Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 04/08/2021 ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING April 8, 2021 – 5:30 pm Remote – Zoom Meeting ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Jeremy Giovando, Bill Becker, Alan Braslau, Marge Moore, Steve Tenbrink, John Fassler, Sue McFaddin, Dan Gould Board Members Absent: OTHERS PRESENT Staff Members Present: Adam Bromley, Christie Fredrickson, Tim McCollough, Cyril Vidergar, John Phelan, Leland Keller, Brad Smith, Mark Cassalia, Samantha Littleton, Ryan Mounce, Paul Sizemore Platte River Power Authority: Trista Fugate Members of the Public: Bill Althouse MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Becker called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm PUBLIC COMMENT None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES In preparation for the meeting, board members submitted amendments via email for the March 11, 2021 minutes. The minutes were approved as amended. ANNOUNCEMENTS & AGENDA CHANGES The Energy Board will continue to meet remotely, pursuant to Ordinance No. 79, 2020. STAFF REPORTS (attachments available upon request) Light & Power Operational Update Tim McCollough, Deputy Director, Utilities Light & Power Mr. McCollough explained the City’s internal Strategy Map, which is a tool to measure key performance indicators and budget offers. Each quarter, staff utilizes a red, yellow, and green dashboard to report progress internally. He has included Light & Power’s (L&P) Strategy Map for the Board to review the Utility’s year-to-date progress on their projects and offers. L&P’s Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Equipment is due for a technology upgrade as it reaches its end-of-life cycle within the next few years. Staff is currently exploring the option of utilizing Connexion’s fiber network to backhaul the data. L&P has a long-range plan to fully automate the Utility’s 125 pad-mounted switch gears, eliminating the ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING need to dispatch a lineworker to manually turn a switch. Bringing automation to the distribution network (with full implementation) will reduce outage times since the control center will be able to switch power around if there is a section of faulted cable. Staff plans to automate 2-3 switches per year. Staff has the green light to begin construction on the shared Training Field with Poudre Fire Authority, anticipating groundwork and poles in April. The field will allow the crews to remain skilled in climbing and overhead work. Though only a small fraction of L&P’s system is overhead, they do provide mutual aid to other front range communities when they are in need, so it is critical they stay skilled in overhead work and safety. Mr. McCollough anticipates the Utility will be very busy with the onslaught of new construction. Subdivisions like Rennat, North Field, and Water’s Edge will all begin installing electric infrastructure in the next three months. The Utility has doubled their LED streetlight conversion efforts by implementing an attrition-based replacement schedule. The Supervisory Control Operations center remodel at the Utility Service Center is on schedule and on budget to be completed this August. Staff are excited to move back into their space and looking forward to welcoming Connexion staff to their brand-new Network Operations Center. Board member Gould asked if there is a legend for the icon colorization. Mr. McCollough said green indicates on time, star indicates it is complete, the grey bar indicates no data (or no reporting) yet, the grey light indicates not yet started. If there were any concerns about any of the items, they would be marked with yellow or red stoplights. Board member McFaddin asked if the overspend on the Platte River purchased power was due to the price of natural gas. Mr. McCollough said there was no change in wholesale prices, and though the Utility is over budget on expense, they are also over budget on revenues. Most of the rates are designed to directly correlate to Platte River’s wholesale rates. It is more of an internal direction to say load projections were off and there is a need to make a budget appropriate to cover those expenses. In this case, the demand charges in February were higher than what was forecasted, but the pricing is not based on any volatility. Energy Services Operational Update John Phelan, Energy Services Senior Manager Energy Services programs and services are on track, continuing to function well through remote and virtual work structures. City Council adopted Our Climate Future in March, which incorporates new Energy Policy targets. The Building Energy and Water Scoring program is entering the first compliance period for buildings over 20,000 square feet. Building owners have until the end of April to enter their data or a fine will be assessed. Staff recently worked with a key account to set up and approve a large new Efficiency Works program with key accounts, converting every light in their facility to LED. EPIC Homes marketing and outreach has finally been resumed, and staff is booked with over 70 assessments scheduled through May. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING The Peak Partners program is on track as operations continue for managing customer hot water heaters for time-of-day savings, and for all assets related to managing system peak demands. Staff has also begun installing grid-integrated water heaters for a demonstration pilot in partnership with affordable house partners and single-family homeowners. So far, 49 units have been installed. Board member McFaddin wondered how many batteries have been installed this year. Mr. McCollough said six battery installations have been commissioned in so far 2021, seven if the Platte River Rawhide Prairie battery is considered. Energy Policy 2020 Results John Phelan, Energy Services Senior Manager Mr. Phelan highlighted a few trends impacted by COVID-19 in 2020. Community electricity use was down about 4% between March 26 and December 31 last year, peak demand was also down about 1% in the same time frame; however, residential electricity use was higher by roughly 3%. Mr. Phelan noted that for the first time, the City is below 60% fossil-based generation! Board member McFaddin asked how it is possible to use less but purchase more fossil-based generation. Mr. Phelan clarified that while the usage was lower in 2020, the resource mix changed based on the market purchases that were made. The City acquired the Riverside Community Solar Project from CEC (Clean Energy Collective) on August 31, 2020. All owners successfully transitioned to the Fort Collins program by December 31 with no break in credits. The residential battery installation incentive program, launched in June of 2020, provides up to $1,500 in incentives at $100/kWh of usable capacity. Staff hopes to develop experience and observe “prosumer” energy utilization patterns. The community continues to exceed the goal related to percent of community savings through efficiency, local renewable electricity, and conservation. Without these programs in place, community electricity use would be about 16% higher than where it is today. Our Climate Future Council Debrief John Phelan, Energy Services Senior Manager Our Climate Future was adopted by City Council in March. Mr. Phelan said there were a few small changes made as a result of discussions and comments from the read-before packet. Next, staff will translate the plan to Spanish, and it will be published online in both English and Spanish at the same time on the Our City website. Energy Code ICC Status Brad Smith, Energy Code Specialist There was a nationwide effort from several governmental members to participate in voting for the 2021 Energy Code, to hopefully improve a code that has been stagnant in efficiency gains for the last two cycles. Mr. Smith said early indicators show a minimum of 10% gain in both residential and commercial efficiency in code. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING In that year and a half period, there were early successes and appeals. The appeals were largely unsuccessful, but most recently opposition groups appealed the ICC (International Code Council) to change the energy code (IECC) from a code to a standard, thus changing how future energy code is developed and approved. Standards can no longer be voted on by governmental members. Ultimately, the ICC upheld this appeal, and the IECC will now be a standard for the year of 2024. The IECC will be developed and approved by a consensus committee; the committee will be determined by the ICC and will be composed of 30% governmental members. The new standard states that efficiency must increase each cycle with no rollbacks. It also requires a Zero Energy compliance path, and an option to achieve Zero Energy buildings by 2030. This change has a minimal impact to the City of Fort Collins because we have already determined a path to zero carbon as a community through Our Climate Future and will continue to adopt and amend code to align with climate goals. Board member McFaddin said two years ago, buildings in Timnath were only being built to the 2006 IECC code, while in Fort Collins developers were building to the 2018 IECC. It is sad when there is no common standard or code for the whole region or state, even if Fort Collins will be alright through their own goals and plans. 2020 UTILTIES CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY Mark Cassalia, Manager, Customer Support Samantha Littleton, Strategic Account Specialist (attachments available upon request) Mr. Cassalia said customer satisfaction is important to the utility. It’s important for the safety of Utility employees, but also to maintain a good reputation within the community. The more the Utility integrates with its customers, the better response and program participation will be. The Utility partnered with the National Research Council (NRC) from 2011 through 2018 to survey customers, but when the City began work with the Malcom Baldridge Performance Excellence Program they began to think about the value of benchmarking. The City ended their contract with NRC after they could not provide nationwide benchmarking tools. The City selected JD Power after an RFP was sent out in 2019, and in 2020, the Utility mobilized its first JD Power Survey. Staff is excited to evolve from historic surveys to a more holistic assessment of customers' perceptions of the services the Utility provides. Voice of the Customer (VOC) is an aggregation of feedback tools comprised of Point of Service (a call with a customer service representative), Programmatic (participation in efficiency works home assessments), and benchmarkable (JD Power Survey). In even years, JD Power surveys will be sent in waves (Q1 and Q4) for Utilities Residential or Commercial Electric and Utilities Residential Water & Wastewater. In odd, years, a few high-level questions about Electric, Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater will be included in the Community Survey (distributed by the City’s Communication & Public Involvement Office. Staff is very happy with the customers reached through the survey, totaling 2728 responses (customers who provided their emails through their utility customer account. This is an improvement over 2018’s response rate, which was only 365 responses. The data from the surveys can be tied to the utility account number, which enables staff to break down the data for a deep dive. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Ms. Littleton noted that when comparing the deep dive data to the syndicated data, it’s important to understand the differences in order to maximize the value of the data. Although the comparison is not “apples to apples”, it offers a “directional” comparison to the Syndicated benchmarking. Staff is working to identify a way to make the survey more accessible, since it was only distributed via email in 2020. In the future staff hopes to have a generic link available for those without regular access to a computer or internet, as well as translation services or a translated survey. There were in-person events planned but they were ultimately cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The industry average for overall satisfaction with the residential electric utility was a score of 751. Fort Collins Utilities scored a 742, and the West Midsize market (Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico) scored 748. Fort Collins Utilities also performed very well in both Power Quality & Reliability and Billing & Payment, scoring above average compared to both the National and West Midsize Scores. Mr. Cassalia and Ms. Littleton both reminded the Board that the perception of the Utility and what the Utility is actually doing may have a disconnect, and the survey response has generated some ideas on how to remedy that disconnect. Pricing seems to be an ongoing concern for Utilities customers, even though Fort Collins Utilities rates average some of the lowest electric bills compared to similar sized utilities in the West Midsize market. Ms. Littleton said there is room to improve communication around the Utility’s pricing structure and how it compares to other Utilities locally and nationwide. Board member McFaddin said that adding a numeric price for on-peak and off-peak rates (such as $0.06/kWh off-peak vs $0.18/kWh on-peak) would send a clearer pricing signal to customers. Staff agreed and noted that adding a national scale comparison could add customer buy-in to the Time-of-Day rate structure. The contract with JD Power will expire at the end of 2025, and then the City will release a new RFP for the next contract term. As the surveys continue, the Utility is aiming to be in the third quartile or better (75%) of utilities nationally for Overall Satisfaction. Staff will be focused on identifying areas needing improvement, such as communications & price, gaps in access to feedback, as well as increased collaboration with teams across Utilities. Board member Braslau said a Utilities ambassador program might be useful, like the FC Bikes Bicycle Ambassador Program. Board member Gould wondered if the City could compare themselves only to other utilities with other Time of Day rate plans. Mr. Cassalia agreed, that would help but added that a holistic pricing comparison would still be useful to show how much our customers are paying bill-to-bill compared to other utilities in similar communities. METRO DISTRICTS REVISION UPDATE Ryan Mounce, Planner, City Brad Smith, Energy Code Specialist Paul Sizemore, Interim Deputy Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services (attachments available upon request) Mr. Sizemore said the City has an existing policy (adopted in 2018) for evaluating Residential Metro Districts, which gives broad guidance on the types of public benefits a development must provide to be considered, but the guidance is very loose. Last year, Council asked Staff to take a new approach and propose an update to the policy that would guarantee the benefits of the metro districts are extraordinary. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Staff brought a proposed update to the Energy Board in February, which the Board was supportive of, but Staff has since identified some fundamental issues with the scoring system and the way it was written. Tonight, Staff will be reviewing the changes to the scoring system with the Energy Board, and ultimately will be seeking a recommendation and feedback from the Board. Some of the biggest challenges staff heard about the new evaluation system included the impact of additional developer cost versus consumer cost savings, raising the standards too high could discourage smaller regional developers, and that it is challenging to simultaneously achieve both housing, and energy and water conservation objectives. Board member Braslau said, as staff has noted, the premise of Metro Districts is extraordinary; it is contradictory to say setting the standards too high is a bad thing. It is his opinion if the developers cannot or do not want to participate when the bar is set high, then they should not participate. Metro districts should remain extraordinary, and the City should not lower the bar to be average. Mr. Mounce said the City does not have a lot of experience with residential metro districts, and subsequently staff is relying heavily on evidence and data from other communities along the front range. Under the new evaluation system, the outcome areas are weighted: Energy Conservation (10 points), Housing (5 points), Water Conservation (10 points: 7 outdoor, 3 indoor), Neighborhood Livability (5 points). Major public infrastructure, such as transit improvements and enhancements, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, points will not be transferrable across categories, so even if a developer has excess points in Neighborhood Livability, they will not accumulate above and beyond that category’s minimum to meet the evaluation’s required 30 points. Mr. Mounce noted the community has very ambitious housing and energy related goals and these goals have strong alignment with recently adopted policies and plans (ex. Our Climate Future and Housing Strategic Plan). This is also a way to focus on reducing the cost burden of energy and water to residents within a metro district. Staff is trying to find the intersectionality in balancing the objectives of acceptance (homebuyers often look for the largest house they can afford, and may not demand features that reduce impact), community benefit (conservation measures reduce homeowner cost burden), practicality (adds complexity to development process), costs (may become prohibitive if requirements are excessive). There were adjustments made to the Energy Conservation evaluation (as well as others), after meeting with different stakeholders who expressed it would be very difficult, if not unachievable to attain the points needed. Mr. Mounce said he understands that lowering the bar may be perceived as contradictory, but noted it is of equal importance to strike a balance between cost, practicality, acceptance, and community benefit. City staff met with representatives from Mandalay homes, a medium-sized home builder who operates primarily in the Flagstaff and Prescott, AZ areas. Mandalay has won several awards and constructed over 1,000 ZERH homes (Zero Energy Ready Homes), and they offered insight into the previous system. Board members expressed their frustration and disappointment with the City’s outreach to another developer, particularly one who operates out of state, when there are already many developers on the panel. Mr. Mounce clarified that the changes made to the point system were not a direct result of the discussions had with Mandalay Home, but they were used as additional data points. Vice Chairperson Moore commented that without metro districts, it becomes very cost prohibitive for developers to install the necessary infrastructure for residential developments. New single family lots are in high demand to meet the City’s housing market. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Mr. Mounce said the revision to the Energy Conservation evaluation focuses on providing more choices to satisfy energy conservation targets, with an emphasis on practical solutions. He also acknowledged that the points would increase over the next few years as code requirements are expanded. The new point targets are as follows (note - builders must select at least one of the items in green): • 7 Points: Net Zero Energy • 4 Points: DOE (Department of Energy) Zero Energy Ready Home Performance Path Certified • 4 Points: HERS (Home Energy Rating System) index of 47 or less without solar • 3 Points: Prescriptive Compliance Path to Enhanced Energy Efficiency with wall R-Value of 28 or ERI (Energy Rating Index) of 40 • 3 Points: Build 5% of homes to Passive House Standard • 3 Points: District Heating and Cooling for Neighborhood • 2 Points: Geothermal Heat Pump or Cold Climate Air Source Heat Pump • 1-3 Points: Solar powered (50/75/100%) • 1-3 Points: Smart storage and grid interactivity • 1-3 Points: Air source heat pump electric water heater • 1 Point: In-home EV charging • 1 Point: Build air-tight homes at less than or equal to 1.5 ACH50 (air changes per hour at 50 pascals pressure differential) with balanced whole dwelling ventilation • 1 Point: Qualifying thermostat connected to utility demand response program Chairperson Becker wondered if the targets have any natural overlap, making it easier to hit 10 points, or if they stand independently. Staff said that some are designed to work together but added that they largely still stand independently in order to maximize efficiency. Board member Fassler said he advocates for balanced ventilation with heat recovery everywhere. Board member McFaddin said these targets should be in line with the City’s OCF plan and should incentivize builders to go in that direction. Cutting the energy conservation target from 15 points to 10 is not representative of Fort Collins’ values or Climate goals. Metro districts are supposed to be extraordinary; Fort Collins is a Choice City and builders want to come here and build, there is no need to lower the bar. Mr. Phelan said the point structure of the two evaluations are completely different and can’t be compared, he encouraged the Board to look at this proposal independently of the previous version presented to the Board in February. The point totals changed, the individual scoring and weighting changed, and the list of items changed. He also reminded the Board that this will be evaluated on a two-year cycle to keep above and beyond building code. Mr. Smith added that under the previous proposal, staff and builders could not create a path to reach 15 points. Now, the option menu changed dramatically and better aligns with the direction as City to meet the OCF targets as well as has an attainable (but challenging!) path to reach the point threshold. He outlined a potential path to 10 points: 1. 4 Points: DOE (Department of Energy) Zero Energy Ready Home Performance Path Certified 2. 1 Point: Build air-tight homes at less than or equal to 1.5 ACH50 (air changes per hour at 50 pascals pressure differential) with balanced whole dwelling ventilation a. (keep in mind, ZERH only requires 2.0 ACH50, so this will be a stretch to lower by .5 3. 2 Points: Geothermal Heat Pump or Cold Climate Air Source Heat Pump ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 4. 1-3 Points: Air source heat pump electric water heater a. Connect to the City’s Peak Partners Program, and receive 3 points Mr. Smith said the path outlined above is a significant difference from what is being built in town right now. This will also get another review and update in two years with the new code cycle. Staff is hoping this stretch will help raise the bar within the community as well as attract new builders to the community who want to build to this standard and higher. Mr. Phelan added it’s important to consider that the builders need to want to do a metro district enough to want to participate in these plans, because they don’t have to apply for one at all, which is not an improvement either. This plan is a powerful step forward, albeit not the whole way, in that direction. Board member McFaddin explained that the builders get to borrow infrastructure money at 4% instead of 18%, and they get to finance it over 20 years instead of over six years. This is a huge economic benefit to the developer, and the builder should give something back to the