Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 09/14/2023 ENERGY BOARD September 14, 2023 – 5:30 pm 222 Laporte Ave – Colorado Room ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Bill Althouse, Thomas Loran, Marge Moore, Alan Braslau, Jeremy Giovando, Brian Smith (remote), Stephen Tenbrink Board Members Absent: Vanessa Paul, Bill Becker OTHERS PRESENT Staff Members Present: Christie Fredrickson, Phillip Amaya, John Phelan, Cyril Vidergar (remote), Brian Tholl, Katherine Bailey (remote), Michael Authier, Kendall Minor (remote) Members of the Public: MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Tenbrink called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. ANNOUNCEMENTS & AGENDA CHANGES None. PUBLIC COMMENT None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES In preparation for the meeting, board members submitted amendments via email for the August 10, 2023, minutes. Board members requested additional language be added from their discussion to reinforce the concerns about Platte River’s Integrated Resource Plan falling short of the community’s renewable electricity and energy goals. STAFF REPORTS Community Wide Solar Visualization John Phelan, Energy Services Manager & Energy Policy Advisor Rhonda Gatzke, Senior Energy Services Engineer More than 3,000 Fort Collins Utilities residential and commercial customers generate solar power. Utilities partnered with Colorado State University (CSU) to create a visual representation of the estimated total power that grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) systems make each day. The Community Wide Solar Visualization tool, which is for educational purposes and open to anyone, shows near real-time (five- minute intervals) total power generation by grid-connected PV systems. CSU developed the model, called PVSTEM; it captures a variety of data from each solar system in Utilities’ service area and combines it with information from three CSU weather stations around Fort Collins. The data includes capacity (kW-dc), orientation (tilt and azimuth), location, installation date, sunlight intensity, temperature, wind speed, and snow coverage. The model also considers any power ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING losses that happen due to shading, system downtime (assumed repairs, maintenance, or power outages) and system ageing. Finally, it creates a graph to display the estimated total solar power output. The data will initially be used educationally by people in the solar industry or anyone who’s interested, but over time, Utilities may use the information to support its work to reach the community’s Our Climate Future energy and grid flexibility goals. Board member Althouse asked if it is possible to calculate how much was generated and how much was pushed back onto the grid. Mr. Phelan said that data is measured but can’t be summarized other than quarterly or annually. Mr. Althouse asked if the Utility can see when a meter is injecting into the grid, and Mr. Phelan said yes, approximately six hours later that data becomes visible to the Utility. Mr. Althouse asked if there is any way to assess the total localized capacity. Staff said in real time or near-real time, no, but otherwise yes, the data can be pulled from the Meter Data Management System. Board member Braslau said he would find it interesting if this tool could be used in site-specific situations, such as individual buildings and then have the real time data displayed. BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS UPDATE Brian Tholl, Energy Services Supervisor Katherine Bailey, Project Manager A Building Performance Standards (BPS) standard is a policy that requires building owners to meet performance targets by actively improving their buildings over time. In Fort Collins, BPS aligns with the Our Climate Future Plan (OCF) through Big Move 6: Efficient, emissions free buildings, the end goal being that everyone in our community lives and works in healthy energy and water efficient buildings, which transition to become emissions free. OCF implementation intensifies the community efforts to achieve these three primary environmental goals: Reduce 2030 greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2005 baseline levels, 20% reduction in forecast electricity use by 2030, and 10% reduction in forecast natural gas use by 2030. Board member Loran asked for additional clarification on the phrase “forecast electricity use,” because if the community is moving toward electric vehicles and heat pumps, won’t electric utilization skyrocket? Anecdotally, Mr. Loran said he has electrified much of his home and lifestyle and his natural gas utilization has stopped. Mr. Tholl said included in the forecasted electric use is population growth, building stock, as well as a high-level percentage of electrification (both demand and energy). Mr. Tholl explained that implementing BPS is the most impactful, mitigation-based, direct action the City can take to reduce emissions by 2030. Currently, two thirds of community carbon emissions come from the existing building stock in the community. The 2030 impact of implementing BPS is projected to be just under that of all other efficiency programs combined. The estimated impact of BPS is 132,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), while