Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutElectric Board - Minutes - 11/16/1994Minutes to be Approved by the Board at the January 18, 1995 Meeting. FORT COLLINS ELECTRIC BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1994, 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Allum, Bill Brayden, Jeff Eighmy, Mark Fidrych, Barbara Rutstein, Richard Smart, and Jim Welch. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Ellen Alward, Don Botteron, Al Boushee, Delynn Coldiron, John DeHaes, Ron King, Bob Kost, Tim Sagen, Rich Shannon and Dennis Sumner OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Ann Azari, Council Member Alan Apt, Thaine Michie, Don Wedum BOARD LIAISONS: Council Liaison -- Alan Apt Staff Liaison -- Don Botteron APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A Motion was made by Board Member Rutstein to approve the Minutes as submitted. Board Member Allum seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the October 19, 1994 meeting were approved. 2. PLATTE RIVER PERCEPTION DISCUSSION: Board Member Allum abstained from participation in this portion of the meeting due to his employment at Platte River. Mayor Azari mentioned that the purpose of this discussion was to address current citizen perceptions about Platte River, to put to rest the "ghosts of the past," and to establish clear and straightforward communication between the Board, the City of Fort Collins and Platte River. Mayor Azari provided Board Members with some background information on how Platte River was established as a joint action agency and related some of the criticisms that have been made over the course of time: -1- that Platte River has not always been open in its communication with the four member communities that Platte River has not sought or listened to consultive messages from the communities that Platte River has not represented all member communities as responsibly as it could Mayor Azari mentioned that the diversity of the member communities, together with the change in the industry to a much more competitive environment presents a tremendous challenge for Platte River. The organization is in a position to be able to meet this challenge favorably, but communication, teamwork, leadership and other skills must be further developed between Platte River and the four member communities before this can occur. Thaine Michie, General Manager of Platte River, informed Board Members of some of the changes that have taken place during the past few years. Platte River has taken strides to do away with the "stand alone/be invisible" way of doing business and is currently moving in the direction of forming partnerships with its member communities. Thaine is concerned with the continuing negative innuendos about Platte River and wants to educate citizens about Platte River and make any necessary changes so these perceptions can be laid to rest. Board Members offered other lingering negative perceptions/concerns they have heard or perceive: - Cadillac image - Platte River spends too much money - Platte River runs wild and doesn't listen to the public - Platte River is not environmentally sensitive, e.g., outside pressures to add the Rawhide scrubber system - Salaries - Company picnic on work time - Chamber membership - Discrimination/sexual harassment suits - Controversy surrounding construction of Rawhide Units 1 and 2 - Diversity of the four Platte River communities and the inequities resulting from these diversities - Platte River paying for spouses to attend the APPA annual conference Thaine addressed the issues of salaries, Chamber membership, discrimination and sexual harassment suits and the fact that Unit 2 is not going to be built. He continued by mentioning that within the State of Colorado, Platte River has a reputation of being a leader on environmental issues. Perception problems seem to stem from the local communities. Outside of the local communities, perception problems aren't apparent. Other discussion focused around the new competitive environment facing the utility industry and the changes that have been initiated or are anticipated because of this; adding -2- a member to the Platte River Board who would represent the environmental sector of the community; concerns with the way Platte River handled the environmental issues in the IRP; and the importance of a cooperative effort between Platte River and the four member communities. There was consensus that Platte River has an excellent reputation within the utility industry. There was some feeling that a lot of these negative perceptions were realities under previous Platte River management. However, the changes that have come with current Platte River management have alleviated most of these concerns. Most Board Members are not aware of any ongoing negative perceptions and feel that the image citizens have about Platte River is changing. There was some feeling that the general public has no understanding of who Platte River is and what it does. It was suggested that Platte River find a way to increase outreach efforts with the communities to dispel any lingering perceptions. Thaine mentioned that all of the items listed were indeed issues in the past, but assured the Board that Platte River is actively addressing these issues. It was also suggested that Platte River take the lead on promoting their way of doing business, and not waiting until they are pushed into it and then taking credit for having already addressed the issues. Methods for doing this included Platte River organizing special meetings with the environmental community, including groups such as the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club as a way of improving perceptions of Platte River being a ,.green" organization. Everyone agreed that communication is the issue. If Platte River takes the initiative to communicate and improve its relations with citizens of the four communities, it will have the necessary backing from these communities needed to successfully compete in the changing competitive environment. 