current recruiting approach (which consists of print ads, web
postings, employee referrals and college outreach) to include the use of
external recruitment firms in order to attract such technical personnel. It is anticipated that the use of such firms
would provide a rigorous pre-screening process, as well as shorten the time
needed to fill such positions with a diverse, local and on-target pool of
qualified applicants. To this end, the
Authority solicited proposals for the services of recruitment firms to assist
the Authority in filling certain difficult-to-fill positions, when necessary. Bid documents were downloaded electronically
from the Authority’s Procurement website by 10 firms, including those that may
have responded to a notice in the New York State Contract Reporter. Three proposals were received and
evaluated. Based on a review of their
qualifications, experience and compensation terms, staff recommends award of
contracts to Apple One
Employment Services (‘Apple One’) and Think Energy Group (‘Think Energy’)
(Q-02-3786;
“During the last several years, the
Authority has refined its strategic planning approach with the use of
performance measures. To this end, the
Authority implemented the Integrated Measurement System (‘IMS’) plan,
incorporated a Balanced Scorecard approach and refined its measurement
system. In order to continue the
development and implementation of this process, the Authority solicited
proposals for consulting services to assist staff in: measuring organization
performance for process improvement, advancing the process from measurement to
performance improvement and strategy implementation, and continuing the
development of the Authority’s IMS plan towards its defined ‘future state’
vision. Bid documents were downloaded
electronically from the Authority’s Procurement website by 38 firms, including
those that may have responded to a notice in the New York State Contract
Reporter. Four proposals were received
and evaluated. The three lowest-priced
bidders were invited for clarification meetings regarding their respective
proposals, proposed work methodology, relevant work experience, qualifications
of assigned personnel and pricing. The
Authority’s Evaluation Team then rated each bidder based on a matrix of the
foregoing criteria that assigned specific weights to each component of the
proposals. Based on its having the
highest rating in each category, as well as its broad experience and demonstrated
methodology in evaluating and cascading measurement systems, staff recommends
award of the subject contract to Bywater,
Inc. (‘Bywater’; Q-02-3827; PO# TBA), the most qualified bidder with reasonable pricing
estimates. The subject contract would
become effective on July 1, 2006, for an intended term of three years, subject
to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Approval is also requested for the total
estimated amount that may be expended for the term of the contract, $500,000.
“The contract with Crowley Webb and Associates, Inc. (‘
“The contract with Design Collaborative Inc. (‘DCI’;
Q-02-3809;
Business Services
“At their meeting of September 17, 2002,
the Trustees approved the award and funding of a competitively bid contract
with ICF Energy Solutions (now Nexus Energy Solutions) for the purchase,
implementation, enhancement and maintenance of a suite of proprietary software
modules (Energy Vision Enterprise, or ‘EVE,’ system), as well as related
consulting services to support the Authority’s short-term load forecasting
project. Periodic programming support
for various module and feature updates, modifications and enhancements, which
are not included in the maintenance contract, was subsequently required to meet
the emerging needs of the Authority’s unique business processes. The Authority’s Marketing, Economic
Development and Supply Planning Business Unit staff has identified numerous
additional improvements to the software that are required to meet the
Authority’s current and emerging business needs. They include, but are not limited to, the
following areas: automated forecast submission to the New York Independent
System Operator; new interfaces for Finance and the new Billing System; load
aggregation and weather variable enhancements to improve load forecasts and
weather normalization techniques and streamlining business processes and
additional analytical capabilities to support forecasting functions. To this end, the award of a new sole source
contract to Nexus Energy Software (‘Nexus’;
Q-02-3791; PO# TBA) would provide for such programming services to enhance
existing proprietary EVE system software in order to implement planned short-
and long-term load and revenue forecasting improvements in the aforementioned
areas, as well as related consulting services and load forecasting expertise,
as needed. This award is made on a sole
source basis, since Nexus currently maintains this proprietary software and the
required enhancements are specific to the Authority. In addition, Nexus has demonstrated that it
is uniquely qualified to make such programming changes/enhancements, possessing
the requisite technical skills and application knowledge, as well as the
proprietary source code (to which the Authority’s Information Technology
division does not have access); and it has implemented previous enhancements on
time and within budget. Furthermore,
there were no responses to a notice in the New York State Contract Reporter of
an intended sole source award to Nexus.
The subject contract would become effective on July 1, 2006, for an
intended term of three years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is
hereby requested. Approval is also
requested for the total estimated amount expected to be expended for the term
of the contract, $900,000.
