HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/2023 - Energy Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting
ENERGY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
September 14, 2023 – 5:30 pm
222 Laporte Ave – Colorado Room
Zoom – See Link Below
1. [5:30] CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. [5:30] PUBLIC COMMENT
3. [5:35] APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10, 2023 MINUTES
4. [5:45] STAFF REPORTS (Discussion, 15 Min.)
• Community Wide Solar Visualization
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager & Energy Policy Advisor
Rhonda Gatzke, Senior Energy Services Engineer
5. [6:00] BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS UPDATE (Discussion, 45 Min.)
Brian Tholl, Energy Services Supervisor
Katherine Bailey, Project Manager
6. [6:45] RENEWABLE ENERGY METRIC DEFINITIONS (Decision, 45 Min.)
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager & Energy Policy Advisor
7. [7:15] BOARD MEMBER REPORTS (5 min.)
8. [7:20] FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW (5 min.)
9. [7:25] ADJOURNMENT
Participation for this Energy Board Meeting will be in person in the Colorado Room at
222 Laporte Ave.
You may also join online via Zoom, using this link: https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/96707441862
Online Public Participation:
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:15 pm, September 14, 2023. Participants
should try to sign in prior to the 5:30 pm meeting start time, if possible. For public comments,
the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to
speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an
opportunity to address the Board or Commission.
To participate:
• Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a
microphone will greatly improve your audio).
• You need to have access to the internet.
• Keep yourself on muted status.
ENERGY BOARD
August 10, 2023 – 5:30 pm
222 Laporte Ave – Colorado Room
ROLL CALL
Board Members Present: Bill Althouse, Thomas Loran, Marge Moore, Bill Becker, Alan Braslau, Jeremy
Giovando, Vanessa Paul, Brian Smith (remote)
Board Members Absent: Steve Tenbrink
OTHERS PRESENT
Staff Members Present: Christie Fredrickson, John Phelan, Lance Smith, Phil Ladd, Kendall Minor, Cyril
Vidergar, Javier Camacho (PRPA), Masood Ahmad (PRPA), Paul Davis (PRPA), Leigh Gibson (PRPA),
Nick Combs, Chad Crager, Rhonda Gatzke, Davina Lau
Members of the Public: Sue McFaddin, Chelsea Friel, Ivan Chavarria, Jenny Garside
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Vice Chairperson Paul called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
ANNOUNCEMENTS & AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
In preparation for the meeting, board members submitted amendments via email for the July 13, 2023,
minutes. The minutes were approved as amended.
PLATTE RIVER INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN
Javier Camacho, Platte River Power Authority
Masood Ahmad, Platte River Power Authority
Paul Davis, Platte River Power Authority
Mr. Phelan advised the Board to keep in mind that the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is a significant
milestone in the planning process, but the process as a whole has become much more continuous (as
opposed to periodic). Platte River’s IRP relates to a number of Fort Collins’ goals; the community carbon
goal of 50% by 2026, 80% by 2030, and carbon neutral by 2050. Historically the electricity portion of the
community carbon inventory has been about 50%, but at the same time it is the area where we have
made the most progress and the largest factor is the change in our electricity mix that has already
happened to date.
Platte River Power Authority is a not-for-profit, community-owned public power utility that generates and
delivers safe, reliable, environmentally responsible, and financially sustainable energy and services to
Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland, Colorado, for delivery to their utility customers. Mr.
Camacho said the relationship between the wholesale provider and the end-consumer is changing with
ENERGY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
the addition of renewable energy. This determines how much power to generate, control, and manage
and also where Platte River’s vulnerabilities are.
Platte River is committed to decarbonizing their resource portfolio without compromising their three
foundation pillars: reliability, environmental responsibility, and financial sustainability.
Platte River’s Resource Diversification Policy was adopted in 2018 by Platte River’s Board of Directors.
The RDP provides guidance for resource planning, portfolio diversification and carbon reduction. The goal
is to support owner community clean energy goals, proactively working toward a 100% noncarbon
resource mix by 2030 while maintaining the foundational pillars of providing reliable, environmentally
responsible, and financially sustainable energy and services.
