The URL can be used to link to this page

87-1005 WMITE - CI.pV CLERK , . PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT YA U L c Council ��/ CAMARV - 1>E�ARTMENT File NO• v �-�� BLUE - MAVOR City Attny/PBB . Ordinance Ordinance 1�0. ,l�'�.��_ �Presented By '� � _ . . Referred To Committee: Date _ Out of Committee By Date Amendment of the legislative ordinance granting to District Heating Development Company a non-exclu- sive franchise to use public streets and property to construct and operate a district heating system. Ordinance No . 16947 , Council File No . 278880 , as amended. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES OF.DAIN: Section 1 . Amend Section VI to provide in (a) , after the last period, the following sentence : "Provided, however: a) the Incentive Rate Program dated June 19 , 1957 , on file with the City Clerk shall be im- plemented and incentive rates cizarged to DHDC Customers will not be in violation of or be deemed inconsistent with the terms and provisions of this Section or any other Section of this Franchise; " b) DHDC Customer buildings with Demand of 10�J kilowatts or less may be charged a combined Demand/Energy Rate to be called the Single Rate. Said Customers eligible for the Single Rate shall be known as "Small Customers ." The Single Rate shall be charged according to thermal energy usage as metered or otherwise determined by DHDC . The Single Rate shall be comnuted by dividing twelve (12) monthly installments of Demand Charge per kilowatt by 1700 and a�ding that result to the Energy Charge per kilowatt hour; c) DHDC may enter into agreements with COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Drew Nicosia ln Favor — Rettman s�ne�bei A ainst BY Sonnen g Tedesco Wilson Adopted by Council: Date Form Approved by City Attorney Certified Passed by Council Secretary • BY By Approved by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By By WHITE - CITY CLERK � ' PINK - FINANCE (jITy OF SAINT PAUL Council � CANAAV - pE�ARTMENT G� /�� BIUE - MAVOR File NO. Q � Ordin�nce Ordinance �10. <7�� Presented By _ - Referred To Committee: Date - Out of Committee By Date -2- Incentive �rogram Customers and Small Customers , the terms of which may vary from material terms of the Uniform I-iot Water Delivery Agreemer�t; and d) Incentive Program Customers ' terms may vary for Demand Charges only to the extent of the discount and in all other respects Demand Charges shall be calculated and applied in a manner con- sistent with non-Incentive Program Customers . The foregoing Amendment shall be effective for all new Customers executing an Agreement on or after June 19 , 1987 . �k�s=ord.�aaase=s�.a��-ta1�e_e��ee�_��d-3�e_��s_�e��e-�3��;=�39� da3�s=£o��ojasn$=xts=gassa$eT=aPPra�s��-�nd_H�sb��ee��a�_ Section 2 Adoption of this Ordinance cons�titutes approval by the City of Saint Paul of the amendment to Section 6.7 of the , Hot Water Delivery Agreement. Section 3 This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its passage, approval and publication. COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Drew N��os�a In Favor — Rettman Scheibel A ainst BY . Sonnew-�+ g N�,�a �`° wi�son Adopted by Council: Date H�1�7 5 19v� Form Approved by City Attorney Certified Pass b il Sec ry BY By Approved ayor: Date AUG Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By By pUBl1SHED AU G 1 � 1987 -. � . . � � � � � lst� _ .� ;� 'L-r�� ' . � 2nd �-�'` i`�'-��' •�� 3rd %-.x/_. �G� Adopted ��'.�7. 7 - :.,4 �; . Yeas NaYs i- �- ',' � DREW _ ' i�� r:E��, ��`i�,- NICOSIA � y n�'./+�L�YLLr j _ ' � SCHEIBEL �� SONNEN , WILSON ' MR. PRESIDENT TEDESCQ � g �� District Energy ST.PAUL,INC. 76 West Kellogg Boulevard St.Paul,MN 55102-1611 (612)297-8955 August 20, 1987 -- � . .