Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2024 - ENERGY BOARD - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING March 14, 2024 – 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 FEBRUARY 8, 2024 MINUTES 4. [5:45] STAFF REPORTS (Discussion, 60 Min.) • Energy Services Operational Updates Michael Authier, Mechanical Engineer III • Light & Power Debt Issuance Utilization: Distribution Transformer Purchase Jim Spaulding, Standards Engineering Lead 5. [6:45] EPIC LOAN CAPITAL BLENDING STATUS (Discussion, 30 Min.) Glenn Pease, Mechanical Engineer II 6. [7:15] CLEAN ENERGY TO COMMUNITIES PROGRAM (Discussion, 30 Min.) Michael Authier, Mechanical Engineer III 7. [7:45] BOARD MEMBER REPORTS (5 min.) 8. [7:50] FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW (5 min.) 9. [7:55] 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, March 14, 2024. 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 February 8, 2024 – 5:30 pm 222 Laporte Ave – Colorado Room ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Bill Althouse, Marge Moore, Alan Braslau, Stephen Tenbrink, Brian Smith, Bill Becker (remote), Thomas Loran, Jeremy Giovando Board Members Absent: OTHERS PRESENT Staff Members Present: Marisa Olivas, Phillip Amaya, Brian Tholl, Michael Authier, Katherine Bailey, Rhonda Gatzke (remote), Leland Keller (remote) Members of the Public: Paul Davis, Aaron Fodge, Rick Coen (remote), Javier Camacho MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Tenbrink called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. ANNOUNCEMENTS & AGENDA CHANGES None. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Fodge lives in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Fort Collins, he explained he recently wrote a letter to the City Manager, Kelly DiMartino, regarding the Riverside Community Solar Garden. Mr. Fodge shared that when the chance to purchase solar panels arose, he and his wife were eager to participate because they are unable to put solar on their own home. They were happy to be able to support the City and the community’s climate goals and they decided to purchase seven panels, which covered approximately 125% of their monthly utility bill. Along with other program participants, the Fodges were informed in August of 2024 that the inverter for the solar garden had failed, and they would not be receiving renewable energy credits until the repairs could be made. As of today, the invertor is still without repair, and it may be well over a year before renewable credits are restored. Mr. Fodge said he does not understand how the City can assume control of an asset, and not have a maintenance plan upon acquisition. There does not seem to be a sense of urgency from the City, which is different than the response from the City when electric outage occurs. Mr. Fodge is looking for guidance to help expedite the invertor repairs and would like to see this issue become an elevated priority for the City, consistent with the Board’s priorities on their work plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES In preparation for the meeting, board members submitted amendments via email for the January 11, 2023, minutes. The minutes were approved as amended. STAFF REPORTS Riverside Community Solar Garden Update (Packet Item Only) Mr. Tholl gave a high-level overview of the Riverside Community Solar Garden’s invertor issue. The 600- ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING volt DC 500kw invertor is unique and extremely large with a design that is specific to the property. Not only does the inverter require repair but it will also require an entire redesign. A request for purchase (RFP) was put out in February 2024 to seek service providers for a redesign of the site using existing panels, using string invertor rather than central inverters. Staff has been in contact with several other utilities, the City’s maintenance providers, and manufacturer of the equipment Utilities does not have committed staff for these sort of fixes (meaning professionals with experience fixing solar inverters or designing solar arrays). The RFP for the redesign will leave an option for bidders to be able to say it will be on the order of $250,000-300,000 to repair. The Operations & Maintenance (O&M) fund does not currently doesn’t cover total cost for repair. Utilities is exploring three options to seek money for repair and will give options to the program members. Mr. Tholl emphasized this project is absolutely a priority, but it is more complex than it would appear from the outside. Mr. Keller explained that the warranty claim was denied based on that Schneider had not been the agent used to conduct the difficult maintenance procedures on the property; that had been the case since project installed in 2015 (prior to the City’s acquisition). Mr. Keller added that there was originally an extended warranty, staff found out after the fact that it wasn’t active and in place and supporting the City’s operations. Clean Energy Collective had retained Namaste Solar as the O&M agent for project and Schneider doesn’t authorize other contractors to do such preventative maintenance. This provision was not listed