Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 07/12/2018Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Fort Collins Utilities Energy Board Minutes Thursday, July 12, 2018 Energy Board Chairperson Nick Michell, 970-215-9235 City Council Liaison Ross Cunniff, 970-420-7398 Energy Board Vice Chairperson Amanda Shores, 408-391-0062 Staff Liaison Tim McCollough, 970-305-1069 Roll Call Board Present: Chairperson Nick Michell, Vice Chairperson Amanda Shores, Alan Braslau, Stacey Baumgarn, Krishna Karnamadakala, John Fassler Late Arrivals: Bill Becker Board Absent: Jeremy Giovando, Greg Behm Others Present Staff: John Phelan, Marisa Olivas, Kevin Gertig, Rhonda Gatzke, Cyril Vidergar Platte River Power Authority: Andy Butcher, Alyssa Clemsen Roberts Members of the Public: Fred Kirsh, Kevin Jones Meeting Convened Chairperson Michell called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of June 14 Board Meeting Minutes In preparation for the meeting, board members submitted amendments via email for the June 14, 2018 minutes. The minutes were approved as amended. Announcements and Agenda Changes John Phelan announced that the 100% Renewable Electricity Goal (100RE) Resolution memo went to City Council (Council) that evening, July 12, 2018. Mr. Phelan also announced that the Innovate Fort Collins Challenge Pitch Night is coming up, a competitive grant like process that the City is running for innovation proposals in the climate action space. The team running Innovate Fort Collins Challenge Pitch Night is looking for judges to take part in the event on August 30, 2018. A Watershed Bus Tour is taking place on July 18, 2018, a Source to Switch Electricity Tour called Power Trip. Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Staff Reports Executive Director Update Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director (attachments available upon request) Kevin Gertig shared that in July of 2018 Light & Power (L&P) is receiving Council direction and updates regarding 100RE. L&P is planning substantial community dialogue and outreach to various groups (Natural Resource Advisory Board (NRAB), Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB), Economic Advisory Commission (EAC), Chamber’s Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC), local CEO Round Table, Fort Collins Sustainability Group (FCSG), and Northern Colorado Partners for Clean Energy (NCP4CE)). Mr. Gertig said that members of staff will provide a 100RE update to the Energy Board (Board) on September 13,2018 for recommendation to Council. Council will consider a resolution to adopt a 100RE goal on October 2, 2018. L&P is currently focusing on terminology in community dialogue, balancing authority, storage, mid-term check-in, and Climate Action Plan (CAP) alignment. Mr. Gertig said he is very adamant about defining the terminology to get on the same page when discussing 100RE. Mr. Gertig said that collaborative work for education outreach regarding balancing authority and load control into the future is being done with Plate River Power Authority (Platte River) and others. Storage topics continue to come up concerning where L&P is at, where they are headed, and the timeline as it relates to photovoltaic (PV). As a part of the executive lead team, Mr. Gertig said they meet regularly to discuss the metrics of CAP Alignment. Mr. Gertig touched on the projects in L&P’s Master Planning for circuit and duct bank projects. Mr. Gertig highlighted different projects (complete, in construction, new, revised, and future), including the Water Treatment Facility (WTF) and infrastructure serving Hewlett Packard (HP) and Broadcom. Moving on to Data Management, Mr. Gertig said that L&P had done a lot of work on asset management analysis and risk assessment. L&P is currently working on Electric Meter Installed Plant Inspections (ADMIRE DB), Electric Distribution Equipment (Switch Point Inspection DB), and Reliability Analysis and Tracking (Outage Tracking DB). Mr. Gertig said that tracking is incorporated into daily workflow and eventually all L&P staff will have mobile workforce development accessible in work trucks through their laptops. This process will take a few years to complete. Asset management resources are developing a targeted cable replacement strategy that maintains System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) at the lowest cost. Switchpoint Inspections are on track. Switchpoint Inspection goals were for a four-year cycle, starting in 2015 and expected completion of the first iteration in 2019. Mr. Gertig noted a major cable replacement by Advanced Energy in which crews worked overnight to replace those switches. Mr. Gertig said, to be a leader in the environmental realm it is important to lead with change. L&P is in the process of fleet conversion with changes from diesel/gas trucks to compressed natural gas (CNG) occurring when vehicles or equipment need to be replaced, integrating to battery operated trimmers and chainsaws, researching electric mowers for the future, and replacing L&P pool vehicles to electric or hybrid electric. Mr. Gertig began speaking about System Control Operations (SCO), which he referred to as the nerve center of all L&P operations. SCO handles outages (24/7) through a combination of Geographic Information System (GIS) and radio systems to the crews. L&P departments are working together on mapping through an Electric System Monitoring Program which gives real time data of outages. Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Mr. Gertig said he was pleased with the metrics of a recent customer service satisfaction survey, but there are opportunities for improvements (OFI). Residential customers, small to medium businesses, and key accounts are shown as highly satisfied with L&P, although, price satisfaction is at a lower percentage. Mr. Gertig said the Time of Day (TOD) rate change is a concern for how future price satisfaction survey results may vary. For Energy Projects the Utility has a 2018 savings goal of 17,000 megawatt hours (MWh). There are 285 business projects in which customers have completed or are committed to a total of 10,000 MWh. There is an HPE economizer-heat exchanger project with a savings of 2,300 MWh annually. Colorado State University (CSU) and their affiliates have either completed or are committed to 1,000 MWh of savings. Chairperson Michell asked how the Energy Projects were handled, and whether it is done through a rebate with the customer paying most of it. Mr. Phelan answered that the projects his team handles typically have a rebate component. Rebates are based on energy savings and programmatic rebates have caps associated with them. Mr. Phelan said as an example although the HPE project received a substantial rebate it ultimately was driven by an extraordinary cost savings because the rebate was capped. Mr. Gertig then shared that a new system peak was reached (unofficially) on July 10, 2018 with hour ending 18 of 316.6 MW, and he displayed a graph of the peak demand. Board Member Karnamadakala wondered why customers were not satisfied with price and if anything was being done to address the issue. Mr. Gertig said the price satisfaction results was an OFI to understand the variables like changing seasons and customers’ needs. Mr. Phelan commented that L&P consistently sees lower price satisfaction results because everyone wants cheaper prices regardless. Mr. Karnamadakala said he understood and recalled from a previous Board meeting it was mentioned that the price of living had increased, and the number of people that could afford a place to live in Fort Collins had dropped by 40% (percentage not verified) in 2014-2015. Mr. Baumgarn said that he wonders what the bill looks like in hard-copy form and the online form, because customers may not be aware of which percentage of their bill is electric or water charges. Mr. Gertig reminded the Board all the information is listed on the bill, and there are online tools such as Monitor My Use to figure out how the bill is split amongst the different utilities. Managing Renewables in Markets Andy Butcher, Chief Operating Officer (Platte River Power Authority) (attachments available upon request) Andy Butcher said his presentation was a perspective of how renewables are currently managed in the market. Mr. Butcher said there are bilateral markets and organized markets. A bilateral market is how renewables are managed currently at Platte River. Organized markets are a future possibility for Platte River, but also currently exist in other areas of United States. Mr. Butcher said it is important to figure out the best way to manage renewables, “intermittent resources” as he refers to them, in these different markets. With intermittent resources there is always a concern of too much or not enough (i.e. having an extreme amount of wind during non-peak hours and having a reduced amount of wind during peak hours). Solar also has issues (i.e. a cloud rolling over Rawhide Energy Station causing the production to drop immediately.) When these resources are not available something has to be in place to meet the void. Mr. Butcher used the analogy of selling a car to further explain bilateral and organized markets. In the past when someone wanted to sell a car they would post a sign or put an advertisement in the newspaper, and when contacted by a person of interest an agreement on price was made in the form of a handshake or contract. This is how Platte River and other power companies do business today. If Platte River needs electricity tomorrow or in the next hour, they make a bilateral agreement over the phone. Platte River Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 commits themselves to what they may need within a two-hour advance window, but this can become difficult to manage in a bilateral market. An organized market is similar to the website Autotrader where a vehicle can be seen on a broader market, bids are accepted, and it is in an automated form. With organized markets an independent operator takes in bids and offers and settles