Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutElectric Board - Minutes - 08/18/1993Minutes to be Approved by the Board at the September 20, 1993 Meeting. FORT COLLINS ELECTRIC BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 18, 1993, 5:00 - 6:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Allum, Jeff Eighmy, Barbara Rutstein, Richard Smart, and Larry Walsh. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Fidrych and Jim Welch. STAFF PRESENT: Ellen Alward, Don Botteron, Allen Boushee, Delynn Coldiron, John DeHaes, Ron King, Bob Kost, Bob Nastan, Tim Sagen, Rich Shannon, Dennis Sumner, and Doug Swartz. OTHERS PRESENT: John Bleem and Thaine Michie BOARD LIAISONS: Council Liaison -- Alan Apt Staff Liaison -- Don Botteron 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There was a misspelling on page 3, number 5, line 2. The word "conversation" should read "conservation." This correction was noted and the Minutes from the July 21, 1993 meeting were approved as corrected. 2. IRP RECOMMENDATION: Rich Shannon gave a brief description of the items provided to Board Members at the beginning of the meeting. He mentioned that Alan Apt felt that the articles provided would be of interest to Board Members and that they reflect the approach Alan is recommending. Board Members took a couple minutes to review the Memo from Rich Shannon and Alan Apt, together with a suggested version of the integrated resource planning standard definition from Alan Apt. John Allum provided a copy of an article from The Electricity Journal entitled "What Does a Negawatt Really Cost? Further Thoughts and Evidence." -1- Staff discussions on this issue have focused around 1) specifics of the IRP language and meeting the requirements of the Federal Policy Act, and 2) the direction L&P should take with regard to management of energy resources. At last month's meeting, there was some concern that the integrated resource planning (IRP) standard did not include language which addressed the issue of environmental externalities. The concern now being raised is that the IRP standard should include language which addresses the issues of externalities and demand side management. Council wants to see a strong emphasis placed on demand side management. Public policy is developed by 1) public mandate, i.e., Amendment 1; 2) public, staff, or advisory boards presenting an idea for Council consideration; and 3) Council giving direction and asking staff and advisory boards to help them realize their goal. Discussions between staff and Council to date point toward number 3 -- Council has given us a policy direction for this issue and is asking the Electric Board to react to it. The Electric Board is being asked to react on the direction Light and Power should take regarding management of energy resources, as well as how Light and Power should respond to the National Energy Policy Act. The Board is also being asked to endorse a method of addressing assumptions and variables used when testing various IRP programs. Board Members reviewed the suggested version of the IRP standard from Alan Apt. There was some concern that this version was no longer "integrated resource planning" but was instead "demand side planning." Even though the statement includes a reference to "the full range of alternatives", resource alternatives were deleted. Board Members did not have a problem with there being an emphasis in a certain area, but were concerned that a true integrated resource plan should also consider resources. In response to a question on intent, Rich answered that his understanding of the intent of the City Council is to never build another power plant, if possible; significant energy conservation measures should allow us to go well into the next century prior to needing another one. It is also the intent of the Council that the City take the lead in promoting a major shift in thinking regarding energy use. Rich mentioned that this shift in thinking is a statement about the Council's philosophy and values and the actions of the Utility ought to reflect these. When asked whether or not this shift in thinking meant that only demand side issues were being considered, Rich answered that this is not necessarily the case; if the Utility were to buy more efficient equipment, etc., this would be considered a supply side improvement. The National Energy Policy Act requires that the City, as an entity under that act, either accept or reject integrated resource planning as a standard to live by. Thaine Michie's observation was that the suggested IRP standard from Alan Apt does not meet the intent of integrated resource planning but rather points toward a strong demand side plan. He mentioned that based on the contract between Ft. Collins and Platte River, Ft. Collins does not have a choice on where they buy electricity and Ft. Collins cannot get involved in generation, so there are not a lot of options to consider on the supply side. Because Ft. Collins does not have a lot of choice on supply side issues anyway, the suggested IRP standard from Alan Apt should be okay. If the Utility chooses to adopt a standard that deals only with demand side management issues, it won't have trouble meeting WAPA -2- requirements as long as the integrated resource plan that Platte River is working on encompasses both supply side and demand side issues. There was some discussion on cogeneration issues. Because of air quality concerns, it is important that the idea of cogeneration not be promoted to new companies coming to town who might negatively impact air quality to meet their electricity needs. Dennis mentioned that Poudre Valley Hospital and Woodward Governor have seriously looked at cogeneration but have not opted for it. Currently, CSU's main campus, CSU's motor test facility and a new company considering relocation to Ft. Collins are evaluating cogeneration options. After hearing discussion, Rich mentioned that there appears to be a couple of ways the Board could decide to go: 1) Accept the IRP standard: a) Accept original language as stated in the federal law b) Accept the version submitted by Alan Apt c) Negotiate on differences at next month's meeting and prepare a new IRP standard definition incorporating these negotiated differences; or 2) Reject the IRP standard on the basis that we are not a generator and it does not make sense for us to adopt an integrated resource standard, and instead, adopt a demand side management policy for the City of Fort Collins. Dennis mentioned that no matter what the Board decides to do, the decision can be changed. The National Energy Policy Act only requires that the City Council discuss integrated resource planning and draw a conclusion by October, 1995. Although the National Energy Policy Act does not require a decision until October, 1995, the priorities and goals of City Council are such that they might like to see the Utility take a progressive