“In 2004, the Authority implemented an
Energy Trading Portal (‘Portal’), providing a single gateway of information for
traders, business analysts and executives, in order to meet the evolving
business needs of its Energy Resource Management group. The Authority has used outside consulting
services for the past year to address functional and technical enhancements to
the Portal. Since the Authority will
have an ongoing need for such services, a Request for Proposals (Q-02-3807) for consulting services to enhance the
Authority’s Portal application was prepared.
Bid documents were downloaded electronically from the Authority’s
Procurement website by 25 firms, including those that may have responded to a
notice in the New York State Contract Reporter.
Three proposals were received and evaluated. Based on its depth of staff knowledge and
experience with Portals, TIBCO software and the energy industry, interviews and
qualifications of the prospective candidates for this work and company size and
satisfactory resources, staff recommends award of the subject contract to Perficient Inc. (PO # TBA), the most qualified
bidder. The contract with Perficient
would become effective on July 1, 2006, for an intended term of three years,
subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Services would include, but not be limited
to, designing, developing and implementing technical improvements and
functional enhancements, as well as providing ‘best practice’ expertise and
guidance, as needed. Approval is also
requested for the total estimated amount expected to be expended for the term
of the contract, $800,000.
“The contract with Professional Flight Management, Inc.
(‘PFM’; 4500125826) would become effective on July 3, 2006, subject to the
Trustees’ subsequent approval as soon as practicable, in accordance with the
Authority’s revised procurement policies and EAPs. The purpose of this contract is to provide
for hosting services and technical support for PFM software utilized by the
Authority’s Travel and Flight Operations groups for corporate aircraft
scheduling and recordkeeping. The PFM
hosting agreement provides the software platform for the PFM application,
including all requisite hardware, software, enhancements and production support
in a secure environment at PFM. The
transfer of the software from the Authority’s IT server to PFM’s server will provide
for quicker and more uniform maintenance and Internet access for users. Additional benefits also include remote
access for pilots via laptop or Blackberry, enabling them to update their own
flight log and other data directly, immediately and easily through a secure
website while on the road, thereby improving the reliability and timeliness of
data and reports. The award is made on a
sole source basis, since PFM is uniquely qualified as the original developer of
the software application (which was acquired by the Authority in 1998,
subsequently customized by PFM to meet the Authority’s needs, and used
successfully by the Authority for the last eight years). The intended term of this contract is three
years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Approval is also requested for the total
estimated amount expected to be expended for the term of the contract, $24,260.
“The two contracts with Public Financial Management, Inc. (‘PFM’)
and PFM – Asset Management, LLC (‘PFM - AM’) (Q-02-3810;
Energy Services and Technology
“At their meeting of December 16, 2004,
the Trustees approved a funding increase in the Statewide Energy Services
Program (‘Statewide ESP’) in the amount of $250 million. Of this amount, the Trustees approved the
allocation of $230 million to three Implementation Contractors (‘ICs’) to
assist Authority staff with the audit, design and construction of Statewide ESP
projects. While all three ICs have
performed well, one has decided to withdraw from the statewide market. Since the demand for the Statewide ESP
program has increased dramatically, staff concluded that it would be necessary
not only to replace the IC that withdrew from the market, but also to retain a
fourth IC in order to provide the resources necessary to meet the increased
program demand for such services. To
this end, staff prepared a new Request for Proposals (Q-02-3774) for program
management and implementation services for the Authority’s ESP projects in
selected facilities statewide. Bid
documents were downloaded electronically from the Authority’s Procurement
website by 40 firms, including those that may have responded to a notice in the
New York State Contract Reporter; nine proposals were received and evaluated.
The four lowest-cost proposals were evaluated in detail, based on a number of
technical criteria that included each firm’s relevant experience, energy
analysis capabilities, construction management experience, project team
organization and qualifications, building and electrical code familiarity,
financial resources, location of support offices and proposal format. After a clarification and recalculation of
the fee submitted by the apparent lowest-priced bidder determined it to be
non-competitive, staff recommended award of contracts to Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture
& Engineering, PC (‘EYP’; 4600001644) and Wendel
Energy Services, LLC (‘Wendel’; 4600001645), the two lowest-priced (as well as
highest-scored) bidders. Due to the
urgent need to commence services, the subject contracts with EYP and Wendel
became effective on May 23, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ subsequent approval
as soon as practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s revised procurement
policies and Expenditure Authorization Procedures (‘EAPs’). Initial award amounts of $1,500,000 per
contract were authorized in accordance with the Authority’s Guidelines for
Procurement Contracts and EAPs. The intended
term of these contracts is five years (to be awarded for an initial three-year
term, with an option to extend for up to two additional years), subject to the
Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested.