- r- ,., 'T' � ° City Clerk -� _ ,, City of Saint Paul -- _ " Ci ty Hal l � • - " Saint Paul, NIN 55102 Re: Acceptance of Council File No. 87-1005 Ordinance No. 17482 Dear Sir: Pursuant to the terms of Ordinance No. 16497 , Council File No. 278880, as amended, this letter will serve as the formal acceptance by District Heating Development Company, d/b/a/ District Energy St. Paul, Inc. , of the provisions of Council File No. 87-1005, Ordinance No. 17482 . Sincerely, District eating Development Company, d/b a Dis rict Energy St. Paul, Inc. �� -�_, �. Hans O. man Preside t tl s C: William M. Mahlum, Esq. CERTIFIED MAIL , � . � � � � -� v�� PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 'THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING DHDC FRANCHISE Amend the Ordinance by renumbering Section 2 , designating it Section 3 , and adding a new Section L to read as follows : Section 2 Adoption of this Ordinance constitutes approval by the City of Saint Paul of the amendment to Section 6.7 of the Hot Water Delivery Agreement . 9129A � `1 / v J�__ S�T I�. CITY OF SAINT PAUL �° �:9 �; �:, OFFICE OF 7HE CITY ATTORNEY � iiii�i:ii�ii ;" ??;m --1-J �� EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY ��Rp •e• .�,.,,,m��''�� 647 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 612-298-5121 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR August 3 , 1987 Councilmember Kiki Sonnen Room 722 B U I L D I N G Dear Councilmember Sonnen: Enclosed please find a proposed amendment to the proposed District Engergy Franchise ordinance. As you requested the amendment requires Council review of all incentive rate changes according to the terms of Section 6F of the Franchise. In my opinion this change will require DE to go through the customer approval process again. This will cause a delay of at least several weeks . In addition the amendment I have drafted requires 6F handling of all incentive plan changes . The issue is a rate issue and therefore should be dealt with under the rate review sections of the Franchise. A problem arises however in that the process is in essence a 90 day minimum process. Section 6e requires 60 days notice, and then 30 days are necessary for an ordinance approval. This response time runs contrary to the reason for the incentive plan however. The plan is being put in place to accommodate a claimed DE need for marketplace driven flexibility. I doubt that the vagaries of the marketplace will wait for the slow grind of the process, but I guess I do not really know that for a fact. I am certain that it would not tolerate the ponderous movement I have seen in City rate regulatory history. Once again it is the competition between an interest in exercising oversight and an interest in allowing exerice of free management that has created a dilemma for the Council . Sincerely, THOMAS J. EYANDT Assistant City Attorney TJW:paw enc. �7- � ��" PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING DHDC FRANCHISE Amend the Ordinance by adding a new Section 3 {e) to read ' as follows: Section 3 (e) ; and e) the City Council shall review all changes in the incentive rates and act on the proposed changes pursuant to Section 6(F) of the Franchise. � � " / �� . . ' a�� J.uly Z9, 1987 MEMURANDUM To: Me+nbers of the City Council • Frorn: Karen Swensor� SubJect: Uistrict Energy proposed francf�ise amer�r)merits District Enet�gy proposes amendmer�ts to its francfiise and to the Hot Water Delivery Agreement whicf� would establish an Incentive Rate Proyrarn fur new customers and wou 1 d esta�,1 i sl�� a S i ny 1 e Rate for i ts srr�d 1 1 customers. A. Incentive rate. Under• the proposed Incentive Rate progi�am, a new customer may receive a discount in an amount of up to 609'. of the demar-�d charge for the customer's first two to foui- years of service, depending on the length oF the customer's contract. Tf�e prugram offers 10- and 20-year contracts as an alt�rnative r.o tt,e existing 30-y�ar cantrar.ts, and changes the provisions of those contracts ta reyuire that tl�e customer use District Energy for all heating needs Fur 10 yPars. The level oF the �liscount is to be determined by the District Energy Board on a nut less thar� annual basis, beginriing with the Full 60�.. Discounted rates may be ofFered until 9/30/91 , which means that same customer-s may receivE tl►e discounted rates until 9/30/95. District Energy presents this proposal as a response to an energy supply and costs s i tuat i ar� ur�ant.i c i pat.ed wl ien the systern was p 1 anned. Or i g i na 1 1 y, District Eneryy projected stea�ly growth in customers and load due to rising costs of other energy sources. Instead, gas and oil prices have fallen, and r_ustomer yrowtt� lags bef�ind projeCtiuns. In addition, tt�e District