to make a transaction occur. Organized markets transfer power instantaneously, so they do not require a two-hour advance. Mr. Butcher said in the Western-Interconnect (The Rocky Mountains to California) there is one organized market in California, but there are more organized markets in the eastern part of the U.S. Mr. Michell asked what is done to make up for the lost MWs if a cloud passes over Rawhide, since Platte River’s transactions are occurring one or two hours ahead of time. Mr. Butcher said Platte River contracts with a broader entity called a balancing authority. The balancing authority provides the service of moving generation within the hour to make up for MWs lost. Platte River tries to enter the hour balanced, but what Platte River can do is adjust the output to make up for any imbalances. Buying and selling energy, capacity, or a related product under a bilateral market provides price certainty through short and long- term contracts and generation ownership, loads and resources are balanced, and units are dispatched by owner/operator. In an organized market the same things are available in a more automated way in a broader regional area. Transmission is central in the organized market design, one has load and the market supplies it. Mr. Butcher said that generally in an organized market load and resources settle individually, meaning he takes the balanced load and resources to the market to manage the difference (i.e.100 MW of load and 50 MW of resources, means 50 more MW of resources is needed to service the load). A Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) or an Independent System Operator (ISO) serves as the centralized operator for committing generation and serving load on a least cost basis. Organized markets are done in two phases. It sets a day ahead process where bids are submitted for day ahead loads for day ahead generation, and the market makes a settlement. There are clearing prices to the cost of taking load and prices set for generation pay. Once that market is done and the day starts a balancing market is entered that manages the differences automatically. Board member Baumgarn asked if Platte River is more of a seller or a buyer and what entities they are selling and buying to. Mr. Butcher answered that buying/selling is done with other entities like Platte River to serve the community. If Platte River needs something for the next hour they would try to fill that void to meet the communities need. On the other hand, if Platte River has more generation than they need, and the community is already cared for, Platte River would offer the excess to a counter party. Mr. Butcher said that historically Platte River has been more of a seller than a buyer. Platte River on general has about 1,000 MW of resources via Rawhide, hydro, wind, solar, and combustion added together. Platte River is mostly a lone utility and has daily loads around 400-500, leaving a lot of options for sales. Mr. Phelan commented that when Platte River first started the City’s loads were a lot lower, so overtime the City has grown into the capacity. Mr. Butcher said to manage intermittent generation, Platte River maintains a lot of backup reserves on the system to meet changes. The problem when managing intermittent generation is that Platte River must assure 90 minutes (or up to two hours) ahead to set the schedule. Platte River can manage their own resources, but they generally work with their balancing authority, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo). For every single MWh of wind capacity Platte River generates they pay $3.35 to PSCo to provide service. Since solar is more predictable it is a little cheaper at $0.97 per MWh. Mr. Michell asked if the extra money Platte River is paying to a balancing authority requires the balancing authority to also have back up reserves. Mr. Butcher said yes, Xcel uses flex reserves with a very large fleet of gas resources and coal that are online all the time. Mr. Michell asked if it is cheaper for Platte River to pay a fee of $3.35 versus balancing themselves. Mr. Butcher answered that the gas turbines Platte River has run about one percent to two percent of the time for peak days or for emergencies. To provide reserves like Xcel, the units would have to run 24/7 for 365 days a year. Platte River’s units are designed for peaking Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 not for constant running. Mr. Butcher said the cost would be too great and a lot more than $3.35 to act as the balancing authority themselves. Mr. Butcher used the term interdependent juggler to describe a balancing authority. A balancing authority juggles between load, generation, and reserves at any given time to make sure Platte River has electricity. As an example of balancing in a bilateral market, if there are 500 MW of anticipated load then Platte River would make sure they have 500 MW of resources to cover that load (through Rawhide, Craig, wind, solar, or hydro). If an extra 170 MW of renewables occurs than Platte River must