all other efficiency programs are estimated at 184.3k MTCO2e. Mr. Tholl also noted that BPS has a much higher natural gas impact than other Utilities programs. Ms. Bailey explained the BPS Task Force is comprised of industry experts who represent industries that would be significantly impacted by BPS, such as affordable housing, multifamily housing, small business owner, commercial real estate, etc. The Task Force is not meant to be comprised of technical experts, there is an entire technical committee who does the deep dive and supports the task force with the needed data. When talking about building performance, we are not just talking about efficiency, but we’re ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING talking about equity, safety, health, resilience, reduced energy burden, and trying to prevent increased unaffordability. Ms. Bailey said the Task Force’s recommendations will not be finalized until November, but they have identified some “emerging recommendations.” These recommendations can provide a sense of direction in the three main bodies being discussed: Covered Buildings, Efficiency Targets, and Resources and Off Ramps. In the Covered Buildings category, the emerging recommendations are to include buildings 5,000 square feet and above multifamily and commercial (also covered under the City’s Benchmarking Ordinance). The definition of multifamily will also align with the benchmarking ordinance (R2 occupancy and three stories or greater above grade). This group feels strongly that they don’t want any buildings to have to adhere to different sets of requirements, so there won’t be any overlap with the State’s requirements or compliance. The Task Force would like to give further consideration to industrial properties with the assistance of experts in that space. New construction will be included. Additionally, they are considering a cohort of small buildings (5-10k sq ft) with more achievable targets. Under Efficiency Targets, the task force is potentially looking to recommend Energy Use Intensity (EUI) targets with both interim and final goals (set for 2027 and 2030), and there is potential for a secondary greenhouse gas intensity target to align with the State. The group wants to emphasize the necessity for maximum flexibility in the pathway options (caps, electrification, renewables) rather than prescriptive pathways. Board member Braslau commented that the opposition to the prescriptive pathway is likely a reflection of the composition of the task force; if it included more diverse experts, the opinion may have been more nuanced. He doesn’t believe the community will or can meet its climate goals without prescriptive pathways. Ms. Bailey said she appreciates that feedback and noted that the technical committee will still need to review all the recommendations and could advise alternatives (such as a prescriptive pathway). The Task Force felt strongly that the more resources are available, the more successful this initiative will be. Their recommendations for Resources and Off ramps include both technical and financial resources, such as a Building Hub (a one stop shop website for contractors, assessments, etc.), Technical Support, incentives, and community engagement. Adjustments should also be available for timeline and targets for special circumstances, such as supply chain disruptions, historic designations, etc. The Task Force wanted to keep the definition of Equity Priority Buildings (additional assistance provided to under- resourced buildings) very high-level so as to not unintentionally exclude anyone who may need assistance. Mr. Tholl added that if the Board has feedback on any of these recommendations, staff would like to hear so they can pass that on to all stakeholder groups. Ms. Bailey quickly reviewed building size cohorts; the task force is considering cohorts of 5-10k square feet versus a cohort of 5-15k square feet, as well as the consideration if small buildings should even be included (a cut off at 10k or 15k square feet). There is savings potential and the alignment with the City’s benchmarking data, but there is a significant administrative burden because of the number of buildings. It is a lot of buildings for a small amount of savings. Board member Loran which one of these options will get the community closer to the climate goals. Ms. Bailey said there are a few ways to look at it because the most energy savings will be collected if there is ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING not a small building cohort, but without one it may be necessary to have a lower standard/target, so it is achievable for everyone (because it is more challenging for smaller buildings). Mr. Tholl added this is a larger discussion happening among their stakeholder groups and there is a lot to consider beyond just the energy savings, such as administrative burden (for both City staff and building owners) versus what can be achieved by putting a standard in place. Board member Moore is a commercial real estate appraiser; she works often with small building owners and has also been involved with securing CPACE (Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy) funding. She said she thinks staff is correct in their thinking that the ability to fill the in between gap at a