Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 08/25/2014Energy Board Minutes August 25, 2014 Special Meeting 1 Fort Collins Utilities Energy Board Minutes Monday, August 25, 2014 SPECIAL MEETING Energy Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Greg Behm, 226-6161 Ross Cunniff, 420-7398 Energy Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Peter O’Neill, 288-4562 Steve Catanach, 416-2622 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Greg Behm, Vice Chairperson Peter O’Neill, Board Members Margaret Moore, Stacey Baumgarn, Phil Friedman, and Peggy Plate Board Absent Board Members Nick Michell, Michael Doss, and John Graham Staff Present Steve Catanach, Lucinda Smith, John Phelan, Paul Sizemore, and Katherine Martinez Guests Mike Pruznick Meeting Convened Chairperson Behm called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. Public Comment Mike Pruznick, a District 3 citizen (and a member of the City’s Parking Board) presented information as a private citizen on his energy use compared to the rate he pays. His handout showed that when his use over the past three years dropped to a minimum (from approximately 75 kWh/day to 43 kWh/day), his rate didn’t decrease, and when his use hit a high point, it didn’t increase. He said there’s no incentive to save energy and reduce use under the current tiered rate system. Mr. Pruznick suggested arranging tiers according to kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day) rather than per 28- to 32-day billing cycle. He also pointed out that businesses (who are 11 percent of all customers and represent 63 percent of total usage) pay 6.9 cents per kWh compared to individual customers (who make up 88 percent of all customers and represent 36 percent of total energy usage) pay 9.23 cents per kWh. He said he understood the City’s need to attract new businesses, but asked that the Energy Board consider this information. A board member inquired about timeline of the graph. Mr. Pruznick said it shows his entire history of three to four years of energy use. Energy Policy Discussion (Attachments available upon request) Chairperson Behm summarized the agenda and said he hoped the Board could come to a consensus about the high-level structure of topics in the draft Energy Policy. He asked each Board member to give their overall comments about the draft. Energy Board Minutes August 25, 2014 Special Meeting 2 Highlights of the Discussion  A board member commented that the draft is coming along well and that there are some sections that need to be filled in, but the document needs mostly word-smithing at this point.  A board member expressed concern about being able to finish the draft in the given time frame. A board member stated that the Energy Board’s goal should be to finish a draft for City Council review by the end of the year.  A board member commented that the Board started with a five- page Energy Policy, and now the policy is 20 pages. He asked to hear from staff about their impression of the work to make sure the Board’s efforts are perceived as helpful and going in the right direction.  A board member inquired about the genesis of the Energy Policy. Another board member commented that the Energy Policy states it must be revised by every five years. The Board 2.5 years ago felt it was electricity-centric and need to be expanded. Board Member Pete O’Neill and Energy Services Manager John Phelan were on a subcommittee to draft the policy. The final version will go to City Council to review. When Council adopts the policy, the staff will implement it.  Light and Power Operations Manager Steve Catanach said the last time Council reviewed it years ago, they word-smithed it and changed some numbers and goals.  Mr. Phelan said the Board and staff should try to ensure the Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan (CAP) are complimentary because they reference each other.  Environmental Services Director Lucinda Smith agreed it would be good if the two documents mirror each other and are compatible. Some items in the Energy Policy are in the CAP. Although the documents have different purposes, it would be wise if the targets are similar, such as achieving a certain percentage of energy reduction by a certain year.  A board member commented on energy efficiency addressed in the Energy Policy and CAP.  A board member commented on the policy’s structure and main headings. Another board member stated that the Board could take action on approving high level structure of document. A staff member later pointed out that they would need to rescind this action if they changed their minds about the structure, and that it would be safer to simply come to a consensus rather than taking formal action.  A board member suggested detailing reasons in the Motivations section about why the CAP and Energy Policy are separate from each other.  A board member commented that it’s important to understand how it all works together. Motivations and the document’s structure could be part of the background section.  A board member inquired about the language of the heading “Implementation Principles.” He stated he would rather see Principles at the beginning of the document. Another board member suggested the principles should come first, then explain implementation. Energy Board Minutes August 25, 2014 Special Meeting 3  A board member suggested deleting the word “principles,” and just leave it as “implementation.”  Mr. Phelan suggested developing all sections, then reviewing the policy against a checklist. It’s not necessary for all topics to have its own separate entry; just make sure it’s part of another section.  