in the warranty materials when the City took over the project from Clean Energy Collective, but rather a footnote referenced in the installation manual; this note didn’t hit the radar when the facility was acquired. Board member Loran commented that if the City is going to have locally generated resources, they need credibility, and this is not a good case in credibility. You can’t ask consumers to invest in something like this, and ask that they trust the systems will work, and then have such a catastrophic operational failure. Board member Althouse noted that solar by itself is no longer the way to go, we should be looking at solar plus storage. He wondered what options panel owners have. Mr. Tholl said that is definitely part of the conversation, and while the RFP doesn’t include storage, it is something they’d like to explore with the caveat of understanding that the panels also have a limited lifespan. Board member Braslau felt like the memo included in the Board’s packet downplayed the situation. He knows this solar array is very much in demand and there is generally a big demand for community solar, so it should be more of a priority to repair now as well as explore additional projects in the future. Mr. Keller said the Utility definitely learned some things from the structure of the project and the way the rules were originally set up. Community solar is developed in a different format now than it was when this project was developed. As far as battery storage goes, Mr. Keller said the site has some unique constraints on it. It is located behind a locked gate which makes it inaccessible, it is also already quite full of panels, so there is little room for on-site battery storage there. Staff explored this idea a couple of years ago with Mr. Amaya as well as former Utilities Executive Director, Kendall Minor. At this point Fort Collins Utilities is pursuing ideas for installing distribution-scale battery storage closer to Utilities’ substations. The primary goal is to get Riverside Community Solar back online as soon as possible and not delay it any further by complicating it with additions. Board member Moore asked what can the Board do to support staff through this process? Mr. Tholl said once the RFP is released, ultimately Council will weigh on the funding and the Energy Board can express support if they believe this is in the City’s best interests. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Board member Giovando asked what kind of egal track the Utility might have in the repair process. Mr. Tholl explained that Schneider Electric would charge a minimum of $40,000 just to come and look at it, never mind the cost and extended timeline for whatever they may come up with as a solution. In their collaboration with other utilities, staff found that many have spent upwards of $150,000 out of pocket and were still left holding the bag with no solution. Mr. Tholl thinks staff is doing their due diligence but bypassing the original warranty and trying to move on. BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS Brian Tholl, Utilities Senior Energy Services Manager Katherine Bailey, Project Manager, Utilities Customer Connections Ms. Bailey displayed a graphic for the Board showing the projected ability to meet the community’s 2030 community carbon emissions goal. Each category (electricity, buildings, transportation, industry, waste, and land use) shows their contribution to carbon emissions, and Ms. Bailey pointed out that buildings in Fort Collins contribute more than two thirds of the community’s carbon emissions. Since we are only looking as far out as 2030, the data is only showing performance of existing buildings in the community. This means there is potential for targeting building performance standards for those existing buildings. Building Performance Standards (BPS) are a part of the City’s Our Climate Future Plan under Big Move 6 (Explore Building Performance Standards). BPS is by far the most impactful direct action the City can take to reduce emissions by 2030 and has a much higher impact on natural gas than other Utilities programs. The impact of improving BPS by 2030 is projected to be just under that of all other efficiency programs combined (an estimated 132.5k MTCO2e accounted from BPS compared to 184.3k MTCO2e from all other efficiency programs). There are other benefits to improving BPS as well, including: health, safety, comfort, resilience, reduced energy burden, economic growth and increased competitiveness, higher building occupancy and tenant retention, increased productivity of occupants, mitigate utility impacts of rising temperatures for both the Utility as well as the rate payer, and improved indoor and outdoor air quality. The Task Force was comprised of industry experts (not technical experts) that would potentially be impacted by change in BPS. They finalized their recommendations in November 2023. The Technical Committee supported them, along with a consultant who has experience in the field as well. The technical committee is expected to wrap up this spring. A part of that work includes a cost benefit analysis and target setting. Staff hopes to get in front