Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutElectric Board - Minutes - 09/07/2011Electric Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 1 Fort Collins Utilities Electric Board Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Electric Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Steve Wolley, 288-0317 Lisa Poppaw, 223-4136 Electric Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Edward DeCourcey, 206-9996 Brian Janonis, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Steve Wolley, Vice Chairperson DeCourcey, Board Members John Graham, Steve Yurash, Peggy Plate, and John Harris ** Chairperson Wolley joined the meeting at 5:38 p.m. No impact to quorum for voting. Staff Present Brian Janonis, Steve Catanach, Patty Bigner, Kraig Bader, Tom Rock, Ellen Switzer, Bill Switzer, Travis Walker, Norm Weaver, Robin Pierce, and Harriet Davis Guests Rick Coen, Chris Patton (Opower) Meeting Convened Vice Chairperson DeCourcey called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of August 3, 2011, Minutes Board Member Plate questioned the statement on page 2 of the minutes concerning rate options developed to date. The section will be revised to read as follows, “A seasonal rate is generally a more dynamic rate structure. It requires a certain amount of infrastructure to support such as billing system upgrades. The Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) investment supports a TOU rate structure.” Board Member Yurash moved to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2011, meeting as amended. Board Member Graham seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Energy Policy Goals Recommendation (Presentation available upon request) Light and Power Operations Manager Steve Catanach introduced this topic and reminded the board the Fort Collins Solar Program (FCSP) was presented at the Council Work Session on July 12, 2011. Staff is asking the board to review the Energy Policy and provide a recommendation to Council. Energy Services Manager John Phelan gave the presentation. Board discussion: A board member questioned if the City of Fort Collins has to comply with the Renewable Energy Standard (RES) since it is a home rule city? Mr. Catanach stated the City could argue home rule Electric Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 2 status; however, in consideration of the implemented programs and other actions the City has taken, that is a weak argument for them to make. Are there other home rule cities that have opted out? No, the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Fort Collins are the only municipalities that fall within the requirements of the RES. Mr. Phelan presented the four main points of the Fort Collins Energy Policy: • Reliability (metrics; asset management; peak demand reduction) • Efficiency/Climate (carbon emission goals; efficiency and conservation priorities; renewable energy) • Economic Health (financial policies; rates, bills, and affordability; local economic benefits) • Collaboration with Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Mr. Phelan discussed the first goal of the policy, which is to provide highly reliable electric service. This includes specific objectives such as providing and maintaining a highly reliable system and developing, implementing, and maintaining effective capital planning. Board discussion: A board member stated that goals should be specific and measurable. Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis stated Council adopted the Energy Policy in 2009; however, the current Council has questions concerning the policy and has asked the Electric Board to review. A board member questioned the current definition of a “smart grid roadmap” in the current policy. Mr. Catanach stated there is no current definition. A board member stated clarification may be needed to clarify that “smart grid” includes not only Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI), but other components as well. A board member asked for clarification on what Council questioned. Have they questioned the Energy Policy itself or the Goals and Objectives? Mr. Janonis stated Council questioned the direction of Utilities. Staff wants the opportunity to present the Energy Policy to the current Council. A board member stated the Energy Policy does not take a look at the broad picture and the policy should be reworked in the next generation by the Energy Board. This suggestion should be presented to Council. A new policy should be implemented that emphasizes programs such as carbon reduction. Mr. Phelan noted the reliability goal of managing peak loads to reduce demands on the distribution system, optimizing infrastructure investment, and reducing purchased power costs. This goal includes increasing the power managed by load management, smart grid and distributed generation to at least 5 percent of 2005 system peak demand by 2015 and at least 10 percent by 2020. Are the specific numbers for load management applicable to the Energy Policy? Yes. Mr. Catanach stated that $5 million of the grant program is dedicated to demand response and there was a significant investment in technology. Electric Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 3 Vote on the motion: 5 for, 1 against. Reason for the nay vote: Board Member Yurash: Goal #2 should be to reduce fossil fuel consumption, not focus on carbon emission reduction. Home Energy Reports Program Results (Presentation available upon request) Ms. Bigner introduced this topic and introduced Chris Patton with Opower. Staff is seeking the board’s support for moving forward with another year of the program. Mr. Phelan gave the presentation and stated this item was first brought to the board in March 2010 and then again in July 2011. This program is delivered in partnership with Opower. Approximately 25,000 customer recipients receive the report six times per year. The program is meeting or exceeding expectations: • Over 2,900 megawatt-hours (MWh) year to date • On track to exceed goal of 4,500 MWh • Cost of conserved energy less than $0.05 per kilowatt-hour (KWh) • Contributes approximately 20 percent of annual efficiency portfolio goal Board discussion: How do you get on the list to receive the reports? It is a random sample of residential customers. Mr. Patton stated board members could be added to the list to receive the report and not be part of the sample set. How much money is returned to the community as a result of the savings generated by this program? These details will be shared later in the presentation. What is the ultimate goal of the program? The goal is a combination of measurable and verifiable energy savings and the education of customers to understand their energy usage patterns. At what point do you open the program to the entire set of customers? That concept is a possibility