Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 01/27/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC) Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson Interim City Attorney City Manager City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. City Council Work Session January 27, 2015 6:00 PM  CALL TO ORDER. 1. Update from the Colorado Department of Transportation Regarding I-25 and Bustang. (staff: Rick Richter; 15 minute presentation; 30 minute discussion) Johnny Olson,Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Director and Myron Hora, Region 4 Planning and Environmental Manager, will provide Council an update regarding I-25. The update will include plans and ideas for future projects and funding options and opportunities. Michael Timlin, CDOT Bus Operations Manager, will provide an introduction to Bustang, a state- owned and operated bus system that will connect Colorado cites along I-25 and I-70 to downtown Denver, starting this spring. 2. Time of Use Pilot Project. (staff: Lance Smith, Lisa Rosintoski; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to continue discussions with City Council regarding a time-of-use (TOU) pilot for residential customers, which was last discussed at the May 13, 2014 City Council work session. Staff has included attachments, which summarizes the past discussions and future timelines. As part of evaluating the TOU pilot staff managed a comprehensive review of our existing low income program support, which included understanding modifications to support the low income segment as optimally as possible. Therefore, staff will be proposing a low-income rate be implemented for those qualifying at certain average median income levels. While a low-income rate would not be a part of the proposed TOU pilot study, it is recommended that such a rate be adopted for 2016. City of Fort Collins Page 2 Also, an internal memo is included to highlight residential fixed charges to facilitate a discussion of staff’s recommendation for moving towards recovering more of the fixed costs of maintaining distribution facilities and associated overhead in the monthly charge in the future. The adjustment to the fixed charge is proposed to be a part of the pilot study. 3. Status of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. (Staff: Karen Cumbo, Rick Richter; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to discuss the status of Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF) in order to review the APF requirements and identify the next steps in exploring revisions to the ordinance. 4. Regional Training Facility for Police Services. (staff: Cory Christensen, John Hutto; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to discuss the regional training campus for Police Services. Police Services training facilities are currently inadequate for the current need to meet the necessary skill training of driving and weapons training. The current gun range facility was built in 1984 and purchased by the City in 1990. At the time that facility was purchased Police Services had 105 sworn officers. Today Police Services has grown to 203 sworn officers and have outgrown the current indoor facility. Weapons training is split between two facilities due to the disrepair of the indoor firing range. Police Services is forced to travel a great distance to an adequate outdoor range for much of the weapons related training necessary for maintain adequate skill levels. The indoor range also is in need of tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of repair in order to maintain a safe training environment for officers. If those repairs are made the facility is still inadequate for the current firearms needs of Police Services. There is no training location in Larimer County for Police Services to conduct driver’s training. The closest driving training facility is located in Adams County and requires officers to travel over one hour each way to use the facility. The demand on this facility is considerable and Police Services routinely is unable to train due to schedule conflicts imposed by the owners of the facility. Police Services has been in engaged in a cooperative partnership with the City of Loveland in determining current needs for each agency, locating a mutually agreeable location, plans for usage by other public safety agencies, estimates on annual operation and maintenance, strategies on how to partially offset some of the O & M costs, and preliminary designs on a facility that would meet our current needs as well as future growth for both police agencies.  OTHER BUSINESS.  ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: January 27, 2015 Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Update from the Colorado Department of Transportation Regarding I-25 and Bustang. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Johnny Olson,Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Director and Myron Hora, Region 4 Planning and Environmental Manager, will provide Council an update regarding I-25. The update will include plans and ideas for future projects and funding options and opportunities. Michael Timlin, CDOT Bus Operations Manager, will provide an introduction to Bustang, a state-owned and operated bus system that will connect Colorado cites along I-25 and I-70 to downtown Denver, starting this spring. ATTACHMENTS 1. Bustang powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 3 1 Colorado’s New Interregional Express Bus System ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • SB 09-094: Created Division of Transit and Rail (2009) o Authority to Operate Interregional Express Bus Service (IX) • SB 09-108: Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER) o $10M/year for statewide transit o Authority to spend on transit operations o Funds flow through Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF) • Statewide Intercity & Regional Bus Network Plan o 15 month effort/ completed in Spring 2014 o Interregional Express Bus development support BACKGROUND 2 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • January 16, 2014 the TC approved implementation. o CDOT becomes a transit operator o Begins to fulfill CDOT’s multimodal mission • IX’s mission: o Connect Colorado’s population/employment centers. o Interconnect with the State’s largest ground transportation providers along the Front Range Urban Corridor and the I-70 Mountain Corridor. o Provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. • Peak Period Commute & “essential service” express o Fast/minimal travel time o Limited stops/significant spacing ü Utilize park-and –rides for broad local access • Maximize fare box recovery ratio o Expect minimum 40% o By Policy Directive – 20% within two years IX BUS CONCEPT 3 “The Mission of the Colorado Department of Transportation is to provide the best multi-modal transportation system for Colorado that most effectively and safely moves people, goods and information.” Packet Pg. 6 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) ROUTES 4 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) GREEN ROUTE Denver – Fort Collins 5 • 6 round trips/weekday o 4 peak commute times o 2 off-peak o Budget for expansion from 6 to 7 round trips per day • Park and Rides/Stations o Downtown Fort Collins Transit Center ü Off-peak only o I-25/Harmony Rd. PnR – Ft. Collins o I-25/US 34 PnR - Loveland o Denver Union Station • Utilize current/future managed lanes & direct DUS access • Ridership estimate o 171-257 passengers/day Packet Pg. 8 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) 6 GREEN ROUTE DRAFT Schedule NORTH LINE - GREEN 601 603 605 607 631 633 Downtown Transit Center (Transfort) -------- -------- -------- -------- 11:00 AM 3:00 PM Harmony Road 5:20 AM 5:45 AM 6:15 AM 6:45 AM 11:20 AM 3:20 PM U.S. 34 & I-25 Loveland 5:30 AM 5:55 AM 6:25 AM 6:55 AM 11:30 AM 3:30 PM Denver Union Station Arrive 6:25 AM 6:50 AM 7:20 AM 7:50 AM 12:15 PM 4:15 PM Denver Union Station Depart 6:30 AM 6:55 AM 7:25 AM 7:55 AM 12:20 PM 4:20 PM Denver Bus Center 6:40 AM 7:05 AM 7:35 AM 8:05 AM 12:30 PM 4:30 PM NORTH LINE - GREEN 630 632 600 602 604 606 Denver Bus Center 7:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:05 PM 4:20 PM 5:00 PM 5:50 PM Denver Union Station Arrive 7:10 AM 1:10 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 5:10 PM 6:00 PM Denver Union Station Depart 7:15 AM 1:15 PM 4:20 PM 4:35 PM 5:15 PM 6:05 PM U.S. 34 & I-25 Loveland 8:05 AM 2:05 PM 5:10 PM 5:25 PM 6:05 PM 6:55 PM Harmony 8:20 AM 2:20 PM 5:25 PM 5:40 PM 6:20 PM 7:10 PM Downtown Transit Center (Transfort) 8:40 AM 2:40 PM -------- -------- -------- -------- SOUTHBOUND North Line operates Monday - Friday Except Major Holidays No Passengers will be handled where the entire trip is within Larimer County and within the RTD District NORTHBOUND Packet Pg. 9 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • 13 – Motor Coach Industries model D4500 Commuter Coaches o Luminator full color LED destination signage – front, dash, curb, rear o 51 seat capacity – ample leg room o Reclining high-back coach style seats o Fold down snack trays w/beverage slot o Mesh magazine holder o Self-retracting foot rests o Free passenger Wi-Fi o 110v & USB (2 each) per dual seat unit ü Mounted on side wall for W/C sliding seat units o Restrooms o Bicycle rack – 2 bike capacity ü Able to accommodate more in baggage bins. VEHICLES 7 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • Three point restraint belt per passenger seat. • Braun Wheel Chair Lift – Q straint on- board wheel chair restraint system • UTC Fire & Security MobileView Penta Digital 8 camera DVR. • Insta-Chains installed on the drive axle with tire cable/chain back-up. • INIT – Inovations in Transportation – Intelligent Transportation System – Central Processors • AVL/CAD/APC • Automated stop announcers- video and enunciator. • AV 6 LCD Entertainment system o Safety messaging o Advertising • Speed governed at 72 mph o Michelin tires rated at 75 mph VEHICLES –SAFETY/ SECURITY/ ADA FEATURES 8 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • Evergreen Trails, Inc. dba Horizon Coach Lines • USDOT#12016 • Subsidiary of TMS o This nation’s premier convention and large event transportation logistical planner/provider • Operations in Denver, Orlando, Las Vegas, Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Seattle o Denver RTD para-transit contractor o Denver – Black Hawk fixed route casino transit o United Airlines crew transport (DEN-DENTK) – United Airlines Flight Training Center – Stapleton Airport site. o Denver Convention, Tour, and Charter Services CONTRACT OPERATOR 9 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • Three year initial contract with 7-one year options • Fuel provided as a pass-through o Price based on Denver RTD Price Agreement • Vehicles leased to Horizon o Dry lease except for fuel o Horizon responsible for all maintenance • Horizon to develop o RideBustang.com website o Smart phone apps ü Where’s my bus ü Ticket purchase o Social Media CONTRACT FEATURES 10 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • Based on $0.17/mile – Consistent with industry/peer evaluation. • Single ticket-one way o Fort Collins – Denver $10/trip o Loveland – Denver $9/trip o Colorado Springs – Denver $12/trip o Glenwood Springs – Denver $28/trip o Vail – Denver $17/trip o Senior (65+) and disabled 25% discount • Multiple trip discounts o 10% - 10 ride ticket o 20% - 20 ride ticket o 25% - 40 ride ticket FARE STRUCTURE 11 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) • Genfare Odyssey Farebox o Issues credit ticket in lieu of exact fare o Can identify counterfeit money o Adding scanners to enable bar code / QR code o Enabling single-ticket purchase by credit card • On-line & Smart Phone o Horizon will develop app, web site & social media FARE COLLECTION 12 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) AMBIENT ADVERTISING 13 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) AMBIENT ADVERTISING 14 Vinyl Hoofprints Vinyl branded hoofprints will be placed around town, making it look as if a giant purple mustang has recently passed through. These could be placed at outdoor malls, light rail stations and RTD stops in strategic locations like Fort Collins, Frisco, Colorado Springs and Denver Metro Area suburbs. This creates the opportunity to share through CDOT’s 20,000+ followers on social media. Packet Pg. 17 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) NEXT STEPS • Fleet delivered…Bustang “wrap” in process • Finalize partner agreements (MOU’s) • Horizon to begin training operators as specified. • Launch the Bustang Marketing/Communications Plan • Launch “Maiden Voyage” Spring 2015 15 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) QUESTIONS? Michael E. Timlin Bus Operations Manager Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Transit and Rail 4201 East Arkansas Ave. Rm 227 Denver, CO 80222 Phone – (303) 757-9648 michael.timlin@state.co.us 16 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment1.1: Bustang powerpoint presentation (2831 : CDOT) DATE: STAFF: January 27, 2015 Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lisa Rosintoski, Utility Customer Connections Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Time of Use Pilot Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to continue discussions with City Council regarding a time-of-use (TOU) pilot for residential customers, which was last discussed at the May 13, 2014 City Council work session. Staff has included attachments, which summarizes the past discussions and future timelines. As part of evaluating the TOU pilot staff managed a comprehensive review of our existing low income program support, which included understanding modifications to support the low income segment as optimally as possible. Therefore, staff will be proposing a low-income rate be implemented for those qualifying at certain average median income levels. While a low-income rate would not be a part of the proposed TOU pilot study, it is recommended that such a rate be adopted for 2016. Also, an internal memo is included to highlight residential fixed charges to facilitate a discussion of staff’s recommendation for moving towards recovering more of the fixed costs of maintaining distribution facilities and associated overhead in the monthly charge in the future. The adjustment to the fixed charge is proposed to be a part of the pilot study. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. a. Does the Council support deploying a TOU pilot for approximately 1,000 residential customers in May 2015? b. Does the Council support the best bill guarantee as part of the pilot study? 2. a. Does the Council support offering a low-income rate based on specified annual median income qualifications with or without adopting a time of use rate structure? b. If so, would Council support recovering the resulting revenue shortfall across all rate classes including commercial customers or just within the residential rate class? 3. Does the Council support allocating more of the Utility’s fixed costs into the monthly fixed charge for residential customers? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In May 2014 a work session was held to discuss a possible time of use residential rate structure (Attachment 1). This rate structure was not available prior to the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project. A TOU rate structure more accurately reflects the true cost of serving these customers than the current tiered rate structure. Since last May additional research and analysis have led staff to recommend a three-pronged approach to address known shortcomings of the existing rate structure. These shortcomings are: 1. Misalignment between the wholesale and retail price signals of the current tiered rate structure. This would be addressed through the proposed TOU rate structure. Packet Pg. 20 January 27, 2015 Page 2 2. Significant under recovery of fixed distribution expenses through the current fixed charge. This could be addressed by a higher fixed charge and a lower variable charge for energy consumption without increasing revenues 3. The negative impact of tiered rates on some low income customers. This could be addressed through a low income rate. Time-of-Use Rate Pilot Study Rate design involves balancing varying objectives, including fairness and equity to the customer, an ease for the customer to understand their bill and be able to respond, a rate that encourages conservation at some level, and ultimately ensures proper revenue collection for the utility. With advanced meters in place, Fort Collins Utilities is now able to provide a time-of-use rate that provides that balance. Staff is proposing a pilot study of approximately 1,000 residential customers in 2015 using one of the following rate structures – the standard TOU rate with a flat on-peak and off-peak kWh charge or the standard TOU rate that also includes a tiered monthly surcharge to collect for energy efficiency programs separately from the base on-peak and off-peak kWh charge. The pilot would be offered on an opt-out basis, allowing the customer to ultimately decide whether to participate or not. The selection of these customers would be entirely random from the two residential rate classes, although “Option 2” and “Option 3” customers would be excluded from the pilot. Staff is proposing a “best bill guarantee,” which means at the end of the pilot customers that paid more under TOU than they would have paid with the current tiered rate structure would be reimbursed the difference. If Council supports either of these TOU rate structures for a pilot, staff could potentially launch the pilot program in spring 2015. In fall 2015, staff would be able to review the pilot data to gain an understanding of any changes in the TOU rate structure that may be necessary to meet the revenue requirements for the residential rate classes. Those customers who participate in the pilot study and do not opt out of the study would not be moved off of the TOU rate structure until after further discussion with the City Council about the initial pilot results so as to avoid moving them back and forth between the current tiered rate structure and the proposed TOU rate structure. Those residential customers with all electric heat may benefit the most from a TOU rate structure, thereby eliminating the need for a separate rate structure, the Residential Demand rate, for them in the future. Staff would provide these findings to the Energy Board and City Council towards the end of 2015. Longer-term discussions would occur at that point around whether or not to offer a default TOU rate to all residential customers, and eliminate the residential demand (RD) rate altogether. Residential Monthly Fixed Charge The attached internal memo (Attachment 4) on the monthly fixed charge discusses why it is recommended by staff for the City Council to consider adjusting the amount of revenue collected for the residential rate class through the monthly fixed charge upward. This is not intended to generate additional revenue from this rate class so the variable revenue collected through the distribution facility and energy charges would be lowered. While the recommendation to adjust the fixed charge is being made regardless of the underlying rate structure, staff recognizes that if a lower fixed and higher variable energy charge does affect customer consumption behavior, it is important to know how a higher fixed and lower variable charge would impact customer behavior Packet Pg. 21 January 27, 2015 Page 3 under a TOU rate structure before such a rate structure would be adopted for all residential customers. Hence, staff is recommending that the pilot study consider two different levels for the fixed charge under the TOU rate structure. Anticipated Outcomes of the TOU Pilot Study 1. By conducting the pilot study over the summer months it will be possible to measure the actual change in customer behavior that can be expected for the entire residential customer population if such a rate structure were adopted in the future. 2. By having two pilot populations with different fixed charges it will be possible to determine if a lower fixed charge does promote energy conservation within our community. 3. Any unforeseen operational issues will be resolved before full scale adoption of the new rate structure. Low-Income Rate In 2014 Utilities staff in the Customer Connections Department performed a comprehensive program review of the current payment assistance fund. The purpose of the program evaluation was to evaluate existing low income utility customer assistance programs and design a program portfolio incorporating elements of energy efficiency, education, income criteria, as well as collaboration with other City programs and local non-profits. The purpose of the low income assistance “program evaluation” project was to evaluate existing low income utility customer assistance programs and design a program portfolio incorporating elements of energy efficiency, education, income criteria, as well as collaboration with other City programs and local non-profits. The following key deliverables were managed by a multi-disciplined project team:  Create a comprehensive program that addresses community needs based on Utilities’ role  Structure programs to have minimal impact on staff time  Provide education to increase awareness and conservation practices for low-income customers, empowering them to reduce electricity and water use and lower their bills  Create measurable performance metrics/phased approach  Avoid shut-offs and reduce write-offs; intervene earlier to minimize costs to the Utility and the customer  Create networking opportunities with local non-profits and other City departments to support sustainable implementation of program The project team, consisting of Utilities staff, City staff and external non-profits, received presentations that provided detailed data, from both internal and external presenters, to understand how Utilities provides low income utility support, as well as how other agencies administer low income support. This process consisted of understanding the data, creating Utilities low income criteria based on Utilities role, reviewing the criteria based on seven scenario options and recommending a scenario that best supported the community’s need for low income utility assistance. Recommendations Identified by the project team: 1. Utilities role is managed within four categories: rates, administration, funding and efficiency 2. Low Income Assistance Program criteria was determined to be: income, Utilities electric customer, education, and efficiency/conservation education 3. There are two systems generally used for classifying low income program participation: the Federal Poverty Guideline and Area Median Income (AMI). AMI was selected for this program because the majority of local non-profits use it as the system to determine low income program participation in our area. For the purposes of this program, low income is defined as income between 0% and 50% of the Area Median Income for Larimer County. 4. Temporary crisis is defined as assistance available in situations where a customer could not pay utilities because of an emergency or life-changing circumstance. This assistance would be offered through the current Payment Assistance Program and would be limited to $150 maximum a calendar year (could be more than one disbursement). Documentation on the situation requiring temporary utility assistance would be requested. Packet Pg. 22 January 27, 2015 Page 4 5. Chronic circumstance is a long-term situation with difficulty making a utility payment due to financial hardship. A low income electric rate could offer a tiered approach based on the Area Median Income for Larimer County: one rate for customers who fall between 0% - 29% AMI; a second rate for customers who fall between 30%-50%. Participation in this “low income” electric rate would be facilitated through the City Finance Office as an extension of the existing City Rebate Program. The Medical Assistance Program would be discontinued. 6. The focus group work session identified the following barriers to program participation: location of trust, convenience (one application to fulfill requirements) and transportation. 