make 170 MW of sales to balance the load. Managing generation in load is done regionally. Platte River believed when they eventually joined the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) market that the need for reserve charges would be drastically reduced, at an estimated $2.5 million less by 2021 (organized versus bilateral). In an organized market load is managed separately and the market is going to serve that load and figure out the most efficient way to do so (no matter what the load is). Mr. Butcher said an organized market is easier, and they want to push for one in the future. Vice Chairperson Shores asked if there are a loss of assets when Platte Rivers resources are taken offline, since their resources are more expensive than other providers. Mr. Butcher said historically that happens. The Rawhide coal unit is one of the more efficient coal units in Colorado, but Craig Station is less efficient. In a market scenario, Craig is in jeopardy of not being needed because the cost is too high. So, the less efficient coal is displaced for more efficient coal. Ms. Shore also asked how much Platte River trusts an organization like SPP. Mr. Butcher replied that he trusts SPP as far as one could. SPP is an independent non-profit, and to Mr. Butcher that makes them trustworthy in some form. Mr. Butcher said the same could be asked of Xcel or PSCo, as they are non-independent for-profit businesses. To maintain trust in a market is to be able to be in one’s own operations and interpret signals given without force and maintain flexibility to manage load properly. Mr. Michell asked with the setback of the Mountain West Transmission Group, what sort of timeline is set for it to come back. Mr. Butcher said hopefully not long, but that he knows for sure it will not be by April of 2020. There are a lot of negotiations happening, so it is hard for Mr. Butcher to make an accurate judgement. Mr. Butcher said in his opinion with the way renewables are entering the system it better be ready by 2025. Solar Business Model Review John Phelan, Energy Services Manager (attachments available upon request) Mr. Phelan shared that the content of tonight’s presentation had a few updates since his presentation to Council. The outcome of his presentation at the Council work session meeting was a redirection to the Energy Board and Utility staff to think about how to move forward looking at local solar, what the goals should be, and to think about policy and potential business models. The question proposed to Council was if they support the idea of developing a Distributed Energy Resources Roadmap in conjunction with an update to the Energy Policy. Mr. Phelan said the good news is that the community is enthusiastically adopting solar. The average growth rate over the last 10 years is 100% annually. Fort Collins is at ∼1,100 solar systems installed and has crossed 11 MW of capacity. This is producing one percent of the community’s electricity. A reasonable forecast of growth may look like 50 MW by 2030. Another good thing is it leverages a lot of private capital between Utility rebates, at a nine to one ratio investment going to solar. Mr. Phelan then showed a short video graph to give the Board an idea of the acceleration of solar adoption in the community. Mr. Phelan said of the systems that are online, a quarter of them were installed in 2017. Mr. Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Phelan refreshed the Boards memory on the City’s renewable targets (20% by 2020, two percent of that from local solar by 2020). Benefits of local solar include demand side savings, customers’ expectations are met (bar graph showing an excerpt from the 2017 Customer Satisfaction Survey, showing customers’ willingness to pay more for renewable energy), leverages investment, system benefits (especially when paired with pending technologies and storage), and meeting climate and energy policy objectives. Mr. Braslau asked if the people who install solar tend to use more energy or tend to be less efficient when producing energy. Mr. Phelan answered the City tends to see people who are already efficient and want to minimize their carbon footprint and environmental impacting install solar, but there are also very large houses that use a lot of energy installing solar. Ms. Shores asked how the percentage of renewables is calculated. Mr. Phelan said that the denominator is the total amount of electricity used by the community and the numerator is the amount of electricity of that which comes from renewables (hydro not included). A challenge of solar adoption is that over time it could create operational problems or voltage disturbances. This is not the case currently in the Fort Collins’ community, but it is an issue in places like Hawaii or California. Another challenge is creating a sustainable financial model. The financial and rate tools being used now for full retail net metering, for example, were specifically designed to stimulate the market in its early phases to help develop the demand for