Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Board - Minutes - 05/10/2018Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Fort Collins Utilities Energy Board Minutes Thursday, May 10, 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, Alan Braslau, John Fassler, Vice Chairperson Amanda Shores, Stacey Baumgarn, Bill Becker, Krishna Karnamadakala, Jeremy Giovando, Greg Behm Late Arrivals: Board Absent: Others Present Staff: Tim McCollough, Lisa Rosintoski, Marisa Olivas, Lucas Mouttet, Brian Tholl, Lisa Gardner, Paul Davis, Lindsay Ex, Clint Reetz, Molly Saylor, Kevin Gertig, Josh Shwartz, Steve Rollin, Tara Sampson Platte River Power Authority: Paul Davis, Members of the Public: Steve Roastal, Peter O’Neil, Arsineh Hecobian, Rick Coen Meeting Convened Chairperson Michell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of March 8, 2018 and April 19, 2018 Board Meeting Minutes In preparation for the meeting, board members submitted amendments via email for the March 8, 2018 and April 19, 2018 minutes. The minutes were approved as amended. Announcements and Agenda Changes None Staff Reports Council Debrief, May 8, 2018 Work Session, and Local Solar Business Models Tim McCollough, Light and Power Operations Manager (attachments available upon request) On Tuesday May 8, 2016 a work session with City Council (Council) was held. John Phelan, Senior Manager Mechanical Engineer, presented on Solar Business Models. Tim McCollough shared that the conversation at the work session was very positive, and good feedback was given. Council gave unanimous support of the analysis of Utilities’ Solar Business Models being incorporated in the Energy Policy Update in 2019. Council’s support of the Solar Business Models included net metering feed, tariff, Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 and wholesale. Light & Power (L&P) will be looking for key feedback from the Energy Board regarding Solar Business Models. Mr. McCollough presented a memorandum of talking points from Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) for the Board to review. The five areas Platte River touched on were Community Solar Project, Additional 75 megawatts (MW) of Wind, Platte River Rates, Integrated Resource Plan, and Mountain West Transmission Group. Mr. McCollough opened the discussion up to questions from the Board. Chairperson Michell asked if billing for the Platte River Community Solar Project customers will work like Riverside. Mr. McCollough said what is being explored with the Platte-River-wide Community Solar Project is an energy based model, so it will not be the same as Riverside. Mr. McCollough said it will likely be a subscription based on energy produced. Paul Davis, Energy Services Manager at Platte River, said the first model from the community solar survey suggested there were a limited number of people willing to pay up front. People would rather pay over time. Platte River envisions providing an energy price to the City and the City can choose to pass this price on to customers. Mr. Michell noted that participants in the Riverside project could still receive a federal tax credit, and he didn’t know if there was a way to do that with this project. Mr. Davis said the tax credit will be priced into the power purchase agreement (PPA). Mr. McCollough added that the tax credit will be in the levelized cost of energy, since the developer of the Community Solar Project will be able to pass the tax benefit to Platte River. Board Member Giovando asked if there is a fixed period where the rate applies with credit. Mr. McCollough said there are decisions that still need to be made on how it is offered at the retail level. The discussions at this point have been focused on a wholesale rate structure that applies to all four cities. There is a complexity in trying to do a virtual net metering project in four jurisdictions, where only one jurisdiction (Fort Collins) has advanced meters. These are the discussions and decisions upcoming. Mr. Michell asked if a storage component is being evaluated. Mr. McCollough said a storage component is expected. Whether it can be decoupled from the solar generation facility is being evaluated: one concept discussed, was if storage needed to be immediately adjacent to the solar facility or if it could be decoupled in a substation in a community apart from the solar facility. Platte River has been aligned on moving forward with storage, at scale range (between the 1-5-megawatt hour (MWh)). Board Member Karnamadakala wondered why decoupling was important. Mr. McCollough said the suggestion for decoupling came from the visibility aspect, since it is a pilot-scale project. Original investments in solar in 1987 were associated with Platte River because it was visible in the community and showed the investment next to the headquarters. The concept of storage being decoupled allows the project to be visible and accessible to the public rather than at Rawhide Energy Station behind a fence. Mr. Michell then had questions concerning the additional 75 MW of wind and the Mountain West Transmission Group. Mr. Michell said there had been a presentation about entering the energy market, and Xcel, for their own reasons, pulled out of the Mountain West Transmission Group. This leaves things with the Southwest Power Pool in the air. An energy market is important for selling the renewables to other utilities in that it lowers costs and is pivotal to PRPA's plan for achieving net carbon neutrality. Mr. Michell said it was not clear if Platte River could handle the additional 75 MW. Mr. Davis replied that the additional 75 MW PPA option is dependent on the energy market. Mr. McCollough said these questions are currently being evaluated and are included in the memo to the Board. The following are being evaluated by Platte River: • Can the Mountain West Transmission Group (without Xcel) continue to move forward to join the Southwest Power Pool? Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 • Can Xcel regulate the additional 75 MW? • Can Platte River regulate the additional 75 MW? • Can the deadline to decide on the 75 MW option be extended beyond December 2018? Board Member Braslau noted there are two questions at hand, the financial risk of the market and the technical integration. He said these questions must not be thought of as a choice that needs to be taken now or never. Mr. Karnamadakala was curious about the term “regulate” in the context of the additional 75 MW. Mr. McCollough responded it referred to balancing load and generation. Mr. Giovando asked if Xcel has the transmission capability and customer base. Mr. McCollough said questions of concern brought forth when Xcel backed out of the Mountain West Transmission Group caused uncertainty whether an energy market will form, whether that market is Southwest Power Pool or another, and with the overall timeline. Platte River was looking at the Southwest Power Pool forming in 2019-2020 time frame as a key enabler of more renewable energy. Mr. McCollough asked the rhetorical question: Does Xcel pulling out of Mountain West Transmission group cause the Southwest Power Pool expanded market to fall apart, if that is the case are there other energy options and if it is not the case can Xcel be used directly? Board Member Baumgarn wondered if the conditions of Xcel pulling out and the ability to join the Southwest Power Pool could influence the rates. Mr. McCollough said what is certain is Platte River is moving forward with 150 MW project with Enyo and a 20 MW solar project, so Xcel pulling out has not affected those decisions. Mr. McCollough said what needs to be focused on is what the energy markets are in the future and what the optionality is for the additional 75 MW. Mr. Braslau commented that after watching the work session on Tuesday, May 8 there was a lot of confusion around details of the Climate Action Plan and the Community Solar Project, so he feels a lot of work is needed for the Board in our role to advise Council. Contact Voltage Survey Clint Reetz, Technical Project Manager (attachments available upon request) Clint Reetz shared that for L&P this was the first contact voltage survey done. It was also the first fully electronic reporting program carried out. In 2017, a sample of the City was surveyed for stray contact voltage, which later turned into a Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) offer. During the same time frame Mr. McCollough was building a geographic information system (GIS) department. Both came together and assisted with the project management of the comprehensive contact voltage survey. Mr. Reetz presented a link to the public facing report, an online GIS story map. In 2018, Phase I of a citywide survey to identify and repair contact voltages was completed. Mr. Reetz showed a video made by the Customer Connection Department as a form of public outreach. The video goes into detail about Electric System Monitoring and why it is important for the community and public safety. Mr. Reetz explained that in the test area of city-limits a driving survey was performed. The contractor had a mounted antenna on their vehicle looking for a 60 hertz (120/240 volts) hit on the antenna, this creates an audible sound that increased as the vehicle got closer to anything with high contact voltage. Both sides of every street within city-limits were driven down with a GPS tracker. Josh Schwartz, Analyst I of GIS, would daily overlay a GPS breadcrumb trail with the map creating a live link. When a trouble asset was found it would be identified on the map according to a legend (VAC range of 0.1 to < 1-25 <) The map legend also shows which trouble assets require follow up, if a repair is pending, and which repairs have been completed. Mr. McCollough added that when contact voltage was detected, field measurements were taken of the surface. It was classified to triage if the asset was a critical event. If it was a critical asset, it would be worked on immediately. If it was a low voltage asset it would be deenergized and work would be planned for later. Mr. Reetz said there were pictures taken for every grounding that was placed in case it needed to be Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 duplicated. Mr. Reetz shared that the beauty of this project was that with L&P crews following behind the trail, no energized assets were left unworked on. Mr. McCollough said some trouble assets were identified on traffic signals, pedestrian crossing buttons, car lots, bus stops and various pieces of infrastructure on the public-right-away. Work was done with city traffic, other city departments, and in some cases private owners to address the trouble assets. Mr. Schwartz helped to