Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 02/11/2021 ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING February 11, 2021 – 5:30 pm Remote – Zoom Meeting ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Jeremy Giovando, Bill Becker, Dan Gould, Alan Braslau, Marge Moore, Steve Tenbrink, John Fassler, Amanda Shores, Sue McFaddin Board Members Absent: OTHERS PRESENT Staff Members Present: Adam Bromley, Christie Fredrickson, Tim McCollough, Brian Tholl, Cyril Vidergar, Cameron Gloss, John Phelan, Brad Smith, Rhonda Gatzke, Theresa Connor, Molly Saylor, Leland Keller Platte River Power Authority: Trista Fugate Members of the Public: Rick Coen, Rich Stave MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Becker called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm PUBLIC COMMENT None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES In preparation for the meeting, board members submitted amendments via email for the January 14, 2021 minutes. The minutes were approved as amended. ANNOUNCEMENTS & AGENDA CHANGES The Energy Board will continue to meet remotely, pursuant to Ordinance No. 79, 2020. Mr. Coen said he attended the PRPA workshop on DER, and he felt like it was a good opportunity to express his opinion, and thanked Mr. McCollough for taking the time to talk through some of his concerns. Board member Shores announced she will be resigning from the Energy Board due to her own personal obligations. She intends to stay as active and engaged in the community as possible. STAFF REPORTS Executive Director’s Update Theresa Connor, Interim Utilities Executive Director (attachments available upon request) Ms. Connor reviewed several things the Utility was able to accomplish in 2020. The Utility is proud to say it kept the lights on and the water flowing in all directions all year long, in spite of the many challenges the COVID-19 pandemic posed to the community. Customer-facing services were the first to be reimagined and relaunched during the pandemic, and the Customer Connections team maintained all customer ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING communications for programs and engagement. Many new software programs were also brought online, including Maximo, Geographic Information System (GIS), Graphic Work Design (GWD), and Advanced Distribution Meter System (ADMS). Staff worked hard on developing and co-leading the update to the Our Climate Future Plan. Staff also collaborated on many projects, such as Connexion construction and support, as well as the response to the Cameron Peak Fire. Kyle Stannert has been hired as the City’s Deputy City Manager. Darin Atteberry, the City Manager, wants to dedicate some time to evaluate Utility’s structure once Connexion is fully constructed and operating. The City will be utilizing an independent contractor, Novak Consulting Group, to help with the evaluation, and hope to have a recommendation by early Spring. Board member Shores asked how the Utility might split up if that ends up Novak’s structural recommendation. Ms. Connor said she is not sure yet, but that is the goal of the study, to see what the City and the Utility can learn and use that information to develop the job description. Board member Tenbrink wondered if the Energy Board will have a role in the selection process. Ms. Connor said it is common practice to have community partners and public forums during the recruitment process for roles such as this. Board member McFaddin asked how the rebate from Platte River was used. Ms. Connor said the funding has not yet been allocated yet, the City is waiting on additional stimulus money to leverage the planning process and funding. In 2021, there will be quarterly Utilities Updates at City Council, which will be held conjunction with Connexion. The updates may carry on annually and will hopefully get Utilities in front of City Council more frequently. 2021 UTILITIES LOCATING SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCES Tim McCollough, Deputy Director, Utilities Light & Power (attachments available upon request) Fort Collins has many beautiful neighborhoods and landmarks, but it is easy to forget what lies beneath the surface of the City’s footprint. Much of the City’s utility infrastructure, including pipes, wires, and cables, are located underground. That infrastructure needs protected because that is what keeps the City’s facilities and services running all day, every day. The City is committed to deploying and delivering reliable, high-speed internet services throughout the City, as well as maintaining and protecting assets and infrastructure to drive reliability, cost effectiveness, efficiency, and improving the customer experience. These are part of the Utility’s alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan (Economic Health 3.6, and High Performing Government 7.8, respectively). In Colorado, it is law to call 811 before you dig; hitting a buried line while digging can disrupt utility service, cost money to repair, or cause serious injury or death. The same law requires facility owners to locate and mark the utilities within 48 hours of a call being placed. The level of service the City must provide to the community is defined by law and set by the amount of construction happening in the community. Utilities Locating Operations is an internal City department. In 2020, the department was composed of eight full time employees and four contractual employees; they located over 117,000 individual facility locates (across 40,000 tickets) with an accuracy rate that exceeded 99.99%. Location Operations is funded by all five utility funds (including Connexion) as a shared service, since all the City’s infrastructure is underground. They will also work with and bill other City departments, such as Traffic, Transfort, and IT, for locates. