Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 12/01/2016Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Fort Collins Utilities Energy Board Minutes Thursday, December 1, 2016 Energy Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Pete O’Neill, 970-223-8703 Ross Cunniff, 970-420-7398 Energy Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Nick Michell, 970-215-9235 Tim McCollough, 970-305-1069 Roll Call Board Present: Chairperson Pete O’Neill, Vice Chairperson Nick Michell, Board Members Alan Braslau, Phil Friedman, Stacey Baumgarn Late Arrivals: Margaret Moore Board Absent: Greg Behm, Lori Nitzel Others Present Staff: Cyril Vidergar, John Phelan, Justin Fields, Kevin Gertig, Tim McCollough, Christie Fredrickson, Heidi Wagner, Wendy Serour, Rebecca Everette, Adam Bromley, Rhonda Gatzke PRPA: Paul Davis Members of the Public: Rick Cohen Meeting Convened Chairperson Pete O’Neill called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Announcements and Agenda Changes None Public Comment None Approval of November 3, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes Amendments to the November 3, 2016 minutes were made by the Board Members and the minutes were accepted as amended. Staff Reports Executive Director’s Update Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director (attachments available upon request) Mr. Gertig stated his quarterly objective is to give a high level review of what’s going on in each area; tonight he will have a strong focus on Energy. The utility is currently focused on a several key objectives: workplace safety, the implementation of the Road to 2020: Forging Our Efficient Future, Strategic Asset Management Planning & Principles, planning for the City’s Water Future, and developing a defensible 2017/18 Budget. While discussing the focus on the Road to 2020: Forging Our Efficient Future, he said there are dozens of initiatives and work teams focused on specific objectives in the plan, and the Utility will continue to keep 1 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 the Board updated. Mr. Gertig does not see a change in the City’s plan or determination to follow through with the Road to 2020: Forging Our Efficient Future in spite of the current political climate. Mr. Gertig expects that the Strategic Asset Manager will be hired in January 2017. Staff is also currently working on implementing a software program called Maximo. Maximo is a work order tool used to help automate all aspects of maintenance operations, including equipment history, scheduling, preventive maintenance, work orders, labor and expense tracking, procurement and reporting. The software is being focused at the water treatment facility right now. With regards to the City’s water future and storage, Mr. Gertig believes the Board is aware and up to date on many of the projects the City is working on, including the Halligan reservoir expansion project. The expansion would more than double the reservoir’s current capacity and would help the City shore up its water supply and protect against draught. The City is still working on modeling studies requested by both the Army Corps of Engineers and the US EPA. He stressed the correlation and importance of water and energy, and reiterated City’s continued focus to plan ahead to mitigate future water shortage. The 2017/18 budget was successfully approved and Mr. Gertig said it has a lot of deliverables. Vice Chairperson Michell asked if the Board could have a review of what was and was not passed; Mr. Gertig said that information can be reviewed in detail at a future meeting, but in the meantime all the information is posted on the City’s website, www.fcgov.com. Mr. Gertig briefly reviewed several Light & Power metrics: SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index), SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index), CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index), DART (Days Away Requiring Treatment), TRIR (Total Recordable Incident Rate) as well as Maintenance inspections. He noted that there is some room for improvement in SAIDI, SAIFI and the Maintenance Inspection category, but said overall he’s very pleased with all the work Light & Power is doing. Looking forward, the Utility has many projects in progress, or slated for the near future. Staff is also working on finalizing the 2017/18 Work Plans. Mr. Gertig displayed a slide highlighting several goals set by the Light & Power Operations team for 2017, including “Assist in the Broadband Feasibility Study and Broadband Readiness.” He explained to the Board that Council will decide a focus for the Broadband model option (Retail, Wholesale, Franchise or nothing) on December 20. The Utility will continue to work on the sustainability goals as well as the operational excellence journey. Unfortunately, the City was not selected for the Malcom Baldridge award; however the City was recognized for Management Excellence in Category 1 Leadership. The City will use the feedback from the Baldridge examiners and apply that to the operation excellence journey plan. Board member Baumgarn