build-in parameters of the recorded event on the story map link. Comments were included in the records of what was done to repair, all of which was done through a cell phone or tablet. Mr. McCollough said not one piece of paper crossed hands; it was a great example of a fully digital workflow. Board Member Becker asked if it changed anything in core practice. Mr. McCollough said one thing changed was some core legacy issues, like having a neutral return path with resistance in the wire. A lot of the known issues were detected in the system, and it helped spot where future inspections are needed. It also helped to evaluate if this is a long-term program that L&P needs to maintain. Mr. Reetz noted that Phase II would start in the fall of 2018. A new full survey will be completed with new equipment and four new trained crew members. Mr. McCollough noted that six months after the full survey it can be assessed if anything new shows up. Using GIS, it can be seen where the crews have been versus where they need to go. Mr. Reetz shared an interesting comment from the vendor, that in all the vendor’s experience (about 10 years) they had never encountered a community that was being proactive about contact voltage surveys. In other communities something bad always had happened that caused them to fix trouble assets. Mr. Becker asked what the cost was. Mr. McCollough said the budget offer was $250,000, which covers two surveys and the equipment. Mr. Michell asked how many events were considered critical. Mr. McCollough said there was 32 actionable events, 24 were on L&P’s infrastructure and the rest were on other infrastructure. Energy Policy 2017 Update Brian Tholl, Energy Services Supervisor (attachments available upon request) Brian Tholl said the purpose of an annual Energy Policy Update is to put a stake in the ground for metrics and targets identified in the Energy Policy documented from 2015, and to provide an opportunity for the Board to help in the shaping of the annual report. Mr. Tholl wanted to take the time to thank the Board for the opportunity to present in front of them. Mr. Tholl shared that this year the infographic format will return. Mr. Tholl started with discussing community energy use as whole, from an energy use prospective and a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission prospective. Community Energy Use was graphed in a treemap style. Board Member Behm commented on this that having two graphs side-by-side with similar colors having different meanings can be confusing for the reader. Mr. Behm said his mind is drawn to make equivalencies with colors in the treemap, and he suggested to either have consistency or a clear separation of content. Mr. Michell also said he had the same problem interpreting the graph. Mr. Tholl appreciated the feedback, and noted that treemap charts are a new way to portray such data. Mr. Tholl said the take away for Community Energy Use is that while electricity is only 25 percent of End Use Energy, it accounts for 51 percent of GHG emissions. Mr. Tholl said from the total energy perspective in the community, despite local population growing by 35,000 since 2005, GHG energy emissions have gone down by 11 percent. Mr. Michell wondered what the category “Non-Carbon” consisted of. Mr. Tholl said Non-Carbon includes wind, hydro, and utility-scale renewables. Mr. Tholl highlighted that Energy Use Intensity (EUI) has decreased for businesses on a kilo-British thermal unit (kBtu) per square foot basis of 7 percent. Generally, there has been a decrease in natural gas use within business buildings. However, on the residential side there was an increase in natural gas usage. Between 2008-2011 there was an increase in EUI associated with residences, but Mr. Tholl is happy to see it has trended back down with an overall lower kBtu per square foot. Mr. Michell shared that while Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 reading through the slide deck he had a hard time understanding, because earlier slides showed how the City is making progress, but the slide for EUI by Building Type shows that things have stayed relatively the same over the years. Mr. Michell said since this is EUI, which is measured by per square foot, the metric doesn’t depend on the City getting larger, so he is unsure of what progress has been made based on the chart. Mr. Behm suggested that rather than relying on arrows in the graphic, perhaps an annotation should be added to the title. The annotation can indicate the data is representing total building energy use with combined electricity and natural gas and then converted to a standard unit, so it is clearer to people reading it. Mr. Tholl showed a list of new construction efficiency programs and existing building efficiency programs. The suite of programs attempts to balance energy policy goals and the existing Utility budget with what customers are asking. Mr. Tholl said Utilities wants to make sure that everyone can participate in at least one of the programs. The existing programs that were evaluated for yielded revenue were Efficiency Works-Business, Efficiency Works-Home, Consumer Product Rebates and Appliance Recycling, Residential Lighting, and Home Energy Reports. They were found to have a benefit cost ratio of 1.8, meaning every dollar spent meant a $1.80 benefit back from the Utility perspective. Mr. Tholl