Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 09/04/2014Energy Board September 4, 2014 Minutes 1 Fort Collins Utilities Energy Board Minutes Thursday, September 4, 2014 Energy Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Greg Behm, 226-6161 Ross Cunniff, 420-7398 Energy Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Peter O’Neill, 288-4562 Steve Catanach, 416-2622 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Greg Behm, Vice Chairperson Peter O’Neill, Board Members Margaret Moore, Stacey Baumgarn, Phil Friedman, Peggy Plate, Nick Michell, Michael Doss Board Absent Board Member John Graham Staff Present Steve Catanach, John Phelan, Paul Sizemore, Lucinda Smith, Lance Smith, Ellen Switzer, Cyril Vidergar, and Katherine Martinez Guests Rick Coen, Fred Kirsch Meeting Convened Chairperson Behm called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of August 7 Minutes Board Member Baumgarn moved to accept the minutes as submitted. Board Member Nick Michell seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously with one abstention. *Board Member Doss abstained due to his absence at the August 7 meeting. **Board Member Moore was not present for the vote due to arriving a few minutes later, at 5:41 pm during Staff Reports. ***Board Member Phil Friedman left the meeting at 7:57 pm during the Bike Share presentation. Because the August 25 special meeting minutes were not included in the board meeting packet, Chairperson Behm deferred approving them until the October regular meeting. Staff Reports Environmental Services Director Lucinda Smith reported that the Climate Action Committee (CAC) met for the third time recently and scheduled two more meetings. City Council will hear from the CAC on February 17, 2015. They discussed models developed by The Brendle Group, and Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is developing supportive information on tactics for strategies. Energy Board September 4, 2014 Minutes 2 Energy Services Manager John Phelan handed out the 2013 Energy Policy Update summary, which was transmitted to City Council today. He will send a PDF version to the Energy Board. FC Moves Program Manager Paul Sizemore reported that his group presented the Bicycle Action Plan and Midtown in Motion Plan at the August 22 Council Work Session, and was successful in gaining Council’s support to move the plans forward for adoption. The Bicycle Action Plan is scheduled to be adopted in December, and Council moved up the Midtown in Motion plan to October 7. The West Central Plan, which includes preliminary designs for Prospect Road, will be heard at one additional Work Session next year, before Council adopts it.  A board member inquired about Midtown in Motion. Mr. Sizemore explained that the plan examines the transportation element of College Avenue and how it could work better; the plan keeps traffic operations for cars mostly the same, with improvements at intersections and frontage roads, along with bicycle and pedestrian improvements. A board member inquired about the Georgetown University energy prize that he read about in the newspaper.  Mr. Phelan explained that it is a competition that gives a $5 million prize to the winner, to be spent on furthering energy efficiency. City staff is preparing the plan for the competition, which covers a two-year performance period, from 2015 to 2016, and includes all residential energy use and municipal buildings. The final competition will cover the first few months of 2017.  A board member inquired whether Fort Collins is competing against cities with similar populations. Mr. Phelan replied yes, Fort Collins is competing against mid-size cities in the 5,000 to 250,000 population range. The competition works this way: you’re competing against yourself, with 2013-2014 serving as the base line year, in the categories of electricity and natural gas. Energy reduction percentage is the measurement. Staff is planning design charrettes; a group of stakeholders are collaborating on the project. One question in the application is how will the City use the prize money if it wins? Budgeting for Outcomes (Attachments available upon request) Ms. Smith handout the list of budget offers seen at last month’s meeting with two columns showing whether the offer was funded in 2015 and 2016, based on the City Manager’s recommended budget, which was released on Tuesday, September 2 and is available at www.fcgov.com. She pointed out that budget offer #47.14 for a FTE employee for Green Built Environment was funded even though it wasn’t in the Budget Lead Team (BLT) recommended budget. Ms. Smith stated staff was disappointed that offer #47.15 (Keep Fort Collins Great Enhancement: Community Engagement in a Vision for a Fossil Free Future) was not funded. She stated the City needs community involvement to meet its carbon objectives. Offer #47.18 (Enhancement FortZED Program) was funded at half the requested amount: $25,000 for 2015 and $25,000 for 2016. Highlights of the Discussion  Light & Power Operations Manager Steve Catanach stated that offer #61.1 was not funded; it would have replaced all street lights with LEDs over five years. The lifecycle payback analysis came back as 10 to 11 years; staff was asked to shift to a simple payback, which brought it up to 23 years, therefore staff could not recommend it for funding. Energy Board September 4, 2014 Minutes 3  A board member inquired whether there is an LED standard so we’re not playing catch up if LEDs are installed. Mr. Catanach stated we’re finally reaching the size of community require implementing a wholesale replacement of large sections of street lights, whereas currently, crews do inspections and replace individual lights that don’t work. The City has nearly 11,000 lights (includes the head and bulb).  