requested an update on the Light & Power Training Field. Mr. Gertig explained there was a conflict with a bicycle path that went through the middle of the training center. The Longview bike path connects Fort Collins and Loveland, and has been redesigned so both the bike path and the training field can coexist. The project is currently on hold until Spring of 2017. Vice Chairperson Michell asked if the city can or will reapply for the Baldridge award. Mr. Gertig said he expects the City will, but in the meantime the City will use the data and the reviews from the examiners to work on opportunities and begin to improve. Board member Moore brought up the Institute for Market Transformation’s City Energy Project and noted that Fort Collins has been selected as one of the next 10 cities to be a part of the project. She inquired if it falls under Sustainability. Mr. Gertig advised the project is a collaborative effort between 2 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Sustainability and Utilities and he asked Mr. Phelan to give some background. Mr. Phelan explained the City Energy Project is a two year program and it provides foundation funding. It is an initiative of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Institute for Market Transformation. Three years ago they selected 10 cities, recognizing that the largest efficiency opportunities are within large buildings in cities. The City Energy Project helps implement policies and programs to help each City benchmark and track metric progress over two years. They also provide partial funding for a Staff person for the two year program, as well as resources and best practices from the first round of cities that have already completed the program. The City of Fort Collins was selected in the second round of city selections and Mr. Phelan said the City’s selection aligns very closely with a Benchmarking project Council approved in a mid- cycle budget offer in 2015. Climate Wise Program Heidi Wagner, Environmental Planner Wendy Serour, Strategic Accounts Specialist (attachments available upon request) ClimateWise is a free, voluntary program that offers simple solutions to help Fort Collins businesses reduce their impact, save money and gain recognition for their achievements in energy and water conservation, waste reduction, alternative transportation and social responsibility. The ClimateWise program started as an EPA program in the 1990s. The program ran nationally for approximately one year and then ended, most likely due to funding. The City of Fort Collins liked the program model and what it stood for, so they decided to retain it under their own branding and keep it running. Since the City’s inception of the program in 2000 the City has saved $93 million and ClimateWise was recommended as a state-wide model in 2009. After receiving feedback from their partners and stakeholders, the City redesigned the ClimateWise program in 2013 because it wasn’t sustainable in its current state. Board members inquired what wasn’t sustainable about the program and Ms. Serour clarified that the new design allows the businesses to participate at their level of ability, regardless if they are a small coffee shop or Colorado State University. Ms. Wagner explained the new design has five core badges: energy, waste, water, transportation and social responsibility; the first four of which support the Road to 2020: Forging Our Efficient Future. There is also a sixth “specialty badge” that rotates every one to two years. The specialty badge is currently the Lose-a-Watt workwise challenge. Under each badge is a selection of strategies, which include a mixture of best practices, available city resources, measurement tools, etc. Each business can select a strategy that aligns with their business and earn badges and a subsequent level of silver, gold or platinum. ClimateWise offers two “Simple Solutions,” the first being a connection to resources, such as business advisory service, facility assessments and myClimateWise, an interface for businesses to look for information and resources. Additionally, they help with education and coordinating peer-to-peer learning. Ms. Wagner continued by reviewing 2016-to date, as well as future opportunities. They have 156 engaged businesses (46 new in 2016!), 1126 strategies have been reported, and 42 partners have already earned a level. She hopes the brand will continue to grow and see more support for new programs, as well as find a better way to utilize and share the data they are collecting. Ms. Wagner asked the Board for suggestions to help increase support for ClimateWise. Board members inquired what kinds of businesses are not participating and if building ownership (versus tenancy) affected participation. Ms. Wagner advised they struggle with large corporations, particularly those who are not currently Key Accounts with the City of Fort Collins, as well as those without a local 3 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 headquarters. She also explained that they try to work with building owners, but also actively provide strategies tenants can