Some pieces of the RDP that Platte River is working on or aware of are: transmission and distribution
infrastructure investment must be increased, transmission and distribution delivery systems must be more
fully integrated, improved distributed generation resource performance, technology and capabilities of grid
management systems must advance and improve, advanced capabilities and use of active end user
management systems, generation, and transmission and distribution rate structures must facilitate
systems integration. Mr. Camacho pointed out that the technology for long-duration battery storage has
not evolved to the level necessary in order to fully rely on that resource.
The 2024 IRP builds on the 2020 IRP and resource planning and modeling that occurred in 2021 and
2022. Since 2018 Platte River: added 225 MW of wind from Roundhouse, announced the decommission
of coal resource, developed a distributed energy resources strategy, filed the 2020 IRP, added 22 MW
solar with 2 MWh battery at Rawhide Prairie, added 150 MW solar power through the Black Hollow
purchase agreement, additional solar and energy storage RFPs, filed Clean Energy Plan with the state of
Colorado, which requires all electric utilities to achieve 80% carbon reduction by 2030, and entered into
the Southwest Power Pool Western Energy Imbalance Service market.
Mr. Camacho displayed a graphic showing the growth in non-carbon resources today (33.3%) compared
to 2018’s portfolio (24.8%). By 2030, Platte River expects their portfolio to be composed of 88.4% non-
carbon resources.
Platte River is looking to conclude the IRP by Spring of 2024 and publish it that same summer.
Community Engagement will take place throughout the entire process.
Mr. Ahmad refreshed the Board on what an IRP is. He explained an IRP is a planning process which
integrates customer demand and distributed energy resources (DERs) with utility resources to provide
reliable, economical, and environmentally desirable electricity to customers. An IRP is typically developed
for the next 10-20 years and updated every few years in between. It assists with preparing for industry
changes including technological progress, consumer preferences, and regulatory mandates. It is also
required by Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) every five years. WAPA requires a short-term
action plan and an annual follow up on plan execution; the last IRP was submitted in 2020.
After Platte River factors in the input assumptions (load forecast, DER potential, power price forecast,
resource cost forecast, extreme weather models, renewable profiles) they use the Plexos Model, an
energy market simulation platform, to help develop the portfolio and do reliability testing. Platte River is a
small utility so there is a need to rely on consultants and experts due to the complex nature of modeling
an uncertain future. Technology will play a significant role in helping Platte River achieve its goals.
Consultants will evaluate the cost curves and maturity of the technology to identify when it will be reliable
without taking too much risk.
ENERGY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Ahmad said the challenge with renewable resources is that we need electricity every second of every
day, but a renewable resource may not always be available. There are extreme times where there is no
sun and no wind, also known as “Dark Calm.” In order to provide renewable energy for all hours of the
day, we need long duration energy storage. The technology is in development right now, but it is not
readily available right now. Board member Braslau noted that the lack of long-term storage is a cost
issue, not a technology issue. Mr. Ahmad agreed, the technology exists but it is not reliable enough or
necessarily available before 2030.
Board member Althouse asked about methane storage at the landfill, adding a digester and converting
organics. Mr. Davis said Platte River looked at that option at one point, and at the time it was enough gas
to support about 3 MW of storage. Mr. Phelan said Larimer County was looking at options for digesters,
but he is unsure where that stands currently. Mr. Masood added that Platte River does not store gas at
the plant site. Board Braslau none of this will happen unless Platte River has the political will see it
through; they should be spearheading that. Mr. Masood said Platte River is looking at the least cost
options, the economics have to make sense. Board member Althouse said United Power is the most
progressive utility in North America and we should be looking to them as an example on how to adopt
innovative technology to deliver reliable and beneficial power.
Board member Loran asked how confident Platte River is that they will meet the carbon goal. Mr.
Camacho said while they can’t quantify their confidence as a specific number, Platte River is very
confident they will exceed the 80% state mandate. Mr. Loran feels like this is a marketing message, he is
concerned because there is a 12% gap that needs to be addressed. Mr. Masood said planning and
projections are one thing, but he anticipates confidence will increase as the resources are procured.
Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) save energy and save money by using energy more efficiently.
Electrification reduces greenhouse gases by replacing fossil fuel use with increasingly decarbonized
electricity. Having flexible DERs can help form a Virtual Power Plant, or VPP. A VPP is a portfolio of
flexible DERs that can provide customer and electric system benefits by responding on a scheduled basis
or in near real time to manage the electric supply-demand balance. VPPs shift energy to align electric use
to renewable availability and to decarbonize the electric system in a cost-effective manner. It relies on
advanced information systems to enable communication, coordination and appropriate, secure data
sharing among customers who have participating DERs, DER original equipment manufacturers,
vendors, or aggregators, and the electric systems operated by the owner communities’ distribution
utilities, Platte River, and the regional electricity market.
VPPs need communication, coordination, and appropriate, secure data sharing. This includes visibility,
predictability, control or dispatch (ability to achieve flexible operation through direct utility control and
provide price signals to allow customer control), optimization, and program management.
The DER integration timeline has some contingencies on Platte River’s DER Roadmap and the pace of
system integration. Platte River is currently working on a DER forecast and potential study, conducting
VPP/DERMS planning: gap assessment and roadmap, a DERMS request for proposal (Q3/4 2023).
Beginning in 2024 (as well as up and through 2028) there will be a VPP/DER system
implementation/integration with Fort Collins DERMS, a flexible DER pilot program planning (2023 - 2024),
flexible DER pilot programs, and finally a flexible DER programs scale.
Board member Loran asked where Platte River fits into the distribution networks. Mr. Davis said this is
quite a challenge and they are working with the communities to put it all together. Mr. Phelan added all
four communities are very different sizes and at very different states in the process. Platte River partners
ENERGY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
with many of the communities to provide services, such as Efficiency Works. At times the lines will be
blurred between communities and acting as if we are more integrated than we have been in the past.
Board member Moore wondered if the communities all being in different places will ultimately hold back
the most progressive changes. Mr. Davis said he doesn’t see that as an issue currently, but it could be
too early to say because we are at the point of defining our target technologies. Platte River is trying to
put together a more comprehensive system that gets us all to 2030, there is time.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DEBT ISSUANCE
Lance Smith, Director, Financial Planning & Assets, Utilities
Mr. Smith explained the $66.1 million debt issuance is combined of) a $40 million appropriation request
for Light & Power capital improvements and $25.5 million for the Connexion buildout. This was presented
to the Council Finance Committee on July 6th and will be brought before City Council (and the Electric
Telecommunications Enterprise Board) on August 15th. The issuance has a fixed interest rate with 21-
year repayment, Light & Power will make even debt payments until 2044 and Connexion will pay interest
only for 19 years (to maintain a levelized debt service payments) issuance and pay off the balance in
2044.
At the January 10, 2023, City Council Work Session meeting the need was identified for additional
funding to complete the network buildout and customer ramp-up. The outlook still remains the same:
Approximately $20 million of additional funded is needed, $16 million for capital buildout and $4 million for
near-term operations through 2024. December 2024 is expected to be the point of maximum need with
2025 projected as breakeven (revenues covering capital, operating expenses, and debts service costs).
Connexion has invested the $20 million appropriation from Light and Power reserves. In March 2023, City
Council authorized Connexion to use bond proceeds to reimburse expenditures related to construction.
In October 2022, as the budget was being finalized, inflation made it necessary to update the 10-year
forecasts before presenting them again to this Board (5%). There has been a near-term need for some
debt financing of L&P capital investments planned for previously. Proceeds from this issuance will be
appropriated through off-cycle appropriations and the 2025-26 Budgeting For Outcomes for Light &
Power.
Ahead of the 2025-26 Budgeting For Outcomes process, the long-term financial plan will be updated for
Light & Power. Part of this update involves revisiting the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan. Preliminary
updates indicate there will be near-term capital needs: $57 million for new development including $23
million for a new substation, $28 million for renewal or replacement of existing assets, $7 million for
Annexations that have already occurred, $7 million for Our Climate Future investments through Energy
Services, $20 million for transformers to serve new customers as well as new load growth from beneficial
electrification by existing customers.