presented a graph of Efficiency Portfolio Results through a percentage reduction of community electricity use. Mr. Tholl said the Energy Policy’s stated goal for 2017 (1.75 percent) has been achieved, and was happy to share that this year community electricity use reduction is at 1.9 percent through the efficiency programs, an equivalency of 3,600 homes. The cost effectiveness of these programs is continuously monitored. The next chart showed cumulative electricity savings between home efficiency, business efficiency, and local renewables. When upgraded, efficient equipment has a lifetime associated with it, and carries an average of 10 years useful lifetime for each product installed. Efficiency programs have averted 180,600 megawatt hours (MWh) since 2002. Mr. Michell said he liked the graph but didn’t know how to think of 180,600 MWh and wondered if there was something it could be compared to. Mr. McCollough said as a comparison, the Fort Collins community consumes 1.5 million MWh a year. Mr. Tholl dived more into electricity supply. With the Solar Affordability Program, good things occurred on the supply side. There was an addition of 250 residential solar rooftop systems in 2017, crossing the 10 MW threshold. As of Tuesday May 8, 2018, that number has grown to 1003 residential solar rooftop systems reaching 11 MW of local generation. Looking at Electricity Use and Resource Mix there has been a downward trend of coal and natural gas fossil generation, both from baseline years of 2015 and 2016 into 2017. Mr. Becker asked if it was normal to put coal and natural gas together. Mr. Tholl answered that Utilities has moved in the direction of categorizing coal and natural gas together as fossil fuels. There has been an overall decrease in electric use, and is down 1 percent as of last year. Mr. Becker asked what the term local referred to in the “Local renewable electricity” section of the chart. Mr. Tholl said this represents residential and community rooftop. Mr. Tholl referred to another graph, Fort Collins Solar Resources, which shows how solar capacity is split between various players in local renewable electricity. Mr. Tholl touched briefly on the chart, Demand Response’s Highest Load Reduction Each Year, to share that the potential load reduction of 2.5 MWh in 2017 was achieved at a slightly lower number, just over 2 MWh during an event. Mr. Giovando wondered if there was a target for demand response, because he felt unsure if the numbers presented were good or bad. Mr. McCollough answered that there is not a target for demand response goal, but the chart is telling a story of a declining resource. Light & Power is seeing attrition in enrolment in the Peak Partners thermostat program, losing around 250 customers a year. This is due to various things such as turnover in housing, Wi-Fi Thermostats that go dark because the new owner doesn’t sign up for the program and is not aware it is a Wi-Fi Thermostat. Mr. McCollough said in Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 the upcoming budgets there will be a replacement process for the Bring Your Own Thermostat (BYOT) program. Mr. Giovando replied that if the budget offer Mr. McCollough had mentioned is accepted then a target should be set for what Utilities would like to see for demand response. As part of the Energy Policy, community economics and partnerships being built with local contractors, the private sector, customers, and key accounts are looked at. Mr. Tholl shared that an enhancement of the Low-Income Portfolio is being reviewed. The Utilities are partnering with Energy Outreach Colorado, a non-profit doing work statewide in implementing single-family-care programs among others. Utilities is also working closely with business and residential trade partners to ensure not only quality installations in efficiency projects, but also continued engagement in the program. Mr. Tholl shared a graph of 2017 efficiency local economic impacts showing leveraged investments through efficiency projects. There has essentially been a 40-million-dollar net benefit. Clean energy jobs grew by 6 percent in Colorado between 2016 and 2017. An estimated 200 plus local jobs were generated by energy efficiency and solar projects in 2017. Moving on to pricing, a graph showed Fort Collins’ ranking seventh lowest cost in the Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU) Annual Residential Survey. Mr. Michell shared he has seen this chart in the past and believes the City is disadvantaging itself by repeatedly showing it. The chart does not consider any of the energy efficiency programs that Fort Collins is doing that other cities are not doing (particularly the PRPA partner cities). Mr. Behm agreed and said it tends to reinforce the message that Fort Collins has cheap electricity rates, but does not include a metric of per capita expense (or something like that) that would incorporate efficiency measures. Mr. McCollough appreciated the feedback on the slide, and share that the CAMU graph is generally asked for by City Council as it speaks to Council’s goals for rate stability. Looking ahead, Mr. Tholl shared there will be increased efficiency targets, a working group looking to make suggestions to Council in quarter three regarding Building Energy Scoring, the Utilities Administration Building will undergo a battery storage pilot, and