these services. L&P is approaching a point of rethinking that, but it needs to be done in a way where it is not disrupting to the customers, the solar industry, etc. Mr. Phelan said the idea of the grid as a community asset creates another challenge. For solar to work, the grid is needed and how is that valued within L&P’s pricing and rate structures? Mr. Phelan said we are well positioned to address these issues and maintain the momentum for additional solar. Having an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system in place provides an elegant metering and pricing solution for net consumption and net export of solar. Mr. Phelan said he is excited that with Time of Day (TOD) rates structures, L&P is establishing the principle and values for the consumption and production of electricity during different seasons and different times of day. Mr. Phelan shared some intentionally-simplified solar business models with the Board. The two models of net metering and feed-in tariff metering are based on the location of solar, relative to the meter. With the “behind the meter” system (aka net metering) the solar directly impacts the bill through reduced consumption, the credit for that, as well as payments for the export of electricity. With “in front of the meter” model (aka feed-in tariff or solar power purchase program (SP3)) the solar is metered separate from the building consumption, so the electric bill does not change. They simply pay for the solar production at an agreed upon rate. The Utility did a feed-in tariff procurement program in 2014 and 2015 and is currently going through one now (on commercial scale systems). Mr. Michell asked what the feed- in tariff is and how the rate is determined. Mr. Phelan said in 2014 research was done on a model that stimulated growth for solar work in Germany, Spain, and Asian countries. Essentially, from this research the Utility set a price for the systems at a two-tier component for smaller systems (15-18 cents/ kilowatt hour (KWh)). In the current round it was done in a bidding process, with prices lower than before (an average of 12 cents/KWh). Mr. Phelan said he wants to walk Council through an intentionally-simplified economics of a behind the meter solar system to show both the customer and Utility perspective. For a typical non-solar customer L&P buys energy for 6 cents/KWh from Platte River and sells it to the customer for 9 cents/KWh, leaving a 3-cent/KWh value covering Utility operations, investments in the distribution system, and meter billing, etc. For a typical solar customer L&P buys energy for 9 cents/KWh and sells it to the customer at 9 cents/KWh, leaving a net 3-cent/KWh loss for the Fort Collins distribution system. The 3-cent loss multiplied by the amount of KWh generated by the local solar in Fort Collins’ behind the meter system equals a $315,000 loss annually. This creates a $0.3 million deficit. As a fraction of the total revenue for Fort Collins’ Utilities $0.3 million is a small number. Mr. Phelan said this is not currently breaking anything operationally or breaking the bank. Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Mr. Phelan discussed the financial elements on solar and the levers involved in the finances. For behind the meter residential elements are base cost, rebate, retail price, export price, avoided wholesale value. Behind the meter commercial has essentially the same elements with an addition of demand rate structures. In-front of the meter/SP3 includes the base cost, power purchase agreement (PPA) payment, Platte River buy-sell agreement, value of solar it is credited at, and retail rates the energy is being sold to customers at. In-front of the meter utility owned (not in place in Fort Collins) does not include a PPA payment but does include a roof lease payment and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Mr. Phelan presented a table of the different solar business models in relation to current average cost (per watt), capital source (Private: Utility), lifetime utility cost, and tactics available to change. The takeaway of this table was to show that an optimized mix of business models will be necessary to achieve goals and customer expectations. Mr. Michell thought it would be helpful to include information of carbon costs, to understand the full benefits of solar. Mr. Phelan said a hypothetical path to two percent local renewable energy by 2020 would include solar rebates with net metering creating 6 MW residential and 1-3 MW commercial, and SP3 1-3 MW over the span of three years (2018,2019,2020). Mr. Michell asked if that was a reasonable estimate. Mr. Phelan answered that it is the pace the Utility is going at. Mr. Phelan then showed values of solar based on current rates, future TOD rates, avoided wholesale blended value, Platte River buy-sell memorandum of understanding (MOU) value, ranging from 3.5 cents to 22.13 cents. Mr. Michell mentioned that there is half a dozen solar plus storage and wondered if the Utility was planning on compensating solar plus storage for net metering. Mr. Phelan answered yes. Mr. Phelan showed a graph of the cost curve of residential solar and a graph of solar PV systems size distribution. Mr. Phelan reminded the Board that 3 KW has been the rebate amount for several years, but as the price is dropping people are putting in larger systems. Mr. Phelan shared a few examples of different ways other utilities manage distributed resources. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association (REA) sets a customer charge across their system. The City of Longmont has a different fixed charge depending on if it is a solar versus non-solar customers, so solar customers pay a higher fixed charge since they do not have as much use volumetrically. The City of Loveland has, what utilities would call, a standby charge for solar systems based on the capacity on the roof, a monthly fee for the number of KW they have. Xcel meters the solar independently from the house. All these examples fall under net metering. Mr. Phelan said a question he asks himself is whether to set up rate structures and pricing where solar customers are treated different than everyone else or to set up a system where everyone is adjusted. Mr. Baumgarn commented that he never gets the feeling that solar benefits the system from these presentations, and instead it comes across as a risky deal. Mr. Baumgarn added that he would like to believe that people present in the room believe the day should come where there is more solar, but after most of the Board’s conversations he is left with the impression that people who have solar are taking advantage of the system and are getting more than their fair share while also putting the system at risk. Mr. Michell replied that unless there is storage, there is always a risk that solar may not be generated. Mr. Michell said that was why he mentioned that there is no price on carbon. Mr. Michell said with the City wanting to encourage carbon free production and having people put solar on their roof at their own expense with a small rebate from the City, people are putting their money into solar which is good for the community. Mr. Baumgarn replied that the City is not conveying that point properly. Mr. Karnamadakala commented that he thinks the challenge within the City is that there is not much leverage individually to do a cap-and-trade or carbon tax. Mr. Michell replied that just because the City cannot pass a carbon tax does not mean the City cannot say there is an implied value of carbon dioxide (CO2) and that they are willing to pay for it. Mr. Phelan shared that they City has been supportive of solar, connections, Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 permitting processes, providing rebates, and full retail net metering. Mr. Phelan said the intent of this presentation was to present to Council that this is a community value, it is a fundamental right for L&P’s customers to generate their own electricity, and if L&P continues with the policies intentionally made to stimulate that demand it will break down at some point. Mr. Phelan said that the Utility needs to figure out what the predictable path is that will continue solar growth, and at the same time preserve the system. Mr. Michell said a few things were obvious, one being that Fort Collins wants more solar because it does not generate CO2 and it is good for environment, and secondly L&P must remain financially viable. Mr. Michell said eventually the current solar model will fail to meet that test, and it must change at some point. Mr. Phelan reminded the Board that none of this had to be addressed at the meeting, but that the Board needs to make sure they’re communicating where they want to go and maintain community values. Mr. Becker added that if the pricing is right it will drive the right investments. If the demand charges and net metering charges are right, then eventually people will invest in batteries because it makes sense. Mr. Michell said the City is giving people a good rebate currently to get the market started, but with the market done and successful it is time to phase out the rebate. Mr. Michell added that he liked Mr. Becker’s point; the solar rebate cannot just be phased out, something that drives behavior (like storage investment) can be phased in. Mr. Becker reminded the Board that this was the same discussion point he made at a past Board meeting; on a long-term scale if everyone is invested in storage then L&P will not need a substation upgrade thus lowering the cost of running a Utility. Mr. Braslau added another aspect to keep in mind is that currently to get a rebate the City does not require people to do an energy audit or improve efficiency. Mr. Braslau feels in order to subsidize solar or batteries the City also needs to encourage people to consume less, for there is a real cost as well as an opportunity cost associated with greater consumption. Mr. Becker replied that he thinks there is an argument of, “don’t tell me what to do,” that people can say. Mr. Michell pointed out Mr. Becker’s