Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/26/2015MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 Location: Conference Room 1A, 215 N. Mason Street Time: 5:30–8:00pm For Reference Tom Moore, Chair 970-988-4055 Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-420-7398 Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison 970-221-6813 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Tom Moore, Chair Rich Fisher Gregory Miller Tom Griggs John Shenot Robert Kirkpatrick Vara Vissa Mark Houdashelt Jim Dennison Staff Present Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director Councilmembers Present Guests Alan Cram, Healthy Homes volunteer/citizen John Bleem, Platte River Power Authority Call to order: Tom Moore called to order at 5:33pm. Public Comments: None Review and Approval of Minutes Greg moved and Tom seconded a motion to approve the November and December 2014 AQAB minutes as amended. Motion passed, 5-0-2. Vara and Rob abstained. Jim arrived after vote. Correction: Mark Houdashelt present as citizen at December meeting Agenda Review: Economic Health Strategic Plan presentation has been postponed. 1 Welcome and Introduction of New Members Melissa explained the triple bottom line approach and local air quality issues. Board members introduced themselves. Vara’s background is in life sciences. Rob is in construction management and his focus has been on indoor air quality. He is a volunteer with the Healthy Homes Program. Mark Houdashelt is an astronomer and climate change analyst. Rich Fisher may be over committed and may need to resign from this board at some point this year. Melissa has been talking to potential replacement candidates. AGENDA ITEM 1: Climate Action Plan Strategies and Tactics Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director discussed strategies and modeling developed to date for the Climate Action Plan (CAP) framework. The new CAP is an update to the 2008 plan. In its development, staff used a standard emissions inventory, which does not include embedded energy in materials. Electricity, ground travel and natural gas are the largest emission sources. She presented a graph of forecasted “business as usual” emissions compared to the forecast with anticipated/potential changes in the electric supply, climate change, and CAFÉ fuel standards. 13 strategies have been identified. Existing buildings will need retrofits, and transportation will require reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and increasing vehicle efficiency. To reduce emissions of the energy supply will require utility scale cleaner energy and local renewables. John Bleem said the generation is currently from approximately 70% coal, 20% hydro, and 10% wind and solar, with minimal natural gas. Lucinda explained that with all emission reduction strategies, including modelling from Platte River, the 2030 and 2050 objectives are not entirely met. Strategies are significantly aggressive and new opportunities will be identified as innovation occurs. John Bleem added that Platte River is adding more solar, but all solar in the modelling is distributed, bringing down the load for Platte River. The model assumes significant cumulative capital costs upfront, with net savings being seen after 2030. The cost analysis includes the cost of carbon, but does not include infrastructure enhancement, storage, system integration, economic benefits, etc. Financing mechanisms can be used to access savings to spread out the incremental costs. Additionally, each strategy implementation will be vetted by Council and the community, in relation to other community needs. Likely immediate actions may include piloting an integrated utility service model, expanding efficiency programs, advancing waste stream optimization, Georgetown University Energy Prize, and piloting a public-private partnership to leverage outside funding. See fcgov.com/climateprotection to submit comments. Comments/Q&A • Is the electric emissions data based on use or generation, or both? o Based on generation emissions, which includes coal, solar, wind and hydro. o Modelling includes losses in transmission in the inventory. It doesn’t include outside energy purchases that Platte River makes, though. o Also does not include surplus sales, which generate emissions and revenue for the City. • What is the big drop of emissions on the graph for Scenario 1 at 2030? o This scenario assumes all the coal in the system is removed. For the system to continue to be reliable and safe removing all coal in 15 years is probably not realistic. Platte River’s plan may include taking out smaller, older coal units earlier (Craig station). Rawhide is the lowest emitting coal unit in the state, and will likely be online longer. • The CAC perhaps did not understand that taking coal out of the mix was not realistic. They seem to think it is likely. 