synthesizing a CAP and Energy Policy Alignment document. Board Member Baumgarn asked who the target audience of the Energy Policy Update is and whether it is intended to congratulate or motivate. Mr. Tholl said he believed it was intended to act as both with a broad audience. Climate Action Plan Update Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Program Manager Tim McCollough, Light and Power Operations Manager Molly Saylor, Environmental Planner and Data Analyst (attachments available upon request) Molly Saylor oversees carbon accounting, she kicked things off with an update on the 2017 Department Inventory Results. Ms. Saylor said things have changed with a transition to a new protocol over the last year, the Global Protocol for Community (GPC) Scale of Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories. There have also been other revisions outside of that transition to update data. For 2016 it was reported that Utilities were at 11.74 percent below baseline; with revisions it is in fact 15.4 percent. Previously uncaptured progress included, the percentage of ethanol blended into gasoline, an updated waste characterization, updated average miles per gallon, and improved science on impact of methane. It was learned through transition to the GPC that methane is more impactful to the climate than held assumptions, based on previous calculations. Mr. Michell asked that if methane has more of an impact than originally thought, how is it that base impact is better. Ms. Saylor said in 2005 the baseline had more methane in it, and since the City has been so successful in reducing waste going to the landfill since then, it created a proportionally larger effect than expected. Board Member Fassler asked what waste characterization was. Ms. Saylor explained since everything sent to landfill does not have the same Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 amount of emissions, the landfill is broken down into categories with a focus on organic waste (i.e. tree branches, yard waste, food waste, paper, etc.). Ms. Saylor moved on to talk about results. The Community Inventory Update shows 14 percent below the baseline in 2014, and 15 percent below in 2016. In 2017 it was at 17 percent below, just 3 percent away from the 2020 reduction goal. There was not an unrevised methodology done for 2017, but the change over time can be seen on the Community Inventory Methodology Update-Impact on Progress graph. Mr. Karnamadakala asked if the goals should also be adjusted using the new methodology improving the score. Lindsay Ex replied that the 2030 goal is two decades ahead of the City’s peers. Ms. Ex said the 2030 goal is to be at 80 percent below, so if the 2020 is considered not ambitious enough, heftier goals are scheduled for the future. Mr. Baumgarn wondered if recalculating back to the baseline year is a standard practice and stated in the protocol. Ms. Saylor said she can’t speak to protocol, but she does know it is best practice in a lot of cities. Ms. Saylor believes when things are identified that need to be changed it is important the change be made and documented well. A log has been kept that tracks changes made, the percentage difference in the inventory, and why the change was made. Mr. Baumgarn said he doesn’t want the changes made to be viewed as a smoke and mirrors game on the City’s behalf, and worries it may open the possibility of the public to criticize the City if citizens are less aware of the protocols. Ms. Saylor said the complexity of the process needs to be recognized. It is important to talk about that complexity and maintain transparency by making numbers available to the public. Drivers of the 2017 progress included electricity emissions factor, electricity use, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), natural gas use, and reduced landfilled tons with less methane capture. These made a total impact of -1.07 percent below the baseline. Ms. Saylor then invited the Board to a Community Carbon Inventory Deep Dive on May 24, 2018. The Deep Dive will cover information on methodology and data updates/impacts, methodologies for energy, transportation, waste, and water, 2020 carbon emission forecast update, and continuous improvements and innovations. Ms. Ex shared that in the past three years since the goals were adopted the community has invested a lot. The City has leveraged private investments, and if the savings over the lifetime of the investments are considered and divided by the number of households in the community, that creates a $220 annual savings per household. The energy efficiency in savings alone between 2016 and 2017 would be the equivalent of taking 7,500 homes off the grid. Ms. Ex said although the City is at 17 percent below, the 2030 80 percent reduction goal needs to be focused on. Mr. McCollough pointed out on the Highlights: Utility Scale Energy slide that the graph shows two distinct timelines of both the planning process and the execution of adding renewable energy that occurred at the Platte River level. Mr. McCollough said in 2016 it was requested by Council through the PRPA Board for Platte River to look at a Customized Resource Plan (CRP) The CRP found support at the Platte River Board level and all four cities initiated the study. The study looked at a range of planning scenarios, allowing individual cities to make their goals