of City Council by Tuesday, April 30th with their recommendations. The Task Force’s final recommendations are published at https://ourcity.fcgov.com/bps, but the high-level overview is inclusive of the following: Covered buildings are 5,000 square feet and above, as well as a small building cohort. The targets should measure Energy Use Intensity (how much energy is used per square foot) and explore alternative pathways or adjustments. Resources will be critical to help building owners, The program should include, but not be limited to, extensive outreach prior to implementation. and ongoing programming surrounding physical building options, pathways, and overall effectiveness of changes made for building owners. The Technical Committee is still working on finalizing their recommendations, but they have made some progress in Targets, Small Buildings, and Alternate Pathways. Next, they will be focusing on Target ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING setting methodology, penalties (costs), and Council direction. Ms. Bailey said staff does expect that Council may provide some direction that will need staff to adjust and pivot. Board member Smith asked why there are penalties as opposed to incentives to comply. Ms. Bailey advised there are penalties because this is not an optional program, it’s required. Incentives are provided through the City’s Efficiency Works Business program, which is optional to participate in. A key takeaway when looking at renewables and efficiency, is that efficiency enables renewables. Efficiency reduces energy use, and reduced energy use increases impact of existing and new solar, as well as the impact of electrification. Ms. Bailey noted that OCF includes a goal of 5% local renewable resources; as of today, the community is at 3.2%, but without the current efficiency programs the City has, we’d be at 2.5%. She reiterated that even if BPS doesn’t touch renewables, increasing efficiency is a critical pathway for electrification and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, ultimately still helping the community meet its goal. Locally, we have 11 programs targeting renewables in Fort Collins. The average commercial building with solar in 2022 met 20% of their annual load with onsite solar. Roughly 50 potentially covered buildings in Fort Collins already have onsite solar. In some communities, such as Denver, Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are used as a way to get closer to the building’s BPS targets. Here in Fort Collins, RECs do not in any way change our community carbon inventory, so encouraging owners to purchase additional RECs won’t make any progress toward our climate goals, so it does not seem like a relevant option for Fort Collins. Board member Althouse said many areas in the Country are not using RECs, but many are beginning to install equipment offsite and aggregate the system back to their meter, because they recognize a roof isn’t big enough to power a commercial building. Denver’s RECs are more regional and not necessarily within Denver city limits; peer to peer is becoming more common around the world where you can buy and sell in real time. Ms. Bailey asked the board what the role of renewables should be within Fort Collins BPS program. She advised them to take into consideration a focus on flexibility for building owners, the role of target adjustments for owners that can’t meet target “xyz” (i.e., such as historic buildings). Ms. Bailey clarified what that means is renewables don’t have to be used for a gap filler, if they can’t meet that target, there will be another pathway. Additionally, what is the correct “lane,” performance versus renewables? Chairperson Tenbrink said he believes efficiency is paramount, renewables can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Board member Braslau agreed, that’s what the target adjustments are for, but they are two different subjects and should not be viewed under an either/or lens. There should be a target adjustment and encourage renewables. Board member Loran said renewables should have financial incentives, performance first with penalties and then financial incentives. He added that capping solar contribution to BPS makes no sense, very few places even have adequate roof space. Board member Braslau said we should look historically at what developers want to do, such as with the Hughes Stadium project—they wanted to cut corners on efficiency and put solar on the roof, because solar is marketable. We need to have the rules in place, and of course offer adjustments because not every building will be able to meet every target. Board member Moore asked who is determining beforehand what is efficiency targets are feasible on buildings? She also wondered if there will be options for interim periods, so they aren’t out of compliance ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING and facing penalties. Ms. Bailey said it will have to be engineers; it will be critical to be consistent. Perhaps requests will come in a waiver form and reviewed by a team, such as a third-party vendor (based on what other cities do. Mr. Tholl said the strategy being brought to Council is