in the future once Utilities achieves its confidence level with the study. Depending on future budgets, these reports could be sent to the entire residential class. How long does this study need to be conducted for Utilities to achieve its confidence level? Mr. Janonis stated the current data is being presented for the board to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the program. The board can decide if it is a worthwhile program based on the evidence presented. A board member asked for clarification on the following statement, “cost of conserved energy less than $0.05 per kilowatt-hour.” This is the cost of running the program and the amount of energy savings Utilities will see in a single year. Can Utilities track individuals that receive the report to determine what other efficiency programs they participate in? Yes, Utilities is starting to look at this data. Board Member Plate moved that the Electric Board reviewed the Energy Policy and reaffirms its vision and the original goals. The Electric Board further recommends the future Energy Board broaden the scope of the policy to include other over-arching City goals. Board Member Graham seconded the motion. Electric Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 4 Home Energy Reports Program Summary • The program reached its highest percentage savings to date in May 2011 at 3.1 percent across all legacy recipients • Results per household for the last 12 months are ~250 kWh saved per household • Quarterly cumulative impact suggests that year over year results are improving despite attrition • Attrition has declined, and move outs this year are much lower than last year for legacy participants • Recent and in-progress program enhancements are likely to boost results by an estimated 0.2-0.5 percent How much money was returned to the community? Approximately $400,000 has been returned to the community through reduced energy bills. After accounting for the program cost, net savings is approximately $150,000. What is the explanation for higher savings in Quarter1 of 2010? People generally use more electricity during the winter months. Ms. Bigner also stated the energy efficiency programs are working better. Mr. Phelan stated opt outs have decreased. He feels that Utilities is learning how to best utilize the program. 2011 Program Enhancements • Refresh customer list to 27,500 households • Moved all customers to bimonthly frequency • Implemented varied stream module framework (aka dynamic report content) • Upgraded web portal-positive customer feedback • Home audit promotion in September Is this a one year contract? Yes, the program will be renewed for one year. A board member stated two points should be emphasized for validation of the program: • There is a statistically significant savings with the program. • There is a real economic benefit to the community. What is the cost of the program? The program costs $250,000 per year ($400,000 goes back into the community). A board member stated more economic benefit could be added by adding more citizens to the program. There could be a greater benefit to the community. How do you keep the program fresh and keep individuals engaged? Ms. Bigner stated the vendor (Opower) is continuing to learn about the program. For example, the addition of the web portal feature was implemented so customers can view their account online. How many utilities are involved in the program? There are approximately 70 utilities involved in the program. Electric Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 5 Are there any other PRPA utilities involved in the program? The City of Loveland started the program in June 2011. How are the savings spread across individual customers? Mr. Patton stated some customers are saving a lot and some are saving smaller amounts. Mr. Phelan stated high usage households have more opportunity for savings. If a customer stopped receiving the reports, would they continue with the behavior change or would they cease the behavior? Mr. Patton stated Opower is currently testing customer behavior patterns. Does Utilities know the demographic of each household? Yes, this data is available. Is the contract cost a fixed cost? It is basically dollars per customer per year. Currently, it is $10 per customer. Additional customers can be added to the program; however, it will cost more. Since the program is still maturing, Utilities is continuing to improve the marketing and messaging of the program. How does the Board need to proceed with their recommendation? Ms. Bigner stated staff would like the board to make a recommendation that the program is performing as expected and returning savings to the community. A board member suggested the program should be eliminated after the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program is implemented. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Adoption of Light and Power Safety Manual Mr. Catanach introduced this topic and introduced Standards Engineering Manager Kraig Bader and Supervisory Crew Chief Travis Walker. They were available to answer questions. In 2009, Light and Power was awarded the RP3 (Reliable Public Power Provider) designation by American Public Power Association (APPA). This award recognizes best practices in reliability, safety, workforce, and system improvements. Applications must be submitted every two years in order to retain RP3 status and current formal adoption of the Safety Manual by the board is a requirement of the submittal. Staff recommends the board formally adopt the Light and Power Safety Manual and acknowledge this in a memo to staff. Mr. Bader stated the board is asked to acknowledge they have seen the safety manual, not to review all the details of the manual. However, staff is willing to accept any feedback on the manual from the board. Mr. Bader and Mr. Walker are both members of a 10 person safety committee. The committee has reviewed the manually extensively. Board Member Graham moved that Chairperson Wolley draft a memo to City Council stating the Electric Board supports the program for the next year. The memo will be reviewed by each board member prior to distribution to Council. Board Member Yurash seconded the motion. Electric Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 6 Board discussion: What is the current safety record? Mr. Catanach stated the current safety record needs improvement. There have been a series of strain and sprain injuries; however, Utilities is striving to improve. A board member expressed concerns that the Safety Manual has been modified to incorporate sections from the APPA Manual, and that neither manual contains sections on lifting and stretching. Mr. Catanach stated a mandatory stretching program has been implemented for the Meter Readers to strengthen their legs and ankles. This program