Energy system was designed to accommadate growt.l-�, and now has significant excess capacity; the system is less efficient ar�d more costly for customers while tl-�at excess capacity exists. I . Policy issues. The incentive rate pro�osal embodies several significant policy changes, which the City Council rnay wisY� to consider in making a decision. They include: a. Oeleyatiun of authority. District Energy proposes that its Board sh�uld be permitted to cf-�ange the percentage of the discount used as an incentive. This gives tl�e Board authority to set some rates, and is a substant i a 1 de I eyat i on of tl��e C i ty Cc,ur►c i 1 's regu 1 atory author i ty. Shc�u 1 d the Cauncil retain ability to approve any changes in the discount level ? b. Multiple custamer classes. One of tfie features of District Energy's rate structure originally required by customers is its insistence tl7at all customers pay the s�rne rdte per unit. Uffering a discounte�l rate tu new customer5 c:c�uld be reyardz� as a mov� tow�rd creating multiple customer classes. In additic,n, a 10 year contract I�ias a discount for 2 years (207. oF tl�e r_ontract pe��iud) ; a 30 year contract Fur 4 years ( 13�) . 1 � ��,� Does the Council regard tl�e incentive rate as a mave toward multiple customer classes, and if so, d�es it wish t.o enci��rse mor-e than one class of customers? (The issue of rnultiple r.ustomer classes is also raiscussed under the single rate, below) . c. Franchise fees. Une financing resource for District Energy is its deferred francl�iise fees. 1�he deferral was approved based on assumed future growth, an� on incr-eased revenue praportional to that growth. If successful , this proF>osal will pr-uduce growtf�, but will produce less revenue fur the additional lua�J. If= the City Council wishes to approve� the i ncent i ve rate, �.iaes tl�e Cuur�c i 1 w i sl� t� cons i der- i mpos i ng franch i se fees on tl�e fu 1 1 nun�l i s��ountecJ v�1 ue of t.f�e ser v i ce far n�w customers, and does it wisti to have franchise fee deferrals �_alculat�d Uased on the rates wfiich would be in eFfect if no iii.scounts were yranted? d. lerm of cantracts. lhe propusal permits customers to enter intu ]0- an�l 2U-year contracts as well as 30-year� contracts for District Energy service, but those contracts i�ave ri�ore stringent termination requ i rements. D i str i ct Ener�yy i ncl i cat.es tl-,at 1 enciers are not oppused, i n terms c,f Pnsur i ng secur i ty uf t l�e constr dct i on hor�d�, and tl-�at custamers do not ubJect. Does tl�e Cuuncil believe that these new contracts are equitable for both o 1 d and riew custorner s? 2. Impact. a. impact calculations. Uistrict Energy estimates that the incentive rate will reduce demand cf�arc�e rates k,y about l3y. and overall i�ates by over F.i'�. by tf��e t i n�e the d i scoui-�ts exp i r e. These ca 1 cu 1 at i ons assume th�t, un 1 ess tl�e cii sc�unt i s aduptecl, D i str i ct Energy wi 1 1 add no new customers at all unt.il 1992, �lespite their estimates elsewhere tt�at they w i 1 1 expEr i ence "1 i rn i tera�T gr owtf� w i t l��out the d i scuunt. Tt-�e attached grdpl� shc,ws a cornpar i son oF poss i bl e dzmand charge rates. The shaded area indicates a likely ranye of rates witl� the discount. The no growtf► and 1 im i teil growtl� rdt�s st�ow poss i bl e and i i kel y rates wi thout the discaunt. Tlie 4 MW growtf� is includEd beca�use it approximates earlier estimates af District Energy growth over tl�is periud. The table sl�ows a likely range uf impact af thE disrount on total rates , over a ten year period. F�r- the "no gruwtf�" assumption, the impact approaches Uistrict Energy's estimate in tt,e i�tter years; for tf�e mare likely "limited growth" assumption, the impact attributable to the discount i s at�out ha 1 f that of tf�e "r�a grawtr�" assurnpt i an. No staff calculations have t�een done cumpai�ing costs of adding a customer to the benefii:s of adding that customer. . k�. 