implement without making building alterations, such as posting signage for recycling. Ms. Serour also explained that a lot of larger businesses are more interested in programs like EfficiencyWorks, where sign up or “commitment” isn’t required. Sometimes they find rebate programs more attractive, such as retrofitting lights, because they’re generally easier or swifter actions to execute. Board member Moore asked about asbestos in the older buildings in Fort Collins, and if ClimateWise has any strategies in place to help owners with abatement. Ms. Wagner said abatement falls under the Building Department and is regulated by state code, so ClimateWise doesn’t get involved at that level. Board member Braslau thought that some businesses might not be interested in the “game-like” part of the program, referring to the badges. Ms. Wagner explained that all partners must engage with the myClimateWise interface, but that businesses don’t have to be involved in the other engagements ClimateWise offers if they’re not interested. Board member Baumgarn commented that although some businesses may not be interested in the game-like qualities of the program, the badges and levels serve as a benchmark, so once a particular level or badge has been earned, they might be encouraged (or expected) to maintain that status in the future. Downtown Plan Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner (attachments available upon request) The first downtown plan was completed in 1989, and Ms. Everette said the plan in dire need of an update. The plan guides how the City invests in the downtown, both from a policy perspective and a resource and funding perspective. It also helps guide programs & projects, infrastructure investments, development patterns and character & identity. At its core, the Downtown Plan is a broad policy plan that sets forth a five-, 10- and 20- year vision for the downtown area. Ms. Everette explained that the new plan has been in development over the two years, and focuses on community engagement through open houses, focus groups, public events, etc. This year they also tried to approach the public in places where they already spend time in Old Town, such as a setting up booth at New West Fest or hosting events on First Fridays, as opposed to exclusively asking the community to come to a City event. The current draft of the Downtown Plan is out for public review through Dec. 11. Revisions will take place between December 12 -30 and City Council will consider adopting the plan on February 21. Vice Chairperson Michell how the Downtown Plan fits in with the City Plan and Ms. Everette explained the Downtown Plan is a sub-area plan, which is an element of the City Plan. The outreach that went into the Downtown Plan will help form new policies and create an updated direction for the City Plan. The plan is structured like an inverted pyramid, beginning with a broad vision that narrows to more specific action items. The overarching vison for the plan is that Downtown should remain unique and distinctive, innovative and inclusive. It’s made up of six topic areas: Arts & Culture, Downtown Management, Energy & Environment, Market & Economy, Transportation & Parking and Urban Design. Ms. Everette displayed a map of the Downtown boundary and the sub-districts contained inside the Downtown area, and explained how each sub-district defined in the map has unique needs, so they tailor their approach within each topic to the sub-districts specific needs. For example, the way the City works toward Energy Efficiency goals in the Historic District might be very different from the process in the Lincoln Corridor. Ms. Everette reviewed the Energy & Environment Principles of the Downtown Plan and pointed out that Principle EE-2 would be most relevant to the Board, “Demonstrate and showcase technologies, strategies 4 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 and innovative approaches that advance the city’s climate action goals.” The policies under that principle include Renewable Energy Production, Energy Efficiency, Green Building, Building Reuse, Environmental Quality and Electric Vehicles. Ms. Everette asked the Board for observations or concerns about the Downtown Plan draft. Board member Baumgarn inquired if the plan is intended to inform the City Organization or is it intended to guide businesses or residents? Specifically, how is the plan utilized? Ms. Everette said the Downtown Plan is targeted at a number of users and audiences, but the plan is not regulatory. It’s used as a tool for other boards and City Council as they’re reviewing City Policies to ensure alignment with what the community says is important to them in that area. Lastly Ms. Everette hopes that it can be used as an educational tool for the community and residents while setting up future expectations. Chairperson O’Neill believes the City has a tendency to want to try everything new on Downtown, and sometimes certain new initiatives just don’t fit that area. He recognizes there is high visibility Downtown, but suggested it might make more sense in certain situations to try