2 o It has been explained many times that Platte River has not committed to this modelling. They also modelled a 60% reduction, which can be achieved with Rawhide remaining online. o The City has not modelled the reliability and safety of the system on all renewables. There are also no storage costs in the numbers. When budgets are set and action plans are created, that is where the details will come in. • If you separate the electric supply from the modelling, what is the outcome? If Rawhide stays online, what does the alternative look like? What is the relative contribution of each strategy? The model hinges on removing coal. o This modelling requires best in class adoption of all strategies. It also assumes decreasing use of natural gas. o Staff was requested to look at what it would take to hit the targets laid out by Council. We are not at the stage of planning and implementation. o This is a feasibility framework. • The costs presented are total costs, based on doing nothing. These are probably conservative costs. o Costs are a comparison against cost of business as usual. But is also total cost, not incremental. The model also does not include financing. • Why Fort Collins? Are there other cities participating? o Others have set GHG reduction goals, but few set a plan and track and report on it. Very few have set a goal as aspirational as Fort Collins is now considering. CSU supports this objective. Stating the intent will bring more resources to the issue. Palo Alto and Seattle have goals for carbon neutrality. o Make a list of other cities in the U.S. and abroad that have comparable goals to Council. • Is lead time for things like new roads for new cars included in the plan? o Each strategy ramps up, but starts right away. If adopted, staff would bring a budget offer forward in the interim year. • The December memo to Council did not address the financing piece. It is easy to predict the next 15 years, but it will become harder after that. o In December some board members were nervous that Council could get bogged down in the details, and that is probably a distraction. We should focus on why and how. o You must look at how much you are willing to negotiate, and what happens if the goal is not achieved. Your metrics, indicators, reports and protocols will all be off if you have to change your goal in the future. • Council doesn’t have time to read long memos. It is more effective to submit a short recommendation. o May be more effective to send a representative to Council to speak at public comment. o Gerry Horak wants to see the short term implementation plan, but Council is moving toward adoption. Greg moved that the Air Quality Advisory Board support the adoption of the aspirational goals in the proposed 2015 Climate Action Plan framework. Jim seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0. Friendly amendment: Direct staff to develop near term implementation plans in collaboration with boards and commission and the public. • Greg suggested making this a separate motion. 3 John moved the AQAB recommend that Council direct staff to develop near-term implementation plans for the next two budget cycles consistent with the framework plan and the long-term goals for 2030 and 2050. Staff should be directed to solicit and consider input from appropriate boards and commission and the public. Greg seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0. • Can we define near-term? o Analysis City staff has already done focuses on the next two budget cycles. o Our first goal is at 2020. What is the lead time necessary? Are you starting from scratch? o Should we focus on current budget cycle, or suggest medium and long term strategies also? o Josh Shenot wants Council to request staff write an action plan for budgeting and ordinances to put us on the right path for all of the goals. • Tom Moore will coordinate via email a member to attend the Council meeting to read the meeting motions. AGENDA ITEM 2: Economic Health Strategic Plan Presentation postponed. AGENDA ITEM 3: Fugitive Dust Melissa Hovey, Senior Environmental Planner, gave an update of progress on this issue, reviewed the draft manual and discussed a letter of support to Council. The manual is getting considerable pushback from smaller operators. Specific code language she would like the board to weigh in on is choice between “prevent” and “limit.” Stakeholder meeting brought up some questions about air monitoring and how big the problem is. Air monitoring data does not provide data on what citizens are exposed to in fugitive dust conditions. Board members are asked to let their networks know about the online survey, which is open until February 13. Council date: March 3; materials due February 18. Comments/Q&A • Can you compare Larimer to other counties? Comparisons may help to gain desire for leadership. o Have collected ordinances and other information from Front Range and beyond. • One member can draft a resolution in advance of the next meeting, to be voted on next month. One member can speak at the Council meeting based on the resolution. o Tom Moore volunteered to draft the resolution. AGENDA ITEM 4: Other Business Election of representative to Bicycle Advisory Committee • Postponed to February meeting. Annual Report • Not discussed. 4 Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar • Not discussed. Board Actions for February • Not discussed. Meeting Adjourned: 8:13pm Next Meeting: February 23 5