was mandatory initially. After the first few months, the program became optional. There were incentive rewards available with the program to encourage continued use. A board member expressed concerns this is reactive, not proactive. What is Utilities doing that is proactive? Mr. Walker stated that Utilities has done their best to think of everything that could potentially happen within the scope of the crew’s daily work. Did the safety committee look at other examples of safety manuals? Mr. Walker stated the Light and Power Safety Manual is a culmination of individual’s knowledge through many decades of work at Utilities in addition to industry standards. A board member suggested Utilities contact different communities to review their safety manuals in order to seek potential improvements. A board member questioned a statement in the manual concerning approved tools since there is no specific reference to an approved tool list in the manual. Typically, Work Practice Manuals list the approved tools. Does Utilities have a Work Practice Manual? No, Utilities does not have a Work Practice Manual per se; however, they have procedures for certain tasks. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Routine Updates Platte River Power Authority: Mr. Catanach gave an update on this item. Councilmember Gerry Horak and Mayor Karen Weitkunat now serve on the board as representatives of the City of Fort Collins. The board held an executive session to discuss possible litigation concerning transmission lines near the Pineridge Natural Area. The board agreed to delay the project for 45 days until October 18, 2011. The City of Fort Collins is sharing the cost of a study to look at potential alternatives. PRPA indicated they could build a temporary transmission line if the City is willing to pay the costs of one of the alternatives. Several factors need to be considered, including environmental impacts and easements. The deadline for this decision is October 10, 2011. This information will be presented to Council on October 18, 2011. Council will make a decision to pursue litigation, pursue one of the Board Member Yurash moved that the board recognize the receipt of the manual and review it as acceptable for submission to APPA. This will be acknowledged in a letter to staff. Board Member DeCourcey seconded the motion. Electric Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 7 alternatives, or to take no action. Staff desires to clearly communicate the positive and negative impacts to Council in their report. Board discussion: Who is doing the study? The City will hire a consultant to look at other alternatives. What is the cost of the study? The costs consist of time and materials not to exceed $110,000. What is the cost of underground transmission lines? It would cost approximately $15.9 million to cover 1.6 miles. Capitol News (Vice Chairperson DeCourcey): No report. Staff Reports Monthly Financial Report Utilities Financial Operations Manager Ellen Switzer provided a monthly Financial Report included in the packet. She noted development fees have increased in the past month. Board discussion: A board member questioned why the Mason Corridor Appropriation Item did not appear under Capital Projects on this report. Ms. Switzer stated this will show on the August report. Update on Electric Rate Options from August 15 th Council Finance Committee Ms. Bigner gave an update on this item. Based on feedback from the Electric Board, staff revised their presentation to the Finance Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss development of the rate options to date and request feedback on the presentation and supporting material. The committee liked being used as a sounding board. They requested the language in the report be simplified for the general public. They also requested the rates for 2012 adoption and would like to focus on the residential rate class. They felt the presentation had too much content and they request that staff do a better job of discussing the context behind Council’s consideration and potential adoption of a change to the electric rate form. The Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and supporting materials have been revised since the Electric Board presentation in August. The options have been changed based on feedback from the committee. The status quo is the current rate with the cost of service included; the second option is the Seasonal Pass-Through Rate with cost of service included; the third option is the 3 Tier Rate; and the fourth option is the 5 Tier Rate. The Time of Use (TOU) option has been eliminated; however, staff will propose a TOU pilot in 2012 for use with electric vehicles. Board discussion: What are the drivers for the rate change? The drivers are achieving Council policy goals and aligning pricing signals with Council goals, as well as carbon reduction. Did they shelve the TOU rate option? They are willing to consider a TOU rate once AMI is in place. Ms. Bigner stated some of the Design Philosophy concerning Fairness and Equity was kept in the presentation. Staff tweaked the presentation to align what Council was looking for from staff. Staff recommended the 3 Tier Rate and splitting the commercial rate. Is that revenue neutral? Yes. Ms. Bigner stated the AMT roll-out was discussed, but it is not a primary consideration. Who is on the Council Finance Committee? Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmembers Ben Manvel and Kelly Ohlson are on the committee. Ms. Bigner expressed her thanks to the board for reviewing the Electric Rate Options. Other Business Mr. Catanach gave on update on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) site visit to Utilities on August 9, 201 1. The representatives had a series of questions for Utilities to address, including overall goals of the AMI project and specific details. This is not an audit per se, but an annual visit to ensure the project is on track and that no assistance is needed for the project. He noted the DOE was very impressed with Utilities’ policy regarding cyber security. Policy and Project Manager Tom Vosburg currently manages this policy. It was noted the presentation was one of the top two cyber security presentations from fifteen site visits. Staff is waiting for a formal report from the DOE. Mr. Catanach also mentioned that Senior Electrical Engineer Ginger Purvis and Torn Vosburg attended a DOE meeting on cyber security and felt reassured that Utilities is taking the proper steps concerning those issues. Future Agenda Items None Open Items Trackin2 None Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Submitted by Harriet Davis, Administrative Assistant, Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board on 2011 Signed 10 ii Board Secretary Date Electric Board Meeting Minutes 8 September 7, 2011