Board member Loran asked how exposed Light & Power is if Connexion doesn’t make their revenue
targets. Mr. Smith said Connexion’s debt service is $10 million, if they were unable to pay any of that
there would need to be a slight rate adjustment (up to 7%) to compensate for that.
Board member Becker said he is struggling with how intertwined these two pieces are. Capital
improvement is business as usual and not changing how the utility is run, but he feels he and the Board
are being asked to approve things that go beyond what he has knowledge of. Board member Braslau said
it seems as though the ratepayer is subsidizing things that they shouldn’t be, these costs should be paid
for through development fees. Mr. Smith advised this is the way the City chose to finance it. Mr. Braslau
said the electric fund has no control over the governance mistakes that have been made and Light &
ENERGY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Power is paying the price.
BM Althouse agreed with the discussion, the pace of technology improvements in the energy sector is
rapid. Rates should be going down with the deployment of innovation. He does not feel comfortable
supporting these numbers without signaling the deployment of additional innovation. Mr. Smith clarified
that he is not asking for the Board to support a rate increase at this time.
Board member Giovando asked if the Connexion debt issuance was anticipated or if this newly needed
funding. Mr. Crager said voters originally approved $150 million, and initially Connexion utilized $130
million of that $150 million threshold. After some unexpected issues arose, they borrowed $20 million in
early 2022 from Light & Power reserves. Then, in summer 2022 the demand for Connexion surged
concurrently with a huge labor shortage; installation lead times were 8-10 weeks. Connexion has since
caught up and installations are now on a two-week waiting list. They also have many bulk installations,
such as apartment complexes with Connexion exclusively, coming down the pipeline. Mr. Crager said he
mentioned all this to instill confidence, it has been frustrating to get to this point, but their financial
modeling shows this should be the last time they will be asking for additional funding.
Vice Chairperson Paul asked when the taxpayers can expect a return on the investment. Mr. Crager said
he expects Connexion to be in the black by 2026. Ms. Paul asked if there will be a rate decrease in 2026.
Mr. Crager said no, bonds will not be paid back until 2042. Ms. Paul commented that the marketing
around the pricing structure feels like a betrayal to the consumer (after the rate increase earlier this
Spring). Mr. Crager clarified that it was never promised that there would never be a rate increase, there
are many factors that influence monthly cost for the end consumer. He said it is their goal to always be
transparent and thoughtful before increasing the price. Board member Braslau agreed with Ms. Paul and
said the community was promised that there wouldn’t be marketing games, it was touted as a benefit of
choosing Connexion over a competitor. Mr. Braslau also believes that the ratepayers are subsidizing this,
and by borrowing from the reserves it is in essence cheating the voters. The debt issuance was to build
out, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned and criticize this.
Board members asked for additional clarification on how much money Connexion has requested to date.
Mr. Smith said there was a debt issuance of $130 million, then Light & Power lent $20 million from
reserves, and now a $20 million issuance (which will meet the $150 million bonding capacity approved by
the voters). Board member Braslau said that is $20 million over what the voters approved. Mr. Smith said
yes, though the language was around debt issuance. Mr. Phelan said the loan from Light & Power
reserves is more or less considered independent of the bonding capacity.
Mr. Minor said the Board is making valid points, the current staff inherited Connexion as it is. At the end of
the day staff understands and is not trying to dispute anything that’s been discussed; however, this is the
current situation that we are in, and it is essential to make sure Connexion succeeds. Going forward he
hopes to see honesty and transparency.
Vice Chairperson Paul said tonight’s presentation does not address how things will change; the multiple
requests for funding do not instill confidence that there won’t be another request in another year or two.
Mr. Crager said the new financial model is much more conservative, but also some of this information is
competitive so the details can’t be shared publicly. Again, he said staff anticipates Connexion to be cash
flow positive by 2026.