1 i�id 1 cat(��r�s uF wf-�etf-�er tt-�e i nrent i ve rate w i 1 1 have the desired effects. Distr ict Eriergy st.ates t.I�at t.f�e discount is developed so t1�at tl►e ��tI1 ttY �-an L�e �:��rn�-'rtltive, �r�cl tI-�at. t.f�e 1eve1 c,f fit��e cliscour�t w11 ) praciu�e tl�e maximum ��ossil,le revei��ue c�ansist.ent witl�� c�btair�fng a�ditional customer-s. TI�i5 (s dtfficult to verify with existing information. An attempt was made ta obtain information on three buildings in District Energy's service � L �,- �7�� territory in wf�icf� there has been City clevelopment participation, and which have selected eneryy sources otl��er than District Energy. - Far tt�e fi►-st builciing, tF�e issues were r�eiative economics and a preference of the lender for tradit.ional fuels; a g�s boiler was ins�alled. - For tt�e second building, the issues were technical reyuirements of the building's users (e.y. t��umidity and air flow) , rFlative economics, and service reliabilit.y; a dual fuel gas/ail system was installed. - For tt7e thii-d building, the issues were relative economics, a unique building conFiguration, and a desire for indivicival unit metering; the building is all-electric. It is clear that availability of tl��e incentive i-ate would have helped to resolve ti-�e economic issues for these k�uildings. It is not clear whett�er a 60% discc,unt (or a 30% discount, or a 80% discount) would have been required, given available irifarmation. Not clear also is whether resolution of the economic issues would fiave changed the cievelopers' decisions, in v i ew of tl��e otl�er factor-s i r�vo 1 veci. 3. Other inFormation In an attempt ta determine how District Energy's incentive rate proposal compares to other district I�eating utilities, 17 otf�er systems were contacted. Of the otf�er systems contacted: - 13 are actively trying t.o attract new customers - 3 ar-e not - l does not have to -- it reports getting almost IOOy. of new construction in i�ts area. OF tf�ose act i ve 1 y tr�y i ng to attr�act new customers, none have an i ncent i ve rate like tr�at proposed by District Energy. Seven have or may propose rate variations of other types designed to attract new customers or new load, including: - A summer rate for new sumrner customers or for additional load. - Off-peak (summer) rat.es for all customers, or favorable rates for customers with a good year-round load factor. - A special contract. for a very large customer with a rate unique to that customer. - Adjusting a portion �F the rate structur�e representing hookup and connection costs, and participation in financing a customer's connection. - A contract with a 5-year rate cap. - Interruptible rates. - Twelve systems are regulated; regulated systems wt-�ic:h have the above rates must t�ave regulatory approval . For example, the rate for new summer load is approved on a one-year basis, and must be resubmittecl to tt-�e regulat�ry agency annually. The special contract must follow tr�e regulator's criteria and guidelines. The usual criteria for a�proval oF promotional rates are wl��ether tl►e benefiits exceed cc�sts, sc� th�t all ratEpayers receive lt�wer rates, and how the regulatory agency ir�t.erprets its requirements far "nondiscriminatory" rates. 3 ' �-�/�� Systems which du not offer rates like those above (but which are trying to attract new customers) say that their rates are compztitive, or stress the Gi qlV?�l i?�i►_� �il�� !tri?t' +��Iv,�i it��e� uf d 1�t r(rt heet I i�g. � 8. S�'nqle rate. Distrtct Energy proposes to ufFer to small ( less than 100 KW demand) customers a one-part ratz. Tl�is rate combines the present demand charge and energy charge into one rate by estimating tl��z demand charge per kilowatt hour. Customers on the Single rate would not be subject to year-end assessments or refunds on the demand portion of the charge. This rate was developed in r�espunse to Mt. Airy customers' lack of understanding and accepfiance uf the two-part rate, particularly the demand charge. As with the Incentive Rate, there are some policy issues involved. a. Multiple customer classes. The feature of District Energy's present rate structure in wt�ich all customers pay the same rate per unit can be expected to be particularly attractive to small customers, since usually large but not small utility customers rec�ive rate breaks. The Single Rate creates multiple customer classes by placing small customers in a new class. This move could aiso cornplicate the regulatory process. Does the C�uncil wish to move toward multiple customer classes or maintain one ' class? b. Single