community and the homeowners. Lowering the bar is not representative of being a Choice City, and perhaps the City needs to consider if they even want to offer a residential metro district program. Mr. Sizemore said if the City’s system is prohibitive to the developers in the community being able to do a metro district, or if the City did away with metro districts altogether, then the City would also be losing out on the potential of the benefits. Mr. Smith said the proposal is in alignment with OCF and City efficiency programs and understanding there will be another evaluation in two years, as well as another building code which will ratchet the standard up. Mr. Phelan said this structure is consistent and similar with the outcomes with Northfield under the prior policy. Board member Braslau asked if there are paths under the new evaluation that would allow developers to bypass third-party commissioning for insulation. He is concerned there are efficiency paths to hit the point threshold but may lack basics such as insulation. Mr. Phelan noted that would not pass the City’s building code, and that developers are required to pick at least one of the following options to begin: Zero Energy Ready Home Performance Path Certified, HERS index of 47 or less without solar, Prescriptive Compliance Path to Enhanced Energy Efficiency w/ wall R-Value of 28 or ERI of 40, or Net Zero Energy. Mr. Smith also said the evaluation defines a path as Performance, which is a path to compliance, and requires third-party commissioning. Board member Giovando wondered if staff has yet quantified how metro districts (under either evaluation) affect the outcome and results toward the City’s climate goals. Mr. Phelan said this would be the first step (in a series) towards carbon neutral buildings by 2030. Board member Fassler said unless there are code officials on board, none of this will matter. The City needs to enforce what it states as required, so third-party verification needs to be mandated. Our climate is changing quickly, and we are not getting there fast enough. Board member Gould said he is confused about the ask to include third-party verification, because he assumed these kinds of inspections are already part of the process. Mr. Smith said the City is inspecting homes and they are using third-party verifiers under the Performance Path—that would be a typical HERS rater. By using the term Performance Path, it requires the builder to follow the SPA (Simulated Performance Alternative) path to compliance, which is a HERS rating, which requires a third-party verification. If a builder is pursuing a Zero Energy or Zero Energy Ready home, or a HERS index of 47, they are going to employ a third-party verifier. The only option that would not require a third-party verifier is the Prescriptive Compliance path, but under that path the envelope—the standards for windows, ventilation, and airtightness are higher than under the Performance Path. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Board member Gould wondered what the pathway is if no metro district is proposed for the property in question. Mr. Mounce said the City’s existing codes and standards will apply (energy code, land use code, etc.). Board member McFaddin said there is, and will continue to be, plenty of development in the City with or without metro districts, but they offer an extraordinary financial benefit to the developer in exchange for extraordinary community and homeowner benefits. Board member Giovando wondered if even under the circumstances of meeting the point threshold, if Council or staff can request an improvement or deny an application if they believe the developer is not meeting the intent of the program. Mr. Mounce said Council does not have to approve an application, even if the service plan meets the point threshold in the evaluation, there is room for discretion and critique of the service plan. Board member McFaddin moved the Energy Board support an amendment to the City of Fort Collins Metropolitan (Metro) District policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation system, with the addition of required balanced ventilation systems and third-party verification standards. Board member Tenbrink seconded the motion. Board member Fassler proposed a friendly amendment to the motion language; specifying that the third- party verifier should be certified by HERS. Mr. Smith reiterated that Performance Path is the SPA path to compliance. By designating “Performance Path verification”, the City of Fort Collins requires verification through a third-party HERS rater registered under the Residential Energy Services Network with a HERS certificate. Board member McFaddin moved the Energy Board support an amendment to the City of Fort Collins Metropolitan (Metro) District policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation system, with the addition of required balanced ventilation systems and Performance Path verification. Board member Tenbrink seconded the motion. Discussion: No additional discussion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously 8-0 BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Board member Tenbrink wondered when the Board will be able to meet in person again. Staff advised there has not been any updated communication from the Clerk’s office yet. Board member Becker wondered if there is an update on the reimagining Boards and Commissions Project. Ms. Fredrickson advised there will be an update provided at the Super Issues meeting on April 19. FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW The Board will hold a work session on April 22 to broadly discuss electrification. The May meeting will have presentations about the Utilities Affordability Program, 2021 Energy Code, ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING and preliminary budget planning for 2022. ADJOURNMENT The Energy Board adjourned at 8:56 pm.