While they do support the appropriation request for Light and Power, Board members spent time
discussing their hesitance to support an additional funding request for Connexion. The mistakes of the
governance should not be the ratepayer’s responsibility. They elected to draft a memo to send to Mayor
ENERGY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Arndt to express their concerns.
Board member Becker moved the Energy Board support the issuance of $40 million in revenue
bonds from the Electric and Telecommunications Enterprise Fund to support Light & Power
capital improvement needs, which supports existing and new customers, but the Board does not
feel they have enough information or have the purview to support the funding for the completion
of the Connexion build out.
Vice Chairperson Paul seconded the motion.
Discussion:
None.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously 7-1, with 1 absent.
OUR CLIMATE FUTURE METRICS DASHBOARD UPDATE
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager & Energy Policy Advisor
Mr. Phelan hopes to revisit the framework that Board member Loran created and get the Board’s
thoughts on what metrics they would like to see consistently reported on and what cadence those are
available. Most metrics are reported out annually and the updates come through mid-year. Mr. Phelan
advised that we only have influence in a few places. Ms. Fredrickson reminded the Board that though
staff, Council, and the Board may have limited capacity to influence these things, it is still impactful to
study and identify any gaps gaps and then bring attention to those issues because it will ensure that
everyone is doing everything within their ability to enact change. Board members are not only community
members but also experts in their fields.
Board member Althouse wondered how electrification became the only word and perceived only method
to reduce oil and gas usage. There are many other ways to cut out oil and gas.
Board members agreed to spend more time discussing these metrics at their work session in two weeks.
BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Board member Moore went to the Confluence: Colorado water summit and & Net Zero cities. She said it
was really interesting discussion around the upper basin of the Colorado River.
FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW
The Board’s September meeting will have a presentation to introduce a community wide solar
visualization tool, as well as a stakeholder update on Building Performance Standards.
ADJOURNMENT
The Energy Board adjourned at 8:53 pm.
Community Wide Solar
Visualization Tool
Rhonda Gatzke – Senior Energy Services Engineer
Fort Collins Energy Board
September 14, 2023
1
2A Picture is worth 1,000 Words!
https://www.fcgov.com/community-solar-generation/
What?
•Showing near real-time total power generation by grid-connected PV
systems
Why?
•Educational purposes for interested residents or industry stakeholders
How?
•5-minute weather data plus calibrated solar modeling
Who?
•Collaboration w/ CSU Energy Institute (John Bleem & Jerry Duggan
as SAV, LLC) along with Fort Collins web manager (Jim Thome)
Details?
•Inputs and outputs, modeling, visualization, data storage, etc.
3What is it and how does it work?
See accompanying handout
https://www.fcgov.com/community-solar-generation/
4Live View
Backup information and more details
5Backup Information and Details
6What We Know: Load (PRPA's 4-City total, Fort Collins)
https://www.fcgov.com/peakload/
7What We Know: PRPA's Power Generation and "Source"
https://www.prpa.org/
8What We Don't Know: Solar Power Generation on Fort Collins Grid
PVSTEM model incorporates the following data from each solar system in Utilities’ service area
and combines it with information from three CSU weather stations around Fort Collins.
• capacity (kW-dc),
• orientation (tilt and azimuth)
• location
• date and time
• sunlight intensity
• temperature
• wind speed
• snow coverage
9New Project to Create 'Presentation' Graphic
SAV,LLC
10
SAV,LLC
11
SAV,LLC
12Phase 2 SOW to Include non-PVStem Method w/eGauge Extrapolation
In the case of snow...
SAV,LLC
Community-Wide Solar Generation
New Model Provides Window into Local Solar Production
Explore Solar Output in Fort Collins
More than 3,000 Fort Collins Utilities residential and commercial customers generat e solar
power. Utilities partnered with Colorado State University (CSU) to create a visual representation
of the estimated total power that grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) systems make each day.