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING There was a 50% increase in volume from 2019 to 2020, which sustained through the winter season. The increase was primarily driven by Connexion, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic there was also an increase in landscaping projects while many people were staying home. Beginning in the middle of 2020 and throughout the end of the year, ticket volume began to exceed the Locating team’s resource capacity, which has led to past-due tickets. Staff did implement mitigation plans, such as working with excavators to prioritize daily ticket requests, as well as working with staff who had previously been a part of the Locating team before moving on to new positions within the City. Staff is anticipating the volume to continue to increase with Connexion still under construction and a growing fiber system, as well as economic recovery that will bring forward additional development work. There will also be a significant increase in small cell installations (small radio equipment affixed to existing infrastructure to assist with the transmission of data to and from wireless devices), each of which will require a locate ticket. In order to meet the current and anticipated level of volume, staff is recommending a supplemental contract with an external Locating firm with an off-cycle budget appropriation for $500,000 in 2021 (to be re-evaluated in 2022 through the normal budgeting process). The funding for this offer would come from reserves and be split equitably (geographic size of service territory and number of tickets by facility) across the five utility enterprise funds. Board members wondered what a typical year of funding for this department looks like. Mr. McCollough said it is normally budgeted at $1.2 million, so this would expand the funding 40-50% in the 2021 budget year. Eventually, the Connexion project will be complete and the resources can be scaled back. Board member Shores wondered if the length of the construction build out is what is dictating the short-term contract. Mr. McCollough said the City is strongly committed to maintaining an internal department; the employees are highly skilled and do an incredible job; however, in the short term it would be difficult to hire permanent staff to meet the demands due to the time it would take to onboard and train, and it is important to consider that this volume will likely decrease substantially in one or two years. It would be unfortunate to hire, onboard, and train new employees only to have to let them go when the demand is no longer there. It is more expensive to hire an outside firm, but the firm comes fully prepared with trained employees, trucks, materials, and consumables. They are capable and ready to work their first day on the job. Board member McFaddin moved to support the off-cycle appropriation proposal for Utilities Locating Services going to Council for consideration in March 2021. Board member Tenbrink seconded the motion. Discussion: Chairperson Becker said it is an expensive contract, but it seems prudent given the temporary nature of the demand. Mr. McCollough noted in many ways, it is the cost of doing business as an underground utility, a single dig-in can cost upwards of tens of thousands of dollars in infrastructure repair, let alone interruptions of service. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously 9-0 AMENDMENT TO METRO DISTRICT EVALUATION PROCESS Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager (attachments available upon request) ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING A metro district is a quasi-governmental entity with tax-exempt bonding and taxing authority under the law, which is used to finance public infrastructure and services, some of which include street infrastructure, non-potable water system, parks and recreation facilities, and operations and maintenance of those facilities. Metro districts are authorized under Colorado's Special District Act, Colorado Revised Statutes Title 32, and local governance has a requirement to evaluate the metro district through an evaluation of the district’s service plan. The creation of a district may be considered if there is a clear demonstrated need and a proven result that the creation of the district will result in enhanced and extraordinary public benefits to existing and future business owners and/or residents of the district and City. The benefits should clearly align with the goals of the City expressed through policy, such as the City’s Energy Policy. The City’s policy establishes the criteria, guidelines and processes followed by City Council and City staff in considering service plans for the organization of metro districts, but the approval of a District Service Plan is at the discretion of City Council. Metro districts allow the public infrastructure to be financed over time and at tax-exempt interest rates. Property owners within the district