new initiatives on new buildings so they can be built correctly from the start, instead of forcing things on Old Town. Ms. Everette agreed with Chairperson O’Neill, but also said one of the things the City hopes to emphasize is the idea of showcasing and highlighting new technology so it’s in the public eye. Renewables Integration Feasibility Adam Bromley, Smart Grid & System Operation Manager Rhonda Gatzke, Senior Energy Services Engineer Justin Fields, Utility Rate Analyst (attachments available upon request) Mr. Phelan advised that the presentation will highlight the City’s solar potential and renewables integration from three different perspectives: Gross Potential, the Distribution System and the Financial Impacts. Ms. Gatzke reviewed the community’s solar potential. She discussed two area tools, SunNumber and Google, which were used to assess the residential housing rooftop availability. The Google SunRoof estimated a 644MW capacity in Fort Collins. The SunNumber tool estimates approximately 600MW capacity, and they performed a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) study. The final capacity estimate was reduced by about a third due to “Real World Constraints,” such as obstructions on the roof. ICF provides propensity models for energy efficiency. Using several demographic variables, such as average electric consumption, family type, household income, etc., ICF modeled the propensity to adopt solar in Fort Collins. The scoring system runs between 0 and 100 and was based on 500 residential homes that have already adopted solar. ICF surveyed 60,000 homes, and the more aligned the household characteristics were to those homes with solar adoption, the higher the propensity score. Homes with a score of 95 are 10 times more likely to adopt solar. Fort Collins Utilities will target approximately 5,000 homes with a score greater than 90 and hopes it will eventually lead to solar installation of approximately 52 MW. Vice Chairperson Michell commented that 10 times more likely than zero is still zero. Mr. Phelan noted this is just a model to help characterize the homes and give the Utility a benchmark to target and plan. The Utility wanted to see the impact of the 120% Rule, so to analyze the propensity of residential solar installation within utility customers, they cross referenced four data factors: the premise number, the SunNumber data, a 12 month roll of customer billing data and the assigned propensity score. The four items combined provided approximately 30,000 residential data entries that could be used to calculate the 120% rule impact. They found that if the 120% rule is imposed; the size of systems that could be 5 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 deployed would be reduced by approximately a third from ~300 MW down to ~200 MW. If they narrow the data set even further and only look at those residences with a propensity score greater than 89, the capacity is ~50 MW with no limit, and ~30 MW with the limit imposed. Average installation is ~8.9 kW without the limit, and 5.9 kW with the limit. Board members inquired about the purpose of the 120% Rule, which is used to determine how much a structure can hold, or how much energy the site’s service can handle. Mr. Phelan explained that the 120% Rule limits the capacity of the system a resident can put on their home to 120% of what energy is provided the house. The 120% Rule is defined in the 2011 National Electric Code (NEC) as, “The sum of the ampere ratings of overcurrent devices in circuits supplying power to a busbar or conductor shall not exceed 120% of the rating of the busbar or conductor.” Currently, there are 8.4 MW of Solar installed in the City of Fort Collins, and about another 635 kW in progress, totaling approximately 9 MW in 2016. The City has budgeted for another 6 MW of installation by 2018, and would need a total of 22 MW by 2020 to meet the Road to 2020 goal. Mr. Bromley reviewed several interconnection requirements for self-generation; explaining that some limits would require the City would to do additional studies, upgrade equipment or implement system protection changes. He focused on one of the limits, the 13.3% rule: “Rated aggregate generation kVA on distribution feeder or protective device exceeds 13.3% of the rating of that feeder or protective device,” because this limit is static across all feeders with a 6 MW capacity. 