point earlier, instead of trying to force efficiency requirements down peoples’ throat the focus should be on incentivizing them. Mr. Michell asked what the next steps are. Mr. Phelan indicated to Council through this presentation a Distributed Energy Resources Road Map pertaining to distributed solar and storage looking at everything from electrification to mobile batteries and PVs. The Energy Policy is also getting updates and will be presented to Council in 2020 with new policies, goals, and targets. CAP and Energy Policy are intended to become a more integrated document, and Platte River is doing an Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) update. Mr. Phelan said ideally, he would like recommendation on distributed energy from the Board and staff for Council in advance of the updated Energy Policy. Periodic Review Questionnaire Chairperson Michell (attachments available upon request) Mr. Michell said he centered the Key Outcome Areas on the Periodic Review Questionnaire as Economic Health, Environmental Health, Hight Performing Government, and Transportation. Mr. Michell said he wants to look to areas of future improvement other than electric based areas. Mr. Michell feels as the Energy Board the focus has been heavily electric and only 10% on other energy related subjects. The Energy Board continues to seek an ordinance by City Council to expand the Energy Board’s duties and functions to: 1. Engage in educational activities, in collaboration with City staff and external organizations, to build broader community support for City policies concerning sustainable energy, energy conservation, and climate change. 2. Collaborate with other regional similar boards and commissions regarding energy issues. Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 Energy Board Minutes July 12, 2018 The consensus among members is that too many items are scheduled per meeting, without adequate time for discussion. Board Member Behm had written in his review that it is the responsibility of board members and leaders to ask staff for a justification for each presentation topic (especially non-action presentations). The Board can decide, based on staff’s answers, what presentations are important and relevant to the Board. Mr. Baumgarn added that at times it seems presentations to the Board are merely a check-off the list for staff, so that they can go before Council with proof of “public outreach.” Mr. Karnamadakala brought up the fact that since he has been a board member, not a single work session has been held. Work sessions may offer more time for discussion amongst the Board. The consensus among board members is also that the size of the Board is not an issue. There were several comments from board members suggesting a lack of diversity in background, gender and economic status of the board. Mr. Michell said to be blunt, most of the board members are white, male, middle class engineers. Ms. Shores suggested having some sort of diversity training for the Board. Mr. Braslau said he would like to see more outreach to demographically different communities in Fort Collins to discuss energy policy. The majority of board members do not see any effective communication with Council. Mr. Michell pointed out Mr. Behm’s comment on the review, “On the one hand, it seems our primary communications with Council are through staff and meeting minutes. If I were a Council member, though, I can’t imagine I’d have any time to read board and commission minutes along with all the other current information in their meeting packets. It’s up to the Energy Board to send specific memos to Council on issues we consider important. We do that occasionally, but maybe we rely too much on staff to deliver our messages.” The final comment on the review from Mr. Braslau called for an Energy Board budget and more decision- making authority like other utility boards retain. The Board could dispose some of the budget towards training members or participation in relevant regional conferences. Board Member Reports Ms. Shores shared that former board member, Margaret Moore, had sent information to the Board about a panel discussion at the Broadband RMI Building on Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:30 in the evening. The Board would have free entrance if they were interested in attending. Future Agenda Review Mr. Phelan highlighted that Councilmember Ross Cunniff would be present at the next Board meeting in August. Mr. Phelan also shared that the Board’s feedback will be critical regarding the Building Energy Scoring presentation on the agenda for the August meeting to take to Council. Mr. Phelan added an agenda item to consider, Bloomberg/On Bill Financing (OBF) 2.0 Update. The Board suggested moving the 2019 Draft Work Plan to a work session versus having it during the regular August meeting. Adjournment The Energy Board meeting adjourned at 9:10p.m. Approved by the Energy Board on August 9, 2018 ________________________________ ______________ Board Secretary, Marisa Olivas Date 8/10/2018