to have them weigh in on three primary things: the target (2030 or beyond?), timeline and square footage, and how hard to push. Staff will define alternative pathways and EUI targets. Board member Braslau said City Council talks about the climate emergency being a priority, and then complains that there isn’t much they can do. We must put the responsibility on their bench to make decisions, despite pushback from developers and building owners. Board member Giovando said he supports flexibility to improve performance, but the challenge is performance and renewables are kind of like apples and Tuesdays. How do you create a combined metric that takes that and says the benchmark has been met. He encouraged staff to put some thought into gap filling and the adjustments process with renewables versus performance, because his biggest concern is that we want flexibility, but we also do not want to penalize people who are trying to do the right thing, and on the flip side we don’t want to open up gaps for the people who don’t want to do anything. VIRTUAL POWER PLANTS Brian Tholl, Utilities Senior Energy Services Manager Paul Davis, Platte River Power Authority Javier Camacho, Platte River Power Authority Mr. Tholl said this is probably the first-time staff has presented the concept of Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) to the Board, but it will not be the last time it is discussed either. He respectfully asked the Board to please to keep discussion contained to VPPs and operations. A virtual power plant (VPP) is a network of distributed energy resources (DERs) and systems that, when grouped together, can provide a reliable power supply for energy users. This differs from “traditional” centralized, large-scale power generation and delivery. VPPs are regionally unique and built to handle several use cases and require programs to support DER adoption. VPP best practices continue to emerge. Mr. Tholl asked google to “oversimplify a VPP”, and it returned an image of a collection of batteries. VPPs are very localized, so what works in California may not work or be needed here. He encouraged the Board to think locally in terms of City goals and policies, as well as PRPA’s goals and policies. VPPs require DER programs to support them. VPP has become somewhat of a buzz word at this point and it’s very common to see businesses marketing their services as providing VPPs. This process is being led by Mr. Davis with Platte River, along with others including Mr. Tholl. They are working to identify needs, solutions, and next steps, as well as drivers for a VPP locally. Mr. Tholl said they are considering what goals they want a VPP to achieve and will complete a risk analysis to help identify challenges to manage expectations. The team identified seven high-level goals for the development of a VPP, driven by pillars of Fort Collins and Platte River, and from those goals came 160 functional use cases with a future VPP. All those cases can be grouped under one of 17 different Functional Categories (see attachments for more detail). ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING In the VPP ecosystem, you can find use cases at every level—the customer level, the distribution utility level, the Platte River level, as well as the future market. Connecting those along spectrum you will find differing values, policies, program requirements, agreements, systems, programs, integrations, data/information, etc. A fully fledged VPP is laden with complexities to consider. Board member Smith asked if there are currently challenges when homeowners don’t like control of thermostat being revoked (in the Peak Partners program) Mr. Davis said we still want to manage cost for customers and is more incentive based approach to start. It’s important to make it easy for customers to have their devices respond for them and save money. Mr. Tholl added that within the functional use cases staff recognizes there will be different areas of aggregators, and the question remains who will control a lot of these DERs. Staff is building out target technologies data, and are anticipating utility owned DERs, customer owned DERs, as well as third party aggregation companies. Mr. Davis said FERC Order 2222 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), issued in 2020, says DERs should be able to participate in markets and required markets to create a path for aggregations of DERs with at least 0.1MW to participate. Utilities that have loads with less than 4 million MWh a year (every partner community under Platte River), don’t have to allow that, they have the ability to opt in and it would be up to the governing body to choose. Board member Loran asked what the end accomplishment is, smoothing power generation curve or lowering the baseline. To him they seem like two different things, and if object is to smooth out the peaks and valleys, then it seems there could be a simpler way. He agrees with the other concerns about control of the thermostat but said if his home is generating excess power during peak time then he is glad to send that power back to the grid. Mr. Davis said we need resource advocacy to meet peak load whether in a