through Platte River as the power supplier. After the first phase, the results were released to the cities and a pause was put on the process. All four cities then agreed to move into a joint Zero Net Carbon (ZNC) Planning Study looking at a scenario for 2030. Now in 2018, a baseline goal setting year, it will feed into the revised Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). IRP looks out three to five years on the generation efficiency portfolio and other programs to set a planning course. This kicked off the week of third week of May in 2018 and will go through 2020. The graph shows, starting in 1987, the wind and solar investments Platte River has made to the Utility Scale Energy. Through the 2000s and 2010 there were investments in wind. Looking forward the graph shows the additional 150 MW wind projects to be online in 2020. A few other anticipated additions are the 20 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 MW of solar and storage with a possible commercial operation date as soon at 2019 and a further 75 MW wind option. Mr. McCollough then showed various corporate and local business that have made public statements toward goals around renewable electricity. Corporate Renewable Energy Commitments from Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Starbucks, HP, Schneider Electric and Colorado State University (CSU) have been made to RE 100. At a local level the City of Fort Collins as a municipality, Platte River as a client, Odell Brewing Co., CSU, and New Belgium Brewing have made public statements asking the City to explore increased renewable options. With Platte River embarking on a new rate study there are hopes to leverage it with these customers. Mr. McCollough said a conversation is needed between Platte River, Fort Collins’ Utilities and the customers to look at renewable options that meet the individual customers’ goals and those of the community at large to design a Corporate Green Tariff. Mr. Karnamadakala asked what the Green Tariff was. Mr. McCollough said it varies by organization, but there are around seven aspects, outlined in the Corporate Buyer’s Principles, that most of these customers are interested in. Many of them want something that has rate stability, price hedge for the future, and something that can demonstrate additionality of the renewable generation impact. Mr. McCollough highlighted some local initiatives. Efficiency savings in 2017 was over 28 gigawatt- hours (equivalent to the use of some 3,750 homes). Distributed resources reached over 11 MW of local solar last quarter. There is interest in continuing a Demand Response program with Platte River beyond the pilot program. Mr. McCollough said there is a challenge with the observed 7 percent increase in the consumption of natural gas. There are opportunities in the future with the Budget Offer for exploration of new heat pump technology, in collaboration with Xcel, and in August with Building Energy Scoring. Ms. Ex mentioned Bloomberg 2018 Mayor’s Challenge for future innovation toward bringing energy efficiency to low-and-moderate-income homes. As a champion city, Fort Collins was awarded $100,000, which has been leveraged with an additional million dollars from an outside funder. There is also an opportunity to win a further 5 million dollars from the Bloomberg Philanthropies as a part of the process. Mr. McCollough also highlighted the Electric Vehicle (EV) Readiness Roadmap. The EV Readiness team is currently looking at different sectors of EV charging infrastructure for the future. Mr. Michell said that the EV Readiness Roadmap does not line up with the BFO process, and it concerns him that it will miss the current cycle. Ms. Ex said it was originally planned to be completed by this time, but two separate transportation project managers leaving the City delayed the EV Readiness Roadmap. Mr. McCollough added that he heard there is a slower adoption rate of electric vehicles than expected, so he thinks there is more time to address this question than had been anticipated. One of the CAP pathways is to have one out of two cars electric by 2030. Over the next 12-year horizon exploration is needed for what that would look like for inventory infrastructure and the community from both an energy and transportation sector. Mr. McCollough shared that the second round of Innovate Fort Collins Challenge has been launched and that Battery Demonstration Project is underway. The Utilities Administration Building will install a commercial scale battery with 100 kilowatts of storage. There has been a rise in demand for residential battery storage applications. There is currently over 200 kilowatts worth of solar residential systems. Ms. Ex said when the CAP goals were adopted the two greatest challenges were the financial side and how to get the community engaged. In 2017 is was reported that 80 percent of Fort Collins’ residents support the City investing in programs and policies that address climate change. The goal is to create simple cost- effective easy strategies that people can take to help achieve the CAP goals. In partnership with Town Square Media, at the Taste of Fort Collins, Utilities is giving away 30,000 energy-efficient LED lightbulbs to approximately 7,500 households across the community Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Ms. Ex showed a graph of carbon