A board member commented on the phrase “areas of application,” and suggested using the word “sector” instead, as Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) does in its Stepping Up report. Ms. Smith stated that the CAP uses the phrase “focus areas.” A board member suggested using “focus areas,” and calling each area a “sector,” such as “Energy Supply and Distribution Sector.”  A board member explained the intent behind each heading: Motivation is “why” the policy exists, Implementation is “how” they will achieve the goals, etc. He suggested one or two paragraphs to explain entire policy and its intentions.  Board members discussed the language of the titles, such as using “overview” instead of synopsis, summary, or abstract.  Mr. Catanach commented that City Plan includes a section on how they will measure success, using key performance indicators or metrics.  Board members discussed the use of graphics to help show the relationship between the Energy Policy and other organizational documents.  A board member summarized the policy sections ─ such as implementation, metrics/strategies/relationships, then final references ─ and stated that they haven’t deleted any sections, just rearranged them.  A board member commented that the Energy Policy must be understandable to citizens because it discusses big topics that affect how people build their homes and live their lives. The Board needs to make clear there are no hidden agendas, assuage any fears, and assure citizens their privacy will be protected.  A board member referred to the chart on page 6 and suggested a couple more graphics, one showing Fort Collins energy generation, which is mostly electrical generation plus renewables and natural gas, and a second graphic to show energy consumption. Or reference the RMI report graphics: where our community has energy (including the new community solar garden) and how we use it.  A board member summarized what they had discussed so far: add an Overview section to summarize the policy; move distinctions from CAP into the Motivations section, add a color graphic showing the document organization; have a separate list for Implementation Principles ahead of Implementation Strategies; and include Implementation and References sections.  A board member suggested adding a bubble diagram showing the scope and relationship of different policies. Mr. Catanach stated he would request permission to use high-resolution graphics from RMI. Energy Board Minutes August 25, 2014 Special Meeting 4  Chairperson Behm asked for consensus on the policy’s structure by an informal straw vote (show of hands). All six board members were in favor of the structure proposed for draft policy Version 10.  A board member summarized sections that need clarification: 1) community economics, 2) utilities light and power business model, 3) pollution and economic goals.  Mr. Catanach commented that there are statements in Plan Fort Collins about Utilities supporting economic development; the Light & Power charter specifies that, unless directed by Council, it can’t do anything not related to construction, operations and maintenance.  A board member commented on the second bullet under Community Economics, about the need to strengthen the language so that it’s not just about supporting local businesses with electricity, but also enabling new companies to take advantage of the different forms of energy available and to move away from fossil fuels. The language should explain why this is good for the community; it’s not just about increasing rates.  Mr. Catanach stated the suggested language is parallel to what the City is doing with the CAP.  A board member commented that RMI’s Stepping Up report contains a similar sentence. Another board member suggested requesting permission to borrow language from sections 7 and 8 in RMI report.  A board member commented on Fort Collins generation being more distributed. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) is our generator, and Fort Collins Utilities is our distributor. Other topics include balancing authorities, various energy quality services, load balancing and control. Energy reduction services become products they can sell.  A board member asked what staff wants to see in the Energy Policy. Mr. Catanach replied he’d like to see language indicating that things will change and that gives staff the ability and flexibility to explore and pilot new energy models. He gave an example of Hawaii not planning ahead; they weren’t prepared for system problems. In contrast, San Diego is approaching 30 percent solar energy and is working with Fort Collins-based Spirae on distribution controls to balance the system.  A board member suggested making a statement that things are changing, to address the need for flexibility in the future.  Board members suggested adding language about how flexibility is required to maintain economic health, and also to support all the other goals, and Utilities’ ability to operate and implement a business model.  A board member stated that utilities are in the unenviable dilemma of encouraging customers to use less of what they’re selling. If a utility could get by on nothing but customer-generated energy and a minimal amount of energy from the grid, they would do it, but a grid utility would still be needed to connect everyone to share their generation so that a load can be supplied at any moment. We know that the business model from 100 years ago will change and is already changing.