rate eligibility. District Energy's proposal for a single rate applSes that rate to existing customers at Mt. Airy and to new small customers, whether commercial or residential . Since the purpose of the single rate is to accommodate Mt. Airy customers, does the Council wish to extend it to small commercfal customers? In the alternative, if the Council wishes to approve the single rate, should it consider making the rate available only to individually metered residential customers, rather than to commercial customers under a certain demand size as proposed? c. Incentive rate eligibility. District Energy does not plan to offer the Incentive Rate to new Single Rate customers. Does the Council wish to approve this, or does the Council want the Incentive Rate to be available to any new customer? (This is �n example of creating two customer classes) . d � � �� . Demand Charge Rate Comparison P�r [l/ D�mmd P�r 1[oatli 4 9.9 �.9 �.7 �.e �+ s.e � "a�%:«::::�i`>;i;>:::s<:f<:«:>::>:>:s.>:�:<:s:::::::�?z::::::;:s;»;:>�.. M �>..<.<.:::..�.. .;.>::;::;::>�:<:.>:: >;'«:s:>;><:�.;:;•:.w:,:.::.:<�:,•::.:...:: :;:..>:.;:::::;<:<:<:;ri:s>:zs :;>.c:::.>.:.::.::::;::.. .::�>:">::r::�..b>s;. .. .:,::o:.:: ;•>;:;:;:.;x: ,:r....;».:'••<�C#::;i":%;:�": ..3.v.. .� . ,:.>:::?•.... ;>::i:::>�:zs. ..s.... s::�: :•.�i'"' 9.4 .r�;: Y:T\��it�$::i:?�i�.'l�'r.:'�::i>�' :i::i:�.i�?:i ::Gij:: �.3 . �.8 �.1 9 196A-07 19e7-N lYN-sY 1�-YO 18o0-Yi 19oi-98 1Y98-Y3 1YY9-Q�L lYa4-Yd 1Y�d-YA Tiar D No discount, no growth + No �iscount, limited growth ( 1 .5 MW/yr) � � x 6U7. discount, 4 MW/yr growth, 30 year contracts � 60% discount, 4 MW/yr growth, t0 year contracts 4 No discount, 4 MW/yr growth INCENTIVE RATE iNPACT RANGE tON T7TAL RATES - DEMAND AND ENERGY) Year 198b-81 198]-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-9d 199d-95 1995-90 No growth 10 year contracts 0.0� 0.8� 1.6� 3.3� 5.2'� 6.8x 1.4� 8.21, 8.11 7.8x 30 year contracts 0.0� 0.8� 1.6� 2.3X 3.01, 4.8� 5.7� 6.3� 1.3� 1.8'� Limited gro►+th 10 year contracts O.OX 0.01 0.2x I.Z� 2.Sx 2.3x 3.21 4.11 4.11 3.81 30 year contracts 0.0� 0.01 O.Z1 0.21 O.ZX O.Z'� 1.3� 2.1� 3.Ix 3.81 � � � 7� � 0� � TERRY HOFFI��IAN July 22, 1987 Mr. A1 Olson City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul, MI�I 55102 Dear Mr. 41son, Enclosed is a copy of an amendment to a proposed ordinance, now before the Council, amending District Heating Development Company's franchise. This amendment was adopted in total today by the Council during the third reading of the ordinance. It is our understanding that the adoption of this amendment in final form today will then be followed by a one-week waiting period and the proposed ardinance will then be eligible for final adoption during the fourth reading on July 29, 1987. Sincerely, <� �-_,� ---------� ��_ v -�, �__ \\�� c-:�:. r-.a �,� Terry Hoffman �� y _.._ -n �. ..,., , ..� For District Heating Development Company � �q .�- � . �� o _ ,., �--, :�:� �; _._._ Enclosure � :_� TH/kn cc: Bill Mahlum Suite 610 • Conwed Tower 444 Cedaz Street � St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 297-6781 . . ��.��, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING DHDC FRANCHISE Amend the Ordinance by renumbering Section 2 , designating it Section 3 , and adding a new Section 2 to read as follows : Section 2 Adoption of this Ordinance constitutes approval by the City of Saint Paul of the amend�nent to Section 6.7 of the Hot Water Delivery Agreement . �129A ' . ;' __ ,� � a • , . �/,_ � + , . • • � . � - °��., � CITY OF SAINT PAUL o�` �;" '�?, , - - OFFICE OF 7HE CITY ATTORNEY ?� wuinm .; �° O11 �'0° �_ � EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY ;. "'��,�','��'`��` � 647 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 612-298-51�1 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR July 1, 1987 Mr. Albert B. Olson City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul , MN. 55102 Dear Mr. Olson: Pursuant to Section 3 . 02(3) of the St . Paul Administrative Code , this letter constitutes the necessary statement to permit the attached proposed ordinance to be introduced. The ordinance as drafted provides for an amendment to Section 6(a) of the DHDC Franchise Ordinance, C .F. No . 