lower interest rate will be more difficult for smaller buildings. The return on investment may not pan out in energy savings. Mr. Tholl said the City is unique because of the option to participate in the Efficiency Works Business program that has a lot of incentive options and a body of work and data to support this program. Board members wondered what the timeline is like before making the choice. Ms. Bailey said staff can prepare different options along with pros and cons of each and bring them to Council. She said ideally the technical committee will narrow down the compliance pathways a little bit more. Board member Moore wondered if it would help to do a staggered implementation. Ms. Bailey said because we are working to achieve aggressive climate goals by 2030, it would be a detriment to those building owners to roll out the standards and give them less time to complete the work. Board member Braslau suggested including all eligible buildings and allocating more resources to smaller building owners. Board member Smith said it seems like the prescriptive paths may be more appropriate for smaller building owners and wondered if the task force had explored that. Ms. Bailey said the task force had a robust discussion around this and ultimately, they felt strongly that if they had enough tangible and achievable goals, as well as a wide range of resources available to them (technical and financial) then they should be able to choose the best way to achieve their targets that aligns with their own business plans. Staff asked the board to advocate for BPS not as an if, but a how and encouraged them to help Council understand the why. It is a high impact process which means it is likely to be met with high resistance and viewed as high risk. Board members noted that many people are very supportive of climate action but wary of entering a regulatory space. They also discussed drafting a memo expressing their excitement and eagerness to hear and learn more. RENEWABLE ENERGY METRIC DEFINITIONS John Phelan, Energy Services Manager & Energy Policy Advisor The goal is to ensure a common understanding of renewable electricity (RE) and electricity carbon accounting structure for Fort Collins currently and in a future electricity market, which will better inform discussions by community leaders (and the community at large) regarding Our Climate Future specific goals, as well as other community interests and priorities. Heading into the discussion, Mr. Phelan asked the board to consider what they are most curious about and what details would improve their understanding. The bottom line of tonight’s discussion is that RE accounting methods stay the same today and in the market, but it is necessary to overhaul how it is described. The basics for current and market accounting are that the Utility purchases all its electricity from a single provider, power sources and RECs (renewable energy credits) are accounted for on an annual basis, and then Fort Collins calculates RE percentages and electricity carbon based on standard protocols for each. Mr. Phelan emphasized that the more the Utility generates locally, the less the Utility needs to purchase. The current goals are based in standard ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING accounting mechanisms and protocols, and they do not represent the electric system or electricity market operations. Mr. Phelan reviewed how the Utility currently works with Platte River, and how it will change with Platte River’s entry into a regional transmission market. He pointed out a few things to keep in mind: Platte River meets City loads, and their resource planning is for City loads. The net revenue from the region offsets the wholesale rates, and the REC accounting for City goals is a bundled REC, meaning that the Utility gets the electricity from non-carbon generation delivered to the City as well as the REC. Chairperson Tenbrink asked who owns the RECs from residential solar. Mr. Phelan said if the Utility issues a rebate, then the Utility owns the REC, but if there was no rebate then the customer owns it. Once Platte River enters the market, all Platte River generation will go to the market, and all the Utility’s electricity will come from the market. There is no direct sale from Platte River to Fort Collins. The market will now meet the City loads, but Platte River is still doing the same resource planning. The market revenue offsets the market costs, so if Platte River doesn’t generate anything, then the Utility pays the cost from the market, but since they sell into the market, the revenue they generate from the sale is a benefit to the Utility (provided the market purchases what Platte River generates). Now all RECs are unbundled from an asset that the Utility is an owner of, so the Utility will that REC. Board member Braslau asked for clarification if Platte River will be purchasing anything from the market, and Mr. Phelan said no, Platte River plans only to sell into the market. Board member Althouse asked if there is a situation here like there was in Texas a few years ago and the cost surges to $5,000 a MW, will the Utility’s customers be responsible for that. Mr. Phelan said that is a potential risk, yes, but the Texas market (an Energy Only market without capacity requirements) is structured