13.3% of 6 MW is 798 kW of hosting capacity per feeder, multiply that by 75 feeders, subtract 9 MW of existing parallel generation (from the propensity study) equates to 50.85 MW AC capacity across the system, or 678 kW AC average hosting capacity by feeder. Mr. Bromley also reviewed the Residential PV with the 120% Rule versus no limitation to highlight the potential AC generation on each circuit. This study showed that several feeders are projected to go over the 798 kW limit (13.3% rule) and advised it’s important to notice the 51.2 MW of DC solar potential equates to approximately 34.8 MW AC potential, and the Utility has approximately 50.85 MW of system hosting capacity before they would have to make an investment in researching or modifying the overcurrent protection. Because all feeders are not created equally, the Utility may need to consider how to switch loads from one feeder to another, or look into other studies which take time, money and investments. Board member Moore inquired how much lead time the Utility would need to shift the load to accommodate the customer? Mr. Bromley said the goal is to never say no to a customer, and that if limits are forecasted correctly, hopefully it’s easier to plan and anticipate the need. Mr. McCollough added that the study at hand could potentially be looking at a span of 10 years. Vice Chairperson asked how expensive it will be if the limit is reached? Mr. McCollough advised a significant interconnection study could cost up to $50,000 to go through all the pieces. Different maximized limits will trigger different expenses, but at this time the Utility isn’t prepared to quantify it because those limits haven’t been reached yet. Mr. Bromley said they looked at the average system size and tried to understand how many installations they can do per feeder, regarding installations at the 120% rule (12,675 installations system wide) and without the 120% rule in place (8,400 installations system wide). The 90% propensity study would accommodate approximately 5,400 projected customers—so in both cases, the system as a whole has the hosting capacity to accommodate all 5,400 installations, but this is assuming all generation is spread evenly among the 75 feeders. In the future, Light & Power will continue to monitor the revisions to IEEE 1547 to shape and update the Utility’s interconnection requirements. Additionally, they want to perform a more in-depth study 6 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 regarding the 13.3% rule and work through the annual feeder load data to understand the 50% minimum load limitations by feeder. Mr. Fields reviewed the financial incentives provided through the Utility’s rates to incentivize rooftop solar adoption. Two subsidies are provided: Energy Returned to Grid and Distribution Facilities Charge (DFC). The per-customer subsidy received by solar customers is constant as the penetration of solar increases, so as a result a smaller group of non-solar customers will have to pay more per customer to fund those subsidies as the solar penetration increases. He displayed a bar graph describing the Monthly Subsidy per Customer with solar and non-solar customers as well as with the 120% rule and without. The chart shows that as the penetration increases, the subsidies remain fixed for the solar customers, but the non-solar customers will eventually pay more per month to fund the solar customers. Board members inquired if that would cause the Utility to change the rate structure, and Mr. McCollough said that is where the conclusion would likely head. He asked the board to consider what the threshold of pain for a non-solar customer should be and if a subsidy for a solar customer is still appropriate once the penetration ratio flips. Board Member Braslau asked why non-solar customers are charged anyway; Mr. Fields reiterated it’s an incentive for customers to adopt solar in the current state of solar penetration. If the 120% rule was eliminated, these subsidies could possibly double and there are concerns about the effects of these subsidies on customers without solar. If the net metering structure was modified to remove these subsidies, the Utility would recommend lifting the 120% rule. Board members commented about solar customers using the electric grid as a backup system, just like everyone else, but are still being subsidized. Mr. Phelan added that the misalignment of solar with the system peak is not a surprise, nor is the concept of solar customers using the grid more when it’s not sunny. Mr. McCollough added that in a world where you can adopt solar and put a battery system on to disconnect from the grid, he completely agrees with the Board’s concerns—however; in the meantime, there are costs to provide a service for solar that need to be charged back to the customers, whether you have it or not and whether it’s sunny or not. Vice Chairperson Michell asked about the Distributed Facilities Charge and how much of the DFC is a fixed charge and how much of it really depends on how much energy is flowing across the grid. Mr. Fields said when the Utility’s fixed costs are totaled up with Platte River’s fixed costs, about 80% of the costs are fixed. Vice Chairperson Michell believes that it would make more sense to charge it as a fixed charge rather than a kW hour charge. Mr. McCollough said if that were true, customers would see about a $60 fixed charge and they would pay for approximately $15 in energy usage. He said one argument against that would be that it could potentially remove the conservation signal. Board Member Moore asked what the advantage to City would be to lift the 120% rule, and Mr. Bromley said system-wise, it would be better for stability to keep the limit in place. Mr. McCollough added that it could help the City achieve the goals within the