CSU developed the model called PVSTEM . It captures a variety of data listed below from each
solar system in Utilities’ service area and combines it with information from three CSU weather
stations around Fort Collins. The model also considers any power losses that happen due to
shading, system downtime (assumed repairs, maintenance or power outages) and syst em
ageing. Finally, it creates a graph to display the estimated total solar power output.
• capacity (kW-dc),
• orientation (tilt and azimuth)
• location
• installation date
• sunlight intensity
• temperature
• wind speed
• snow coverage
How we can use PVSTEM
The data will initially be used educationally by people in the solar industry or any one who’s
interested. Over time, Utilities may use the information to support its work to reach the
community’s Our Climate Future energy and grid flexibility goals.
Collaborative effort
CSU and Utilities have a long-standing collaborative research partnership based on data
sharing and joint projects. CSU Research Associates Jerry Duggan and John Bleem developed
this model, with support from She’s in Power and the Energy Institute.
Going solar in Fort Collins
Going solar can reduce your carbon footprint and your electricity bill. Utilities offers resources to
customers interested in generating their own renewable energy and for those who already have
solar installed. If you are interested in learning more about solar options, please visit
fcgov.com/renewables.
2 Alignment to Our Climate Future Policy
Strategic Objective: Environmental Health
Our Climate Future implementation intensifies our community efforts to
achieve these three primary environmental goals:
1.Reduce 2030 greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2005
baseline levels;
2.20% reduction in forecast electricity use by 2030
3.10% reduction in forecast natural gas use by 2030
Big Move 6: Efficient, Emissions Free Buildings:
Everyone lives and works in healthy energy and
water efficient buildings, which transition to become
emissions free.
3BPS Overview
BPS are the most powerful and direct way of improving performance in existing buildings
•BPS is by far the most impactful direct
action the City can take to reduce
emissions by 2030
•BPS has a much higher natural gas
impact than other Utilities programs
•The impact of BPS by 2030 is
projected to be just under that of all
other efficiency programs combined
•132.5k MTCO2e for BPS, 184.3k
MTCO2e from all other efficiency
programs combined
Building Performance Standards (BPS)
4Building Performance Standards Timeline
5Initial Task Force Recommendations
Task Force recommendations will be finalized in November
Emerging Recommendations-Covered Buildings
•Include 5k + MF and Commercial
•Consider a cohort of small buildings (5-10k sq ft) with more achievable standards
•Not to overlap with State requirements
•Further consideration of industrial properties (study, Task Force, etc)
•New Construction to be included
6Initial Task Force Recommendations
Task Force recommendations will be finalized in November
Emerging Recommendations-Efficiency Targets
•EUI targets with interim and final goal
(2027 and 2030)
•Potential for a secondary GHGi target
to align with the State of CO
•Maximum flexibility in pathways (caps,
electrification, renewables?)
•Recommendations against
prescriptive pathways
7Initial Task Force Recommendations
Task Force recommendations will be finalized in November
Emerging Recommendations -Resources and off-ramps
•Recommended resources (financial and technical)
•Building Hub, Tech Support, Incentives, Community
Engagement
•Adjustments
•Timeline and Target
•Equity Priority Buildings
•Additional assistance provided to under-resourced
buildings
8Building Size
Building Size
(sq ft)
Estimated BPS
building
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
% of total
5-10k 7651 18%
10-50k 34690 82%
Considering a cohort of 5-10k sqft buildings
(Reported buildings: 338 buildings 5-10k, 622
buildings 10-50k)
Considering a cohort of 5-15k sqft buildings
(Reported buildings: 572 buildings 5-15k, 387
buildings 15-50k)
Building
Size (sq
ft)
Estimated BPS
building
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
% of total
5-15k 16026 39%
15-50k 24926 61%
9Discussion
Should small buildings be included?
Pros:
•Savings potential
•Alignment with Denver
•Alignment with Benchmarking data
•Reduced burden
Cons:
•Administrative burden
•Significant number of buildings
•Reduced savings potential
•Potential increase hardship on building
owners
What constitutes ‘small?’
5-10k
•Recommended by Task Force
•Nearly ½ covered buildings
•Savings opportunity in 10-15k size
5-15k
•Aligns with code requirements
How to include small buildings?
