Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electricity Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves commodity master agreement for nonresidential electric supply after contract clarifications
Summary
After discussion over FOIA language, tariff pass-through and default wording, committee members voted by voice to approve a commodity master agreement for nonresidential electric supply; the motion passed by aye vote.
The committee voted to approve operation of a commodity master agreement for nonresidential electric supply after members discussed contract language and received assurances from counsel and consultants.
A committee member (S3) recapped recent meetings and said counsel and staff accepted the requested Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) language in section 16. That member also described attempts to clarify who would bear increases tied to tariffs and transmission charges and the drafting of default language. After discussion, Committee member S2 moved to approve the agreement and Chair S1 seconded; members voted by voice and the chair declared the motion passed.
Members focused on four practical contract points: (1) insertion and preservation of FOIA language requested by the committee; (2) whether transmission-rate increases could be passed to customers under section 5; (3) whether section 13 should distinguish payment defaults from performance defaults; and (4) how material deviation from expected usage would be treated.
One committee member summarized the trade-offs relayed by consultants: "You're gonna save $124,000. Just trust us," according to their account of consultants' advice. The same member said the committee insisted on specific FOIA language and that the change was accepted: "that was really the big one for Kelsey's perspective, and they did that."
The committee also discussed how the agreement treats transmission-rate changes. Members agreed the drafters intended that utility-defined (regulatory) transmission-rate changes — not market-rate fluctuations — would be allocable to customers, though the contract language required careful reading. The committee debated inserting the single word "payment" into section 13 so failure to pay would trigger default but not a shortfall in purchased quantity; counsel declined that wording change as impractical across many existing contracts.
The meeting closed with holiday remarks and a call for a motion to adjourn; a formal adjournment vote is not recorded in the provided transcript.