very differently than the Southwest Power Pool, which has a lot more guard rails. Mr. Amaya said where the Utility could get into trouble is if we were to ever lose our generation resources because we’d be vulnerable market pricing; however, in that situation that would be true now and we’d be purchasing from the spot market or possibly lose power all together. Board member Loran said since the margin on cost of renewable energy is zero, and he wondered what happens when the demand is met, and everyone is trying to sell a product at zero or negative. Mr. Phelan said that his expertise is not in markets, but if the Board would like time to ask more questions, staff can invite Platte River to come to a future meeting as subject matter experts. Mr. Minor said holistically, the decision to enter the market is a hedge and a safety net. From a wholesale and reliability perspective, the Utility is positioning itself to be able to serve the community regardless of load generation. When the cost goes to zero or negative, we are subject to that pricing even if it’s not beneficial to the community; however, if we have a positive cost in the market and it is cheaper to buy than it is to produce, then that decision is made from the operations desk. There are pros and cons based on pricing signals is day ahead or real time. Additionally, all the renewable energy is intermittent so that is always what is on the grid first, so it needs to be utilized first. Mr. Phelan recapped a few key points to remember going forward: The Utility’s electricity will come from the market (SPP RTOW; not from Platte River). The Utility is part owner of a generation agency that sells electricity into the market. Renewable electricity has always been tracked via RECs, and RECs from Platte River (owned generation or PPA’s) are the Utility’s to account for annualized renewable electricity and carbon goals. Local solar reduces Utility purchases and counts towards the City’s renewable electricity goal. OCF RE and carbon goals are based on standard annualized reporting methods. Platte River’s reporting under the Clean Energy Plan has a different purpose; while it’s important it’s not ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING reflective of the City’s goals. This is confusing and staff would like the Board’s feedback on how to make this clearer to the community. Platte River forecasts generating more RE annually than the owner community’s load by 2030. Together, these mean the community can meet its OCF electricity goals with Platte River’s current planning (Platte River’s Clean Energy Plan forecasting is only indirectly related to City goals), and the Utility’s RE and carbon goals are not reflective of electric system and market operations. Chairperson Tenbrink commented that he does really care where the RECs are coming from or going to, as long as we enough energy here so we can keep natural gas plants or other similar things out of the area, so we can breathe clean air and our kids and grandkids can breathe clean air. Mr. Phelan said the current goals of the OCF may not address those concerns, and he asked the Board to consider how do we collectively talk about that in a way that leads to a productive conversation. Mr. Minor asked the Board what is the reliability source of energy that we need to replace the coal fired sources that will be closed in the coming years. Think about what we will need when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Mr. Amaya also asked the Board to consider how do we keep people alive in those situations should they arise during winter, knowing that fireplaces and woodburning stoves are also discouraged or no longer installed. What is the resource when we don’t have enough local resources to sustain the community. Board member Loran said until long-term battery storage becomes widely available, something like an offline gas turbine system, so that in the event of a dark calm event, there is power there. It would be wise to look at it from perspective of three different situations, short term storage, long term storage, and in- case-of-emergency. The whole idea is to burn as little as possible to make electricity, but there will be times when we need to be prepared for emergencies. Board member Althouse asked what technology might be on the shelf in five years when over $1 trillion is being invested every year. Mr. Amaya said the if Platte River creates a Natural Gas plant, they are looking into making it a dual fuel system. Though hydrogen and biofuel are not viable fuel sources right now (because the resources needed don’t readily exist here), but we may get there sometime in the next five years. Board members seemed to express that they like what they are hearing, though they emphasized they still have many questions about it now and for the future. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS None. FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW The Board will begin drafting their 2024 work plan at their next meeting and spend additional time working on it at their October Work Session ahead of the approval due in November. The Board will also hear presentations on the 2024 rates and fees, as well as a demand response business unit budget revision. ADJOURNMENT The Energy Board adjourned at 8:34 pm.