•Considering administrative burden, burden on building owners, opportunity
10Technical Committee Support
Technical Committee
Consultant Update:
•Steven Winter Associates
•Volunteer Technical Committee
•PRPA, CFC (Energy Services, Energy Code, Building Inspector), Emu Passive, CSU
(Energy Engineers, School of Construction Management, IBE), Farnsworth, Saunders
Heath, Adolfson and Peterson Construction, National Inspection, Integrated Mechanical,
Architecture West
Tasks:
•Establish recommended targets based on Task Force framework
•Explore small building cohort and recommendations
•Further define alternative Compliance Pathways
•Electrification, % reduction caps, renewables, other
•Penalties (projected cost of compliance)
11Energy Board Ask
Risk Management
High Impact = High Resistance = High Risk
Goal: Resistance leads to process not policy considerations
Role of the City
•Facilitate creation of
achievable local standards
•Internal and external
stakeholder engagement
•Determine and seek out
appropriate resources
•Grow regional and national
partnerships
•Align with best practices in
planning and implementation
Role of the Energy Board
•Advocate for BPS as a how
not an if
•Help Council understand the
why
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:
Katherine Bailey
kbailey@fcgov.com; 970.221.6818
Presented by:
Fort Collins Renewable
Electricity and Carbon
Goals and Accounting
Fort Collins Energy Board
September 14, 2023
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager
2Agenda
Objective: Common understanding of renewable
electricity (RE) and electricity carbon accounting
structure for Fort Collins currently and in a future
electricity market
•Why?
•To better inform discussions by community
leaders (and the community at large)
regarding Our Climate Future specific goals
AND other community interests and priorities
3Agenda
Board questions:
•What are you most curious about regarding this topic?
•What details will improve your understanding?
•Topics covered in this slide deck
•Bottom line summary
•Fort Collins – Platte River structure currently and in a market
•Key points for RE and carbon accounting
•Discussion prompts
•Additional details
•RE and carbon accounting methods currently and in a market
•Our Climate Future goal definitions
•Renewable energy credits (REC) basics
•Electricity market basics
•Electricity basics
4Bottom line
•Bottom line
•RE accounting methods stay the same and we will have to overhaul how we describe it
•Basics for current and market accounting
•We purchase all electricity from a single provider
•Power sources and RECs are accounted for on an annual basis
•Fort Collins calculates RE percentages and electricity carbon based on standard
protocols for each
•Key points
•the more we generate locally, the less we purchase
•our current goals are based in standard accounting and protocols and do NOT
represent the electric system or electricity market operations
Fort Collins – Platte River Structure (current)5
FC Utilities
Platte River
generation and
PPAs
Platte River Ops
for Cities
Customers and
DERs
Region:
Bi-lateral, JDA
and WEIS
Wholesale Retail
MWh sold
$ flow in opposite direction
Key points
•Platte River meets City loads
•Resource planning is for City loads
•Net revenue from region offsets wholesale rates
•Bundled REC accounting for City goals
•DERs impact both customer and FC loads
Fort Collins – Platte River Structure (market)6
FC Utilities
MWh sold
$ flow in opposite direction
Platte River
generation and
PPAs
Platte River Ops
for Cities
Wholesale
Customers and
DERs
Retail
SPP RTOW
electricity market
Key points
•Market meets City loads
•Resource planning is for City loads
•Market revenue offsets market costs
•Owned unbundled REC accounting for City goals
•CEP accounting for Platte River requirements
•DERs impact customer loads, FC loads and may
impact market results
7Summary
•Key points
•Our electricity will come from the market (SPP RTOW; not from Platte River)
•We are part owner of a generation agency that sells electricity into the market
•Renewable electricity has always been tracked via RECs
•RECs from Platte River (owned generation or PPA’s) are ours to account for annualized
renewable electricity and carbon goals
•Local solar reduces City purchases and counts towards our renewable electricity goal
•OCF RE and carbon goals are based on standard annualized reporting methods
•Platte River’s reporting under the Clean Energy Plan have a different purpose
•Platte River forecasts generating more RE annually than the owner community’s load by
2030
•Together, these mean
•We can meet our OCF electricity goals with Platte River’s current planning
•Platte River’s Clean Energy Plan forecasting is only indirectly related to City goals
•Our RE and carbon goals are not reflective of electric system and market operations
Planned renewable supplies (Platte River, 2023)
9Discussion
•What clarifying questions do you have?