can also deduct taxes paid to the district on their federal income tax returns, and new infrastructure is funded by those who will benefit (constituents within the district, not all City residents). The City did not allow residential metro districts until 2018, and with that policy change City Council directed staff to revisit that policy to see if there is a way to provide refinements that address concerns that have been raised. Staff and Council recognize that current code does not necessarily result in developments that meet the community’s aspirations, so the task is to identify how Metro Districts might help realize the kind of residential development that we desire as a community (as defined by adopted City policies). Relevant plans to this work include: City Plan, Our Climate Future, Housing Plan (update in progress), Water Efficiency Plan, and others. Staff has been working to identify a way to measure the quality of development, and ultimately came up with a point system. The metro district applicant must collect a total of 35 points, which are broken up into three different areas: housing (5 points), neighborhood livability (5 points), energy conservation (15 points), and water conservation (3 indoor points, 7 outdoor points). Point system allows development to be considered. Mr. Gloss reviewed the allocation of points under each section. Energy conservation is weighted the heaviest, with a minimum of 15 points to earn. This section helps to fulfill policies under the Climate Action Plan and Energy Policy (Our Climate Future). Points can be earned in the following ways: • Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready Home Performance Path Certified (4 points) • Home Energy Rating (HERS) index of 45 or less without solar (3 points) • Build to Passive House standard (2 points) • Net Zero Energy (5 points) • Build all electric homes / limited installation of natural gas infrastructure (4 points) • District Heating and Cooling for Neighborhood (1 point) • In-home EV charging (1 point) • Solar powered (50/75/100%) (1-3 Points) • Smart storage and grid interactivity (1-3 Points) Mr. Gloss also reviewed a table which goes into detail on each performance metric, including notes, references, and real-world examples. Staff has been using this as a tool within their focus groups to help ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING describe what the metrics are. The process of reviewing and approving a metro district begins with City Council reviewing the district service plan against the point system. Meeting the minimum points allows the district to be considered, but it is ultimately at the discretion of Council. Then, district enters into both a public benefits agreement and a development agreement. Next, there is a Building Permit Review to ensure compliance with the evaluation. Finally, the district is provided a certificate of occupancy once all criteria and public improvements have been met. Board member Tenbrink asked how staff and the City addressed the issues that were brought up in an article published in the Denver Post in December of 2019, namely the lack of transparency. Mr. Gloss said the City is working hard with the state guidance to be responsive to the need for transparency. For example, there will be limitations on the use of eminent domain. The City’s policy will also help ensure home buyers are fully informed about the implications of living within a metro district (with the use of disclosures, etc.). Vice Chairperson Moore asked how many mills these programs would add, it would be good for the homeowners to know that ahead of time. (Mills are mileage taxes - one mill is one one-thousandth of a dollar, and in property tax terms is equal to $1.00 of tax for each $1,000 of assessment). Mr. Gloss said the ceiling for metro districts is 50 mills, and possibly another 10 for operations and maintenance, but it is difficult to generalize because it is at the discretion of the Council and dependent on what type of development it is. Ms. Moore said the ceiling seems in line with other programs she is aware of. Board member Braslau noted that transportation and transit are almost completely neglected, even though they play one of the largest roles in energy usage in the United States. Mr. Gloss said the City has very high standards for transportation with significant requirements that go above and beyond most of the City’s neighboring communities; however, the component of transit is not a mandated requirement of a metro district. Board member Gould wondered what the heating and cooling technology will be for these subdivisions, ground-sourced electric heating and cooling? It seems there are certain paths of point accumulation to meet the minimum. Mr. Smith, said as it is structured right now it is open to a mix, but there are a number of points that would encourage exploration electrification technology. Board member Fassler expressed concern that the evaluation criteria within the Energy Conservation section does not set the bar high enough. For example, wondered why building to the Passive House standard (a standard for energy efficiency in a building, which reduces the building's ecological footprint; resulting in ultra-low energy buildings that require little energy for space heating or cooling) only accounts for two points when a HERS rating of 45 accounts for three points. He