7. Requirement that both temporary and chronic levels of assistance include an energy/water efficiency/conservation educational opportunity and/or audit. Conclusion In conclusion, the Project Team recommends (1) enhancements to the current Payment Assistance Program and (2) the creation of a low income electric rate, with two levels of eligibility based on participant income level. The Payment Assistance Program would be administered through the Utilities Customer Connections Department - Customer Finance Division. The “low income” electric rate would be facilitated through the City Finance Office as an extension of the existing City Rebate Program. An enhanced Payment Assistance Program and a “low income” electric rate will strengthen support to the low income population by recognizing that financial hardship often has two characteristics: temporary crisis and on- going financial difficulty. Utility customers would be eligible for one but not both of these offerings in any calendar year. One of the outcomes that staff recommends is to offer a low-income rate to those customers that fall in the 30% and 50% of annual median income (AMI) brackets. Data shows that approximately 12% of customers would qualify for low-income assistance under these cutoffs. For the average customer, approximately 1.3% of their income is used to pay their electric bill in Fort Collins. For those below 50% AMI and 30% AMI, it is 2.1% and 2.7%, respectively. - 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 $17,650 $29,406 $47,050 $58,812 $70,574 $88,218 $117,624 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI 150% AMI +150% AMI Number of Customers Census Block Data (2 persons / household) 2% 10% 26% 13% 12% 26% 11% To help balance this expense for low-income customers, staff is recommending a 50% discount for those customer in the 30% AMI bracket and a 35% discount for those in the 50% AMI bracket. Depending on the number of customers that actually sign up and provide income verification, the impacts to the utility will vary. Packet Pg. 23 January 27, 2015 Page 5 Assuming that half of the customers do take advantage of the proposed rate, we are estimating a revenue shortfall between $800,000 and $1,600,000 from the residential class. This would need to be absorbed by increasing rates for other residential customers, or all customers, including commercial customers. This would be adjusted annually, or as rates are adjusted system-wide, depending on the number of participants. (For context, operating revenues from the residential customers were $46.3M in 2014.) AMI % Discount % Annual Utility Impact Participation Rate Annual Utility Impact 30% AMI 50% $ 291,953 50% $ 145,977 50% AMI 35% $ 1,330,430 50% $ 665,215 Potential Impact $ 1,622,384 Participation Rate Impact $ 811,192 Triple Bottom Line Analysis A triple bottom line analysis map was completed by a team of City staff members to further understand the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a time-of-use (TOU) pilot study. The focus when filling out the map was on offering a seasonal, flat on-peak, off-peak TOU rate structure to residential customers. From a rate-making perspective, TOU rates are believed to be a more fair and equitable rate for customers than a flat or tiered rate as TOU rates help reduce some of the cross subsidies that occur due to a wholesale time-based demand charge. Some of the strengths are believed to be energy conservation at some level, empowering customers in their decision-making as to when they consume energy, and possibly promoting electric vehicles and encouraging solar production. While TOU rates are designed to be revenue neutral, as with any rate, it will have positive and negative impacts on individual customers. There may be pushback from customers related to how it impacts them as well as increased education will be needed to inform customers of any new rate structure. A TOU rate structure does incentivize customers to use electricity during off-peak times, which may reduce peak loads, and encourage conservation each month, in particular through reductions in air conditioning load during the summer months when PRPA’s system reaches its overall peak. The highest price signal shifts from the summer third tier that impacts a few customers to a time period that all customers pass through under TOU and would financially benefit from by reducing their use. Some of the potential threats of a TOU rate, although seen as unlikely, include a significant shift in residential usage that could impact the commercial class negatively, as well as any future wholesale rate structure changes that may occur related to the energy and demand proportional mix of consumption and billing structure charged to the four PRPA cities. Financial Impacts of Programs Any new rate structure would be designed to be revenue neutral for the residential rate class. Regardless of how the residential rate class is charged for its portion of the overall cost of service, the total revenue required from the residential rate class is determined independent of the rate structure for the rate class. While a shift from one rate structure to another may be designed to be revenue neutral at the rate class level there may still be costs shifted among customers within the rate class. For example, the tiered rate structure currently in place allows those customers who use less than the average amount of electricity each month to pay less than the financial cost of providing that electricity to them by requiring those customers who use more than the average amount of electricity to pay more than the financial cost of providing their electricity to them. Any move away from the current tiered rate structure may shift costs away from those who use more than average to those who use less than average depending on the design of the new rate structure. It is the expectation of staff that the rate structure and prices in any pilot study will be revenue neutral but this may not prove to be the case which is one of the reasons a pilot study is recommended. The pilot study will allow any modifications to the rate prices to be made before the new rate structure would be implemented for the residential rate class. Packet Pg. 24 January 27, 2015 Page 6 The pilot study would be conducted by staff without further improvements required to the metering and billing infrastructure so no additional costs are expected at this time. The financial implications of a low-income rate were discussed above. If Council directs staff to bring forth a low- income rate before January 2016 then any revenue shortfall for 2015 could be met by use of the Light & Power reserves. Environmental Impacts of Programs Rate structures with positive conservation incentives have direct and indirect environmental benefits, including:  Reducing carbon and pollutant emissions from fossil fuel power plants  Improving indoor air quality by encouraging low or no-energy circulation of outdoor air rather than air conditioning. Staff anticipates that there may be some energy conservation attributable to a TOU rate structure. The pilot study will provide some insight into this issue. (See Attachment 3 for more discussion on this issue.) ATTACHMENTS 1. May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (PDF) 2. Work Session summary, May 13, 2014 (PDF) 3. Energy Board minutes, January 8, 2015 (draft) (PDF) 4. Staff memo re: Monthly Fixed Charge for Residential Customers (PDF) 5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 25 DATE: STAFF: May 13, 2014 Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Time of Use Pilot Project for Electric Rates. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to provide City Council with several rate structures that are now possible for implementation from a metering and billing perspective (note - the tiered time-of-use (TOU), the TOU with surcharge rate, and Coincident Peak rate structures are not currently supported by Web Portal) given the successful deployment of advanced metering infrastructure for all residential electric customers. In December 2013, City Council held a work session discussing the impacts and effectiveness of the seasonal, tiered rate structure that was implemented in February 2012. Based on the Council discussion at that meeting, and previous interest expressed by some Councilmembers to consider a time-of-use (TOU) rate structure, this work session discussion is intended to understand the current level of interest by the City Council to consider alternative rate structures in the near future. Based on the direction given here, a pilot program could be presented for City Council consideration some time later in 2014, with the intention of evaluating the pilot through the summer of 2015, and possible full-scale residential implementation for 2016. If the City Council is interested in considering any of these rate structures, staff recommends that a pilot study be completed before any full-scale implementation. The pilot study is intended to resolve any unforeseen technical issues around the new rate structure, to quantify the customer response to the new rate structure and to assess customer interest in a different rate structure over the current tiered, inclining block rate structure. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the Council want to consider any of the rate structures presented here for future deployment? 2. If so, does the Council support implementing a pilot study to assess the proposed rate structure? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Prior to the deployment of the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), there were limitations on the types of rate structures that could be implemented due to the restrictions of the existing electro-mechanical meters. In December 2011, Council adopted a three-tiered inclining block rate structure as a means of providing a conservation price signal to residential customers. This was approved by Council with the understanding that the AMI would allow additional rate structures to be considered in the future. Discussion at the December 10, 2013 City Council Work Session on the Impacts of Tiered Rates reinforced this understanding that Council would like to consider alternative rate structures. The purpose of the May 13, 2014 City Council Work Session is to suggest alternative rate structures that may be appropriate for residential customers and to seek direction from the City Council on pursuing any of these rate structures for a pilot study in 2015. Before discussing the potential rate structures, it may be helpful to outline the components of the residential rates and the wholesale costs charged by Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) for the electricity generation and transmission. The residential rates include a base charge, which is designed to cover the cost of metering, billing and payment processing only. In addition to the fixed base charge, there are variable charges for the cost of providing the distribution system infrastructure, called the distribution facilities charge, and an energy charge which recovers the wholesale charges from PRPA for the electricity generation and transmission. The base charge and the distribution facilities charges would be the same for all of the rate structures outlined below and ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) May 13, 2014 Page 2 are not discussed further here. The wholesale charges from PRPA consist of a demand charge and an energy charge. Both of these charges are variable, with the demand charge being based on each City’s contribution to the PRPA system coincident peak hour and the energy charge being a flat charge per kilowatt-hour of energy consumed. The demand charge represents 30% of the monthly charges and the energy charge the remaining 70%. For the residential rate class these two charges are combined and covered through the energy charge. It is this energy charge that is being considered in the rate structures below. It should also be noted that beginning in 2012, PRPA began adjusting its wholesale energy and demand charges seasonally. This seasonality is continued through to the retail rates and would apply to all of the rate structures below. Possible Rate Structures See Attachment 2, slide 1 - Graphs - Potential Rate Structures The following six rate structures will be presented for consideration: 1. Flat rate structure - This rate structure is similar to the rate structure that had been in place for residential customers prior to the adoption of the tiered rates in 2012. In this rate structure the energy charge is flat regardless of how much energy is consumed each month. A flat rate is very easy for customers to understand and intuitively estimate their monthly electric bill, but provides less of a conservation price signal than tiered rates. 2. Tiered rate structure - This is the current rate structure for most residential customers. This rate structure is characterized by the increasing energy charge as monthly energy consumption increases in a stepped or tiered fashion. Because the rates are designed so that each rate class covers the full cost of serving that rate class, this rate structure results in customers who use less than 750 kWh paying less than the full cost of serving them and those that use more than 750 kWh to pay more than the cost of serving them. The analysis presented at the December 2013 Work Session did show this structure to be modestly effective at reducing electric consumption amongst the fourth quartile of customers who use the most electricity during the 3 months of summer. However, it appeared to be ineffective at reducing consumption amongst the other 75% of the residential customers, which is where most of system-wide energy is consumed. Because customers have not had a means of determining where their use has been month-to-date before the web portal is launched, this rate structure has created some bill anxiety. 