market or not, and DER is one of those. Board member Althouse said the Public Utilities Commission just issued a final decision with Xcel Energy’s plan to roll out a 50MW VPP (Decision R24-0009), utilizing a new “prosumer tariff” by the end of the year. Mr. Althouse said it will be full blown, third-party private aggregators, and will open the door to VPP aggregators. This commission was the in the country to define prosumer—a participant on a VPP is not a customer, it’s a prosumer. If third party VPP aggregators can start here tomorrow, why would they contract with Platte River. Mr. Davis said we’re the electric Utility. Board member Althouse said he believes Platte River has no business operating VPP because these are DERs, and Platte River should be the operator. He does not understand from engineering standpoint why a Generation & Transmission utility would take the lead when this is a distribution system operation. Mr. Davis said Platte River is responsible for ensuring reliability to the City and as long as it is their job to ensure reliability and provide these resources to serve the community, then they will continue to provide those opportunities to all four cities. Mr. Tholl said the core element of this work is a DERMs platform, and it is co-structured so it could be built out to accommodate a tenanted derms platform incentive. We don’t have 75,000 solar in storage installations in Fort Collins. If we were to compete for resources, it would mean talking to Chairperson Tenbrink’s pastor (since they have a solar array) to make a deal between the City of Fort Collins and Platte River. Mr. Davis added that Platte River serves the four owner communities and will be interacting with the market, it will tell us how much capacity they need to serve the cities. Board member Althouse wanted to know what Platte River is paying per kilowatt for capacity, for ancillary services, because that is what the PUC is already mandating. He said now Platte River wants a gas plant that doesn’t appear to be accounted for, and they are looking at $1.5 million per megawatt for capacity ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING only because Platte River alleges the gas plant will only run in emergency situations. He asked if we install a megawatt MW of local dispatchable capacity, will Platte River pay out $1.5 million? Mr. Davis said Platte River will pay to facilitate DER programs, costs tend to be similar to that of battery storage. Board member Althouse pushed and asked if Platte River is prepared to pay $1.5 million today. Mr. Davis said he cannot commit to something he hasn’t seen, but they are committed to running programs that will pay incentives to customers but noted that nothing is cost effective from day one. Board member Althouse said his serious concern is that VPPs and DERs are being delayed to maybe 2027 or ‘28 before a prosumer can see a benefit. By that time the gas plant will likely be online and then the capacity from VPPs may no longer be needed. He is really worried that the proposed gas plan is trying to prevent prosumers from delivering capacity value. Mr. Davis said Platte River wants to grow this resource, the point is to make as many loads as possible respond to the market. Mr. Althouse asked again, is the gas plant going to eliminate VPP participants from getting capacity payments. Mr. Davis said they have had no such discussions. Board member Braslau asked if staff could please explain capacity reduction findings. Mr. Davis said an Achievable Potential study was conducted last year where they looked at potential flexible DERs to provide 5:00-9:00 pm capacity reductions with electric vehicles, batteries, thermostats, water heaters, etc. What they found was the achievable potential (displayed in dark blue) was the cost effective of flexible DERs. Board member Loran said that confirms to him that a gas plant is still necessary insurance for 100- dark calm scenarios; the gas plant is insurance and everything else is capacity—hopefully you never have to use the insurance, but the VPP (regardless of who has it) will also go down during a dark calm. Board member Braslau noted that the best use case shows the gas plant will never be used, but the finances indicate otherwise. He noted that Mr. Davis has said a few times today that Platte River has a financial responsibility at lowest price possible, but they are not the same thing. The economy is set up now to reward gas usage; if this was just an insurance policy and there was an absolute guarantee that Platte River isn’t going to be using it to pay for the investment (in the gas plant) but there is no guarantee. Mr. Tholl acknowledged that point and reminded the Board that Platte River will be back later this year with an update regarding their Integrated Resource Plan. Board member Loran added that the fundamental issue is that Platte River is paying more for renewable energies than fossil fuels, which defies conventional wisdom. VPPs are going to be renewable energy and they should be less cost, as long the VPPs and renewable energy remains less, they won’t be able to sell fossil fuels. However, he is very concerned that we are buying renewable