noted THAT Section C of the table seems arbitrary and unclear, specifically the note that enhanced energy efficiency should be an R-Value of 28 or higher or an Energy Rating Index (ERI) of 40 or lower. The switching of the scoring systems and standards is confusing, and he wonders what that is pointing to. Mr. Smith said staff wanted to be able to give builders and developments very specific targets. As far as the ERI score is concerned, there are specific requirements within the envelope. Passive House was also largely spoken as a non-starter by the focus groups, but staff wanted to leave it in there because it is a valuable standard. Mr. Fassler said it seems as though the focus groups were too weighted in traditional builders and perhaps there was an opportunity to diversify the groups, and he thinks passive house should be weighted more heavily to show its value. Board member McFaddin commended Mr. Gloss and City Staff for stepping up with this project and what ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING they’ve done so far. Though the focus groups were tough at times, it is so exciting to get developers to consider the items around climate change and affordable housing. Vice Chairperson Moore agreed, though there may still work in refining some of the items, she loves the point system and the framework of how the evaluation was put together. She also hopes the metro districts will consider providing charging stations to help with the concerns around transit and transportation. Board member McFaddin moved the Energy Board enthusiastically support an amendment to the City of Fort Collins Metropolitan (Metro) District policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation system. Board member Gould seconded the motion. Discussion: Chairperson Becker said he feels like this is a night and day difference between the last update the Board heard and today, a lot of hard work clearly went into the project. He noted that it sounds as though the Energy Board feels that transit that should be addressed more prominently due to its direct impact on energy. He also hopes there will not be any backsliding in the approval process. Board member Fassler said the energy part of the evaluation is weak, even if it is a huge step forward. Climate change will not wait on anyone’s schedule and entering the game as low as possible is not encouraging the behavior change we need to combat climate change. Vice Chairperson Moore asked if there is anything in the concept of metro districts that might allow existing subdivisions to participate in some way, perhaps by adding amenities, since much of Fort Collins is already built out. Mr. Gloss said he is not aware of anything that would permit an existing neighborhood to participate as a retrofit. Mr. Gloss added that this evaluation process will be revaluated on a two-year cycle, so the bar can be adjusted every two years. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously 8-0, with one abstention. Board member Fassler said he does not oppose the evaluation because it is a step forward, but he cannot enthusiastically vote to support it as written either. OUR CLIMATE FUTURE DRAFT PLAN John Phelan, Energy Services Senior Manager Molly Saylor, Senior Specialist Environmental Sustainability (attachments available upon request) Staff is here tonight to collect the Board’s feedback on the draft of the Our Climate Future Plan as they are refining it before Council’s adoption. Staff will be back for the Board’s March meeting for a recommendation on the final plan before it goes to City Council on March 16. Staff has been conducting a lot of outreach and engagement through a Super Issues Board meeting, visits with the community advisory committee, as well as plan ambassadors and community partners. Through these efforts, staff updated the Big Moves; some were combined and others were reworded to be more accessible (there are now 13 Big Moves). The new draft was released to the public on February 5th, and Staff also presented at City Council on the 9th. The primary energy goals within the OCF are to: achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030 with grid and local sources, achieve a 20 percent reduction in forecast electricity use between 2021 and 2030 through efficiency and conservation initiatives in all building types and industrial processes, and achieve five percent of community electricity from local distributed renewable sources by 2030. Additionally, there ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING are goals around reliability, natural gas efficiency, energy code adoption, grid flexibility, and pricing principles. These goals are reflective of Council action and community engagement efforts, joint planning efforts between Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority, as well as changes in technology standards. Ms. Saylor noted the City did not meet its 2020 interim milestone of 75% waste diversion. There were three main factors that led to the shortfall, including delays in regional food scrap and yard waste composting infrastructure, the 2018 change in global markets producing the types of plastic that can be locally recycled, and increased consumer waste. These goals were set in 2013 and few lessons have been learned since then; not every material is possible to recycle and that likely won’t change in the near or medium-term