dioxide emissions from 2015 to 2020. Ms. Ex said there is a goal of 20 percent below by 2020. If the funding levels are sustained from 2017 and 2018 combined with the Utilities’ programs, the 2020 goal will be exceeded (targeted at 25 percent below). Mr. Michell asked what the other ideas are. Ms. Ex said one of the biggest ideas that was not funded the last cycle was travel demand management. Travel demand management is about behavioral changes at the employee level by making other forms of travel the easier option. Ms. Ex used the example of CSU’s parking permits. CSU has continued to raise prices for parking passes, and they have limited spaces to park. This makes other forms of transportation, like biking or riding the bus, a more attractive option. Ms. Ex said this could be applied in the City by charging for parking downtown, as a form of travel demand management. Ms. Ex said when the 150 MW of wind and 20 MW of solar goes online the City will be 35 percent below by 2021. If the 75 MW of additional wind goes online that would make it 40 percent below by 2021. Ms. Ex said it is cool that progress towards the 2020 goal can potentially be doubled in a year. Time of Day Residential Electric Pricing Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Customer Connections Manager Lucas Mouttet, Customer Accounts Manager Lisa Gardner, Senior Communications and Marketing Specialist (attachments available upon request) Lisa Rosintoski handed out non-permanent cling decals with Time of Day (TOD) information to the Board. Lucas Mouttet made clear the name of the campaign had been changed from Time of Use to Time of Day (TOD), to instill in people the understanding that it matters the time of day one uses energy (morning, afternoon, evening, night) depending on the season. Mr. Mouttet presented the banner designed for the campaign to show the Board the look and feel of the materials that will go out to the public. Mr. Braslau made a comment that using the light bulb as the image for the banner may be misleading, as lighting is not going to have as much of an effect on TOD use compared to things such as the dishwasher, air conditioning, and washer/dryer. Mr. Mouttet said throughout the campaign those items (dishwasher, air conditioning, and washer/dryer, etc.) will be focused on for action to take. Turning a light bulb on and off is not going to be suggested to the public as a main action to take to change their bill, but the light bulb image are used to create an understanding that TOD is about electricity use. Mr. Mouttet said outreach started in May of 2018, and the main launch will take place October of 2018. Outreach will occur again in Summer of 2019 as the time changes and price changes. Preparation is being done with other utilities that have gone through TOD rate changes. Preparation is needed for questions such as: Why are we doing this?, How will this affect me?, Is this a rate increase?, How can I control my electric use/cost (before and after change occurs)?, and How am I doing? (after change occurs). Outreach messages and tactics for awareness include social media, newsletters, a website, postcards sent to every residential customer (late August), and community engagement. Targeted outreach will begin in June of 2018 through October by communicating estimated impacts to specific customer groups (i.e. Peak Partners and Option 2/3 meter reading customers) and letters, presentation, and sector outreach (i.e. multifamily). With sector outreach various groups can be given flyers and posters to help carry out the message to use less electricity between certain times of the day (5 p.m.-9 p.m. starting in October). Starting in September through December the campaign will focus on welcoming the public to the new rate. This part of the campaign provides actions to take to manage electric use, bill inserts, and a welcome letter with TOD clings (The same Ms. Rosintoski handed out). The clings stick to anything and can be easily removed. They can be put close to/on the thermostat, the washer/dryer, and the dishwasher as a reminder of the key target points to keep in mind for TOD. Mr. Becker asked if electric vehicles are included in the TOD pricing. Mr. McCollough answered that the charging of electric vehicles will be included in the residential TOD pricing. Mr. Mouttet said there are two rate structures: TOD rate (with an energy tier surcharge) and Electric Heat TOD rate (exempt from the tier surcharge). If one has electric Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 heat and has electric vehicle that falls under Electric Heat TOD. If one has a gas furnace but has an electric vehicle that falls under just TOD. Mr. Mouttet showed the various segments for targeted communications. These included net-metered (solar PV) customers, Riverside Community Solar customers, Peak Partners participants, meter option 2/3 customers, high-tech users, electric heat residences, multi-family tenants and property managers, and low- income. The intersection of the later three, as a primary audience, will receive more focus with TOD information and community engagement. Mr. Baumgarn commented that the TOD information will be good practice for everyone regardless of where they live. Mr. McCollough asked if there is a target outreach planned for children in school to take the message home to their parents. Mr. Mouttet