3. Time-of-use rate structure - This rate structure would consist of an energy charge with each hour of the day being considered either on-peak or off-peak. The energy charge for all energy consumed during the off-peak hours would be considerably less than the energy charge during the on-peak hours. On-peak hours would be from 2 pm until 7 pm Monday through Friday (excluding the major national holidays) for the months of May through September and from 5 pm until 9 pm Monday through Friday for the remaining months of the year. Because PRPA collects almost one-third of its operating revenue through the demand charge, which is determined by a single coincident peak hour for the month for the whole PRPA system, and the on-peak hours have been chosen to contain almost all hours where demand is within 5% of the coincident peak demand, it is appropriate to collect the entire demand charge for the residential rate class during the on-peak hours of a TOU rate. By doing so, the ratio of the on-peak to off-peak energy charges will be approximately 3.3 to 1 for both seasons. This rate structure is commonly used to encourage load shifting from peak hours to off-peak hours at electric utilities with little excess capacity as a cost-effective way to defer the large capital investment of adding peaking generation capacity. However, PRPA currently has such sufficient excess capacity that there is little direct benefit from deferred capital investment for additional plant capacity. Given that Fort Collins Light & Packet Pg. 27 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) May 13, 2014 Page 3 Power acquires all of its non-distributed generation energy from PRPA and PRPA has a rate structure with a coincident peak demand component, the TOU rate structure does provide a more accurate and directly connected price signal to residential customers than a flat or tiered rate structure provides. Unlike the tiered rate structure, this rate structure provides a price signal with a potential conservation incentive applied to all customers equally for several hours each weekday throughout the month. 4. Tiered time-of-use rate structure - This rate structure is a combination of the two previous rate structures. It consists of on-peak and off-peak defined periods just as the TOU rate, and has an additional dimension of having each period’s rate being tiered based on the total monthly energy consumption. While being a combination of the two previous rate structures could be a good compromise, this rate structure will negatively affect those customers who are not able to shift their load from on-peak to off-peak as easily as other customers. Additionally, the complexity of this rate and uncertainty for customers to understand where their monthly use falls within the tiers will impact their ability respond to effectively to the price signals, and significantly expand the numbers of lines on the customer’s bill, where space is already becoming an issue, as well as . The web portal cannot fully support this rate structure at this time. 5. Coincident peak rate structure - This rate structure most closely aligns with the wholesale rate structure of PRPA with the demand charge being collected based on household demand for the single coincident peak hour of each month. For all other hours of the month the rate structure would be a flat rate structure. Although a coincident peak rate is already used by Fort Collins Utilities for large commercial customers, which is frequently seen in the electric industry because of more consistent use patterns, this is not a rate that is usually applied to the residential class. Even though this would tie exactly to how PRPA bills on the wholesale side, this would create extremely volatile charges month-to-month for a residential customer depending on their energy consumption during a single hour each month. While it may help reduce the peak, it provides a weak energy conservation signal. The web portal cannot fully support this rate structure at this time. 6. Time-of-use with tiered surcharge rate structure - This rate structure is similar to the time-of-use rate structure, with an additional surcharge based on the customer’s total monthly consumption. Low energy users would see no additional monthly charge beyond the TOU rate, while the larger consumers of energy would incur a surcharge per kWh based on their total consumption. The TOU on-peak/off-peak rate structure would be designed to cover all operating costs and the tiered surcharge could be used to fund energy conservation and efficiency programs and projects. The TOU portion of this rate is considered equitable for customers and the surcharge may be justifiable in that higher consumption customers could benefit more from the energy conservation and efficiency programs provided by the Utility than lower consumption customers. But, like the standard tiered rate, higher consumption in a household in this case still does not take in to account the number of people in a house and how efficiently they may be using energy on a per person basis. It does provide a more consistent conservation signal to all customers throughout the month with an additional incentive to conserve for those with higher monthly use. The web portal cannot fully support this rate structure at this time. Summary of Pros and Cons of each Rate Structure See Attachment 2, slide 2 - Pros and Cons - for a table with pros and cons of each rate structure outlined. In evaluating different rate structures there are a number of objectives to consider. Objectives like equity, simplicity, revenue stability, customer agility, ease of implementation, conservation incentive, affordability, and bill stability should all be considered in developing a new rate structure. Any new rate structure then needs to be Packet Pg. 28 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) May 13, 2014 Page 4 compared to the existing rate structure along with other rate structures to determine which rate structure most closely aligns with the community objectives for rates. Staff Recommendation of Rate Structure Considering all information provided, Staff recommends implementing a time-of-use rate structure (option 3, above), which is believed to be the most cost-of-service based rate among the options. It provides fairness and cost equity within the residential customer class that ties to wholesale costs. While Staff does consider the primary reason to move to a TOU rate to be rate equity, and not driven by expected peak reductions and energy conservation, it is believed that peak reductions and energy conservation will occur to some degree. This takes in to consideration that 100% of customers will be impacted by the higher on-peak charge on TOU, while less than 18% of customers are impacted by a higher Tier 3 charge on tiered rates. A TOU rate will also allow customers to reduce their bill in two ways - by reducing consumption and adjusting when they consume, which will contribute to a more efficient use of electricity system-wide. Staff Proposal of Pilot Study Staff recommends a pilot study be done beginning in late 2014 or early 2015 and continue throughout 2015 on a TOU rate structure. The design of the pilot study is intended to be an “opt-out” study where 1000-1500 residential customers are randomly selected to participate in the program. The pilot study is necessary to ensure that customer response to the new rate structure is understood so that sufficient revenue is collected even with some anticipated additional energy conservation. These customers would have to respond in writing if they did not want to participate in the study. An opt-out approach would more appropriately represent potentially moving to a new default rate in the future, help ensure greater participation during the pilot study period, and has a significantly smaller outreach and customer impact for the pilot study sample selection. Alternatively, an “opt-in” pilot study could be done but this could involve a selection bias as those consuming the most energy may decide to “opt-in” and others may not. Staff is considering revenue protection provided to the participating customers in the pilot study in the form of a “best bill guarantee”. If the customer remains in the study for the entire predefined time period, the customer would be refunded at the end of the study period any overage they paid on the pilot study rate as compared to the current tiered rate. Could we give residential customers the option of being on a tiered or a time-of-use rate structure? It is technically possible to do so, however, Staff does not recommend it for the following reason. Any time customers are given a choice between two rate structures the rational choice is to go with the rate structure which minimizes their utility costs. This selection bias reduces the effectiveness of any financial conservation incentives by first allowing the customer to choose a rate structure which will minimize their costs without changing any consumptive behavior. Have any credible concerns been raised concerning the effectiveness of Inverted Block Rate (IBR) in achieving conservation goals? Yes, a recent proposal by Pacific Gas & Electric addressing IBRs in California, where they have been in use for some time, raised concerns about their conservation effectiveness. “Proponents of steeply inclining tiered rates often tout their ability, compared to flatter structures (or even to completely flat rates with a single volumetric charge) to encourage conservation by providing very high price signals in the upper tiers. In other words, proponents focus on the ability of the high upper-tier rates to incent households consuming in those tiers to consume. But this ignores the fact that setting higher than average cost upper-tier rates means that, correspondingly, the lower tier rates are then set lower than average cost (since otherwise revenue over-collection would occur). Thus, while upper-tier consuming households have a greater incentive to conserve, lower-tier consuming ones have a lesser incentive to do so-and it is in the lower tiers where the vast majority of the consumption occurs (slightly more than two-thirds for PG&E).” Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Feb Packet Pg. 29 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) May 13, 2014 Page 5 28,2014)- Long-term Residential Electric Rate Design Reform Proposal, Phase 1, Prepared Testimony - Rulemaking “12-06-013” PG & E is looking at offering a non-tiered TOU rate schedule, as opposed to a tiered TOU rate because a non- tiered TOU option provides more accurate price signals and is easier for the customers to understand, while encouraging customers to reduce loads during peak times. Triple Bottom Line Analysis - See Attachment 3 - Triple Bottom line Analysis Summary A triple bottom line analysis was completed by a team of City staff to further understand the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a TOU pilot study. The map is attached. The focus when filling out the map was on offering a seasonal, flat on-peak, off-peak TOU rate structure to residential customers. From a rate-making perspective, TOU rates are believed to be a more fair and equitable rate for customers than a flat or tiered rate as TOU rates help reduce some of the cross subsidies that occur due to a wholesale time-based demand charge. Some of the strengths are believed to be energy conservation at some level, empowering customers in their decision-making as to when they consume energy, and possibly promoting electric vehicles and encouraging solar production. While TOU rates are designed to be revenue neutral, as with any rate, it will have positive and negative impacts on individual customers. There may be pushback from customers related to how it impacts them as well as increased education will be needed to inform customers of any new rate structure. A TOU rate structure does incentivize customers to use electricity during off-peak times, which may reduce peak loads, and encourage conservation each month, in particular through reductions in air conditioning load during the summer months when PRPA’s system reaches its overall peak. Some of the potential threats of a TOU rate, although seen as unlikely, include a significant shift in residential usage that could impact the commercial class negatively, as well as any future wholesale rate structure changes that may occur related to the energy and demand proportional mix of consumption and billing structure charged to the four PRPA cities. Financial Impacts of Programs Any new rate structure would be designed to be revenue neutral for the residential rate class. Regardless of how the residential rate class is charged for its portion of the overall cost of service, the total revenue required from the residential rate class is determined independent of the rate structure for the rate class. While a shift from one rate structure to another may be designed to be revenue neutral at the rate class level there may still be costs shifted among customers within the rate class. For example, the tiered rate structure currently in place allows those customers who use less than the average amount of electricity each month to pay less than the full cost of providing that electricity to them by requiring those customers who use more than the average amount of electricity to pay more than the full cost of providing their electricity to them. Any move away from the current tiered rate structure may shift costs away from those who use more than average to those