Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/21/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. August 21, 2003 For Reference: Linda Stanley, Chair 493-7225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Sarah Fox, Staff Liaison 221-6312 Board Members Present Nancy York, Mandar Sunthankar, Katie Walters, Cherie Trine, Ken Moore, Everett Bacon Board Members Absent John Long, Linda Stanley, Jim Dennison Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Sarah Fox, Terry Klahn, Lucinda Smith Utilities: Wendy Williams, John Phelan Transportation Planning: Mark Jackson Guests Kip Carrico The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m without a quorum being present. Electric Conservation Strategic Plan Update, Wendy Williams, John Phelan Phelan showed a PowerPoint presentation providing background and information regarding the plan. • York: I'm skeptical of the City's educational program. There's not much information. More and better education would be a good thing. • Moore: Would an educational tool be a list of the different types of washers, dryers, and appliances that are considered energy efficient and recommended for use? • Williams: We've recently completed a rebate program that provided information on several energy efficient washers. • Phelan: The City is an ENERGY STAR partner. ENERGY STAR has national promotional campaigns that we can participate in as appropriate. We get templates and resources from ENERGY STAR, and decide how we want to apply them locally. ENERGY STAR is very well recognized. Education awareness will also be directed towards with vendors, contractors, and sales people. We need to look at the supply system. • Bacon: 97% of the public thinks conservation is great for the other guy. • York: Why did you say "continue" instead of "implementing"? • Williams: We need to analyze the impact of the tiered water rate before designing a tiered electric rate. The water rate tier has had a negative impact on our revenue. • York: You're not getting enough revenue? • Williams: No, most of our costs are fixed and revenue collection is down. Air Quality Advisory Board September 21, 2003 Page 2 of 5 • Phelan: Although a tiered rate can be designed that would encourage conservation, the intent for us is to fairly charge people using more energy. • Trine: If you had a base rate that covered an average house, and then above that people would have to more, they would conserve. • Williams: Remember, we're not in this to make a profit, or lose money. • Trine: If you had extra money you could use it for other things. • Phelan: We are proposing to increase rates to fund these programs. The Electric Board has recommended having an energy conservation charge as a separate line item on the bill. • Trine: My concern is you raise people's bills, and they're interested in conserving. You're taking money from low income peoples bills and funneling it into City programs that are designed to help business to conserve energy. If you raise the rates, there should be a demand created for business to pay. • Phelan: Our job is to encourage and facilitate energy efficiency. Even with pending increases our rates are still low. We will need programs developed for a variety of customer classes. If we collect dollars from the commercial sector that money will stay in that class. It's the same for residential. • Moore: Do you see a time when the costs will lessen? • Phelan: Natural gas prices can be very volatile, but we don't have much natural gas generation in our supply mix. We don't see supply costs dropping that in the near future. • Trine: Would the City consider a rebate program for wind? That's the option that's preferred. People who are trying to do the right thing shouldn't have to pay more. Could we use some of that money to make this cheaper? • Williams: I don't think we'll be offering rebates to our wind customers. • Bacon: People who volunteer aren't subsidizing pollution. They're paying for a wind farm. Is wind more inherently expensive than coal power? • Williams: The Electric Board is currently discussing several options to meet their renewables goal. The cost varies with the option. • Phelan: For wind projects, even the large projects, the major cost is capital. Once the turbines are up, the fuel cost is free. The variable fuel cost for coal is low, while natural gas has increased and may stay high. • Bacon: Is there in the future an opportunity to opt into a program for wind. Are there other future technologies to allow the individual to make personal decisions? If you have a big piece of land can you generate you own power? Like with solar, if you generate more than you can use, doesn't the utility have to buy it back. I've also seen people exercise on bikes that could be generating electricity. Is there a way to make things more personal? • Phelan: If you have wind or solar, we'll buy back the extra energy. The bottom line is the economics of individual customer projects. However, we do have to have policies in place to allow net metering. • Trine: There should be a certain amount you don't raise the rates on. For people like Nancy, who are conservative, and above that, some people who are poor. • Williams: The less you use the less increase you'll see. • Trine: What about money for the inspectors for the building code? • Williams: That's handled by a different department, Building & Zoning, which is part of the General Fund. • Bacon: Are people trying to skirt the code when they're building? • Phelan: The codes only go so far, they're not going to be the answer. Air Quality Advisory Board September 21, 2003 Page 3 of 5 • Trine: Over air conditioning is a big user. • Williams: Sizing of air