climate action framework of Road to 2020: Forging Our Efficient Future, sooner. Mr. Phelan said that the 120% rule provides a reasonable limit for the Utility, but that most of the systems currently in place are not limited by it at all. Typically these systems are more limited by the economics of it or various other factors that the Utility hasn’t identified yet. Currently there isn’t much evidence that the limit has even been reached in most cases. Vice Chairperson Michell said it seems to him that the Utility may be better off targeting non-residential customers rather than the residential customers, in terms of scale and cost of installation. He wondered if there is a lot of overlooked potential in that area. Mr. Phelan said that information isn’t included in the 7 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 studies presented tonight, but he agreed that there is a need to focus on commercial installation in the future. Mr. McCollough asked what the Board might be interested in regarding future studies or information as this presentation and analysis evolves? Chairperson O’Neill said that he’d be interested in more information from the future of Mr. Bromley’s studies, such as what the real limits are and the standards. He’s also interested in the policy issues that were addressed several times in tonight’s discussion. He added that it’s far more economical to share resources, so we will likely always be interconnected and will have to determine the value of solar instead. Vice Chairperson Michell said that the Board is really excited to see this data and he’s looking forward to seeing more information on the non-residential side of solar installation. Board member Baumgarn said he has concerns and interests with regards to the socioeconomic course; however he is more interested in meeting the goals of the climate action plan. He believes it feels like solar customers are being demonized at times and thinks that there might be a marketing opportunity in the delivery of the Road to 2020: Forging Our Efficient Future message. Chairperson O’Neill asked the board to start formulating policy questions and then they will turn those over to request studies from City Staff. Draft 2016 Energy Board Annual Report (attachments available upon request) Chairperson O’Neill explained that he drafted the Annual Report with the Board’s activities in 2016, including every discussion or action up through the previous Board meeting. The Board typically approves the Annual Report on the contingency and understanding that the Chairperson will add the content from tonight’s meeting. Chairperson O’Neill moved to adopt the 2016 annual report (pending the addition of the December Meeting). Board member Friedman seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Proposed 2017 Meeting Schedule Mr. McCollough said Staff intends to bring Broadband to the Board very soon. He cautioned in January Council may decide to put language on the April ballot, and as soon as the language is approved, City Staff will be required to go silent on the topic. Based on the timing of the Board meetings, Mr. McCollough asked the Board if they would want to move the January 12 meeting up one week to potentially accommodate discussion on the topic. Board members inquired if there’s a way to know if Council wants the Board to weigh in on the Broadband topic and how pertinent this topic is to the Energy Board. Mr. McCollough said he would take the Board’s question to Council at the December meeting, especially because it is part of the Board’s duties to advise Council on Utility Operations. Board members would like to add Officer Elections to the January meeting, receive a future update on the City Energy Project, and potentially meet with the Loveland Utility Commission again, if permissible. Mr. McCollough advised he will leave the 2017 Planning Calendar with Chairperson O’Neill and Vice Chairperson Michell, and requested Board members to send their feedback directly to them. 8 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 Board Member Reports Board member Moore brought up the Super Issue meeting that she attended on November 30, and discussed the proposed Entertainment District in Fort Collins, also known as a “common consumption area.” Ideal locations for an area like this might be the Foothills Mall or Downtown, and it would be available all the time, not only for special events (such as New West Fest). Chairperson O’Neill discussed the rebranding of the Climate Action Plan as Road to 2020: Forging Our Efficient Future. He believes the name Road to 2020 doesn’t accurately describe the goal of the program. Potential other names and branding were discussed at the Community Issues meeting and he suggested the Board should provide additional input on the branding while the decision is still in progress. Future Agenda Review None Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Approved by the Energy Board on January 12, 2017 ________________________________ ______________ Board Secretary, Christie Fredrickson Date 9 Energy Board Minutes December 1, 2016 1/19/2017