Approval is also requested to increase the initial award amount to $20
million per contract (to be released/allocated from the $187.5 million
remaining from the aforementioned aggregate $230 million). It is anticipated that additional projects
will be assigned and additional releases will be made over the contract term to
all four ICs from the remaining $147.5 million, based on the assessment of each
contractor’s performance. It should be
noted that all costs will be recovered by the Authority.
Inspector General’s
Office - Security
“The contract with Allied Barton Security Services
(‘Allied’; Q-02-3806;
Law Department
“Due
to the immediate need to retain a firm with a particular expertise in maritime
claims, it was not feasible to solicit formal or informal proposals for such
services. On the recommendation of
long-time counsel at an outside law firm retained by the Authority, two law
firms experienced in handling maritime actions were contacted by the
Authority. Based on its experience
handling defense work, including maritime claims, and its reasonable quoted
rate, the Authority retained the firm of Burgio,
Kita & Curvin (‘Burgio’) as the result of an expedited competitive search. The
agreement with Burgio (4500122768) became effective on
February 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ subsequent approval as soon as
practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s revised procurement policies
and EAPs. The purpose of this contract
is to provide for legal representation services for the Authority’s indemnitee,
First Buffalo River Marina, in connection with a pending action in
“Due to the immediate need to retain a firm with a
particular expertise in legislative and New York State Budget issues, it was
not feasible to solicit formal or informal proposals for such services. Staff reviewed the legal firms already under
contract with the Authority and determined that they do not have the necessary
experience in this area of the law.
Based on its unique qualifications and its familiarity with litigation
of this nature, as well as its reasonable quoted rate, the Authority retained
the firm of Cravath, Swaine
& Moore, LLP (‘Cravath’; 4500125893) on an emergency and sole-source basis. The agreement became effective on June 6, 2006,
in the amount of $250,000, subject to the Trustees’ subsequent approval as soon
as practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s revised procurement policies
and EAPs. The purpose of this contract
is to provide for legal representation services in connection with likely
litigation arising out of the adoption of the current New York State Budget for
State Fiscal Year 2006-07, in order to effectively protect the legal, financial
and contractual interests of the Authority for the People of New York State. Since the Authority will have an ongoing need
for such services until this matter is resolved, staff recommends an
intended term of up to two years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is
hereby requested. Approval is also
requested for the total estimated amount that may be expended for the term of
the contract, $250,000.
Power Generation
“The contract with ABB, Inc. (‘ABB’; RFQ 6000066965,
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with Aquatech
Environmental Inc. (‘Aquatech’;
4600001648)
became effective on June 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ subsequent approval
as soon as practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s revised procurement
policies and EAPs. The purpose of this
contract is to provide for routine weekly zebra mussel sampling and
testing/analysis services to determine veliger densities and mortality
percentages in the vicinity of the Niagara Power Project. Services include all labor, supervision,
equipment and material to complete a weekly sampling program for zebra mussel
veligers during the zebra mussel growth season, as well as consulting services,
as may be required. Bid documents were
sent to eight firms, including any that may have responded to a notice in the
New York State Contract Reporter. Three
proposals were received and evaluated.
Staff recommended award of the subject contract to Aquatech, the
lowest-priced bidder. The intended term
of this contract is four years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is
hereby requested. Approval is also
requested for the total estimated amount expected to be expended for the term
of the contract, $100,000.
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with Aquatic
Sciences LP (4600001621) became effective on May 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’
subsequent approval as soon as practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s
revised procurement policies and EAPs.
The purpose of this contract is to provide for monthly zebra mussel
sampling and testing/analysis services to determine veliger densities and
mortality percentages in the vicinity of the St. Lawrence/FDR Power
Project. Such services will be performed
on a weekly basis if veligers are detected.
Bid documents were sent to seven firms, including any that may have
responded to a notice in the New York State Contract Reporter. Four proposals were received and
evaluated. Staff recommended award of
the subject contract to Aquatic Sciences, the lowest-priced bidder. Rates will remain firm for the duration of
the contract. The intended term of this
contract is three years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby
requested. Approval is also requested
for the total estimated amount expected to be expended for the term of the
contract, $40,000.
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with Baker
Engineering NY, Inc. (‘Baker’; 4500122700) became effective on April 10, 2006, subject to the
Trustees’ subsequent approval as soon as practicable, in accordance with the
Authority’s revised procurement policies and EAPs. The purpose of this contract is to provide
for engineering services for the design of security enhancements to the Charles
Poletti Power Project and 500 MW Combined Cycle Plant sites. Such upgrade includes establishing a closed
perimeter with fence-mounted intrusion detection, lighting, cameras for alarm
assessment, video transmission/display/recording, access control, building
intrusion detection, alarm monitoring and relocation and modification or
replacement of the existing security console.