stance on these issues and move along as quickly as possible. Dennis shared with the Board a summary of program results from the NEOS report on five Fort Collins' programs. He mentioned that the analysis was done using a software program called DS Manager. Some of the assumptions used in this analysis have radically changed and staff feels it would be misleading for us to not correct these numbers. Staff proposed that the assumptions should be updated and revised. These changes will have an impact on the conclusions from the analysis. Staff proposed a process for updating these assumptions. First, staff will propose a set of updated assumptions. Secondly, these revised assumptions and results will be presented to a sub- committee of the Electric Board. The sub -committee will critique the assumptions. The goal will be to identify what assumptions can be agreed on by all, and which assumptions cannot be agreed on. The impact of these assumptions will be determined and the findings of this process will be presented to the entire Board. Board Members agreed that this was a good way to proceed. Suggested sub -committee: Mark Fidrych, Barbara Rutstein, and Jim Welch. -3- Dennis advised that there is another software program available that staff feels may work better than DS Manager. DS Manager is complicated, requires a lot of data, dynamics are not easily followed and sensitivities are indirect to follow. The other software program staff is considering is less complicated and offers the flexibility of input data and analysis data being dealt with on a more comparable level which helps us better see and understand dynamics, sensitivities, etc. Thaine Michie thought that using the new software program was positive. He mentioned that the results of the NEOS report are somewhat inaccurate due to the changing assumptions and said that the results were never scrutinized because the purpose of hiring NEOS was to learn the methodology to enable us to do these types of studies without the need of hiring a consultant. Being able to do these types of studies without hiring a consultant not only helps us gain a higher level of understanding, it also alleviates the problems created with turnover in the industry which makes getting questions answered about previous studies a challenge. There is only one person left at NEOS who worked on this project. The sub -committee needs to consider proceeding using the new software package being recommended. There was some concern that the level of trust would go down if the NEOS results were thrown out. It was suggested that the sub -committee make the decision on which software to use their first order of business. After discussion, Board Members felt comfortable with delaying action on IRP in order to review the articles which were provided at the meeting. The Board asked for any additional articles which staff could provide and any supplementary comments City staff, Platte River, or others may have, demand or supply side related. Delaying action on the IRP language also allows the two absent Board Members the chance to look over the information that was furnished and provide feedback. Another option the Board considered was that we have until October, 1995 to decide on a position regarding IRP language in order to comply with federal law, and it is possible that this issue can be placed on the back burner for now and that the Board should spend its time trying to meet Council's expectations on demand side management issues. After further discussion, Board Members seemed to think that this option makes more sense and want to consider taking IRP off the Agenda until February or March of 1994 and concentrating their efforts on demand side management issues. Chairperson Rutstein would like to get feedback from the two absent Board Members prior to the Board making a decision on this. Dennis will get in touch with the sub -committee to get meetings scheduled as quickly as possible. Chairperson Rutstein mentioned that Board Member Welch was going to be out of town until September 1 and suggested that the sub -committee meet with Alan Apt if meetings are scheduled prior to September 1. -4- 3. ELECTRIC BOARD BUDGET RECOMMENDATION: Board Members reviewed the draft memorandum regarding the 1994 Light and Power budget. Board Members felt that the memo was thorough and was something they could support. A Motion was made by Board Member Smart that the memo be finalized and sent to the Mayor and City Council. Board Member Allum seconded the Motion and the Motion carried unanimously. Staff will finalize the memorandum for Chairperson Rutstein's signature. 4. ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE PRESENTATION OR ALTERNATIVES: Alan Apt has come to the conclusion that although RMI could provide some interesting information on resource issues, he thinks a better approach is to get practitioners here who have implemented their programs, know what works, and can offer suggestions about what would or would not be appropriate for our community. The scenario is that a group of practitioners would be selected, information would be sent to them in advance of their coming to town for a few days, they would be brought to Ft. Collins and given a chance get a sense of the community by talking with staff, Electric Board Members and Natural Resources Board Members, and then as a group they would, from their collective expertise, evaluate the current situation in Ft. Collins and make appropriate recommendations. Board Member Allum mentioned that APPA has resources which could be used for this purpose at a reasonable cost. After discussion, Board Members felt it was important to settle on a philosophy prior to designing a panel of experts to help us with the selection of energy efficiency programs. During the next few months the Electric Board will be helping staff look at the total picture, agreeing on a philosophy, agreeing on whether or not the Utility should proceed with IRP, and reacting to a suggested panel of experts. 5. STAFF REPORTS: None. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Rutstein mentioned that Board Member Fidrych called to let her know he had a conflict with this month's meeting and September's meeting due to travel. He mentioned that business trips are usually scheduled for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and wondered if the meeting day could be changed to Mondays. Board Members discussed moving September's meeting to Monday the 20th. The meeting for September was changed to Monday, September 20th. Delynn will call the absent Board Members to let them know about this change and will also do a poll to find out if Mondays would be a good day for future meetings. -5- CRITIQUE MEETING/NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA: Agenda: Demand Side Management Sub -Committee Report ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. DelyniR. Coldiron, Board Secretary m