confirmed that there is an education team that will start outreach in the fall when school starts. Mr. Mouttet explained the difference between Option 2 and Option 3 customer groups. Option 2 customers did not want interval reads and for Option 3 (renamed: Manual Read Customers) the TOD rates will be based on local interval reads, not transmitted centrally. Since TOD requires interval reads to create the bill, Option 2 will be phased out in October. Option 2 customers will have 6 to 8 weeks to decide on opting for regular or manual reads. Mr. Mouttet said the key message priorities are awareness of rate change, on- peak and off-peak timing and cost difference (e.g. off-peak pricing will be around 30 percent below current tiered rates), specific structure for electric heat customers, actions that can help manage costs, and income-qualified assistance. For ongoing information, the website is the best source for the public (fcgov.com/TOD). Mr. Mouttet asked for feedback from the Board. Mr. Michell commented that he loved the cling decals, but suggested that the marketing should include the fact that the rates are not being raised. Mr. Mouttet agreed and said a lot of the marketing materials will include the message that rates are not being raised, but that isn’t true of every piece of marketing. Mr. Michell suggested that HOAs may be another group to reach out to. Board Member Shores asked if it was being assumed that all low-Income individuals are on the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) for targeting efforts. Mr. Mouttet said it is not being assumed, but it is a starting point of who to reach for low-income. There are also resources such as the Housing Catalyst and other ways to reach out to the low-income population. Mr. Braslau asked if any of the marketing will be in Spanish. Lisa Gardner confirmed there will be a Spanish translation for everything. Mr. Fassler asked if there was a chance to provide a person who would go out and measure what is happening in people’s house. Mr. Mouttet said off the bat the known heavy hitters will be targeted, and with TOD one can choose when they use (on/off peak times) or how much they use during peak times. Mr. Mouttet said Utilities wants people to understand their loads even if not face to face. Peter O’Neil, a member of the public, former Energy Board Chairperson, and Principal at O'Neill Technical Consulting, said he was glad to see the presentation on TOD. He is particularly interested to see the Why explanation for TOD. Mr. O’Neil also suggested using Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) as another communications protocol for automation devices. Mr. Mouttet referred Mr. O’Neil to the TOD website page for an in-depth explanation of the Why. Mr. Mouttet said one part of the Why is because when power is used more it becomes more expensive to produce and distribute. The other part of the Why is from the shown impact on reducing peak demand and overall use. Board Member Reports Mr. Michell shared that some members of the Board attended a Council meeting on Tuesday, May 8. John Phelan gave a presentation on solar. Solar is starting to become a bigger portion of usage, so there are enough net metered customers that at some point it will affect L&P finances. Mr. Baumgarn shared it is confusing to hear that there is now 11 MW of solar on houses but that it still only makes up one percent is that good or bad progress? Mr. Michell answered that people are charged only $6/month for the base Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 Energy Board Minutes May 10, 2018 rate with no charge for cost of the grid. With net metering, there is no additional charge so at some point it becomes problem of financing. Mr. Michell said 1 percent does not cut it, but if there is 1 percent in exponential growth it doesn’t take long to see the progress. Future Agenda Review The Board looked at the June 14 meeting and July 12 meeting agendas. Mr. McCollough said the conversation for Platte River EV Pilot Update will be pushed back, but CSU’s Dan Zimmerlee will be present at the next meeting to present on the CSU Research Agreement. Mr. McCollough also said a discussion will happen at the June 14 meeting about Art and Public Places Contributions. The Energy Board’s input will be needed from the electric utility perspective about Art in Public Places funding. Mr. McCollough is hoping to have an update from Broadband and phase three of the asset management series. Mr. Braslau asked if there will be discussion in June about BFO offers and a discussion on the 100 percent renewable energy resolution that was presented by the public to City Council. Mr. McCollough said that a BFO discussion could be a possibility at an upcoming meeting or work session. Mr. McCollough said Council received input from the Fort Collins Sustainability Group and Northern Colorado Partners in Energy asking Council to adopt a goal of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030, like the city of Longmont did in January. Council has asked Staff for additional key study areas (achievability, rate stability, etc.) and analysis. Adjournment The Energy Board meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Approved by the Energy Board on June 14, 2018 ________________________________ ______________ Board Secretary, Marisa Olivas Date 6/13/2018