Services to support this effort include site inspections, data
collection, calculations, analysis and detailed design, preparation and
submission of technical specifications and drawings, design review meetings,
cost estimates, bid proposal evaluation and engineering support during
construction, start-up and testing. Bid
documents were sent to 13 prequalified firms (including those that may have
responded to a notice in the New York State Contract Reporter) after background
investigation screenings were performed and mandatory confidentiality
agreements were signed. Six proposals
were received and evaluated; one proposal was incomplete and disqualified after
the bidder was unable to respond in a timely manner. Staff recommended award of the subject
contract to Baker, the lowest-priced qualified bidder. The intended term of
this contract is approximately 1.75 years (through project construction,
currently projected to be December 31, 2007), subject to the Trustees’
approval, which is hereby requested.
Approval is also requested for the total estimated amount expected to be
expended for the term of the contract, $465,562.
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with Deangelo
Brothers (4600001625) became effective on May 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’
subsequent approval as soon as practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s
revised procurement policies and EAPs.
The purpose of this contract is to provide for herbicide treatment
services for the grounds of the Charles Poletti Power Project and 500 MW Combined
Cycle Plant. Bid documents were sent to
eight firms, including any that may have responded to a notice in the New York
State Contract Reporter; one proposal was received and evaluated. Staff recommended award of the subject
contract to Deangelo Brothers, the sole responding bidder. The intended term of this contract is three
years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Approval is also requested for the total
estimated amount expected to be expended for the term of the contract, $50,000.
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with GE
Packaged Power, Inc. (‘GEPP’), aka GE Aero Energy (4500125518) became effective on
June 12, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ subsequent approval as soon as
practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s revised procurement policies
and EAPs. The purpose of this contract
is to provide for hardware, software, installation services and a two-year
software service agreement for the Turbine Control System at nine Small Clean
Power Plants (excluding the
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with Guardian
Tree & Landscape Maintenance (‘Guardian’; 4600001626) became effective on
May 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ subsequent approval as soon as
practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s revised procurement policies
and EAPs. The purpose of this contract
is to provide for landscaping/groundskeeping services for the Charles Poletti
and 500 MW Combined Cycle plant sites.
Bid documents were sent to 14 firms, including any that may have
responded to a notice in the New York State Contract Reporter. Three proposals were received and
evaluated. Staff recommended award of
the subject contract to Guardian, the lowest-priced bidder. The intended term of this contract is three
years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Approval is also requested for the total
estimated amount expected to be expended for the term of the contract,
$100,000.
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with JFK
Medport –
“The contract with Marine Maintenance & Construction
Company (‘Marine Maintenance’; 4600001633) would become effective on July 1, 2006, subject to the
Trustees’ approval. The purpose of this
contract is to provide for diving services to perform underwater inspections
and/or repairs on traveling screens and other specified equipment at the
Charles Poletti Power Project. Bid
documents were sent to 12 firms, including those that may have responded to a
notice in the New York State Contract Reporter.
Four proposals were received and evaluated. Staff recommends award of the subject
contract to Marine Maintenance, the lowest-priced bidder. The intended term of this contract is three
years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Approval is also requested for the total
estimated amount expected to be expended for the term of the contract,
$400,000.
“The contract with Miller Environmental Group, Inc.
(‘Miller’; Q-02-3803;
“The three contracts with Miller Environmental Services, Inc. (‘Miller’),
OP-TECH Environmental Services (‘OP-TECH’) and Allstate Power Vac (‘Allstate’)
(Q-02-3829;
“Due to the need to commence services,
the contract with Naeva
Geophysics Inc. (4600001620) became effective on June 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’
subsequent approval as soon as practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s
revised procurement policies and EAPs.
The purpose of this contract is to provide for equipment and services on
an ‘as needed’ basis to locate conduit and reinforcing rods embedded in
concrete structures (up to three feet deep) around high electromagnetic fields
at sites/locations that are under the control of the Authority’s St.
Lawrence/FDR Power Project. Such sites
include, but are not limited to, the Massena Substation, Long Sault Dam, Robert
Moses Park and the Iroquois Gates at Waddington. Bid documents were sent to two firms,
including any that may have responded to a notice in the New York State
Contract Reporter. One proposal was
received and evaluated. Staff
recommended award of the subject contract to Naeva Geophysics, the sole
responding bidder, which was deemed qualified to perform the work. The intended term of this contract is three
years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby requested. Approval is also requested for the total
estimated amount expected to be expended for the term of the contract, $90,000.