Ms. Smith stated there is $1 million in reserves for a municipal recycling center, which was funded. Offers that just missed funding were in the areas of Water, Solid Waste, etc.  Mr. Sizemore commented on the budget offers receiving funding; the Planning and Transportation department receiving funding on on-going items but enhancements (one-time program funding) for consulting services for big projects, transit service, and some infrastructure items, were not. There are other possible sources of funding for some. Staff will apply for grants, and Building on Basics (BOB 2.0) will be on the April ballot; BOB money might provide funding for infrastructure.  Mr. Sizemore stated that two plans that weren’t funded have a high impact on the Energy Board’s mission: updates to the Transportation Master Plan and Envision Fort Collins, which would have been the name for the updated version of City Plan. He included two contingency offers in case the Transportation Master Plan wasn’t funded, but those two items weren’t funded either. Budget offer #169.1 (Transportation Climate Action Strategic Plan) links the Climate Action Plan (CAP) to transportation activities.  Ms. Smith suggested board members attend upcoming Council Work Session if they’d like another opportunity to comment or make recommendations on the budget. The September 9 session will discuss four topics including environmental health, and the September 23 will include transportation.  A board member commented that he was pleasantly surprised most of the items he was interested in, except transportation, was funded. He suggested the board write a memo expressing appreciation to City Council it appreciates funding other items that are important to the board. Another board member agreed and stated that the more the City encourages people to use alternative transportation, the less expensive it is to maintain infrastructure.  A board member inquired whether the unfunded items, such as Transportation Master Plan and Envision Fort Collins, will eventually get funded. Mr. Sizemore stated that yes, historically that’s how it works out; staff has a list of plans, and will work on alternative funding and doing some work in-house, and if they’re on the list of budget offers when next BFO cycle comes, make strong case for why they must be funded.  A board member commented that since car sales are up and Fort Collins’ population is growing, it’s important to connect the Transportation Plan to climate. He suggested writing a memo to Council mentioning this, along with expressing gratitude for funded budget offers.  Ms. Smith stated that if no alternative funded is identified for unfunded budget offers before the next budget cycle, staff will make a strong argument in next BFO process, because some of these unfunded items do advance the board’s objective. Sometimes the decision comes down to whether to invest in a capital project with a Return on Investment (ROI) in terms of dollars and carbon reduction. Also, staff is developing a project list for BOB 2.0.  A board member inquired whether there are any sources of funding from the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ms. Smith commented that a past EPA program called Climate Showcase Communities by EPA was one potential grant opportunity.  A board member expressed concern about how much to push for budget offers that weren’t funded, even if it’s just a symbolic gesture. Another board member suggested advocating for only one or items at most. Energy Board September 4, 2014 Minutes 4  A board member commented that it seems someone dropped the ball on showing the strong connection between how transportation and climate change issues intermesh. Mr. Sizemore stated that staff’s preference would be for the Transportation Master Plan to be the item that links those issues, in the form of meeting energy and greenhouse goals. This would not be unique to Fort Collins; it’s the way these planning processes have developed across the country. Boulder is conducting a similar process now, integrating its transportation plan and climate issues.  A board member inquired how much staff is keeping a watch on land use issues as it relates to transportation. Mr. Sizemore stated there is a strong link between land use and transportation, and would have preferred it be addressed in the updates of City Plan and Transportation Master Plan.  A board member commented, when reading through the Transportation Plan and related documents, there is not a lot of explicit mention of transportation as it relates to energy efficiency or greenhouse gas, and it seems critically important to include this relationship.  Ms. Smith stated the City’s Strategic Plan, informed basis for one of justifications, each offer has specific objectives, full offers are on website Board Member Michell moved that Chairperson Behm or his designee draft a memo to City Council supporting the many energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction projects that are supported in the budget, in particular, budget offer #47.14 (1.0 FTE Green Built Environment Program Coordinator) and #47.18 supporting FortZED, and we would also like Council to considering supporting offer #169.1 (Transportation Climate Action Stategic Plan). Board Member O’Neill seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. 