future. Because of that, many cities are now defining zero waste as 85 percent waste diversion and the staff is proposing a similar change to the City’s waste goals for all sectors of the community (residential, commercial, and industrial): 85 percent of waste is recoverable by 2035, as well as working toward universal composting and recycling access with support for regional facilities by 2030. Additionally, in any given year 85 percent of what is recoverable should be recovered through recycling, composting, or other diversion. The last waste focuses specifically on the residential sector, allowing residents understand how their behavior adds up by targeting a year over year decrease in residential pounds of waste per capita per day. The new implementation approach should remain iterative and evergreen. Staff has worked to identify a critical path to meeting the 2030 goal of 80 percent reduction in community carbon inventory emissions from the 2005 level. The critical path is comprised of 100 percent renewable electricity, expansion of transit network, and community wide organic waste diversion. Staff also recognizes there will be a variety of ways to get the rest of the way to the goals, so there is also a portfolio of additional moves that can be utilized along the way. The critical path and additional moves will leave a gap of approximately 5 percent behind the goal, so the City can seek to close that gap in subsequent review and calibration cycles over the next 10 years. The new OCF plan relies much more heavily on visual storytelling and seeks to speak directly to the community as the primary reader with very accessible language throughout. Staff hopes the community will view this plan as a document they want to read and use to guide their own climate, energy, and waste efforts. The bulk of the plan lays out each of the 13 Big Moves, each one including a short narrative describing the big move, notes on how progress will be tracked, and a table showing the associated list of next moves. The tactical plan is designed to set clear expectations around what staff will be focused on this year and next, by providing additional information on each prioritized next move. The tactical plan will include a case study (where applicable), descriptions and 2021/22 plans, known partners, and impact and investment estimates. Staff heard strong support from City Council, as well as kudos the accessibility of the document as a whole and for equity and leading with race. Council did have some specific concerns around the updated waste goals, with support for 100 percent waste diversion (as opposed to 85 percent). Board member Giovando wondered if staff will be putting together an investment estimation for the breakdown of the plan’s goals. Mr. Phelan confirmed staff will be looking at annual investments every year through 2030 and beyond as part of the framework. It’s a combination of public and private funding, so staff is still working on how best to characterize that. Vice Chairperson Moore wondered about the benefit cost ratio. Mr. Phelan said the total cost is through 2030, but in order to calculate the benefits, the life stream of the benefits have to be measured beyond 2030 (they are cumulative). ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Board member Gould said he would like to lobby for an extra notation signaling the importance and equity of expanding the transit network, there are big returns for people who can live a full life and have full mobility with a reduced number of cars or no car at all. Mr. Phelan said the scoring on the next moves is also preliminary, he said Board Member Gould’s feedback is really helpful. Board member Tenbrink asked what the strategy will be when there are no renewables (wind or solar) for several days or weeks at a time. Mr. Phelan said there are many precursors needed in order to meet the goal of 100 percent renewable electricity, such as the option of joining a regional transmission organization which provides some inherent resource diversification and availability, among many others included in Platte River’s Resource Diversification Policy. Board member McFaddin said electrification planning should be its own big move. Mr. Phelan said electrification measures are nested under Big Move 8, and staff realizes there is a lot of work to be done in educating the community. Internally, there is a lot of work happening with electrification planning and addressing many of the barriers in that process. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Board member Tenbrink noted that many people on Nextdoor in his neighborhood do not like the energy and water usage reports. Mr. Tholl said he would be happy to come back to the Board at a future meeting to discuss this topic. Board member McFaddin will be leading a discussion around Utility Rate Structures at the Board’s February work session, she hopes the Board will come to meeting with an open mind and many ideas. FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW Utility Rates will be discussed at the February 25 Work Session. The Board’s meeting in March will include the OCF final plan and recommendation, a pandemic financial update, a rough draft of the Light & Power Capital Improvement Plan, interconnection standards, as well as a brief brainstorm for April Work Session topics. ADJOURNMENT The Energy Board adjourned at 8:31.