“The contract with National Vacuum Corp. (‘NVC’; 4600001647) would become
effective on July 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ approval. The purpose of this contract is to provide
for industrial cleaning services for foundation drainage systems and galleries
at the Niagara Power Project. Such
services utilize high-pressure water jet and vacuum cleaning processes for
various concrete decks, walls, structures and piping systems at the Robert
Moses Niagara Power Plant and Lewiston Pump Generating Plant. Bid documents were sent to 13 firms,
including any that may have responded to a notice in the New York State
Contract Reporter. Three proposals were
received and evaluated. Staff
recommended award of the subject contract to NVC, the lowest qualified
bidder. The intended term of this
contract is four years, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is hereby
requested. Approval is also requested
for the total estimated amount expected to be expended for the term of the
contract, $300,000.
“Due to the urgent need to commence
services, the contract with RCM Technologies, Inc. (‘RCM’; 4600001642) became effective on
May 30, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ subsequent approval as soon as
practicable, in accordance with the Authority’s revised procurement policies
and EAPs. The purpose of this contract
is to provide for engineering/design and construction support services for the
Seymour-to-Greenwood electrical interconnection project, which will increase
the power supply to the Greenwood, Brooklyn/Staten Island load pocket, in order
to provide power when it is most needed during the peak summer periods. To this end, bid documents were sent to 21
firms, including those that may have responded to a notice in the New York
State Contract Reporter. Five proposals
were received and evaluated based upon a rating structure, which compared
bidders on various criteria, such as experience, technical presentation, key
personnel, commitment to schedule and support during start-up, testing and
commissioning (the latter vital to the success of the project). RCM was judged by staff to be the lowest
qualified bidder meeting the requirements of the specification. Based on this determination, as well as its
higher rating in the technical evaluation, staff recommended award of the
subject contract to RCM. The intended
term of this contract is 19 months, subject to the Trustees’ approval, which is
hereby requested. Approval is also
requested for the total estimated amount expected to be expended for the term
of the contract, $781,900, including contingency.
“The contract with RWB Contracting Corp. (‘RWB’; 4600001649) would become
effective on July 1, 2006, subject to the Trustees’ approval. The purpose of this contract is to provide
for installation of new insulation and repair services for existing insulation
at the Charles Poletti Power Project and 500 MW, Flynn and Small Clean Power
Plants. Bid documents were sent to three
firms, including those that may have responded to a notice in the New York
State Contract Reporter. Two proposals
were received and evaluated. Staff
recommends award of the subject contract to RWB, the lowest-priced bidder. The
intended term of this contract is three years, subject to the Trustees’
approval, which is hereby requested.
Approval is also requested for the total estimated amount expected to be
expended for the term of the contract, $512,500.
Transmission
“The contract with Aviation Services Unlimited, Inc. (RFQ
PD04246;
“The contract with Haverfield Corp. (6000069004,
FISCAL INFORMATION
“Funds required to support contract services for various Business Units/Departments and Facilities have been included in the 2006 Approved O&M Budget. Funds for subsequent years, where applicable, will be included in the budget submittals for those years. Payment will be made from the Operating Fund.
“Funds required to support contract services for capital projects have been included as part of the approved capital expenditures for those projects and will be disbursed from the Capital Fund in accordance with the project’s Capital Expenditure Authorization Request. Payment for contracts in support of the Energy Services Programs will be made from the Energy Conservation Effectuation and Construction Fund. All costs, including Authority overheads and the cost of advancing funds, will be recovered by the Authority, consistent with other Energy Services and Technology Programs.
“The Deputy General Counsel, the Senior
Vice President – Public & Governmental Affairs, the Vice President –
Procurement and Real Estate, the Vice President – Engineering, the Vice
President – Project Management, the Vice President – Environmental Management,
the Vice President – Finance, the Treasurer, the Chief Information Officer, the
Director – Employee Benefits, the Director – Corporate Support Services, the
Director – Energy Services, the Director – Human Capital and Development, the
Director – Power Generation Support Services, the Manager – Performance
Planning, the Manager – Customer Load Forecasting, the Regional Manager –
Northern New York, the Regional Manager – Western New York, the Regional Manager
– Central New York, the Regional Manager – Southeastern New York and the
Transmission Superintendent recommend the Trustees’ approval of the award of
multiyear procurement contracts to the companies listed in Exhibit ‘15-A’ for
the purposes and in the amounts set forth above.