energy at more money than we’ve got for fossil fuels. Mr. Davis said it depends on circumstances, fixed and marginal costs will influence the pricing. Board member Althouse the prosumer makes the investment, it’s not in rate base, so if prosumer deploys the dispatchable asset, the only way to lower rates is to reduce the City’s investment. Mr. Davis said we do anticipate 150MW of solar by 2030 and is factored into the plan. Platte River wants that solar in the VPP to monitor and do better at load forecasting. There is still a cost to back customer up because solar is not available at night, depending on the rate structure. Mr. Davis agreed that Mr. Althouse has a partial solution but there is more to learn. Board member Althouse said he had requested a copy of the GRIP (Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships) Grant, and he was denied. It is subject to CORA, and he asked if it is subject to CORA why couldn’t it be provided. Mr. Camacho advised that Mr. Althouse will need to send that through as an official CORA request, as the grant is a competitive process. Mr. Althouse asked why Platte River would ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING be hiding it if it is subject to CORA. Mr. Camacho said again that they are not hiding it but reiterated the grant process is competitive and he would be glad to have this conversation offline. Board member Althouse asked what is “dramatically altering the relationship between the provider and a community component.” Mr. Tholl said in topic area two, it outlines how this relationship is going to be altered and evolve into a VPP. Mr. Amaya clarified that staff is about to discuss the GRIP Grant. Mr. Davis said one of the things that was put into this grant and is not common is the integration of Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS). Board member Althouse said today there is no visibility because there is no DERMS. Mr. Tholl said we have had a DERMS for 12 years. Board member Althouse asked if the system can dispatch a battery and Mr. Tholl clarified that we can’t dispatch a stationary battery in a home in South Fort Collins, because no manufacturer allows the Utility to do that without an astronomical cost. We have 2,500 thermostats that the Utility can control, 1,200 water heaters, and close to 80 EVs—we have this capability, but we stopped funding associated with residential battery installations because every manufacturer didn’t support the IEEE 2030.5 protocol. The Utility stopped that single work stream but still have about eight others that they’re working on within our DERMS. Mr. Amaya said this is the direction that Fort Collins and Platte River have chosen to take. Board member Giovando said it would be really helpful to understand how all these things potentially going to grants and the VPP possibilities, what that does to change the rate forecast over the next 5-10 years. What would these options do to the rate forecast, do they have a substantial impact or are we still on the same steep incline trajectory. Mr. Tholl said it’s a good question and he will share the board’s comments with the financial team to address when they present increases later this fall. He reminded the Board that retail rate increases are due to wholesale increases. He doesn’t foresee reducing electric rates but may try to work toward incremental increases. Board member Althouse apologized for his passion on this topic. It is something he has been working on for 40 years. He complimented Mayor Arndt for her commitment to this issue but hopes to see more acceleration. MEMO RE: PLATTE RIVER’S NATURAL GAS TURBINE Board members reviewed and discussed some small changes to a drafted memo they are considering sending to City Council regarding Platte River’s plans for a natural gas turbine. Board member Tenbrink moved the Board to send the drafted memo regarding Platte River’s plans for Natural Gas Turbine to the Mayor and City Council. Board member Loran seconded the motion. Discussion: None. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously, 8-0 BOARD MEMBER REPORTS ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Board member Tenbrink advised that his ongoing heat pump project is not going well, and he is considering going back to gas. The technology works, the hardware is a little immature and does not reach the standard of gas fired hardware. FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW March’s Board meeting will include operational updates from Light & Power and Energy Services, a year- end financial update, and an update regarding debt issuance utilization for distribution transformer purchases. ADJOURNMENT The Energy Board adjourned at 8:21 pm. Utilities’ Energy Services Program Portfolio 03-14-2024 2023 Results Update Michael Authier, Sr Energy Services Engineer 3 Energy Services’ Guiding Policy Our Climate Future •Adopted 2021 •Encompasses previous -Climate Action Plan -Energy Policy -Road to Zero Waste Plan •Focused on mitigation, equity, resilience •Learn more at ourcity.fcgov.com/ourclimatefuture 4 Our Climate Future Energy Related Goals for 2030 Achieved 2023 goals and on target for all categories except