3. CUSTOMER APPEAL: Don Botteron introduced Don Wedum to the Board and reviewed the guidelines for the appeal procedure. Staff sno ition: According to the Electric Rate Schedule, Ordinance 109, 1992 adopted by City Council, only those customers that have uncontrolled, all -electric and solely residential water heaters are eligible for the water heater control (HOT SHOT) rebate. The language of the Electric Rate Schedule further elaborates that this service is not available to customers with load -limiting devices installed within their electric system. Mr. Wedum has a load controlling device installed on his electric system and, therefore, is not eligible for the HOT SHOT rebate. Customer position: The HOT SHOT program was designed to reduce the City's peak. Anyone who installs equipment that assists the City in lowering peak should be rewarded. He has, at his own expense, installed equipment that is assisting the City in reducing peak usage and has been denied the HOT SHOT rebate. Other citizens are being given equipment by the City and then given a rebate. This seems unfair. He feels that the City could get even more benefit from his efforts to lower the City's peak if he were allowed to participate in this program. -3- Staff discussion: Dennis mentioned that the customer has an excellent point of the value to the electric system of reducing peak. The device the customer has accomplishes this. The Utility values these efforts and rewards these efforts by providing an economic incentive to the customer through the structure of the Residential Demand Rate. Winter peak is driven by extreme cold. During a typical winter peaking day, an electric heating system would be operating at its maximum level and the water heater would already be shut off by this control device. When the Utility would then send a signal to shut off the water heater under the HOT SHOT program, the water heater would already be off. The Utility would not realize an additional reduction in peak for which Mr. Wedum should be credited. The purpose of Hot Shot is to "buy" load control and reduction. Cost evaluations for this program are based on an expectation of load control based on operational characteristics of an uncontrolled water heater. Customer discussion: Under the HOT SHOT program the water heater is turned off for several hours. His system does not keep the water heater off for that length of time. The benefit for the City would be that the Utility's device would override his device, keeping his water heater off for the full amount of time required to lower the City's peak. Board Discussion: Board Members asked some clarifying questions. Industry data shows that with this type of DSM program only 1 out of every 5 water heaters shut off is actually operating at the time it is shut off. Because of this, large numbers of water heaters must be shut off in order to actually reduce peak based on the assumption that the water heaters being shut off are available to be controlled. This would not be the case if a water heater is already being controlled by the customer. The argument was again made that the City's equipment would override any of the customer's controlling devices when they allowed the heater to come back on. There is a possibility that Utility customers could receive an additional undetermined benefit. In addition to the HOT SHOT program, other alternatives currently available for customers to reduce their KW usage were discussed, including purchasing water heater timers and demand controllers. The benefits realized by the customer for each of these options were also discussed. In this case, the Utility is receiving a benefit by Mr. Wedum's efforts to reduce his electricity usage and Mr. Wedum is receiving a commensurate benefit by his reduced electric bill. There is some vagueness as to whether the Utility would receive an additional benefit in peak reduction by allowing Mr. Wedum to participate in the HOT SHOT program. Board decision: There was consensus among Board Members that the Utility was receiving a benefit from Mr. Wedum's efforts and the benefit is being passed on to Mr. Wedum through the Demand rats and monthly demand savings in excess of the $50 HOT SHOT rebate. Although vague, there is a possibility that the Utility could further benefit by Mr. Wedum's participation in the HOT SHOT program. The amount of any possible savings from combining Mr. Wedum's control device with Hot Shot is unknown and FIE clearly less than savings from an uncontrolled water heater. This conclusion is consistent with the language in the Electric Rate Schedule which prohibits allowing customers to participate in the HOT SHOT program if controlling devices are being utilized. Board Member Rutstein made a motion that Mr. Wedum's request for participation in the HOT SHOT program be denied based on Section F, Rate Code E120, of the Electric Rate Schedule, which prohibits allowing customers to participate in the HOT SHOT program if controlling devices are being utilized. Board Member Allum seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. Board Members commended Mr. Wedum for his efforts in reducing his electric demand, and recommended that staff review the language contained in the Electric Rate Schedule to consider a partial Hot Shot rebate for situations like Mr. Wedum's. 4. WORK PLAN: Board reviewed the draft Work Plan. Board Members suggested some minor changes including: - evaluating the possibility of increased flexibility in rate forms -- Section 5, Competition Preparedness - adding a reference to the Platte River Board -- Section 4, Developing Inter -Board Relationships - adding a reference to Integrated Resource Planning -- Section 3, DSM Activities Board Member Eighmy made a motion that the Work Plan be approved as amended. The motion was seconded and the Work Plan was unanimously approved as amended. Staff will make suggested changes and will fax copies to Board Member Welch and Chairperson Smart for feedback. Staff will forward the finalized Work Plan to the City Clerk's office no later than November 30. 5. STAFF REPORTS: None. 6. INFORMATIONAL REQUESTS: None. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. DelyiWR. Coldiron, Board Secretary -5-