who use less than average depending on the design of the new rate structure. It is the expectation of Staff that the rate structure and prices in any pilot study will be revenue neutral but this may not prove to be the case which is one of the reasons a pilot study is recommended. The pilot study will allow any modifications to the rate prices to be made before the new rate structure would be implemented for the residential rate class. The pilot study would be conducted by staff without further improvements required to the metering and billing infrastructure so no additional costs are expected at this time. Environmental Impacts of Programs Rate structures with positive conservation incentives have direct and indirect environmental benefits, including: Reducing carbon and pollutant emissions from fossil fuel power plants Improving indoor air quality by encouraging low or no-energy circulation of outdoor air rather than air conditioning Packet Pg. 30 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) May 13, 2014 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis Map (PDF) 2. TOU Rate Structures (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 31 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Im Project/Decision: Implementing a Pilot Study to evaluate time-of-use (TOU) rates for residential customers Evaluated by: SOCIAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL Workforce Community Strengths Supports the cost-of-service (COS) approach to provide fair and equitable rates to customers Opportunity to promote other programs that may help incent customers to learn about and / or invest in programs such as Demand Response (DR) Extends the functionality and benefits of installing a system-wide AMI meter capability A pilot program helps staff refine processes to implement TOU Ability to use the Web Portal for educating customers on TOU Strengths Helps eliminate cross-subsidies among customers that use electricity at different times and in different ways Encourages customers to conserve Customers may take advantage of programs to reduce their bill such as the Demand Response (DR) program May promote Photovoltaic (Solar) growth May promote use of Electric Vehicles (EV) Customers have the opportunity to opt-out of the pilot program if they choose Gives customers more transparency as to how their consumption relates to retail rates and wholesale power costs Empowers the customer in decision-making as there are defined time windows for on-peak and off-peak and associated kWh charges An innovative and forward thinking community may encourage acceptance of a TOU rate Strengths More equitable rate structure, which addresses market costs for energy The return on investment for energy efficient measures may be higher for the customer Encourages more efficient use of energy & demand, therefore increasing load factor As with any rate structure, TOU rates would be designed to be revenue neutral from a Utility revenue standpoint May promote Photovoltaic (Solar) growth May promote use of Electric Vehicles (EV) The pilot program would help validate whether revenue requirements are being met Strengths Possible reduction in environmental impacts Encourages more efficient use of energy to smooth load curve Opportunities Educate consumers about the actual cost of power and when it is most expensive from a wholesale perspective Incentivizes customers to use electricity at a more optimal consumption time Opportunities Educate consumers about the actual cost of power Pilot program helps ensure the rate structure is generally accepted among customers Incentivizes customers to use electricity at a more optimal consumption time Opportunities Customer responses to the rate structure may benefit both the customer and the utility Opportunities TOU rates could incent the use of wind power, which often is available during off- peak times TOU rates could help with PV charging and facilitate vehicle-to-grid energy storage solutions Threats Customer pushback during and after implementation TOU is based on wholesale rates and would be influenced by future changes in PRPA’s rate structures A pilot program is encouraged to ensure rates are set correctly before full implementation of a TOU rate Threats Customer pushback during and after implementation If customers don’t respond favorably to the pilot program, it may impact the possibility of full implementation of this rate structure Without a pilot program, rates could be set incorrectly in the short-term and customers could be over or undercharged Threats Residential load shift could impact commercial customers negatively TOU is based on wholesale rates and would be influenced by future changes in PRPA’s rate structures Significantly expanding photovoltaic (PV) and electric vehicle (EV) usage could cause a shift in the peak time to different times in the day than have been experienced historically Threats Significantly expanding electric vehicle (EV) charging during off-peak could increase Green House Gas (GHG) emissions Notes: Adapted from the City of Olympia and Evergreen State College Sustainable Action Map (SAM) Packet Pg. 33 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 1 Potential Rate Structures ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 2 Pros and Cons Packet Pg. 35 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 1 Time-of-Use Pilot Study Presented to City Council May 13, 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 2 Purpose • Present new possibilities for residential rate structures • Propose a pilot study before proceeding with full deployment Packet Pg. 37 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 3 Background • 2012 – Adopted seasonal, tiered residential rate structure • 2013-14 – Deployed Advanced Metering Infrastructure to all residential customers • December 2013 – City Council Work Session on the impacts of the seasonal, tiered rate structure on residential energy use Packet Pg. 38 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 4 December 2013 Work Session • Reviewed impacts of tiered rates on Residential energy use – Quartiles 1, 2, and 3 were essentially flat – Quartile 4 showed some reduction from 2011 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Average 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile kWh / Month Summer Monthly Residential Use (kWh) Weather Normalized 2011 2012 2013 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 5 Rate Design Objectives • Cost-of-Service Based Equity • Revenue Stability for Utility • Bill Stability for Customer • Customer Affordability • Simplicity for Customer to Understand Price Signals • Customer Ability to Respond to Price Signals • Feasibility of Implementation • Conservation Incentive through Price Signals Packet Pg. 40 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 6 Seasonal Rate Structure Options Packet Pg. 41 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 7 8.24 8.64 9.52 0 5 10 15 20 0 500 1000 Cents Monthly kWh Use Tiered Rate (Non summer) 8.96 10.63 13.98 0 5 10 15 20 0 500 1000 Cents Monthly kWh Use Tiered Rate (Summer) 6.91 18.36 0 5 10 15 20 TOU off peak TOU on peak Cents Monthly kWh Use TOU (Non summer) 7.07 22.09 0 5 10 15 20 TOU off peak TOU on peak Cents Monthly kWh Use TOU (Summer) Tiered Rates compared to TOU 20 hours /day 19 hours /day 4 hours / day 5 hours / day Packet Pg. 42 8 Conservation Signal of Tiered Rate & TOU Rate Rate Structure Tier 3 of Tiered Rate Time-of-Use Summer Non-summer Summer Non-summer Price per kWh $0.1400 $0.0950 $0.2333 $0.1836 % Total Energy 14.00% 14.00% 18.00% 12.00% Target Customer Highest monthly use All customers % of Customers Impacted 21.0% 18.0% 100.0% 100.0% Packet Pg. 43 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 9 Why a TOU rate structure? • Considered to be an equitable rate structure § Electricity costs more during peak hours all month § 30% of wholesale costs are peak demand costs • Relatively easy rate for customers to understand and adjust to price signals for pre-defined time windows • Encourages peak reductions and energy conservation equally for all customers • Allows customers to reduce their bill in two ways § By reducing total consumption § By adjusting when they consume Packet Pg. 44 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 10 Proposed Rate Scenario (weekends & 6 major holidays are all off-peak) 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 January February March April May June July August September October November December A.M. P.M. Off Peak - 6 Cents On Peak - 20 Cents Off Peak - 6 Cents Non Summer Off Peak - 6 Cents Summer Non Summer OffCents Peak - 7 Cents On Peak - 23 Off Peak - 7 Cents On Peak - 23 Cents Off Peak - 7 Cents Packet Pg. 45 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 11 TOU - Energy Conservation • Could TOU rates help with Energy Conservation? – Household use examples that may reduce overall consumption AND reduce the peak •Air conditioning use •Heating use •Lighting use •Electronics (TV, etc) Packet Pg. 46 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 12 TOU Demand Reduction • Could TOU rates help with Demand Reduction (i.e. Will it shift the system peak)? – Household use examples that may shift demand from on-peak to off-peak, therefore reducing peak but not overall energy •Washer / dryer use •Electric vehicles •Cooking (oven, microwave, etc) Packet Pg. 47 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 13 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 ($100) ($90) ($80) ($70) ($60) ($50) ($40) ($30) ($20) ($10) $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 Number of Customers Avg $ Gain / (Loss) per Month to Customer TOU Impacts per Month (on average) Customers who would pay more on TOU Customers who would pay less on TOU Bottom Line: Those who use the least energy will probably see an increase in their monthly bill under TOU Packet Pg. 48 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 14 Income Data 0%- 25%- 50%- 75%- 100%- 125%- 150%- 175%- 200%+ 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% % of 2011 Area Median Income Packet Pg. 49 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 15 Income Data Third quartile of use Second quartile of use median 0%- 25%- 50%- 75%- 100%- 125%- 150%- 175%- 200%+ 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% % of 2011 Area Median Income Packet Pg. 50 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 16 Income Considerations • Tiered rates can help low income customers (less income => less consumption) • Was the intended purpose to encourage conservation or to benefit low income customers? – Assistance for low income customers could be provided through a separate low income rate – Low-income assistance research is being done now and expected to wrap-up in June – Low-income assistance options will be presented this fall for City Council consideration Packet Pg. 51 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 17 Time-of-Use Pilot Rate structure and participation incentives • Seasonal component to TOU • 5 summer months & 7 non-summer months • Variation from PRPA 3 summer months • Weekends & 6 major holidays – all off-peak hours • Incentive to maintain participation for 12 months • Best bill guarantee at end of program Packet Pg. 52 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 18 Why a Pilot first? • Helps ensure revenue requirements will be met before a default rate is implemented • Provides feedback on customer acceptance • Quantifies customer behavior changes, or lack thereof • Impacts fewer customers if unforeseen technical issues arise Packet Pg. 53 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 19 Suggested Framework of Pilot Why Staff is recommending an Opt-out Pilot • Sample selection • Opt-out appropriately represents single rate • Opt-in has a significantly biased representation • Customer response • Opt-out has greater participation (> 80%) • Opt-in has lower participation (< 20%) • Cost of and time for administering PILOT • Opt-out has significantly smaller outreach for sample selection (1,200) • Opt-in requires total customer out-reach; will take more time & cost for sufficient participation Packet Pg. 54 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 20 General Direction Sought from Council • Does the Council want to consider any of the rate structures presented here for possible future deployment? • If so, does the Council support implementing a pilot study to assess the proposed rate structure? Packet Pg. 55 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment2.2: Work Session summary, May 13, 2014 (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Excerpt from Unapproved Energy Board Minutes – January 8, 2015 Time-of-Use (TOU) Rate and Low-Income Rate (Attachments available upon request) Chairperson Behm announced that this item was for information only, as an update prior to the January 27 City Council Work Session. Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith introduced Utility Rate Analyst Randy Reuscher to summarize the proposal for a Time-of-Use (TOU) pilot program for residential customers. Customer Connections Manager Lisa Rosintoski presented information on low-income rates. TOU Rates: TOU offers simplicity to customers: knowing peak and off-peak time windows and the opportunity to reduce energy costs. The proposed rate structure would eliminate the need for a separate Residential Demand rate class for all-electric houses and allows customers to reduce their bills in two ways: by reducing total consumption and/or by adjusting energy consumption during peak and off-peak times. The pilot group would include about 1,000 residential participants, an opt-out strategy to allow customer choice, and random selection of residential energy customers (excluding net metering customers and excluding Option 2 and 3 customers*). Customers would receive a cost comparison and credit based on “best bill guarantee” reconciliation: if they would have paid less in energy costs during the previous six months, they will receive a credit. The TOU with Tiered Surcharge Rate chart showed an example of on-peak and off-peak times. *Option 2 and Option 3 customers are those who opt out or those who don’t have Utilities collecting 15-minute interval data from their meters. Next actions include City Code modifications to be presented in spring 2015 and the pilot program launch; data review and a staff recommendations presentation in the fourth quarter of 2015; and TOU implementation in 2016. Low Income Program: Ms. Rosintoski summarized the purpose of evaluating existing programs (Payment Assistant Fund): to design a comprehensive offering to low-income customers that incorporates energy efficiency, education, and community collaboration and empowers them to reduce electricity and water use and lower their bills, as well as avoid shut-offs. The evaluation team included representatives from four local non-profit organizations to guide recommendations. Data included understanding how Utilities can provide incentives, its breadth and width of support for low income customers), criteria, scenarios (seven total listing all the ways you can provide that service based on your role), and recommendations. Identified Barriers included lack of access to locations of trust (such as churches), convenience, and transportation. One customer remarked they had to complete 15 forms to apply for assistance. The proposed program would reduce such duplications. Staff identified types of low income: chronic (i.e. they reached a plateau in salary) and temporary (lost their job or had medical issues). The Utilities Role graphic showed four categories: rates, funding (give customers the opportunity to donate), administration (Utilities works with Catholic Charities, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment2.3: Energy Board minutes, January 8, 2015 (draft) (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) which sets up appointments, and partners with the City Rebate department, which provides the application), and efficiency and conservation education. Mr. Reuscher explained PowerPoint slides on topics of Census Block Data (two people per household), Area Median Income (AMI), AMI vs. Electric Cost as % of income chart. One example is customers who are at 50% AMI will receive a 30% discount under the proposed program. Discussion Highlights  A board member inquired about the language “allows customers to reduce their bill in two ways, by reducing total consumption and by adjusting when they consume” and stated that everything he’s read about TOU is it doesn’t reduce total consumption. Mr. Reuscher replied that the reasoning is based on, for example, customers who aren’t home during the day and therefore don’t run their air conditioning; they won’t use air conditioner in the evening to make up for it. Staff believes there will be a net reduction.  Board members commented the language implies customers will be able to reduce total load, when in fact staff doesn’t know that for sure. Mr. Smith explained the current structure allows only one method to reduce bill: reduce consumption. The proposed plan adds a second option of shifting load (consuming energy during off-peak times) to reduce consumption. Mr. Reuscher stated the idea is if the customers reduce consumption during peak times, they will reduce their costs. Mr. Smith stated the pilot program will help staff understand whether customers will be able to reduce their energy costs using this method.  Mr. Phelan suggested adding language “complimentary” to the options of reducing customer’s energy costs.  A board member inquired if on/off-peak hours will be in effect year-round. Mr. Reuscher replied they would.  A board member inquired if peak times would be adjusted for weather. Mr. Reuscher replied no.  A board member commented that 280 residential customers of 344 total participating in the pilot program means a potentially ground-breaking study. To exclude the net metering customers (Advanced Meter Fort Collins) is to miss an opportunity; he suggested a separate study of only net metered customers, with a small sample and random curve of sizes and types, so that staff will know how TOU affects net-metered customers; it’s especially important because this might be a one-time opportunity to do this study.  A board member inquired about a scenario in which his water bill is $60 and his electric bill is $5. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Reuscher would explain the rationale behind the proposal; the same could be applied to water and stormwater. The board member stated he hopes staff is taking a holistic approach. Ms. Rosintoski replied staff is focusing on energy for the TOU pilot program, and agreed that it would be a good idea to consider the same water and wastewater in the future.  A board member inquired whether Xcel Energy has a program for low-income customers. It does. Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) helps income- qualified individuals pay their winter heating bills from November 1 to April 30. Ms. Rosintoski stated staff researched other utilities with low income programs. Mr. Phelan mentioned that other state-funded assistance programs exist. Packet Pg. 58 Attachment2.3: Energy Board minutes, January 8, 2015 (draft) (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project)  A board member inquired whether there are any other social welfare organizations that Utilities will work with, like Neighbor to Neighbor, Project Self-Sufficiency, or Larimer County Workforce Center. Ms. Rosintoski replied that United Way 211 was on the project team.  A board member commented on the need to ease the administrative effort for low-income customers, such as mentioning that if they qualify for one program then they may qualify for another program.  Board members suggested revising the “take rate” term to “participation rate” to clarify its meaning.  A board member inquired if there’s a way to package program items. Ms. Rosintoski stated free energy efficiency audits are offered to customers, many of whom are renters who can change things like light bulbs. Mr. Phelan stated that the City partners with the Larimer County Conservation Corps for this annual program (install LED/compact fluorescent light bulbs (cfl), water conservation, programmable thermostats), which started last week. The goal this year in Fort Collins is 400 households, apartments and single family homes. Participants don’t have to be low-income although 80% are. This program provides job training for young adults and could be expanded.  A board member commented that they’re uneasy when rates change at the same time a new rate structure in introduced, because they can’t know whether they saved money. It complicates customers’ understanding. Another board member agreed. Packet Pg. 59 Attachment2.3: Energy Board minutes, January 8, 2015 (draft) (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment2.4: Staff memo re: Monthly Fixed Charge for Residential Customers (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Packet Pg. 61 Attachment2.4: Staff memo re: Monthly Fixed Charge for Residential Customers (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Packet Pg. 62 Attachment2.4: Staff memo re: Monthly Fixed Charge for Residential Customers (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Packet Pg. 63 Attachment2.4: Staff memo re: Monthly Fixed Charge for Residential Customers (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Time-of-Use Pilot Project City Council January 27, 2015 1 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Where we are today 2 • Rates below the rate of inflation for many years. • Some of the lowest rates in the state of Colorado • Customers pay significantly less for their combined utility services. • As a municipal utility, able to keep rates low because we are a not-for-profit; only increase rates to recover our costs. • City of Fort Collins is about a 48% equity owner of Platte River Power Authority. • Rates are maintained to achieve 99.9982% electric system reliability; nationally recognized. Packet Pg. 65 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Purpose Discuss staff recommendations on: 1. Implementing a time-of-use residential pilot rate; 2. Adjusting the fixed and variable charges over time; 3. Implementing a low-income rate. 3 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Direction Time-of-Use Rate A. Does the Council support deploying a TOU pilot for approximately 1,000 residential customers in May 2015? B. Does the Council support the best bill guarantee as part of the pilot study? Low-Income Rate A. Does the Council support offering a low-income rate based on specified annual median income qualifications with or without adopting a time of use rate structure? B. If so, would Council support recovering the resulting revenue shortfall across all rate classes including commercial customers or just within the residential rate class? Fixed Costs A. Does the Council support allocating more of the Utility’s fixed costs into the monthly fixed charge for residential customers? Packet Pg. 67 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) TOU Rates • Create rate that provides ease in understanding energy use • Send optimal price signal when Utilities costs are highest • Allow customers an opportunity to respond to price signal and achieve energy efficiency and conservation • Customer equity based on costs to serve Packet Pg. 68 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) TOU Rates • Eliminate the need for a separate Residential Demand rate class for all-electric houses • Some level of peak reductions and energy conservation anticipated • May allow customers to reduce their bill 6 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) TOU Rates Two rates preferred from 5/13/2014 Council Work Session and supported by the Energy Board Packet Pg. 70 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Why a Pilot first? • Helps ensure revenue requirements will be met before a default rate is implemented • Provides feedback on customer acceptance • Quantifies customer behavior changes, or lack thereof • Impacts fewer customers if unforeseen technical issues arise TOU Rates Packet Pg. 71 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) TOU Rates • Approximately 1,000 residential participants • Opt-out strategy to allow for customer choice • Random selection of residential energy customers • Exclude Option 2 and 3 customers • Best bill guarantee reconciliation at end of program Characteristics of Pilot Group Packet Pg. 72 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) TOU Rates • City Code modifications presented - Spring of 2015 • Launch pilot w/ opt-out participation - Spring / Summer of 2015 • Data analyzed by staff – 3rd & 4th quarter 2015 • Present data and staff recommendations on TOU - 4th quarter 2015 • Consideration given to implement default TOU in 2016 Next Actions Packet Pg. 73 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Monthly Fixed Charge 11 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Monthly Fixed Charge 12 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Monthly Fixed Charge 13 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Monthly Fixed Charge 14 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Low Income Rate 15 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Low Income Program Evaluation 16 Purpose of evaluation: • Evaluate existing programs • design a comprehensive offering that incorporates energy efficiency, education, and community collaboration Opportunity Statement: • Utilities role in providing low income utility support Packet Pg. 79 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 17 Data Criteria Scenarios Recommendations Process Low Income Program Evaluation Barriers: 1. Location of Trust 2. Convenience 3. Transportation Conditions: • Temporary • Chronic Packet Pg. 80 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 18 Data Criteria Scenarios Recommendations Recommendations: • Pursue a low income rate for chronic low income. • Enhancements to Payment Assistance Fund administration for temporary • City Rebate Program partnership • Education Process Low Income Program Evaluation Packet Pg. 81 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 19 Utilities Role Rates Low Income Electric Rate Funding Payment Assistance Fund enhancements Administration City Rebate Program Efficiency and Conservation Education Education and Audit Process Low Income Program Evaluation Packet Pg. 82 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) THANK YOU! Lisa Rosintoski Utilities Customer Connections Manager Core Team: Mary Atchison, Bevia Byrne, Rene Evenson, Jenne Loffer, Shawn Montoya, Linda Rumney, Amanda Nagl, Randy Reuscher, Emily Sander, Nancy Stafford, Bill Switzer, Kyle Christiansen Focus Group: Project Self-Sufficiency, Vida Sana, Catholic Charities Larimer County, United Way 211, Larimer County Office on Aging, Make Change No Co, National MS Society, Serve 6.8, Fort Collins Housing Authority, Disabled Resource Services Packet Pg. 83 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Low Income Rate Development Packet Pg. 84 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Low Income Rate Development Packet Pg. 85 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Low Income Rate Development 23 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Next Actions: • Present implementation as part of time-of-use rates approval • Implement Payment Assistance Fund enhancements in 2015 24 Recommendations Low Income Program Evaluation Packet Pg. 87 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Direction Time-of-Use Rate A. Does the Council support deploying a TOU pilot for approximately 1,000 residential customers in May 2015? B. Does the Council support the best bill guarantee as part of the pilot study? Low-Income Rate A. Does the Council support offering a low-income rate based on specified annual median income qualifications with or without adopting a time of use rate structure? B. If so, would Council support recovering the resulting revenue shortfall across all rate classes including commercial customers or just within the residential rate class? Fixed Costs A. Does the Council support allocating more of the Utility’s fixed costs into the monthly fixed charge for residential customers? Packet Pg. 88 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Backup slides 26 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Customer Domain for Electricity Packet Pg. 90 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 28 Low Income Assistance Program: Chronic Application Requirements Definition Mechanism Frequency Income AMI - aligns with Sec. 8 and City Rebate Low Income Electric Rate - Sliding Rate; 0-30%; 30-50% Annual verification Utilities Customer City of Fort Collins service territory for electric Account verification Ongoing Education Attend one energy or water conservation class Web portal training Logged into CIS 1 time a year Energy/Water Walk Thru Audits Complete one energy/water audit Logged into CIS 1 time Packet Pg. 91 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 29 Low Income Assistance Program: Temporary Application Requirements Definition Mechanism Income Self report for tracking application Proof of hardship medical, job, car, utility disconnect notice application Utilities Customer City of Fort Collins service territory for electric and/or water Account Education Video in lobby, web-portal training in lobby, brochures Complete one energy/water audit marketing and appointment Note: Receives maximum assistance of $150 one time a year, but can use money incrementally. Packet Pg. 92 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Advanced Meter Technology Web-portal • Both residential and small commercial customers can view usage and costs • Large commercial and Industrial customers cannot view web portal • Net-Metering customers cannot view until 1st quarter 2015 • Net-Metering customers will be able to view usage but not costs • Mobile application launched December 17 30 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 31 Utilities Role Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Rates low income electric rate low income electric rate low income electric rate Rate Adjustment Adder Rate Adjustment Adder Rate Adjustment Adder - Low Income Electric Rate - Rate Adjustment Adder Administration Utilities Utilities and City Rebate Utilities and Third Party Utilities Utilities and City Rebate Utilities and Third Party Utilities and City Rebate Funding Payment Assistance Fund enhancements with Fundraising Payment Assistance Fund enhancements with Fundraising Payment Assistance Fund enhancements with Fundraising Payment Assistance Fund Payment Assistance Fund Payment Assistance Fund Payment Assistance Fund Efficiency/Conservation Education Education and audit Education and audit Education and audit Education and audit Education and audit Education and audit Education and audit Annual Anticipated Costs $65,228 $80,228 $68,228 $65,228 $80,228 $68,228 $80,228 Process Low Income Program Evaluation Packet Pg. 94 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Low Income Rate Packet Pg. 95 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Proposed On / Off Peak Hours 33 TOU Rates 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 January February March April May June July August September October November December Non Summer Summer Non Summer On Peak - 18 Cents (4 hour window) Off Peak - 6 Cents Off Peak - 7 Cents On Peak - 22 Cents (5 hour window) Off Peak - 7 Cents A.M. P.M. Off Peak - 6 Cents On Peak - 18 Cents (4 hour window) Off Peak - 6 Cents Off Peak - 6 Cents Packet Pg. 96 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) 8.24 8.64 9.52 0 5 10 15 20 0 500 1000 Cents Monthly kWh Use Tiered Rate (Non summer) 8.96 10.63 13.98 0 5 10 15 20 0 500 1000 Cents Monthly kWh Use Tiered Rate (Summer) 6.91 18.36 0 5 10 15 20 TOU off peak TOU on peak Cents Monthly kWh Use TOU (Non summer) 7.07 22.09 0 5 10 15 20 TOU off peak TOU on peak Cents Monthly kWh Use TOU (Summer) 20 hours /day 19 hours /day 4 hours/ day 5 hours/ day TOU Rates Packet Pg. 97 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) Conservation Signal of Tiered Rate & TOU Rate TOU Rates Summer Non-summer Summer Non-summer Price per kWh $0.1400 $0.0950 $0.2200 $0.1800 % Total Energy 14% 14% 18% 12% Target Customer % of Customers Impacted 21% 18% 100% 100% Rate Structure Tier3 of Tiered Rates Time-of-Use Highest monthly use customers All customers Packet Pg. 98 Attachment2.5: Powerpoint presentation (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) DATE: STAFF: January 27, 2015 Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Status of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discuss the status of Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF) in order to review the APF requirements and identify the next steps in exploring revisions to the ordinance. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Discussion of next steps. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1997, the City adopted Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code in order to establish an ongoing mechanism that ensured that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Ordinances governing “concurrency” of public facilities such as transportation, utilities, and others generally operate in conjunction with specific land use requirements related to development. In Fort Collins, APF provisions are in addition to other requirements for infrastructure that are needed to serve a particular development. For transportation, the adoption of the APF Ordinance was intended to strengthen an already existing Street Oversizing Program (SOP) that was established in 1979. The SOP continues today and is a capital expansion fee program that collects revenue from new developments specifically to mitigate communitywide traffic impacts. The SOP collects revenues intended to be used for the design and construction of arterial and collector streets citywide, and is in addition to obligations for local street improvements needed for development. The system improvements necessary to build the Master Street Plan are intended to be funded by a combination of funding sources including City of Fort Collins Capital Funding (to address existing deficiencies and broader, system-wide improvements not directly related to development) and developer contributions (to address new impacts as identified in Traffic Impact Studies). Developer contributions are addressed by collecting Street Oversizing fees at the time of development and by requiring certain road improvements to be built by the developer at their cost. The collection of Street Oversizing fees cannot be used to address existing deficiencies that are not related to development. There have been questions raised about the implications of the APF ever since it was adopted. Staff files include memos and notes from 2000, 2003, 2007, 2013, and 2014. A memo was sent to Council in September 2014 that recommends consideration of these issues:  Updating of the Street Oversizing Program to verify the basis for assessing the proportional cost of transportation improvements (including new standards for sidewalks, landscaping, etc.);  Evaluation of how redevelopment and infill impacts on public facilities differ from “greenfield” development and incorporate the differences into new requirements;  Evaluation and drafting of alternative compliance methods like demand management strategies or other methods that would reduce the need for traditional infrastructure improvements; Packet Pg. 99 January 27, 2015 Page 2  Identification of a funding/financing strategy for the construction of existing deficiencies and costly projects such as the above-grade crossing at Vine and Lemay or Timberline and Lemay improvements. A strategy is needed since a portion of these improvements were needed at the time the APF Ordinance was enacted; however a current funding source has not been identified. Because the need for these long-standing projects is not entirely tied to development impacts, financial responsibility cannot be assigned solely to development. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo re: Adequate Public Facilities, September 11, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 100 ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment3.1: Memo re: Adequate Public Facilities, September 11, 2014 (2821 : Adequate Public Facilities) Packet Pg. 102 Attachment3.1: Memo re: Adequate Public Facilities, September 11, 2014 (2821 : Adequate Public Facilities) Packet Pg. 103 Attachment3.1: Memo re: Adequate Public Facilities, September 11, 2014 (2821 : Adequate Public Facilities) DATE: STAFF: January 27, 2015 Cory Christensen, Police Deputy Chief John Hutto, Police Chief WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Regional Training Facility for Police Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discuss the regional training campus for Police Services. Police Services training facilities are currently inadequate for the current need to meet the necessary skill training of driving and weapons training. The current gun range facility was built in 1984 and purchased by the City in 1990. At the time that facility was purchased Police Services had 105 sworn officers. Today Police Services has grown to 203 sworn officers and have outgrown the current indoor facility. Weapons training is split between two facilities due to the disrepair of the indoor firing range. Police Services is forced to travel a great distance to an adequate outdoor range for much of the weapons related training necessary for maintain adequate skill levels. The indoor range also is in need of tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of repair in order to maintain a safe training environment for officers. If those repairs are made the facility is still inadequate for the current firearms needs of Police Services. There is no training location in Larimer County for Police Services to conduct driver’s training. The closest driving training facility is located in Adams County and requires officers to travel over one hour each way to use the facility. The demand on this facility is considerable and Police Services routinely is unable to train due to schedule conflicts imposed by the owners of the facility. Police Services has been in engaged in a cooperative partnership with the City of Loveland in determining current needs for each agency, locating a mutually agreeable location, plans for usage by other public safety agencies, estimates on annual operation and maintenance, strategies on how to partially offset some of the O & M costs, and preliminary designs on a facility that would meet our current needs as well as future growth for both police agencies. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Police Services is requesting direction for the following items  Has Police Services adequately demonstrated the need to move forward with a training facility?  Does Council require additional analysis of Fort Collins Police training alternatives?  Does Council support the proposed partnership with Loveland? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins has been experiencing considerable growth over the past several years and that growth is intended to continue. Over the next 20 to 25 years it is anticipated that the population will grow by about 100,000 more citizens. This anticipated growth will need to be met by continued growth in the core services necessary to meet those citizens’ expectations. This means that Police Services will see considerable growth in personnel in the next 20 to 25 years to meet those needs and expectations. The highest liability areas for providing police services fall in the area of skills used by those officers. The three skill areas require regular, consistent and safe training so that officers respond in a controlled and professional manner. All of the skills areas require specialized facilities for the safe and effective training environment necessary to learn and maintain those skills. Those skill areas are; weapons (both lethal and less than lethal), arrest control and defensive tactics, and driving. Packet Pg. 109 January 27, 2015 Page 2 Police Services has been using the same facility for weapons training since 1990. At the time of the purchase of that facility there were 105 sworn officers. Today that number is almost double at 203 sworn officers. That facility has been outgrown and is in need of repair in order to provide a safe training environment. The upgrade and repair will still not meet the current needs of Police Services and will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Due to the current inadequate facilities, Police Services has been traveling long distances in order to train on specific weapons in a safe manner. This leads to thousands of miles traveled as well as valuable training time spent on travel alone. This leads to inefficient personnel time, wear and tear on police vehicles and extra cost to the organization. Currently officers are required to drive 40 miles, one way, multiple times per year to safely participate in specific weapons training. Police Services has never had a dedicated resource designed specifically for the skill of driving. The large vacant parking lot of the, now demolished, dog racing track offered a place that driving skills could be practiced. When this resource was no longer available Police Services adapted to the closed Fort Collins Municipal Airport runway. Although the resource was sub-par driving training was possible at this location. That resource is no longer available and the only alternative available to Police Services is to travel to Adams County where a dedicated driving track has been constructed. The Adams County facility is about 60 miles away and requires considerable travel for officers. This facility is in very high demand and scheduling is problematic. It was not possible for Police Services to provide any driving training in 2014 due to the scheduling conflicts. Police Services must plan to meet these needs for now and into the future. Options include Fort Collins building or repairing their own venue for these training needs or entering into a partnership to combine resources in building a facility that will meet those needs. Due to these known deficiencies and inadequate training facilities Police Services has been actively looking for opportunities to move in a positive direction to relieve this issue. The Loveland Police Department is also facing critical shortfalls in adequate training facilities for both driving and weapons training. Out of these needs a partnership was developed between the two police agencies to explore a joint training campus that would meet the training needs for the necessary skills training. The goal was to arrive at a facility that would meet the current and future needs of both agencies. A comprehensive needs study was completed and conceptual design arrived at a facility that provides adequate and safe training for both Police Services and Loveland Police Department. The estimated capital cost to construct this facility is $24 million and it is intended that the capital cost be shared equally between the two cities. No other law enforcement entities have expressed an interest in sharing in the capital investment. Although not intended, there is some additional capacity at our current staffing to sell facility use to other partners in the region. The intent is for this to assist in partially offsetting the operation and maintenance cost of the facility. Letters of intent for using the facility have been signed by 11 additional regional agencies, representing 1100 officers, for usage of this facility. The footprint of the training campus is based solely on the needs of Police Services and Loveland Police Department. The training campus does take into account the planned growth in both communities that will also require growth in officers who are in need of this skills training. A comprehensive, and conservative, business plan has been prepared to show the training space needs, capital and ongoing costs and possible offsetting revenue of this facility. The research and planning stages have been completed with a conceptual design for all aspects of the facility, a comprehensive business plan, letters of intent from 11 area agencies and location of the facility identified. Direction is necessary before moving forward with this facility. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 110 1 Police Regional Training Campus 27 January 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 2 Police staffing – 1990 to 2030 • 2013 Citizen Survey shows overall satisfaction with current level of service • 1990 staffing was 105 officers, 2015 Sworn staffing is 203 officers • By 2030 population of Fort Collins could increase to over 240,000 • Assuming a 2.37% growth rate • By 2030 Sworn staffing at current service delivery should be 315 officers • Assuming population of 240,000 citizens 105 126 145 163 172 203 240 277 315 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Sworn Police Officers Packet Pg. 112 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 3 Need for Police Training • Provide World Class Service to our Citizens • Maintain professional level of Police Officers • Training best practices for police profession • Reduces liability issues – Failure to Train • Increases safety to citizens and officers Equipment & Facilities: • Building – Excellent • Equipment – Excellent • Training – Barely adequate More difficult as staff increases Training is Critical: Packet Pg. 113 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 4 Police Training Requirements • Currently conducting 86K hours of training per year for all skill types • Different types of training require different facilities • As staffing grows, it will be increasingly difficult to adequately meet training requirements Packet Pg. 114 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 5 Categories of Training • Category 1 – Required training either by statute, policy or necessary for job performance. This required training is often being carried out but often at a minimum level due to lack of facilities. • Category 2 – Required training either by statute, policy or necessary for job performance. This required training is being carried out at a satisfactory level. • Category 3 – Desired training. Training that police services would like to perform, but due to lack of facilities it is not possible. Packet Pg. 115 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 6 Categories of Training • Approximately 50% of training completed to satisfaction – Category 2 • 43% of training completed at minimal level – Category 1 • Rented Facilities and usage of current inadequate facilities • Make do with less than ideal facilities • Reduced training time for officers • 7% additional skills training desired including; decision making scenarios infused into the current training Packet Pg. 116 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 7 Current Training Facilities • Police Services Building - Good • Classroom • Defensive Tactics – Mat Room • Police Indoor Range - Poor • Pistol use only • Limited space • Requires repair • Limited training opportunities • Pawnee Outdoor Range - Poor • Privately Owned • 40 mile drive one way • Driving Training - Poor • Adams County, very limited availability, 60 mile drive • Unable to schedule any track time in 2015 • SWAT - Poor • Trains at various facilities. Castle Rock, Cheyenne, Pawnee Packet Pg. 117 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 8 Training Facilities Options Refurbish existing Pistol Range • Creates functioning inadequate facility • Does not address Rifle, SWAT or Track needs • Long Term – FC training facilities would need to be built Refurbish existing Pistol Range & Build Drive Track • Long Term – Firearms and SWAT needs to be addressed • Capital for Track of $8.5M • Where do we build it? Utilize Liberty Arms for Firearms training & Build Drive Track • Liberty Arms proposal added cost $1.1M year for firearms • Capital for track of $8.5M Partner with Loveland – Build Training Center • Develops a No Colorado training center meets all needs • Includes capacity to support future staffing levels 25 years out Packet Pg. 118 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 9 Why partner with Loveland • Shared capital cost • Shared operating cost • Other regional opportunities • Meet current needs faster Packet Pg. 119 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 10 Loveland Partnership Assumptions • Facility is jointly owned and operated - 50/50 • Facility includes • Two 25 lane pistol ranges (50 yards) and one 10 lane rifle range (100 yards) • 4 class rooms, mat room & storage • .95 miles of high speed driving track, large skid pad, street grid • Capital Cost • Design - $2M • Build & Construct - $22M • O&M Costs of approximately $710k year • 3.25 FTEs - $300k • Utilities, supplies, range & track maintenance - $305k • Capital reserve & reinvestment - $105K • Capacity to support future growth needs can be used to create revenue to partially offset O&M costs Packet Pg. 120 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 11 Financials • Staff working to solve Shortfall • Facility rental revenue will reduce over time • City land rental payments not included • FC debt service costs not included – est $850K yr Police Training Facility Operating Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue Class Charge to Outside User $ 107 $ 110 $ 114 $ 117 $ 121 Facility Rental 233 240 247 255 262 Total Revenue $ 340 $ 350 $ 361 $ 372 $ 383 Expenses Personnel 230 302 312 322 332 Operations, Supplies, Maint 286 303 303 318 319 Capital Reserve 104 105 106 107 108 Total Expense $ 620 $ 710 $ 721 $ 747 $ 759 Total Cost Savings 167 172 177 182 187 Shortfall $ (113) $ (188) $ (183) $ (193) $ (189) Fort Collins - 67% 75 125 122 129 126 Loveland - 33% 38 63 61 64 63 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) 12 • Has Police Services adequately demonstrated the need to move forward with a training facility? • Does Council require additional analysis of Police Services training alternatives? • Does Council support the proposed partnership with Loveland? Council Direction Packet Pg. 122 Attachment4.1: Powerpoint presentation (2813 : Regional Training Facility for Police Services) Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project) May promote Photovoltaic (Solar) growth May promote use of Electric Vehicles (EV) Encourages customers to conserve Limitations Additional messaging required to inform and educate customers on a new rate structure Staff time needed to implement the rate including rate development, I.T. programming, marketing, billing, and customer service education & training. Limitations Customers may not understand how their consumption patterns are impacted by TOU rates Customers may feel that looking at daily usage patterns are an intrusion of privacy Pilot program selection is random and expected to be limited to roughly 1,000 customers Limitations While rate designs are revenue neutral in total for the Utility, it will increase electric costs for some customers while it will decrease electric costs for other customers Limitations Could shift energy from natural gas to coal based on shifting peak load to base load resource selection Could shift peak loads to evening times when it is more challenging for customers to control demand Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment2.1: May 13, 2014 Work Session Agenda Item Summary (2814 : Time of Use Pilot Project)