natural gas goal •Reduce 20% of forecasted electricity consumption •100% renewable electricity, with 5% local distributed •Maintain current Utilities distribution reliability metrics •Achieve a demand flexibility capacity of 5% of peak loads •Zero carbon new construction 5 Our Climate Future 13 Big Moves 7 2023 Portfolio Highlights Accomplishments •Our Climate Future continued implementation •RECI grant award for path to zero carbon Building Code by 2030 •Mobile Home Acceleration project implementation •DER strategy development with Platte River •DERMs RFP and workplan development •Building Performance Standards task force and technical committee execution •EV pilot and GIWH incorporation in DERMs 8 Consumption per Capita MWh per Resident Inventory Year Consumption Consumption MWh % Change vs 2005 MWh Per Capita % Change vs 2005 2005 (reference)1,473,636 11.1 2022 1,570,553 +6.6%9.2 -17.1% 2023*1,525,050 +3.5%8.8 -21.0% *2023 population was 29% above 2005 2023 Portfolio Results Community Electricity Consumption 2023 consumption per capita was 21% below 2005 Consumption MWh 9 New 1st Year Savings Percent of Retail Consumption Program Year Cumulative Savings 1st Year Savings MWh % of Retail MWh % of Retail 2021 296,816 19.1%43,595 2.8% 2022 334,997 21.3%47,274 3.0% 2023 416,844 27.3%42,453 2.8% 2023 Portfolio Results Community Electricity Savings Consumption with Avoided Electricity MWh 2023 retail consumption would have been 27% higher, on track for 2030 10 Local Renewable Generation Percent of Community Resource Mix Program Year Generation Capacity Storage Capacity kWdc MWh kW MWh 2021 25,403 33,924 709 1.708 2022 31,130 40,050 999 2.459 2023 35,421 48,242 1,237 3.137 2023 Portfolio Results Local Renewables 2023 local renewable generation was 3.2% community consumption, on track for 2030 Local Renewable Generation Capacity kWdc 11 2023 Portfolio Results Efficiency Programs 12 2023 Portfolio Results Grid Flexibility Programs •547 new solar & 25 new battery installations •Existing DR equipment refresh -2200 water heater communication units -200 Sensi Thermostats. •Smart Charging Electric Vehicle Pilot -73 new vehicles enrolled •27 new grid interactive water heaters (now up to 108 total) 13 Looking Ahead 2024 Priorities and Beyond •Voter approved "2050 Tax" opportunities & distribution •Electrification Council priority & strategy -Building Performance Standards consideration -Performance based energy code development •Riverside Community Solar Project redesign •PRPA DERMs RFP and Integration Strategy •Distributed battery storage project & opportunity evaluation •Expanded “boost” incentives for solar and batteries Headline Copy Goes Here Energy Services Senior Manager Randy Bailey Epic Loans: Renewal of Third-Party Capital Agreements April 4th, 2024 Brian Tholl Accounting Director Glenn PeaseEnergy Services Program Manager Headline Copy Goes HereCouncil Finance Questions Does the Committee support bringng the proposed third-party capital agreement renewals to the Electric Utility Enterprise Board for approval? What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the Epic Loan program? Does the Committee support proceeding with executing the proposed bank capital agreement renewals? Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Our Climate Future Strategic Alignment Big Move 6: Efficient Emissions Free Buildings Additionally: Centers community with an integrated approach to local partnerships. Centers equity by increasing focus on rental properties. A 2022 program evaluation found that Epic Loans allow customers to complete larger, more comprehensive projects than they would have without loans. Headline Copy Goes Here 4 What is an Epic Home? Discounted home energy assessments Substantial rebates on electrification and efficiency improvement projects Attractive financing options Certificates that document energy improvements Epic Homes helps customers achieve more efficient, comfortable, and healthy living for homeowners and renters alike Headline Copy Goes Here 5 Epic Homes Loan Epic Homes On-Bill Loans offers competitive rates with no money down. 536 Loans Processed $9M in Epic Loans issued $5.6M outstanding balance 50 contractors 100% quality assurance of projects Zero defaults to date Rental homes continue to be a focus for outreach and engagement Headline Copy Goes Here 6 2024 Work Plan-Epic Homes Loan Capital Management Q1 •Renew Bank agreements with similar terms •Explore expanding capital stack with 2050 Tax funding Q2 •Risk assessment and refine cash expectations •Explore 3rd party loan managers to help scale Q3 •Explore new capital (2050 Tax,Grant, federal funds, 3rd party capital RFP Q4 •Seek council interest in expanding outstanding principal balance for program growth Headline Copy Goes Here 7 High Level Mechanics of Epic Homes Loan Customer Contractor CDFI Partner/ Loan Admin FC Utilities Capital Partners- Banks Project payment Bill payment Work agreement Project payment Capital loans and repayment Application Headline Copy Goes Here 8 History of On-Bill Loans 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% $- $500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $3,000,000.