“The Executive Vice President and General Counsel, the Executive Vice President – Corporate Services and Administration, the Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer, the Senior Vice President – Marketing, Economic Development and Supply Planning, the Senior Vice President – Energy Services and Technology, the Senior Vice President – Power Generation, the Senior Vice President – Transmission and I concur in the recommendation.”
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED,
That pursuant to the Guidelines for Procurement Contracts adopted by the
Authority, the award and funding of the multiyear procurement services
contracts set forth in Exhibit “15-A,” attached hereto, are hereby approved for
the period of time indicated, in the amounts and for the purposes listed
therein, as recommended in the foregoing report of the President and Chief
Executive Officer; and be it further
RESOLVED,
That the Chairman, the President and Chief Executive Officer and all other
officers of the Authority are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf
of the Authority to do any and all things and take any and all actions and
execute and deliver any and all agreements, certificates and other documents to
effectuate the foregoing resolution, subject to the approval of the form
thereof by the Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
16.
Procurement (Services) Contracts – Business
Units and Facilities –
Extensions and Approval of Additional Funding
The President and Chief Executive Officer submitted the following report:
“The Trustees are requested to approve the continuation and funding of the procurement (services) contracts listed in Exhibit ‘16-A’ in support of projects and programs for the Authority’s Business Units/Departments and Facilities. Detailed explanations of the nature of such services, the reasons for extension, the additional funding required and the projected expiration dates are set forth below.
BACKGROUND
“Section 2879 of the Public Authorities Law and the Authority’s Guidelines for Procurement Contracts require the Trustees’ approval for procurement contracts involving services to be rendered for a period in excess of one year.
“The Authority’s revised Expenditure Authorization Procedures (‘EAPs’) require the Trustees’ approval when the cumulative change order value of a personal services contract exceeds the greater of $250,000 or 35% of the originally approved contract amount not to exceed $500,000, or when the cumulative change order value of a non-personal services, construction, equipment purchase or non-procurement contract exceeds the greater of $500,000 or 35% of the originally approved contract amount not to exceed $1,000,000.
DISCUSSION
“Although the firms identified in Exhibit ‘16-A’ have provided effective services, the issues or projects requiring these services have not been resolved or completed, and the need exists for continuing these contracts. The Trustees’ approval is required because the terms of these contracts exceed one year and/or because the cumulative change order limits will exceed the levels authorized by the EAPs in forthcoming change orders. All of the subject contracts contain provisions allowing the Authority to terminate the services at the Authority’s convenience, without liability other than paying for acceptable services rendered to the effective date of termination. These contract extensions do not obligate the Authority to a specific level of personnel resources or expenditures.
“Extension of each of the contracts identified in Exhibit ‘16-A’ is requested for one or more of the following reasons: (1) additional time is required to complete the current contractual work scope or additional services related to the original work scope; (2) to accommodate an Authority or external regulatory agency schedule change that has delayed, reprioritized or otherwise suspended required services; (3) the original consultant is uniquely qualified to perform services and/or continue its presence and rebidding would not be practical or (4) the contractor provides a proprietary technology or specialized equipment, at reasonably negotiated rates, that the Authority needs to continue until a permanent system is put in place.
Contracts
in Support of Business Units/Departments and Facilities:
Business Services
“The
contract with Fujitsu Consulting Inc.
(4500108742) provides for implementation and related consulting services
for an electronic Records Management System (OpenText ‘Live Link’) for the
Authority. The original award, which was
competitively bid, became effective on July 5, 2005 for a term of one
year. Due to delays in resolving the issues
encountered in executing the data conversion from the multiple legacy systems
into the new Live Link records management application, a six-month extension is
now requested in order to provide additional time to complete implementation of
the new system. The current contract
amount is $592,065; it is currently anticipated that no additional funding will
be required for the extended term. The
Trustees are requested to approve the extension of the subject contract through
December 31, 2006, with no additional funding requested.
Corporate Services and Administration
“The three contracts with Alexander Building Corp. (‘Alexander’; 4600001432), Capital
Construction Management (‘Capital’; 4600001434) and GTL Construction (‘GTL’; 4600001431) provide for general
contracting services at the
“The three contracts with Angela McRae (‘McRae’; 4500108556), Harrison I. Getz, Jr. (‘Getz’; 4500116013) and Russell Brod (‘Brod’; 4500112184) provide for on-premises computer graphic design and production services for print materials including, but not limited to, the Authority’s Annual Report, marketing and promotional brochures, newsletters, posters, advertising materials, presentations and exhibits using MacIntosh computers, as well as website development in both MacIntosh and PC format and design and production of PowerPoint slide presentations in the PC format. The original awards, which were competitively bid, became effective on June 7, November 1 and August 10, 2005, respectively, for an initial term of one year, with an intended option to extend for an additional year. A one-year extension of each contract is now requested to exercise the intended option in order to continue the aforementioned services, as needed. The current contract amounts are $65,000 each for McRae and Brod and $80,000 for Getz, respectively; it is anticipated that an additional $65,000 each for the contracts with McRae and Brod, and $80,000 for the contract with Getz, will be required for the option year. The Trustees are requested to approve the extension of the subject contracts through June 6, October 31, and August 9, 2007, respectively, as well as the additional funding requested.