278880 . The amendment refers to an Incentive Rate Program, part of which must be achieved by an amendment to Section 6 . 7 of the Uniform Hot Water Delivery Agreement. All amendments to the said Section 6 .7 must be approved by the Council by ordinance as is required by the Franchise Ordinance . Therefore the proposed ordinance must also provide for explicit Council approval for the amendment to Section 6 . 7 of the Hot Water Delivery Agreement. No other provisions of the proposed ordinance were examined or studied, and this letter expresses no opinion on the legality or drafting of the said ordinance except as stated above . Very truly yours , �• PHILIP B. BYRN Assistant City Attorney Enc . cc : William M. Mahlum Thomas J. Weyandt � - �? �7� �J(>� \ F;�.�D r � � LAW OFFICE - � � � MAHLUM & ASSOCIATE$ ° � �' ` �- � �• � � A PROFESSIONAL A880CIATION SUITE 2200. NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER ` " 445 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 58f01 WILLIAM M. MAHLUM KEN R. ERICKSON TELEPHONE JOHN C. SPRANGERS June 24, 1987 a�2-292-�ee� City Clerk City of Saint Paul 386 City Hall Saint Paul , MN 55102 Re: District Heating Development Company, d/b/a District Energy St. Paul , Inc. Dear Sir: Enclosed herewith and file� hereby is the District Heating Development Company, d/b/a District Energy St . Paul , Inc. , "Incentive Rate Program" dated June 19, 1987 . T4�e attached Incentive Rate Program is a result of the District Energy Customer approval of an Amendment to the Uniform Hot Water Delivery Agreement that has been duly adopted in accordance with the Amendment provisions of said Agreement . The Incentive Rate Program shall be effective June 19, 1987 . The portions of the Program requiring approval of the City Council will be approved by Ordinance . Very truly yours , MAHLUM � ASSOCIATES � , �� /� �� ___- BY: WILLIAM M. HLUM WMM: jb/9013A Enc. . . (��---�7 ,�r► � . . INCENTIVE RATE PROGRAM DATED JUNE 19, 1987 District Heating Development Company, d/b/a District Energy St. Paul , Inc. , may, at the discretion of its Board of Direc- tors , implement an Incentive Rate Program t�at would provide for entering into Hot Water Delivery Agreements with new Customers that may vary in material respects from the Uniform Hot Water Delivery Agreement . Said variance may include the term of the Agreement and a Discount Demand calculated as a percentage of Demand Charge, as calculated in accordance with Article VI of the Uniform Agreement . The Board of Directors shall assess the competitive environment from time to time and not less than annually establish the terms of the Incentive Program. The Incentive Program shall not be discounted more than 60 per cent for Demand Ct�arges in any one year; the Discounted Demand Charge shall not be granted for more than two years for a new customer executing a 10 year Agreement, three years for a new customer executing a 20 year Agreement and four years for a new customer executing a 30 year Agreement . Said new Customers shall , during the term of the executed Agreement , agree to exclusive use of District Energy hot water for all heating requirements for the initial ten years of service . The Board of Directors of District Energy has determined that the initial Discount shall be 60 per cent of the Demand Rate in effect pursuant to the terms and conditions of the District Energy Franchise. All Customers executing a Hot Water Delivery Agreement during the term of a Discounted Demand established by the Board of Directors shall receive the same Discounted Demand. Said Discount shall remain available to new customers until amended by further action of the Board of Directors , to be effective 90 days after filing iVotice of said Amendment with the City Clerk of the City of Saint Paul . District Energy may continue to offer incentive provisions set forth herein througt� September 30 , 1991 . Tnerefore , no discount on Demand shall be available under this Program on or after September 30 , 19�95 . The Uniform Hot Water Delivery Agreement , as used herein, s�all mean the uniform provisions of executed Hot Water Delivery Agreements , including programs and practices tnereunder, existing prior to adoption of the First Uniform Amendment to the Hot Water Delivery Agreement . 9015A