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Capital Stack and Rates L&P Reserves banks CEO Bloomberg Median Interest rate Relationship of Rates + Capital and Reserve Blending on Participation Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Proposed Third-Party Renewals Line of credit for 1-1.5 years that will convert to term loans Facility Limit: $2.5M LOC Interest Rate: 1-MonthSOFR + 1.05% 2 Term Loans:3.5 years (COF + 1.65%), 8.5 years (COF + 1.85%) US Bank 2 year LOC -convert to 13-and 14-year term loans Facility Limit: Increase from $1.5M to $2.5M Interest Rate: 10-year Treasury Rate + 2.75% Vectra Bank Headline Copy Goes HereCouncil Finance Questions What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the Epic Loan program? Does the Committee support executing on the proposed third-party capital agreement renewals? Headline Copy Goes Here Headline Copy Goes Here Headline Copy Goes Here 13 2024 Work Plan-Epic Homes Participation Evaluate and determine annual incentives levels with customer resources Evaluate new incentives for building electrification Conduct training, outreach and engagement with new and existing providers Execute marketing plan targeting Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Core Tenets and Guardrails of On-Bill Loans •Interest rate target: blended cost of capital, plus admin and risk premium o Maintain 0.75% -1.00% buffer between blended source cost of capital and lending rates •Parity in length of term borrowed vs. length of term loaned Loan Portfolio Management •Minimize impact on Light & Power planned future debt offerings •Protect Utilities credit rating &broadband’s coverage covenants Other Critical Considerations Headline Copy Goes Here 15 15 Year Loan Growth Increase Over 5 Years 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Lo a n T i e r D i s t r i b u t i o n % of Participants in Each Tier by Year % 5 year loans % 10 year loans % 15 year loans Headline Copy Goes Here 16 Draft Third Party Administrator Tasks Complete cash flow & modeling scenarios Source capital that could contribute to program Optimize capital stack management and associated tiered interest rates Manage capital stack and lending based on City expectations for yield and other requirements Headline Copy Goes Here 17 Evaluation Findings The Epic Homes Loan accelerates comprehensive upgrades Headline Copy Goes Here 18 Evaluation Findings The Epic Homes Loan participants install more equipment with loan Headline Copy Goes Here 19 Evaluation Findings The Epic Homes Loan participants invest more in their home with loan Headline Copy Goes Here 20 Comparing Capital Sources Amount​Agreement Terms​ Rate​Revolving​Admin​ CEO Loan​$800k​All Funds Used​0%Limited High Grant Dollars​$850k​N/A​0%Yes High Vectra​$1.5 mil and Seeking + $1 mil 4/2020 4/2022 7/2025​ variable Yes Medium US Bank​$2.5 mil​12/2019 5/2022 5/2024​ Variable Yes Medium L&P Reserve​$2.0 mil​N/A​0%Yes Low Headline Copy Goes Here 21 Funding Sources Third Party Capital accounts for 62% of outstanding loan balances 3rd Party Capital , 62%CEO, 13% Bloomberg, 7% L&P Reserves, 19% % OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE Headline Copy Goes Here 22 Epic Loan Growth vs. Borrowing Needs Staff anticipates 10% growth over next 2-4 years Headline Copy Goes Here 23 Epic Homes cumulative participation Epic Homes Program Year Cu m u l a t i v e H o m e s U p g r a d e d (i n c l u d i n g w i t h o u t l o a n ) Headline Copy Goes Here Sr Energy Services Engineer Fort Collins Utilities Michael Authier 3.14.24 NREL: Clean Energy to Communities (C2C) Program Participation Headline Copy Goes HereC2C Program Connects local governments, electric utilities, community- based groups, and others with experts from across the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratory complex and their customized, cutting-edge analysis Headline Copy Goes HereC2C Program Offerings •Funded by U.S DOE, managed by National Labs (e.g. NREL) •Provides communities with expertise and tools to achieve their clean energy goals More information at https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/clean-energy-to-communities.html Headline Copy Goes Here 4 Fort Collins C2C Partnerships Peer Learning Cohort #1 - Q1 2023 “Accelerating the Deployment of Equitable and Grid-Friendly EV Charging Infrastructure.” Information sharing related to EV incorporation into DERMs, enrollment and incentive best practices. Technical support and best practices shared across several national peers Headline Copy Goes Here 5 Fort Collins C2C Partnerships Peer Learning Cohort #2 - Q1 2024 “Integrating Community Priorities into Electric Vehicle Plans and Projects.” Continuation (of sorts) from first cohort, but less focused on technical solutions and more on developing an equitable and community-driven approach to transportation electrification Headline Copy Goes Here 6 Fort Collins C2C Partnerships Other DOE Building Technology Office Study collaboration “Managing changes in peak demand from building and transportation electrification with energy efficiency” Findings to be presented at future Energy Board meeting Headline Copy Goes Here mauthier@fcgov.com Discussion 7