“The contract with the firm of Joanne Darcy Crum, L.S., a
“The contract with Laro
Service Systems, Inc. (4500104843) provides for janitorial services to the
Authority and its subtenant, the New York State Office of Alcohol and Substance
Abuse Services (‘OASAS’), for their offices at
Energy Services & Technology
“The four contracts with BGA, LLC (4600001406), Genesys Engineering, PC (4600001407), Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (4600001408) and RMF Engineering, Inc. (4600001409) provide for engineering and design services and/or specialty engineering consulting services in support of the Authority’s Energy Services projects statewide on an ‘as needed’ basis. The original awards, which were competitively bid, became effective on April 1, 2005 for an initial term of one year, with an option to extend for up to two additional years. A short-term interim extension through June 30, 2006 was subsequently authorized in accordance with the Authority’s Guidelines for Procurement Contracts and EAPs. A two-year extension is now requested to exercise the contract option in order to provide for the continuation of services, as may be required. The contracts were initially funded for the first year only in order to train the consultants and monitor/assess their performance. In addition, when these contracts were awarded, the projected annual volume of energy services implementation project work was $70 million; in 2006, this goal was increased to $100 million. Staff expects this trend to continue and anticipates that all four firms will be used more heavily in the next two years. The current ‘Target Values’ total $200,000; staff estimates that additional funding in the combined amount of $700,000 (to be allocated to the consultant(s) that are best able to meet the Authority’s needs as the work arises) will be required for the option years. The Trustees are requested to ratify the previously authorized interim extension of these contracts and to approve the extension of the subject contracts through March 31, 2008, as well as the additional funding requested. It should be noted that all costs will be recovered by the Authority.
“The contract with Riverdale
Electrical Services Inc. (4500108527) provides for lighting and sensor
installation services at
Internal Audits
“The Authority has been providing low-cost power to
business and non-profit groups under various Economic Development Programs that
were enacted by State legislation. The
companies applying for and receiving this low-cost power agree to maintain
and/or create jobs in
Law Department
“The firm Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP provides legal services under a contract (4500087608) that became effective January 1, 2004 and expires June 30, 2006, as approved by the Trustees at their meetings of September 23, 2003, December 13, 2005 and March 28, 2006, respectively. This firm is currently advising the Authority on financial matters, including bond, note and other debt issuances; issues arising under bond and note resolutions; tax issues; issues relating to hedging instruments; compliance with applicable IRS regulations and miscellaneous issues arising under the Federal Tax Code. The firm also provides general advice as to the Authority’s statutory powers and responsibilities, analyzes the effect of legislation amending the Public Authorities Law and provides advice as to implementation of the public authorities reform legislation and regulations recently issued by the State Comptroller. The Authority, through a notice in the New York State Contract Reporter, solicited submission of proposals (Q-02-3837) for a wide range of outside legal consulting services, including the types of services provided by this firm. In order to provide for additional time to review and evaluate all proposals received on May 30, 2006 for consideration by the General Counsel, staff is requesting an additional extension of the existing contract through September 30, 2006. The current contract amount is $1,725,000 (the approved total); staff anticipates that no additional funding will be required. The Trustees are hereby requested to approve the extension of the subject contract through September 30, 2006, with no additional funding requested.
Power Generation
“The contract with IEM Energy Consultants, Inc. (4500094535) provides for the consulting services of Jeffrey J. Fassett in support of the negotiations with General Electric (‘GE’) regarding a potential new Contractual Services Agreement (‘CSA’) to cover required maintenance and services for the GE gas and steam turbines at the 500 MW Combined Cycle Plant. Services also include financial modeling support and O&M budget preparation assistance. The original contract, which was awarded as the result of a competitive search, became effective on August 20, 2004 for an initial term of less than one year. At their meeting of June 28, 2005, the Trustees approved an extension through December 31, 2005 and additional funding in the amount of $50,000. A further six-month extension, as well as an additional $50,000, was subsequently authorized in accordance with the Authority’s Guidelines for Procurement Contracts and EAPs. A nine-month extension is now requested in order to provide for the continuation of such consulting support for the CSA through execution by all parties, which may extend into 2007. The current contract amount is $150,000; it is currently anticipated that an additional $75,000 may be required for the extended term. Mr. Fassett has the technical and commercial expertise to assist the Authority in negotiating this extremely important contract. The Trustees are requested to approve the extension of the subject contract through March 31, 2007, as well as the additional funding requested.