•How can this information be best presented to leadership
and the community?
•Knowing the paradox that with standard accounting we
can meet our goals while our operations will still include
some fossil fuels, how can we better align our leadership
discussions?
10
Additional topic information
11Fort Collins Renewable Accounting
How it works currently:
1.FC local generation meets a portion of
community use
2.FC MWh purchases from Platte River
3.Platte River allocates generation of
renewables to the cities via bundled RECs
4.FC calculates percent of community use
sourced from renewable sources
How it will work in the market
1.FC local generation meets a portion of
community use
2.FC MWh purchases from SPP through Platte
River
3.Platte River allocates generation of
renewables to the cities via unbundled RECs
4.FC calculates percent of community use
sourced from renewable sources
12Fort Collins Carbon Accounting
How it works currently:
1.PRPA generates for cities, contracts & surplus sales
2.FC purchases electricity from PRPA
3.PRPA allocates resources to the cities by load share
4.PRPA allocates bundled RECs to the cities by load
share
5.FC applies all renewable RECs available to
purchases
6.Remaining MWh are accounted for with PRPA’s
blended fossil mix
7.Local generation is added
8.FC calculates the metric tons of carbon per resource
to include in the GPC inventory reporting
9.FC calculates an overall electricity emissions factor
for use by customers
How it will work in the market:
1.All PRPA generation sold to SPP
2.FC purchases electricity from SPP via PRPA
3.SPP will report annualized resource mix
4.PRPA allocates renewable generation sold to the
cities via unbundled RECs
5.FC applies all renewable RECs available to
purchases
6.Remaining MWh are accounted for with a regional
fossil mix (SPP or eGRID)
7.Local generation is added
8.FC calculates the metric tons of carbon per
resource to include in the GPC inventory reporting
9.FC calculates an overall electricity emissions
factor for use by customers
13Fort Collins Electricity & Carbon Reporting
14
Our Climate Future Goals
•OCF goals
-Community Carbon
–Reductions of 50% by 2026,
–80% by 2030
–Carbon neutral by 2050
–Details: 2005 baseline, reported annually with GPC protocol
-Renewable electricity
–100% by 2030
–With 5% from local sources
–Details: includes hydro, wind and solar
15Renewable energy credit basics
•Renewable energy credits (RECs)
•Aka Environmental Attribute Certificate (EAC)
•RECs are in units of megawatt-hour (1 REC = 1 MWh)
•Not carbon offsets
•Key points
•RECs can be bundled or unbundled
•Bundled is the REC combined with the electricity
•Unbundled is the REC separate from the electricity
•Unbundled RECs can come from owned generation or from others
•There are both regulated and voluntary (unregulated) REC markets
•RECs can also be governed by contractual obligations (e.g. in power purchase agreements)
•Tracking – the western grid regions use WREGIS
(Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System)
•RECs are reported, tracked and can be retired in this system
•Platte River uses WREGIS for REC tracking of all non-fossil generation sources
https://www.wecc.org/WREGIS
What
the
heck
is a
REC?
16Southwest Power Pool Regional Transmission Organization West (SPP RTOW)
17Electricity basics
•Electrons flow where they need to go; there is no way to track
where they come from and where they go
•Imagine a water system as an analogy
•Power plants provide the pressure in the “wires” and are
adjusted to keep the pressure the same everywhere
(120 volts)
•Power gets used when we “open the tap” by turning on
a switch
•Everything is accounted for with these tools
•Measuring electricity energy use with a meter
(kilowatt-hours)
•Tracking financial transactions
•Contracts/agreements
•Local solar systems reduce use on site and reduce the amount
purchased