conditioners is not regulated. • Bacon: Those HVAC guys make more money the bigger the unit. • Trine: What are you going to do about that? • Phelan: On the residential side, we are applying the results of the new home study. We're creating consumer materials to educate consumers. • Trine: Once they've put in the duct work, and the big air conditioner, they're kind of screwed. Wouldn't it be better to regulate? • Phelan: The B&Z Department is reviewing residential codes. • Williams: We've been working with the home builder industry, and trying to work with potential home buyers to educate them. At the same time we work with HVAC, and contractors. We find they don't have an understanding of how the whole house works together. That's beginning to take foot, it's a slow process. • York: That has enormous potential. • York I have an old refrigerator. I went and got the meter from the Utility Dept. to see how much it was consuming. It was consuming very little. I would hope you document the energy of a refrigerator before you remove it. I expected mine to be an energy hog, and was very surprised it wasn't. • Moore: Some of the older stuff was built better back then. York: I'm in favor of the tiered pricing. • Williams: The intent at this point is that everyone will share in the cost of providing energy efficiency programs. • York: I live in almost darkness; the people who are knocking themselves out are paying for the people who don't. • Phelan: We need to make these programs available to everyone. We can't choose who can participate. • York: Tiered pricing seems the ultimate fairness. It gives an incentive to reduce, especially people on fixed incomes, low incomes. • Phelan: There are other drivers causing increases in the rates not related to energy conservation. What we're talking about tonight is how to fund these types of programs. • York: So, residential will pay for residential, and commercial will pay for commercial? • Phelan: Yes, the money stays in its class. • Walters: We'll do a recommendation later. We need to get it to Council before the study session. Transportation Master Plan Update, Mark Jackson Jackson briefly reviewed the plan. • York: My belief system has a problem with this. I drive Prospect and don't experience the kind of congestion you indicate is there. We're able to go the speed limit. My personal experiences don't ring true with your forecast. • Jackson: You have to consider three things, 1) This does not represent day long traffic, it's the afternoon peak period, 2) It's an issue that's going to get worse, hopefully some Air Quality Advisory Board September 21, 2003 Page 4 of 5 improvements will alleviate some of this and make it safer, and 3) When you talk about modeling it's not black and white. It's a mathematical representation trying to approximate human behavior. We do use existing conditions as our baseline. It's scientifically based, but it's "fun with numbers". • York: I'm afraid that political motivations are dictating this. • Jackson: We're in a situation right now, and it's not going to get better. One of the bright areas for potential congestion relief is the enhanced travel corridor. • York: We need to build behavioral change in people to use transit. • Jackson: Transit will help, but it wont help that much. The buses will sit in the same congestion. • York: What are the options? • Jackson: New technology in signalization may help keep traffic moving at its most efficient. Enhanced travel corridors are a real option. For me it comes back to the basic tenet of City Plan, give people real, efficient, usable choices. The auto is here to stay. You can give people multiple means of getting around if they chose to do so. Our best shot at offering relief is through the enhanced travel corridors. • Smith: How does it delve into travel price? • Jackson: I do believe the TDM measures are effective. They're all parts of the puzzle; it's in the Master Plan update. • Trine: I think leaving things the way they are is the best option. If all the roads fail, I'd think we'll have less people on them polluting. • Sunthankar: The assumption is there will be some technological breakthroughs that will reduce emission in spite of population growth. Why do you think the auto industry will improve them? • Jackson: On board diagnostics that allows us to report problems. Plus, fleet turnover, the vehicles from five and ten years ago will be replaced with new technology. • Moore: Mobile 5 was supposed to make the right assumptions and it turned out to be wrong. There's nothing saying Mobile 6 is any more reliable than was Mobile 5. • Walters: We can't predict the weather more than three days out. For them to do these models, they're just doing the best they can do. It's the only thing we have. • Trine: I think we need to address the consumer choice piece. Those big diesel trucks, and SUV's. I believe they are gas guzzlers. How is that less polluting? • Bacon: It's not a mileage issue; some of those big trucks have lower emissions than some cars. • Jackson: I would like to come back in September. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of the July 17, 2003 were unanimously approved: Page 1, P bullet from bottom: Change "maybe they could partner, and bring someone to town" to "maybe they could partner, and bring someone to town like Natural Step". Page 5, 5`h bullet, remove "by the mile". Page 7, 4th sentence down, change to: "instead of going directly back to CSU" Motion: Katie Walters will write a memo with revisions on the Electric Policy Plan to be reviewed and approved by the board. Air Quality Advisory Board September 21, 2003 Page 5 of 5 The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.