2015 Budget – Light and Power Fund (Attachments available upon request) Financial Operations Manager Ellen Switzer presented information on the City Manager’s Recommended 2015-2016 Budget for the Light & Power Fund. The budget includes a 6% increase in operating revenue for 2015, and a 4.4% increase in 2016. Overall revenue will be up 5.9 % in 2015, and 4.1% in 2016. Payments and Transfers listed on Slide 4 includes payments in lieu of taxes to the General Fund, General Fund Administrative Services such as human resources and city attorney’s office, debt service payments, and the Light & Power Fund contribution to the Utilities Customer Service and Administration fund. The 2014 Purchase Power budget will increase 2% from 2013 despite the 2.5% rate increase in purchase power expenses (PRPA) and projected growth of 2.5%. Ms. Switzer stated that this modest 2% increase is because staff doesn’t anticipate spending the entire budget for 2014. The total increase in the Light & Power Fund budget is 6.7% increase for 2015 and 1.5% in 2016. Highlights from the Discussion  The L&P fund is fortunate to have only one budget offer not funded (LED streetlights).  A board member inquired how many meters will be added. Ms. Switzer stated that staff is expecting a 2.5% increase in total kilowatt hour (kWh) sales. Energy Board September 4, 2014 Minutes 5  Mr. Catanach commented that this budget demonstrates continued growth in construction, and because growth pays the majority of its own way, expenses are offset by revenue.  A board member inquired about the $1.8 million budget offer for vehicle storage buildings. Mr. Catanach stated that the challenge has been that the vehicles stored at the Utilities Service Center ice up at night. The new heated garages will address safety concerns by melting snow and keeping vehicles dry. There are also design requirements related to the fact that the service center is in a residential neighborhood.  A board member inquired about projected budget revenues being less than budgeted expenses. Ms. Switzer stated the L&P Fund has fairly large reserves, some of which will be used to fund the budget. Mr. Catanach commented that we had planned to use reserves in 2013 as well but ended up using much less than projected. Ms. Switzer stated staff is fairly conservative in budgeting; they tend to underestimate revenue and overestimate expenses.  Mr. Catanach added that a separate ordinance will also be required to establish that Light & Power is responsible for paying for City street lights, as is current practice although the City Charter no longer mentions this responsibility. Board Member Moore moved that the Energy Board recommend City Council approve the city manager’s recommended 2015-16 budget for the Light & Power Fund. Board Member Baumgarn seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. 2015 Utility Rates (Attachments available upon request) Rate Analyst Randy Reuscher presented information on the 2015 Electric Rate Increase. An electric rate increase is required in 2015 due to an increase in purchase power rates from Platte River Power Authority. The average increase projected for Fort Collins Utilities customers is 1.9%. Over a three- year period (2015-17), the operations and maintenance expense will increase and estimated $10.1 million for Platte River, which is partially driving the needed increase. Staff completed the 2014 cost of service study, including updating the usage history for all rate classes. The Residential Demand (RD) rate is for all electric customers. Mr. Catanach stated the goal of the cost of service rate structure is to be completely fair, which is attainable because we now have better data, and a more accurate representation across the different classes. Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith stated the fixed charge should be close to $20; one reason for a low fixed charge is that lower income does indicate to some extent lower consumption, and a lower fixed charge may benefit this group, as well as encourage energy conservation overall. Mr. Smith stated ordinances are required for the rate increase and for the development fee. Board Member Moore moved to prepare a letter to council in advance of first reading of “Utility Rate Ordinances” on Oct. 21, 2014, stating the Energy Board’s position on the proposed 2015 electric rate increases and the electric development fees. Chairperson Behm suggested a friendly amendment, which Board Member Moore agreed to: revise the language from the Energy Board’s “position on” to “support of.” Energy Board September 4, 2014 Minutes 6 Board Member Moore moved to prepare a letter to council in advance of first reading of “Utility Rate Ordinances” on Oct. 21, 2014, stating the Energy Board’s support of the proposed 2015 electric rate increases and the electric development fees. Board Member Baumgarn Stacy seconded the motion.  A board member inquired about whether there were any complaints about the rate increase at the Key Accounts meeting today. Mr. Reuscher stated there were none.  A board member inquired if a 2% rate increase is typical. Mr. Reuscher stated that compared to last five to six years, it’s a minimal increase. Mr. Phelan stated the half percent increase each year over that period was for the Fort Collins Community Solar Garden. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Bike Share Presentation (Attachments available upon request) Transportation Planner Amy Lewin summarized the business plan. Staff is seeking funding. Bike Share is an automated self-service bicycle rental service geared toward short, one-way trips. Easy- to-use, convenient stations of bikes would be located around town, and annual memberships would be offered, along with casual memberships of one day or seven days. When you check out a bike, you receive a 30-minute grace period, with additional fees charged if you keep the bike beyond that. Denver, Aspen, and Boulder are the three Colorado cities currently using Bike Share. The City would own the system, and use a third party to maintain operations. Cities around the country that have Bike Share usually form a non-profit organization specifically to handle operations. Bike Share supports business and tourism, and is customized for each particular city. Advertising and sponsorships are a key part of the system. Staff is leaning toward using the Smart Dock system; an alternative is the Smart Bike system in which the technology is on the bike. The city of Tampa will implement this program soon. The funding model – phase 1 covers 20 stations, 200 bikes, and a 380 dock system. The system will cost $1.1 million to start up and $2.6 million over five years. Ms. Lewin stated the program is an investment; staff plans on $1.5 million in sponsorships. A Request for Proposals for installing the system and handling operations could be released as early as this fall, with plans for Bike Share to launch in fall 2015. Information is available at www.fcgov.com/bikeshare  A board member commented that it would be a good idea to allow users to use existing cards instead of creating 30,000 new cards specifically for Bike Share, such as the RAM card on the CSU campus that students use to access buildings; the card can also be used like a debit card for purchases.  Ms. Lewin stated Bike Share bikes are designed to be almost indestructible. They’re much heavier than a typical bike, about 40 pounds, which discourages theft and vandalism.  A board member inquired how far someone can take the bike. Ms. Lewin stated Bike Share is meant for short trips, such as someone riding MAX, and using a bike to go to the library or a restaurant. Bike Share expands transit options, making it easy to get around town.  A board member suggested pairing a Bike Share pass with a Transfort/MAX pass for one price.  A board member inquired why the plan neglects the south part of Fort Collins, where fewer Transfort options exist. Ms. Lewin explained that Bike Share is typically expanded in Energy Board September 4, 2014 Minutes 7 phases, starting with the area of highest demand, which is north of Prospect, including CSU. The shaded area on map represents the area to expand: south of Drake and north of Harmony, with Lemay as the eastern boundary, and the area between South Taft Hill and Shields as the western boundary.  Mr. Sizemore provided another hypothetical example: users ride their own bikes one mile to a Transfort or MAX station, take the bus, then check out bikes. A board member commented that’s exactly his situation; he lives one mile from a bus stop.  Ms. Lewin stated the Fort Collins Bike Library offers longer-term rentals and is staffed, but doesn’t open until 9 a.m. so it’s not convenient for commuters. Bike Share might be called FC Bike Library Express to take advantage of the library’s great brand recognition.  A demand analysis was completed in May 2014 with the assumption that MAX was operating; it examines population and employment density.  There is an app to see bike availability; the operator would monitor stations to ensure there are enough bikes to meet demand.  Farebox recovery is about 18% for Transfort. For Bike Share, it would be 30% to 40%.  A board member inquired about the cost of maintaining the bikes. Ms. Lewin stated regular maintenance is built into the cost.  A board member inquired about the amount of greenhouse gas reduction based on the estimate of 60,000 bike trips per year. Ms. Lewin stated staff will be able to estimate that figure. In addition, they will be able to quantify benefits based on the bicycle miles tracked, such as calories burned, etc. Energy Policy Discussion (Attachments available upon request) Mr. Catanach summarized the recent discussions and asked board members if they’d like to have another special meeting to focus on the Energy Policy. Highlights of the Discussion  A board member inquired about the deadline. Mr. Catanach stated that the Climate Action Plan (CAP) is scheduled to go to Council in February, and the two documents align and support each other. Mr. Phelan stated it would be difficult to set goals for one document without the other.  Chairperson Behm asked the board to consider forming a subcommittee to focus on and fine-tune the main issues, since this is working well for privacy and other issues. He and Vice Chairperson O’Neill can serve on the subcommittee, and he stated that other board members are welcome to join them.  Chairperson Behm summarized the discussion at the August 25 special meeting. There was consensus on the Energy Policy’s overall framework of six to eight topic areas, and they changed some of the language. Version 10 that Board Member O’Neill emailed this morning shows the top- level revisions.  Behm inquired about timeline considerations. Mr. Phelan stated that in the past, board members asked staff questions about specific numbers and topics, such as goals for reducing greenhouse emissions, which staff can research and bring to meetings.  A board member inquired about the land use component of the policy and asked how much information they should include. She found info on zoning, which has a big impact on energy.  A board member commented that at the special meeting, they discussed mentioning key principles of related documents. Mr. Sizemore suggested choosing information in common with the Energy Policy and referring to the specific document. A board member asked how