“At their meeting of September 20, 2005, the Trustees last approved an increase in the compensation ceiling of the contract with Slattery Skanska, Inc. (‘SSI’; 4500064161), which provided for the construction of the 500 MW Combined Cycle Plant, to a maximum amount of $332,310,000. The Trustees are now requested to approve a final settlement up to a maximum amount of $1,640,000, plus any outstanding retention, to be paid to SSI for all additional work performed by SSI for completion of the construction of the 500 MW Combined Cycle Plant. This additional work included electrical and fire alarm work required by the New York City Fire Department, access and personnel protection work, piping and mechanical modifications identified during start-up and commissioning and heat tracing, insulation and cathodic protection work necessitated design deficiencies requiring redesign by General Electric. This additional amount is included in the current 500 MW Capital Expenditure Authorization Request (‘CEAR’). SSI has agreed to a complete waiver of all claims. As part of the settlement, the Authority would also potentially relieve SSI of responsibility for two warranty issues, depending on the estimated cost to re-perform such work. In accordance with the Authority’s EAPs, the Trustees are requested to approve the additional funding requested, thereby increasing the total contract value to a maximum amount of $333,950,000. Such payment is subject to execution by SSI of a final Change Order, the form of which will be approved by the Executive Vice President and General Counsel or his designee.
“Funds required to support contract services for various Headquarters Office Business Units/Departments and Facilities have been included in the 2006 Approved O&M Budget. Funds for subsequent years, where applicable, will be included in the budget submittals for those years. Payment will be made from the Operating Fund.
“Funds required to support contract services for capital projects have been included as part of the approved capital expenditures for those projects and will be disbursed from the Capital Fund in accordance with the Project’s Capital Expenditure Authorization Request (‘CEAR’). Payment for contracts in support of the Energy Services Programs will be made from the Energy Conservation Effectuation and Construction Fund. All costs, including Authority overheads and the cost of advancing funds, will be recovered by the Authority, consistent with other Energy Services and Technology Programs.
“The Deputy General Counsel, the Senior Vice President – Public and Governmental Affairs, the Vice President – Project Management, the Vice President – Procurement and Real Estate, the Vice President – Internal Audits and Corporate Compliance, the Chief Information Officer, the Director – Energy Services, the Director – Corporate Support Services, the Regional Manager – Central New York and the Regional Manager – Southeastern New York recommend that the Trustees’ approve the extensions and additional funding of the procurement contracts listed in Exhibit ‘16-A.’
“The Executive Vice President and General Counsel, the Executive Vice President – Corporate Services and Administration, the Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer, the Senior Vice President – Energy Services and Technology, the Senior Vice President – Power Generation and I concur in the recommendation.”
Mr.
Hoff presented the highlights of staff’s recommendations to the Trustees. He said that Procurement had just received
proposals for general legal services and anticipated coming back to the
Trustees sometime in the fall for approval of new contracts involving these
types of services. Chairman McCullough
said that closing out the Slattery Skanska, Inc. 500 MW contract was beneficial
to the Authority.
The following resolution, as submitted by the President and Chief Executive Officer, was unanimously adopted.
RESOLVED, That
pursuant to the Guidelines for Procurement Contracts adopted by the Authority,
each of the contracts listed in Exhibit “16-A,” attached hereto, is hereby
approved and extended for the period of time indicated, in the amounts and for
the purposes listed therein, as recommended in the foregoing report of the
President and Chief Executive Officer; and be it further
RESOLVED, That
the Chairman, the President and Chief Executive Officer and all other officers
of the Authority are, and each of them hereby is, authorized on behalf of the
Authority to do any and all things and take any and all actions and execute and
deliver any and all agreements, certificates and other documents to effectuate
the foregoing resolution, subject to the approval of the form thereof by the
Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
The next meeting of the Trustees will be held on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at
11:00 a.m., at the St. Lawrence/FDR Power Project, unless
otherwise designated by the Chairman with the concurrence of the Trustees.
Closing
On motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was
adjourned by the Chairman at approximately
12:20 p.m.
Anne B. Cahill
Corporate Secretary
![]()
[1] The Host Communities
consist of the seven municipal entities that would exercise taxing jurisdiction
over areas encompassed by the Project boundary established by FERC if Project
lands were taxable. These communities
are the City of